How do you negotiate with terrorists? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Charlatan · 01-26-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

So what if the majority of the people are behind Hamas in this election, that doesn't give them the authority to commit terrorism.

What a strange notion... if only American politics followed your example.

Just because the majority of people elected the Republican Party doesn't give them the authority to invade another country...

Hamas has been elected because even the Palestinians could see that Arafat and Abbas were ineffective. They have elected a government that they feel will be effective in getting them their land.

I agree with roachboy on this... this discussion is pointless without discussing the whole picture.

I stick by my original feeling that we should wait and see. Now that Hamas is in power, the ball is in their court. They will either compromise on their position or they won't. Judge them by their future and current actions rather than their past.

alpha phi · 01-26-2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Yeah, but by the framework of a sovereign country, by the laws of Israel is it illegal? And I realize so far as the wall is concerned it is illegal, I seem to remember their SC ruling to that effect. But as far as the reprisal killings and occupations go...

Yeah, but by the framework of a sovereign country, by the laws of Iraq
was Saddams actions illegal?

Charlatan · 01-26-2006, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

Yeah, but by the framework of a sovereign country, by the laws of Iraq
was Saddams actions illegal?

Good point... arrest George W. Bush!!!

rlbond86 · 01-26-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Oh, boy. You've been misinformed.
From the International Court of Justice (the principal judicial organ of the United Nations):

Amnesti International:

First of all, Amnesty international has often been criticized of its bias. For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty...m_and_rebuttal
second, you're comparing bombing buses, buildings, and cars to the ICJ saying a WALL is against international law? I've eaten in a restaurant that was destroyed by a suicide bomber a few months later.

Moreover, there have been several instances of Palistinian terrorists being injured, who were rushed to Israeli hospitals, only to be discovered for carrying bombs to try to kill Israelis. Who are the good guys here?

You also seem to be against Israel anyway, as per a previous post, where you claimed Israeli evidence against Iraq was "faulty":

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...58#post1989358

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The day a high ranking Israeli tells the truth about an Arab state is the day I eat my hat. That's like Dr. No saying that James Bond is gay.

Now it seems to me you are against Israel, and blind to the fact that HAMAS is a terrist organization. The U.S. even says they are terrorists.

In section 32 of the Hamas Charter they cite Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a known hoax about Jewish control of the world. It has been known to be a hoax since the 1930's, and the Charter was written in 1988. Do you need any more evidence than that?

samcol · 01-26-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

What a strange notion... if only American politics followed your example.

Just because the majority of people elected the Republican Party doesn't give them the authority to invade another country...

I couldn't agree more which is why I said the original intentions of our government has degraded from what it was.

Quote:

Hamas has been elected because even the Palestinians could see that Arafat and Abbas were ineffective. They have elected a government that they feel will be effective in getting them their land.

I agree with roachboy on this... this discussion is pointless without discussing the whole picture.

I stick by my original feeling that we should wait and see. Now that Hamas is in power, the ball is in their court. They will either compromise on their position or they won't. Judge them by their future and current actions rather than their past.

We should judge them on their past and future. Being elected doesn't vindicate past atrocities which is what I was trying to get at.

Willravel · 01-26-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlbond86

First of all, Amnesty international has often been criticized of its bias. For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty...m_and_rebuttal
second, you're comparing bombing buses, buildings, and cars to the ICJ saying a WALL is against international law? I've eaten in a restaurant that was destroyed by a suicide bomber a few months later.

Moreover, there have been several instances of Palistinian terrorists being injured, who were rushed to Israeli hospitals, only to be discovered for carrying bombs to try to kill Israelis. Who are the good guys here?

NEITHER. Jeez. Since the present Palestinian intifada against Israeli occupation started, on 29 September 2000, the Israeli army killed more than 700 Palestinians, including 150 children. Most were killed unlawfully — in reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian residential areas; in extrajudicial executions; and as a result of excessive use of force. Palestinian armed groups killed 109 Israelis — 67 of them civilians and including eight children — in suicide bombings, shootings and mortar attacks. Who are the bad guys here? Both sides. People like to think that because Israeli's actions are state sanctioned that they are not terrorists. They just as much terrorists as Palestinians, if not moreso, because they have the military power to back down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlbond86

You also seem to be against Israel anyway, as per a previous post, where you claimed Israeli evidence against Iraq was "faulty":

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...58#post1989358

Now it seems to me you are against Israel, and blind to the fact that HAMAS is a terrist organization. The U.S. even says they are terrorists.

In section 32 of the Hamas Charter they cite Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a known hoax about Jewish control of the world. It has been known to be a hoax since the 1930's, and the Charter was written in 1988. Do you need any more evidence than that?

Oh, I am very much against the current actions of the Israeli state. I think that there are a great deal of villans who are misrepresenting the best interest and needs of the Israeli people by continuing to bomb and kill the Palestinian people. I suspect that most Israelis want PEACE with the Palestinians (I know of several who do). Likewise, the Palestinians are mostly very peaceful and intelligent people. The unfortunate actions of a select few serve to misrepresent Palestinians on the whole. There are a few villans who do a disservice to their own people by continuing this terrible war. I look at the Israeli government as I look at the US government, and I will continue to feel this way until I see real reform in either.

Hamas is now the same kind of terrorist organization as Israel. State sanctioned terrorism. Whether this will serve to help or hurt the situation is anyones guess. I, like several who have state earlier in this thread, need to wait and see before I say if this is so bad or so good.

fresnelly · 01-26-2006, 06:20 PM

Going back to the original question, are there any parallels here to Britian's dealings with the IRA and Sinn Fein?

irateplatypus · 01-26-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Likewise, the Palestinians are mostly very peaceful and intelligent people. The unfortunate actions of a select few serve to misrepresent Palestinians on the whole. There are a few villans who do a disservice to their own people by continuing this terrible war.

the inescapable fact remains that in an open vote by the palestinian population a political party founded with the objective of wiping out its neighboring country won 76 of the 132 parliamentary seats.

Willravel · 01-26-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the inescapable fact remains that in an open vote by the palestinian population a political party founded with the objective of wiping out its neighboring country won 76 of the 132 parliamentary seats.

