Hamas will never recognize Israel's right to exist but then again Yassir Arafat had said he wouldn't recognize Israel's right to exist nor Israel the PLO. Whether Hamas does or doesn't the road to peace isn't necessarily dependent on that. Many opinion polls have shown that a majority of Palestinians will accept a two state solution. As long as the Palestinians feel they are under attack though they are more likely to turn to radicals like Hamas than moderates like Abbas for leadership.
I am just curious: what have "moderates" like Abbas brought to the Palestinian cause? What has Israel conceded to those "moderates"? What incentive does the average Palestinian have in supporting the "moderates" if all they get in return are increased and ever expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Israel abandoned Gaza which was long regarded as an extremist hub even before Hamas kicked Fatah out of there. Whether it is true or not, Hamas has proclaimed the "resistance" as what led to Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. On the other hand, the moderates have been getting ignored by Israel and have had nothing to show for their moderation. So again, I ask, what has moderation accomplished for Palestinians? I can absolutely understand why many Palestinians support the hardliners in their struggle for self-determination. Hamas sucks but it is a reality that was as much a byproduct of Israeli policies in Palestinian territories as Hezbollah was in southern Lebanon.
Well, hardline resistance is getting them an ass kicking - so I'm not sure that's much to crow about.
I'm not trying to defend either side in that conflict. I'm not sure about your claim that no Arabs lost their home prior to the invasion. I remember reading something different, but it was a while back and I could be mistaken. Israel did declare itself a country without the consent of its non-Jewish population. Did it have a "right" to do so? Is that what Israel is expecting Palestinians to agree to now? In what sense has Fatah recognized it? Here's an article discussing the problematic ambiguity in the concept from a few years back (Ha'aretz): http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=1578&lan=en&sid=0&sp=0 We should make a distinction between Israel's right to exist under international law, and Israel's moral right to exist. We can say that the United States has a right to exist under international law. But does it have a moral right to exist? The Indians, had they not been mostly wiped out, may not have thought so. Such language ("right to exist") may understandably have been offensive to them. Is it their avowed goal, or merely a political talking point? Clearly it suits Israel's purposes to see it as the former, but I don't believe Hamas is ideologically bent on Israel's destruction. I consider it a terrorist organization, and I think we're all better off without them in the picture. But I also think they can be pressed, if it becomes politically suitable to them, to back off from their most radical positions (see, for instance, here). What Israel is currently doing makes that far less likely. And, really, no one is b****ing and moaning about how Israel is treating Hamas. It's about the civilians that are getting caught in the middle. Hamas doesn't have the resources or international clout to even come close to making good on its "avowed goal". But all that paranoia sure makes for a convenient excuse when Israel chooses to unmercifully pummel Palestinians to submission. You say what's good for the goose (Gaza) is good for the gander (Israel). Right, except the goose is pecking at the gander's feet, while the gander is ripping the goose in half. Hey, it's your analogy, not mine.
"The" Indians were not one monolithic group. Many of "The" Indians didn't think "The Other" Indians had a right to exist.
source [rquoter] On November 15, 1988, the PLO proclaimed the independent State of Palestine. In speeches on December 13 and December 14, Arafat accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, Israel's right "to exist in peace and security" and repudiated 'terrorism in all its forms, including state terrorism'. Arafat's statements were greeted with approval by the US administration, which had long insisted on these statements as a necessary starting point for official discussions between the US and the PLO. These remarks from Arafat indicated a shift away from one of the PLO's primary aims—the destruction of Israel (as entailed in the Palestinian National Covenant)–and toward the establishment of two separate entities: an Israeli state within the 1949 armistice lines, and an Arab state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. On April 2, 1989, Arafat was elected by the Central Council of the Palestine National Council, the governing body of the PLO, to be the president of the proclaimed State of Palestine [/rquoter]
I think that's the point. Moderate moves, or hardline resistance don't really change. At times both Israel and various Palestinian leaderships have broken treaties, accords and agreements. I don't think people who have lost family members and been subjected to apartheid like treatment from the Israelis have seen much gain in the sometimes periods of more than a year without violent resistance. It's all too bad. People need to stand up to the bullies in the region. Violent wings of Palestinian groups are certainly bullies, and Israel is also a bully. Both need to be stood up against in order to make a real change.
I don't disagree. Just pointing out that if you're weighing tactics, hardline doesn't really seem to be the way to go.
Agreed. There is no way to go until both sides are held accountable by a stronger force that can enforce treaties and accords. Otherwise this stupid cycle is going to continue.
Is the idea of "give me liberty or give me death" really that foreign to Americans? Is it really that difficult to imagine a group of people who might prefer fighting and dying with 'honor' to a life of 'shame' and surrender? Patrick Henry is rolling over in his grave. Also, do keep in mind that Hamas' calculus is completely different from yours. They define victory as their ability to persist, grow and survive in the face of numerous Israeli onslaughts, despite overwhelming odds. Hamas firmly beliefs they will outlast the Israelis, and every Israeli attack is only seen as further evidence of that. Not all rational actors think alike.
Well I would be shocked if the blockade has not killed at lest 10 x's as many folks as the rockets. You have to consider things like asthmatics not having their breathing machines or dying of heat stroke when Israel cuts the power off etc. It does seems more peaceful somehow-- at least to a lot of folks as their are no rockets or airplanes dropping bombs. It doesn't appear this way to those whose relatives are dying. It is issues like this that make a total blockades equivalent to an act of war.
Blockades ARE recognized as an "act of war" by almost every modern state in the world. I did not see anyone argue otherwise here. Most states define it as such, at least in the military sense. That is why Hamas refused to renew the 6 month cease fire, because they said Israel reneged on its promise to lift the blockade. So in essence, they claim the cease fire terms were not met and therefore could not be extended.
Alright. So we have an example of a group, long regarded as a terrorist organization bent on Israel's destruction, making a concession when it became politically suitable. This underscores my point.
it's because i have a personal vendetta against you! or because, you created a thread title What You Don’t Know About Gaza, proceeded to post an opinion piece, in which you bold certain items, and provide no commentary or thought on your own, only to later in the thread then provide a link to an interview with Khalidi. that's fine, i guess...just you lured me into a thread on false pretenses!! This thread has turned into something that should also be in the israel thread but started out as a question, as titled, that is related, but stands out on its own. don't get upset with me because i called you out for unnecessary thread starting.
I titled the thread exactly what the article was entitled. I see no problems with me posting an opinion piece, whether that opinion is mine, or someone elses. If you can dig up an article (even an opinion piece written by Sean Hannity or Michael Savage) that contradicts the bolded facts in Khalidi's article, I'd love to read it.
Lives and homes were lost the Irgun themselves stated the goal was to frighten Arabs into leaving, which they did. The massacre at Deir Yassin happened on April 9, 1948 while the 1948 war didn't start until Mid May after Israel was formed.
To steal land, there needs to be an actual thief who takes possession of that land. Otherwise it is just frightening people off. All of the Jewish settlements in Palestine were bought and paid for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1948) The war was well underway. The very day that the partition plan was announced, people started fighting.
That's what I have been trying to get at in the "Understanding Terrorism" thread. Desperate people like the Palestinians will turn to extremists like Hamas just as desperate Zionists became the Stern Gang. As I said in that thread Rabin's peace of the brave is one where both sides have to make concessions to the other to prop up the moderate forces within each. The goal eventually is to reduce the power that the radicals have. Rabin understood that and he was assasinated. To an extent Arafat understood that but was too much of a coward to stand up to his own extremists.