Peaeful people can see violence as a means to an ends (though I STRONGLY disagree with that in any case). Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Zahar said, "The Israelis are continuing their aggression against our people, killing, detention, demolition and in order to stop these processes, we run effective self defence by all means, including using guns." Palestininas are occupied by Israelis (at least that's the way they see it). They are fighting for their freedom and safety, just as the Israelis say of their side.

WillyPete · 01-27-2006, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fresnelly

Going back to the original question, are there any parallels here to Britian's dealings with the IRA and Sinn Fein?

That's a good point.

Although Sinn Fein have achieved many of their goals, they, as a party, have ceased the military option.
There are still a few hardliners with ties to the party who refuse to give up until all of the Irish island is under one government (Theirs) but they do not represent the elected government.

I think the same will have to be said for Hamas. They cannot act as a terrorist organisation any longer. An act of violence initiated by them is a sovereign act of war and thus such an act would allow for much stronger action by Isreal and such retaliatory action would have more legal validity with the international community than have previous actions against terrorist groups within Palestine.
They would be freed from attacking a group within a sovereign state to begin attacks against a state as a whole, targeting ANY valid targets of military, economic or infrastructure value and not just personnel.
Compare how Isreal have reacted when attacks against them have been state initiated, such as the 6 day war, golan heights, etc.
A state validated action against Isreal would allow an unleashing of a much more potent military action and would weaken the ability of neighboring states such as Syria, Egypt and Lebanon as Isreal's action can then be seen as legitimate defense.

Charlatan · 01-27-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

We should judge them on their past and future. Being elected doesn't vindicate past atrocities which is what I was trying to get at.

I think there does come a point where you have to compromise though. You can't dwell on past efforts at the expense of moving forward.

The fact that the British are willing to willing to negotiate with Sinn Fein and even Israel for that matter attests to the fact that you can move on from a violent past and negotiate when both sides are willing to compromise (heck, the PLO was once branded "terrorist" and Israel managed to sit down with them as well).

Interesting that a poll of Israelis suggests that 48% of the population is still willing to sit down with the Palestinian Authority even if it is run by Hamas.

PS: I think there is a certain irony at play here. Many of the more conservative members of this board have argued time and again for a stronger military on the grounds that diplomacy is useless without a stong military to back it up. Terrorism, in this case, as used by Hamas could be seen as their military backing up their diplomacy. The only difference between Israel lobbing shells into neighbourhoods or flattening houses with bulldozers and a suicide bomber is the cost of the ordinance. Both actions are wrong and do little to solve the problem.

Rekna · 01-27-2006, 07:05 AM

Maybe we should invade them and set up a democracy...

(no i'm not serious, or taking a political jab i just like the irony in that statement.

Now back on topic..... i don't know how to negotiate with hammas but I can tell you a few ways that won't work. Calling them terrorists (reguardless if that is what they are or not) and saying we won't work with you is one way to insure they stay a thorn in our side. Immediatly starting hate rhetoric twoards them will only insure the conflict continues. The one sure way to failure is not trying. So maybe we should at least try to negotiate with them before dismissing them?

There is my 2 cents.

Rekna · 01-27-2006, 08:24 AM

Here is a quote for any Christian's on this board that I think is apporpriate.

Quote:

You have heard it said "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy" but this is what I tell you Love your enemy and pray for those that hurt you"

To the Christian's on this board how does this verse imply we should act in the presence of people like Hammas.

SirLance · 01-27-2006, 08:36 AM

I am reminded of the situation in pre-WWII Israel... Menachem Begin, Moshe Dayan, and those guys committed terrorist acts against the British. The Brits were treating the Israelis pretty much the same way the Israelies treat the Palestinians.

Hamas now appears to be the majority in a legally elected government. It might change them in the same way recognition changed Begin & Dayan. We can only hope.

Or it may not, in which case the Isralies will kick their butts and it won't be a problem any more.

roachboy · 01-27-2006, 08:46 AM

ok so maybe it'd be a good thing to at least try to alter the course of this.
if you want to think in a more complex way about hamas, you might start with the israeli settlement program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

this paper presents an intersting perspective on the effects of the occupation (link is to a pdf file)

www.hrcberkeley.org/download/report_dyanai.pdf

you might consider the sorry history of sharon in this.
you might consider the long-term history of the plo/fatah, its ineptness, its corruption, its weakness....
you might also consider the sharon governments treatment of the plo a few years ago.
you might consider the day-to-day brutality of the israeli occupation, which is ongoing and operates under the surface of party politics.

you might also consider the truly remarkable narrowness of the american press view of the conflict. compare, for example, the american coverage to that of haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/

which represents a far wider range of israeli political life and thinking that you ever see in an outlet lilke the ny times. the coverage of the elections, the reactions, and their range--all are interesting.

this is editorial, for example:

Quote:

Introducing Hamas - the new Likud

By Bradley Burston

Friday, 27 January (60 days to election day)

Presenting, the unthinkable.

Ladies and Gentlemen, may we introduce ... Hamas - the new Likud.

It's 1977 all over again, People of Israel. Once again, everything we knew, is wrong.

Sound familiar? The party in power, the only party which has ever held power, the party which made a people, has shown itself to be bottomlessly corrupt. It has long been unresponsive to crying social needs. It has proven incapable of making peace. It is ineffectual at bringing its people security.

There is no end to the cronyism, the economic inequality, the graft, the hidebound, unwieldy construction of interlocking, profoundly anti-democratic institutions.

Then one day, voters who have swallowed and suffered this for decades, revolt. Overnight, a virtual one-party system is overturned in a stunning victory by a lean, clean, dynamic rival, a movement long shunned for a violent past and an unbending, maximalist take on who should own the entirety of the Holy Land.

If the stage of history is often lit by irony, the proximity of the implosion of the Likud and the rise of Hamas may hold lessons for us, and for Hamas as well.

In 1977, the Likud of Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir was derided abroad - and by the left at home - as a group led by terror warlords, a movement with roots in armed wings that had engaged in bombings and cold-blooded shootings.

It was seen - incorrectly - as inexperienced in everything except opposition. It was seen - ingenuously, by the left - as little more than an outgrowth of the Irgun and Lehi, heirs to Deir Yassin, implacable in its opposition to sharing or ceding land.

It was on May 17, 1977 that Begin's Likud defeated Labor. Exactly six months and two days later, the first leader of an Arab nation to publicly set foot on Israeli soil - a man who had ordered his armies to attack Israel on Yom Kippur - shook Begin's hand and drove with him to Jerusalem, where he would address the Knesset the next day.

It was the Likud that would trade away every last inch of the Sinai desert - 89 percent of all the land mass captured in the 1967 war - in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt.

It was the Likud, in what was effectively its last, arguably suicidal act as a political party, that would recast the nature of political discourse in Israel by leaving the Gaza Strip unilaterally.

Even if Anwar Sadat was fated to become a shahid for peace, his journey to Jerusalem suggests a broader concept: If both Israel and its Arab enemy can claim victory in the same war, they may both be able to leverage that claim into some form of peace.

There were analysts abroad who have called this week's Hamas victory "the end of unilateralism." It may, however, be just the beginning.

Whether it is or not, whether Israel will actually withdraw from more of the West Bank, will depend to a great extent on what Hamas decides its guns are for. If they are for attacking Israelis, no government in Jerusalem will be able to suggest a further pullback. But if the rifles are for keeping order, and for enforcing a truce, a withdrawal could well take place, and Hamas will be able to claim yet another victory.

Moreover, if calm is maintained, Israel will be able to claim another victory as well.

It won't be simple for either side. The grief over thousands of casualties is still fresh.

For Hamas, the ideological leap will be tremendous. Though some in Hamas have made noises about finding a way to live with the 1967 borders, the concession for them will be as painful as that of Begin's creed of Greater Israel, which originally called for a Jewish state in all of what is now Israel, as well as all of the territories and the present kingdom of Jordan.

How likely is the scenario that Hamas will see to calm in hopes of an Israeli withdrawal?

Just how likely a scenario is our present reality?

In a matter of 20 days, both Israel and Palestine have witnessed the passing of their founding generation, the generation that seemed capable of burying us all.

God is in the unexpected. Left to our own devices, our fossilized expectations, our unwillingness to believe in a better future, we?ll mess up His work every time.

Thank God that we can be so wrong

source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...1&contrassID=2

caveat lector: i linked to the front page of today's edition only--the coverage is extensive and is easy to access.

here you find a uselful compilation of international press articles on palestine:

http://www.palestinedaily.com/

and here is another:

http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1689430/showiframe?

the american press view of this conflict tends to make the views of likud the operational center of israeli politics. if you skew the middle like this, even whackjob responses that that of netanyahu (the "hamastan" thing) seem reasonable.....

Rekna · 01-27-2006, 08:47 AM

While i'm skeptical about the prospects of the future maybe Hammas getting elected isn't a bad thing. It will force the world to reconsider their actions in palistine. And maybe the world will figure something out this time....

Xazy · 01-27-2006, 10:34 AM

I wonder if Osama bin Laden became a prime minister of Afghanistan & al-Quida became the ruling party. Would you like to open negotiations? Heck let us say it was Iraq? Here it is even worse, since it is your neighbor.

Israel right now transfers to them about 40 million a month of monthly revenue which is used to pay for the 130,000+ government workers. Now if you were Israel, could you transfer over the money to a government where the head of it, literally 4 days ago, called for the destruction of your nation? Personally I think I would pass on that opportunity.

The U.S last year gave $400 million last year in direct aid, according to Walles (US Consul general).

As far as what Hamas stands for Mahmoud Zahar, an incoming Hamas member (who won a parliament seat), said “the organization had no immediate plans to change its policy to recognize Israel or to restart peace efforts.”

In Syria another Hamas leader promised to continue resistance against Israel occupation. Also he emphasized the group would not recognize the Jewish State.

Yep just elected, their foreign policy is being spoken loud and clear. I do not care if they gain office and do a 180 in statement, it will take deeds in my book to prove a change in policy for them!

The question is, due to foreign pressure, for economic needs of the nation to survive if those factors may make them change. But is that a real change, if someone claims I am changing since otherwise we will have no economy. How can Israel or any country accept them at their word, when we are literally putting them into a corner.

On a side note there is literally internal fighting now in Palestine, over the elections between the Fatah movement and Hamas supporters.

Willravel · 01-27-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

I wonder if Osama bin Laden became a prime minister of Afghanistan & al-Quida became the ruling party. Would you like to open negotiations? Heck let us say it was Iraq? Here it is even worse, since it is your neighbor.

Honestly? You really want to know what I would do if I were head of state of Israel? Complete integration. What is Israel is Plaestine and what is Palestine is Israel. I know that Israelis and Palestinians can get along (I've seen it!), and I know that if we allow them adequate representation in government, that there could be a lasting peace. Palestinians could live anywhere in Israel and so could Israelis. The Knesset will alow Palestinian representative to be voted in, when they are elected. Israel would FINALLY have a constitution that included freedom of religion and equal representation for all democrtically elected officials, Palestinian or Israeli.

This is what should have happened in the first place durring the Jewish displacement from Europe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Israel right now transfers to them about 40 million a month of monthly revenue which is used to pay for the 130,000+ government workers. Now if you were Israel, could you transfer over the money to a government where the head of it, literally 4 days ago, called for the destruction of your nation? Personally I think I would pass on that opportunity.

I'd look to why they want to destroy me, and work from there (instead of just and eye for an eye).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

The U.S last year gave $400 million last year in direct aid, according to Walles (US Consul general).

To the Hamas? To whome?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

As far as what Hamas stands for Mahmoud Zahar, an incoming Hamas member (who won a parliament seat), said “the organization had no immediate plans to change its policy to recognize Israel or to restart peace efforts.”

What reason do they have to change their attitude? As you've said, it's obvious that this situation needs reform, but it won't happen suddenly, and I suspect that it is more likely to happn on the Israeli side (I'm not saying it's fair, but it's reality).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

In Syria another Hamas leader promised to continue resistance against Israel occupation. Also he emphasized the group would not recognize the Jewish State.

That's true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Yep just elected, their foreign policy is being spoken loud and clear. I do not care if they gain office and do a 180 in statement, it will take deeds in my book to prove a change in policy for them!

Maybe this new power will teach them responsibility. Who knows?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

The question is, due to foreign pressure, for economic needs of the nation to survive if those factors may make them change. But is that a real change, if someone claims I am changing since otherwise we will have no economy. How can Israel or any country accept them at their word, when we are literally putting them into a corner.

Palestine is literally in a corner, geographically speaking. Maybe you should take that into account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

On a side note there is literally internal fighting now in Palestine, over the elections between the Fatah movement and Hamas supporters.

Literally? Not figureatively?

irateplatypus · 01-27-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

(heck, the PLO was once branded "terrorist" and Israel managed to sit down with them as well).

PSA: the PLO was branded "terrorist" because of a marked tendency to fund and carry-out terrorist acts.

WillyPete · 01-27-2006, 02:07 PM

Remember, as a political movement that has previously carried out terrorist attacks, if one of their group, even a splinter acts in a way that contravenes the geneva convention and a state leader condones or celebrates it, they can face claims of war crimes in the Hague.

This should effectively disassociate Hamas as a political party from overt backing of any terrorist action and thus make it appear to their supporters that they are taking a more peaceful approach.

roachboy · 01-27-2006, 02:18 PM

forget it. sorry.

Willravel · 01-27-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

forget it. sorry.

I've never read a post of yours that I was sorry I read. If you have something to say, I'd love to read it (and I suspect that I am not alone in that).

Strange Famous · 01-27-2006, 03:24 PM

The people of Palestine had a choice between reconciliatio0n, and war.

They have, not otally but by majprity, voted for war.

They have voted to empower a band of desperate murderers. They should expect to reap what they have sowed, they should expect to learn the consequences of this action.

Elphaba · 01-27-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

forget it. sorry.

I haven't forgotten; I'm still reading. I seem unable to put a single sentence together lately, so I will spare y'all. You're welcome, Ustwo.

Charlatan · 01-27-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

PSA: the PLO was branded "terrorist" because of a marked tendency to fund and carry-out terrorist acts.

You say that like we don't know this. My point is, here is another example of a terrorist organization that was able to negotiate.

Other examples:

Irgun - which brought about the state of Israel and head of state Begin
Sinn Fein - the political arm of the IRA
Banar Aceh - terrorists that negotiated peace
Algeria - terrorists that negotiated a peace

The list does go on.

Like I said, above... the ball is in Hama's court.

roachboy · 01-28-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

U.S. Policy Seen as Big Loser in Palestinian Vote

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 28, 2006; A16

Standing in a sunny Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, surrounded by his top foreign policy advisers, President Bush issued a clarion call for resolving the deadly Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."

This week, Palestinians gave their answer, handing a landslide victory in national legislative elections to Hamas, which has claimed responsibility for dozens of suicide bombings and desires the elimination of Israel. Bush's statement calling for new leaders was aimed at the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, but in the same speech he also said it was necessary to thwart Hamas -- formally the Islamic Resistance Movement -- and other militant groups.

The election outcome signals a dramatic failure in the administration's strategy for Middle East peace, according to analysts and some U.S. officials. Since the United States cannot deal with an organization labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department, Hamas's victory is likely to curtail U.S. aid, limit official U.S. contacts with the Palestinian government and stall efforts to create an independent Palestinian state.

More broadly, Hamas's victory is seen as a setback in the administration's campaign for greater democracy in the Middle East. Elections in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and now the Palestinian territories have resulted in the defeat of secular and moderate parties and the rise of Islamic parties hostile to U.S. interests.

The administration has long been criticized for being reluctant to get involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; even after Bush's 2002 speech, the policy drifted except for occasional high-profile speeches and events. But after Arafat's death in late 2004 and the beginning of the new presidential term, Bush vowed things would be different, saying he would invest "political capital" in ensuring a Palestinian state before he leaves office three years from now.

The effort went wrong on three fronts, according to interviews inside and outside the administration:

· The administration put its hopes on the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and poured hundreds of millions of dollars to fund public works projects. But it failed to back him when he asked for concrete help, especially in his dealings with the Israelis.

· The administration was highly attuned to the shifts of Israeli politics but tone-deaf to the upheaval in Palestinian society. It was so focused on facilitating Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip that it did not press Israel to end settlement expansion, release additional prisoners or take other measures that might have reduced Palestinian indignation.

· Despite deep Israeli misgivings, the administration late last year shifted policy and decided Hamas could participate in the elections even though it had not disarmed its militias, in contrast to rules set for elections in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland.

To be sure, a large share of the blame for Hamas's victory rests with Abbas -- widely perceived as weak and indecisive -- and his quarreling and often corrupt Fatah party. The Palestinian Authority proved incapable of governing Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, adding to the perception of incompetence.

Analysts credit the Bush administration with focusing on building some governing institutions, such as a well-functioning Finance Ministry that handles the foreign aid that keeps the Palestinian Authority afloat. But many experts fault the administration for issuing high-sounding rhetoric without sustained involvement on the ground.

"There were eloquent speeches and praise for Abbas" but little else, said Robert Malley, director of the International Crisis Group's Middle East program, who was on President Bill Clinton's National Security Council staff. "There was an abstract faith in the idea that if you do the right thing, you will get a two-state solution."

The administration at the start of last year pledged it would take a low-key approach that would rely much more on nations in the region to carry the diplomatic burden. Officials were disdainful of the Clinton administration's deep involvement in the peace process, which they believed amounted to micromanaging. But over the course of the year, a top general was dispatched to help organize Palestinian security forces, former World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn was recruited to assist on the Gaza withdrawal and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November personally negotiated the opening of a border crossing.

The key to the administration's plan was Abbas, who was elected president after Arafat's death. Abbas had briefly been prime minister under Arafat in 2003, after international donors threatened to abandon Arafat if he did not allow the creation of a strong prime minister. Abbas quit after a few months, blaming both the United States and Israel for failing to back him up. Administration officials had said they would not repeat the mistake when he became president.

But Abbas faced a steep road. The administration was already perceived in the region as biased toward Israel, in part because Bush backed the Gaza withdrawal plan with pledges that Israel could keep large settlements and refuse the return of Palestinians in a final peace deal. Israel's departure from Gaza was designed to be a unilateral step, depriving Abbas of a negotiated peace victory he could claim; instead, Hamas asserted it had driven the Israelis out with its uncompromising approach.

Abbas cut a deal with Hamas, winning its agreement for a cease-fire in exchange for allowing it to participate in elections. But Abbas did not put conditions on its participation, such as giving up its weapons or even pledging not to attack Israelis -- a problem that did not capture the administration's attention until it was too late.

Abbas privately convinced U.S. officials that a Fatah victory would be a blow to Islamic extremism in the region, making the election showdown more enticing to an administration promoting democracy in the Middle East. He also pledged to quickly pass a law requiring the dismantling of militias as soon as the new legislature was elected. The original argument that he should take action against the militias sooner rather than later faded.

When Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned in September that he would try to block Hamas's participation unless it disbanded its militia and accepted Israel's right to exist, the administration forced the Israelis to back off. "Elections are fundamental to the continued evolution and development of the Palestinian process," Rice said.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701562_pf.html

perhaps this explains something of the conservative reactions to the election.

host · 01-29-2006, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

stevo etc.: if you want a serious discussion about hamas, it would have to include something like adequate/accurate information about conditions on the ground in palestine, the political situation up to now--.....but a goofball content-free non-discussion predicated on tossing about idiotic one-dimensional images like you see in stevo's last post is not of any interest to me at all--i am too busy to fuck about with stupidity on that order.....

Can you teach me how you "do" this and still manage to avoid getting s*p*n*d for s*v*n days, every now and again? I'm in awe of you!

kangaeru · 01-29-2006, 07:09 AM

You are 9 years old. Your mother is reading bedtime stories to you and your younger brother, 6, when all of a sudden you hear gunshots and shouting voices. Your mother quickly grabs both you and your brother and brings you to the corner of the room and hunches over you, using her body as a shield to protect you.

Your eyes are closed and you've wet your pants, and the explosions and yelling seem to go on forever...even though the entire event lasted no more than a couple of minutes. When you open your eyes you realize that the wetness you have been wiping away from your face was not only your tears. An israeli grenade thrown close to your room blew the door apart in a hail of hand-sized splinters. You realize that many of them found your mother, and you look up in the horrific realization that the wetness in your eyes is her blood. Your brother took a smaller splinter to his eye and will always be blind in that eye for the rest of his life.

The Israeli government denies involvement in the attack in the News the next day and no one is ever held accountable for your mother's death.

You are a Palestinian.

------------------------------------------------------

You are 9 years old, and walking down a busy street on a Monday morning in Jerusalem with your mother and your infant brother. You have just gone grocery shopping and are helping your mother by showing her how big you are because you can carry all the groceries for her so that she can carry your little brother, who is a new born. You are telling your mother what kinds of things you are going to do to be the best big brother ever, when a Palestinian suicide bomber detonates his bomb vest 25 feet away from you. You and your mother are thrown to the ground violently and you suffer second degree burns and a concussion. Your mother suffered the same, as well as a broken arm. Your baby brother was thrown from his mother's arms by the shock wave and fireball and died from the impact of his soft infant skull being slammed against the ground.

Later that day Hamas claims responsibility for the bombing over the news, and praises the bomber for his sacrifice in the fight against the evil Zionists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

That suicide bomber was the boy from the first story, 10 years later.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The point I am trying to make is that bloody, bloody warfare and terrorism have gone on for over the past 50 years in Israel. To get one side to lay down their hatred and to work towards peace is nearly impossible because everywhere you go, people have had death and injury to themselves and their family inflicted by the other side. Nearly everyone knows at least one person or family who have lost a family member to the fighting.

The palestinians have a fair gripe: their leadership has been corrupt and out to make concessions to the Israeli's, while Sharon was, prior to 2002, still sending in commandos to Palestinian neighborhoods to murder civilians. In the 1960's Sharon himself self led massacres where over 140 Palestinian civilians including women and children were slaughtered. The then Israel Prime Minister told him,

Quote:

Ariel, despite what anyone else may say outside of Israel, you did the right thing. The Arabs must know that the cost of killing Jews will come at a higher price than they are willing to pay. You did well.

So how is comrpomise supposed to be worked out? I don't know. Hamas's first objective is to improve the Palestinian political landscape as well as their educational systems, and then to focus on the subject of Israel. Hamas is going to be so busy doing these things that the amount of attacks on Israeli's will probably slow down...until such a time that the Israeli government makes it necessary to retaliate for some strong-armed injustice inflicted upon the Palestinian people, which their government, Hamas, must respond to the way they always have.

I am not offering a clear viewpoint on the whole thing, I'm just trying to show that the Israeli government has been just as bad as the Palestinians have. The only difference is one group is backed by the US, the other by the middle eastern Arab nations.

Willravel · 01-29-2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kangaeru

/snip, brilliant post

I nominate this for the "best post" of this thread. You verbalized exactly what I was thinking. Choosing sides in this will get people nowhere (are you listening US gov?). Both sides have a multitude of innocent people just trying to live their lives. Both have evil monsters begotten of evil deeds. Because of the religious and nationalist undertones of this ongoing conflict, and the resulting deaths and injuries, our only course of action in this is to search to strengthen the common ground between Palestinians and Israelis. We need to demonize those who would do harm, and praise those who seek peace. We should not give military aid at all. We should restrict our food/supply/medical/monitary aid until the leaders of Israel and the leaders of Palestine are willing to sit and seriously table the idea of a lasting peace agreement that both sides are willing to live with.

If we are to be involved, which is dangerous no matter what our intent, we must at least try to fix this situation.

Also, welcome back Host! We've missed both you and your enormous contributions.

Charlatan · 01-29-2006, 09:46 AM

will... I agree. This is what I have been trying to get at as well.

I was just reading that prior to running for office, Hamas agreed to a cease fire. From what I can tell they have held true to their word so far.

I see this as significant progress.

Ustwo · 01-29-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy
stevo etc.: if you want a serious discussion about hamas, it would have to include something like adequate/accurate information about conditions on the ground in palestine, the political situation up to now--.....but a goofball content-free non-discussion predicated on tossing about idiotic one-dimensional images like you see in stevo's last post is not of any interest to me at all--I am too busy to fuck about with stupidity on that order.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Can you teach me how you "do" this and still manage to avoid getting s*p*n*d for s*v*n days, every now and again? I'm in awe of you!

Because mods don't read his posts, period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

will... I agree. This is what I have been trying to get at as well.

I was just reading that prior to running for office, Hamas agreed to a cease fire. From what I can tell they have held true to their word so far.

I see this as significant progress.

Charlatan a good muslim friend of mine told me a story a few years back when we were discussing the whole Israeli question. He is Jordanian by birth but Palestinian by heritage, and one of the nicest guys I know, he also holds all the same degrees I do, two from the same institution, so if you will excuse my pride, he is pretty well educated. It was a long conversation, the kind you have while working on finishing a project late at night in a mostly empty lab, where your brain is not needed for most of the work at hand. He spoke of how they want peace etc, but then spoke of a 'prophecy' and told me a story. The story was of when the Jews controlled Mecca, and the story was that the muslims made peace and lived peacefully waiting for their time to attack. They did attack and of course the Jews lost. He says this is part of the peoples mind set, and the prophesy was of the Jews being pushed into the sea with Allahs help and, while I had to look up the details I did find it.

After all, the Prophet Muhammad himself warned Muslims that “the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.”

. . Until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree. But the rock and tree will say: ‘“Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, a Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.” Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews.’ We believe in this Hadith. We are convinced also that this Hadith heralds the spread of Islam and its rule over all the land.”

Apparently he didn't make it all up on his own, and while doing a quick web search for this I found a great many varients of the same types of story.

To be honest both the Fatah and Hamas were working for Israels destruction, its just that Hamas has been far more open about it.

In short if you think that statement is 'significant progress' I have a bridge or two to sell you.

roachboy · 01-29-2006, 11:50 AM

two articles from haaretz, from different political positions, both of which converge of the same basic theme: the naievte or ignorance of bush administration policy.
the term choice is obviously a political function.

Quote:

U.S. taken by surprise - Israel less so

By Ze'ev Schiff

Before the Palestinian parliamentary elections the United States and Israel had an argument about their outcome. While American intelligence predicted Fatah would win and the new Palestinian government would be able to disarm Hamas, Israeli intelligence argued that there was no chance of a significant Fatah triumph, that Hamas would increase its strength considerably and that Hamas would win up to 50 percent of the votes. The Shin Bet also thought so. In any case, it figured, Fatah would not be able to disarm Hamas.

Ultimately Hamas won 45 percent in the national elections and all the votes in the regional elections. The final result was about 60 percent.

One of the harbingers of Hamas victory now was its success in local elections a few weeks ago, a surprise for many.

On the eve of elections PA Chair Mahmoud Abbas asked the Egyptians to act to put off the elections. The Egyptians suggested postponing them by six months. Hamas said it would agree to a short delay, but not six months.

The Americans, certain of Fatah's victory, said it was better to hold elections on schedule. In retrospect it is clear that the Americans put more emphasis on the democratic process itself, rather than its outcome. The results will force the American leaders to shift their emphasis and take more interest in the possible results of democratic elections in Arab states that lack a real democratic heritage, and where radical religious circles wield crucial influence.

Israel's assessments of Hamas gains sparked debates about its future place. One debate in the office of Dov Weissglas, the prime minister's bureau chief, was entitled "What if Hamas Wins?" Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz also held a few debates on the possible outcome. One of them dealt with the possibility that Fatah, after losing the election, would attack Israel to cause a political shock that would disrupt the election results.

The Palestinian opinion polls all predicted a Fatah victory. The differences among them focused on whether Hamas would want to join the new government, and whether its people would receive ministerial portfolio.

source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/675835.html

Quote:

Analysis: Wave of democracy pits Israel against 'Arab street'

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

The Palestinian Authority election marks the beginning of a new period in the region that could be termed "the era of the masses." Henceforth Israel will have to factor into its foreign policy something it has always ignored - Arab public opinion.

Israel has always based its regional policy on arrangements and terror-balances with the Arab dictators. They understood force and Israel could do business with them. Their authority was seen as a barrier protecting Israel from the rage of the hostile rabble in the "Arab street." That was the basis of the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, Yasser Arafat and his heirs and the game rules vis-a-vis Syria and Lebanon.

But those days are over. The democratization process that U.S. President George Bush has triggered and the open debate promoted by Arab satellite networks are causing the old frameworks to crumble. The mass demonstrations that led to the Syrians being driven from Lebanon, the elections in Iraq and those in the territories are merely the beginning. As far as Israel is concerned, the worst stage will come when the democratic wave washes over Jordan, its strategic ally; Egypt with its modern army and F-16 squadrons, and Syria and its Scud and chemical warhead stores.

In the past year millions of Arab citizens have had their say. So did hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in the center of Beirut last March and the voters in the Palestinian Authority, who changed their regime democratically.

Granted, Hamas is an armed terror organization. But the international community agreed to its participation in the elections and respects its results.

Israel saw in Bush's democratization initiative a pretension of naive Americans who had no idea of the reality in the region. Israel still remembers the Shah of Iran, who fell from power after America reprimanded him for the infringement of human rights, and was replaced by a hostile regime seeking to annihilate Zionism and make atom bombs.

The Israelis warned the Americans that that unsupervised Arab democracy will bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power, not pro-Western liberals. But Washington refused to listen and insisted on holding the elections on schedule. The new reality requires both Washington and Jerusalem to reevaluate the situation, before the Hamas effect hits Amman and Cairo. In any case, it will be hard to turn back democratic change and resume the comfortable relations with the old dictatorships.

Israel will have to formulate a new foreign policy and strive for peace between nations, not merely with their rulers. And that will be much more complicated.

source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/675990.html

it is hard not to see the claims concerning the bush administration policy toward this conflict in general, and toward these elections in particular as more or less accurate--the positions outlined in each of the above differ one from the other quite markedly--this should be obvious. in this particular context, i see no need to point out which is closer to my postion---but together they point to the appalling state of information available to americans about this conflict.

======

ustwo:

i explained my posts and how they work (again) in the "coming clean" thread...given that you participated in that thread, i doubt that you did not see them.
i also directed one at you, in which i tried to explain why your particular style of interacting with this space is most irritating.

but i think that you know full well how i play this game....so i see in your post above as more than a little disengenuous.

Charlatan · 01-29-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Apparently he didn't make it all up on his own, and while doing a quick web search for this I found a great many varients of the same types of story.

To be honest both the Fatah and Hamas were working for Israels destruction, its just that Hamas has been far more open about it.

In short if you think that statement is 'significant progress' I have a bridge or two to sell you.

Like I said, the ball is in Hamas' court.

To add to this, Israel would be just as happy to bulldoze the Palestinians into the sea. The only thing preventing this is how it would look in the west. BOTH sides appear to be steadfast in their position to *not* coexist.

Sadly the only real solution seems to point to their need to coexist.

Hamas is a terrorist organizations just as Irgun was a terrorist organization. To ignore that is stupid. Both "nations" want to exist. The only way is through compromise on both sides. Perhaps the state of Israel, as we know it, shouldn't exist. Neither should some sort of Muslim Palestinian state.

Perhaps what is needed is a secular state where both coexist.

I don't see either side, as they exist, agreeing to this solution. Genocide is more likely.

Willravel · 01-29-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Perhaps what is needed is a secular state where both coexist.

And this is where state sponsored stubornness comes into play. They won't peacefully coexist because they hate each other. They can't abandon their supposedly religious murders (neither religion really permits murder in the way that it's going on now any more than Buddhism permits murder) because they have this sense of religious entitlement. It's disgusting.

The best way to fix this situation is for pacifist leaders to come to power in both Judism and Islam, and for them both, collectively, to condem any murder (espically in the name of G*d/Allah). We need to shut the Pat Robertsons of the world up and let the Martin Luther King Jr.'s of the world speak on behalf of organized religion. Let more acurate representations of the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran be the loudest voices. All three texts teach peace, after all.

host · 01-29-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

......ustwo:

i explained my posts and how they work (again) in the "coming clean" thread...given that you participated in that thread, i doubt that you did not see them.
i also directed one at you, in which i tried to explain why your particular style of interacting with this space is most irritating.

but i think that you know full well how i play this game....so i see in your post above as more than a little disengenuous.

Please consider accepting this apology from me, roachboy, for my earlier, uninformed remarks posted on this thread. I am not "up to speed" on recent goings on here. I only came across the relevant posts (by roachboy, Cynthetique, and others) on the "coming clean" thread, a short while ago.

ubertuber · 01-30-2006, 02:20 PM

There's another set of questions raised by these events.

As a democratically elected government, Hamas is only a proxy for the Palestinian people. Presumably they were elected because their views are seen as productive or at least consonant with those of the people who bothered to vote. However you elect to "negotiate with terrorists", I think it is worthwhile to examine why they are now in power. Whether you are pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, the election of a sizable majority of Hamas seats in Parliament indicates a real sense of discontent among the Palestinian electorate. Clearly they didn't feel that their previous government was getting the job done.

It's my feeling that the Palestinian voters were right about that - Abbas wasn't effective. However, a big reason for that is that Sharon wasn't giving him much to work with. The Palestinian government has been largely ignored in recent months. I believe that the "Palestinian on the street" has watched as their own government was marginalized by the people that they see as adversaries. Given that, I think any expectation that voters would settle for the status quo was extremely naive. So, in some way, Israel has its own policies to thank for the fact that they'll be living next to a "terrorist" government. Perhaps if Israel had given Abbas more room to sit at the table and negotiate, they'd be seeing a different outcome on election day.

I also think that, in the end, Hamas being given legitimacy is a positive development, at least for pragmatic reasons. The Palestinian viewpoint has been advanced by a number of factions that have differing levels of legitimacy. Despite this varying degree of support (or authority), many of these factions have the ability to harm Israeli citizens. Before, the Israeli government could make agreements with the Palestinian Authority and still be left fending off attacks from Hamas, because Hamas didn't feel bound by official negotiations that they weren't included in. Hopefully, more of these "rogue" groups will feel represented by a Hamas government - which would make Israel's negotations seem less like herding cats.

Ustwo · 01-30-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

TClearly they didn't feel that their previous government was getting the job done.

The rub is, what was the 'job' they weren't getting done?

Willravel · 01-30-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The rub is, what was the 'job' they weren't getting done?

Depends on who you ask. Safety, independance, removing the Israelis from Israel, breaking down the wall; all sorts of things.

WillyPete · 01-30-2006, 03:22 PM

Ustwo, I googled the gharqad story after reading that and it is interesting.

Found a good article by a 'progressive muslim' and it highlighted to me a situation that we are not wholly familiar with for international muslims. As a western culture we like to think of good and bad democrats and republicans, but when it comes to Islam, it's ALL bad.
They have their own issues.

He leaves a nice finishing thought.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...orm&ID=SP84705

Quote:

"Can you imagine what the free world, headed by America, could do [to the Muslims if it wanted]. Some of our intellectual rabble … talk of the heroes of Fallujah and what they did to the greatest country in the world [i.e. America]. They do not think for one moment – [assuming] that they think [at all] – that America was capable, with one push of a little button, of permanently wiping Fallujah off the map of the world, particularly after 80% of the civilians had left it.

"But the concern for the rest of the civilians [who remained] within [the city] pushed America to fight from house to house, while it had weapons of destruction that could have preserved it so it wouldn't lose a single soldier.

"If these weapons of destruction were in our hands … wouldn't we – out of loyalty to our forefathers – act like Khaled bin Al-Walid [in the battle] against the Iraqi Bakr bin Wa'il tribes, and slaughter them as we pleased … or like Said bin Al-'Aas, who destroyed everyone in the city of Tamisa…

"This world that we fight against, covet, and hate [i.e. America and the West] has in the past sacrificed 40 million to defend its freedoms – [freedoms] that we do not understand – and is more zealous about them than we are about our Islam… We all know that they obtained their rights in the past and that they know how to obtain them [today], and are capable of doing so.

"Are there any wise [men] in the nation of the Bedouin? Is anyone listening? I call upon you … to awaken from the death throes of your legends, because every one of us has children whom we want to live in a different time and a different culture…"

ubertuber · 01-30-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The rub is, what was the 'job' they weren't getting done?

I think that's a good question - and it probably has a lot of different answers. People didn't vote for Abbas and friends for a number of reasons.

Maybe another way of phrasing it is to say that apparently Palestinians feel that Hamas can get "the job" done better. There are probably fewer answers to that one.

In all, I think will had some very plausible answers. I'm positive that the average Palestinian wants their government to be able to make decisive improvements in immediate quality of life issues, and this may mean doing things that seem counter-productive to us in the long term. The crazy thing about it is that the balance of power between Israel and Palestine is so asymmetrical that an effective Palestinian government almost relies on the cooperation of the Israelis more than its own power. Although it's not really rational to an outsider, maybe that's exactly why the Palestinians elected a government that they perceive will "stick it" to the Israelis.

I guess my main point from this post and my previous one is that the Palestinians didn't vote for Hamas in a vacuum, and they're not primitive savages. They understand why we would think Hamas is a terrorist group, and they voted for them anyway. There are reasons and justifications for this. An examination of this issue that doesn't take that seriously is lacking something important.

01-26-2006, 06:20 PM	#47 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	Going back to the original question, are there any parallels here to Britian's dealings with the IRA and Sinn Fein? __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

01-27-2006, 07:05 AM	#52 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Maybe we should invade them and set up a democracy... (no i'm not serious, or taking a political jab i just like the irony in that statement. Now back on topic..... i don't know how to negotiate with hammas but I can tell you a few ways that won't work. Calling them terrorists (reguardless if that is what they are or not) and saying we won't work with you is one way to insure they stay a thorn in our side. Immediatly starting hate rhetoric twoards them will only insure the conflict continues. The one sure way to failure is not trying. So maybe we should at least try to negotiate with them before dismissing them? There is my 2 cents. Last edited by Rekna; 01-27-2006 at 07:32 AM..

01-27-2006, 08:36 AM	#54 (permalink)
SirLance Junkie Location: In the middle of the desert.	I am reminded of the situation in pre-WWII Israel... Menachem Begin, Moshe Dayan, and those guys committed terrorist acts against the British. The Brits were treating the Israelis pretty much the same way the Israelies treat the Palestinians. Hamas now appears to be the majority in a legally elected government. It might change them in the same way recognition changed Begin & Dayan. We can only hope. Or it may not, in which case the Isralies will kick their butts and it won't be a problem any more. __________________ DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

01-27-2006, 02:18 PM	#61 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	forget it. sorry. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-27-2006, 03:24 PM	#63 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	The people of Palestine had a choice between reconciliatio0n, and war. They have, not otally but by majprity, voted for war. They have voted to empower a band of desperate murderers. They should expect to reap what they have sowed, they should expect to learn the consequences of this action. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-27-2006, 08:47 AM	#56 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	While i'm skeptical about the prospects of the future maybe Hammas getting elected isn't a bad thing. It will force the world to reconsider their actions in palistine. And maybe the world will figure something out this time....

01-27-2006, 10:34 AM	#57 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	I wonder if Osama bin Laden became a prime minister of Afghanistan & al-Quida became the ruling party. Would you like to open negotiations? Heck let us say it was Iraq? Here it is even worse, since it is your neighbor. Israel right now transfers to them about 40 million a month of monthly revenue which is used to pay for the 130,000+ government workers. Now if you were Israel, could you transfer over the money to a government where the head of it, literally 4 days ago, called for the destruction of your nation? Personally I think I would pass on that opportunity. The U.S last year gave $400 million last year in direct aid, according to Walles (US Consul general). As far as what Hamas stands for Mahmoud Zahar, an incoming Hamas member (who won a parliament seat), said “the organization had no immediate plans to change its policy to recognize Israel or to restart peace efforts.” In Syria another Hamas leader promised to continue resistance against Israel occupation. Also he emphasized the group would not recognize the Jewish State. Yep just elected, their foreign policy is being spoken loud and clear. I do not care if they gain office and do a 180 in statement, it will take deeds in my book to prove a change in policy for them! The question is, due to foreign pressure, for economic needs of the nation to survive if those factors may make them change. But is that a real change, if someone claims I am changing since otherwise we will have no economy. How can Israel or any country accept them at their word, when we are literally putting them into a corner. On a side note there is literally internal fighting now in Palestine, over the elections between the Fatah movement and Hamas supporters.

01-27-2006, 02:07 PM	#60 (permalink)
WillyPete Addict	Remember, as a political movement that has previously carried out terrorist attacks, if one of their group, even a splinter acts in a way that contravenes the geneva convention and a state leader condones or celebrates it, they can face claims of war crimes in the Hague. This should effectively disassociate Hamas as a political party from overt backing of any terrorist action and thus make it appear to their supporters that they are taking a more peaceful approach.

01-29-2006, 09:46 AM	#70 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	will... I agree. This is what I have been trying to get at as well. I was just reading that prior to running for office, Hamas agreed to a cease fire. From what I can tell they have held true to their word so far. I see this as significant progress. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-30-2006, 02:20 PM	#76 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	There's another set of questions raised by these events. As a democratically elected government, Hamas is only a proxy for the Palestinian people. Presumably they were elected because their views are seen as productive or at least consonant with those of the people who bothered to vote. However you elect to "negotiate with terrorists", I think it is worthwhile to examine why they are now in power. Whether you are pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, the election of a sizable majority of Hamas seats in Parliament indicates a real sense of discontent among the Palestinian electorate. Clearly they didn't feel that their previous government was getting the job done. It's my feeling that the Palestinian voters were right about that - Abbas wasn't effective. However, a big reason for that is that Sharon wasn't giving him much to work with. The Palestinian government has been largely ignored in recent months. I believe that the "Palestinian on the street" has watched as their own government was marginalized by the people that they see as adversaries. Given that, I think any expectation that voters would settle for the status quo was extremely naive. So, in some way, Israel has its own policies to thank for the fact that they'll be living next to a "terrorist" government. Perhaps if Israel had given Abbas more room to sit at the table and negotiate, they'd be seeing a different outcome on election day. I also think that, in the end, Hamas being given legitimacy is a positive development, at least for pragmatic reasons. The Palestinian viewpoint has been advanced by a number of factions that have differing levels of legitimacy. Despite this varying degree of support (or authority), many of these factions have the ability to harm Israeli citizens. Before, the Israeli government could make agreements with the Palestinian Authority and still be left fending off attacks from Hamas, because Hamas didn't feel bound by official negotiations that they weren't included in. Hopefully, more of these "rogue" groups will feel represented by a Hamas government - which would make Israel's negotations seem less like herding cats. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam Last edited by ubertuber; 01-30-2006 at 02:25 PM.. Reason: stil kant spelle write