How do you negotiate with terrorists?
 

Well Hamas won the Palestinian election. While I am for a democracy, how can you try to make peace, or even attempt to negotiate with someone who just three days ago said ". "We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay [on the land], nor his ownership of any inch of land."

While I am shocked by this, it is insane, I have no good faith in any more peace talks with a governemnt run by such an organization. Even if they just 'say' lets make peace. Arafat did say that, while in other speeches say the opposite. It has to be more then words.

Meanwhile the current administration all resigned in mass.

I would like to discuss this as well. Below is an article that offers various viewpoints regarding the Hamas victory. I'm still sorting out my thoughts on this, so please allow me to post without opinion for the moment.


Truthout Link

Time will tell on how this ultimately plays out. It should be noted that there are factions in Israel that claim that Palestine doesn't exist.

I can undestand any governments position on dealing with those who want peace... but really. Looked at in one light, Hamas is doing what any government would do. I don't agree with their methods, but are they really that different from other nations (or would be nations in this case)?

What I am getting at is, demonizing them does nothing to solve this situation. Clearly, they have the support of the Palestinian people, right or wrong they are not a fringe group looking to just stir up shit.

This is an organization that provides schools and hospitals and is heavily involved in their communities, just like any good political organization should be... what I am trying to get at, is that we shouldn't look at this in strictly black and white, good vs. evil terms.

The only difference now is that palistine is now a terrorist state. Terrorists were elected by their people. I don't care if they were elected or not. They're terrorists still. You can't negotiate with people who run on a platform of destroying israel and glorify beheadings. Just because they were elected doesn't change who they are, it just puts them out front, they are no longer in the shadows.

I do think that what we'll see now is a palistinian civil war between fatah and hamas. Who thinks fatah is going to just back down and go home? I don't.

Insurgent groups in Columbia, Peru and other nations have done the same things - you still wouldn't want to deal with them. Setting up infrastrucure is simply a signpost along the road leading to the insurgent state, so this signals nothing in terms of their goals or aspirations. They aren't in any way "good" because they built a school (especially when said school teaches kids to blow themselves up on a city bus).

Personally, I'd like to leave Israel, Palestine and the rest of the Middle East to sort themselves out. Whoever is left standing at the end can do civilized business with the rest of the world.

That is a great article, I did not even know which one to post since there was easily few dozen that i have read today, and a number in the past few days.

I am torn on Hamas, for a number or reasons. I have a friend of mine who was stabbed about 7 years ago by a hamas member, while just walking down the street while visiting Israel.

I am not trying to remove the Palestenian voice, but the voice that comes is nothing with negotiating, nothing to do with peace. It is a voice of hate, and destruction. They have never disarmed the militant groups, and the terrorists have taken control (true via legitimate means). To me you cannot even talk to them, until they do a 180, and not just a quick 180, they have to change to start dialog, and before any action it has to be proven that it is beyond the surface.

Abbas, while he was pretty much powerless as PM, at least attempted to clean up. Not that he was succesful, but you can talk. But when Hamas 3 days ago, announces they are still for the destruction of Israel, well then you arm your borders and prepare for war. Sadly in Israel that is already a face of life.

I agree with this...

For the record, I am not defending the Palestinians per se. Rather, I am saying that let's see what happens now, before we start to judge.

Israel has also done some very horrible things to the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are not able to mount an army that can face the Irsaelis head on... they are fighting with what they have to get what they want... just like the Israeli "terrorists" did under Menachem Begin in the late 1940s against the British occupiers.

You don't negotiate with terrorists. When the shit hits the fans because these sociopaths are behind the wheels I say leave Israel to do what they have to do. It's a great a thing really, because now that the Palestinians will be operating within a legitimate government, it should makes things easier for Israel legally when Hamas tries some bullshit.

this is quite odd. it would seem to me that the folk who characterize hamas as a "terrorist" organization should be pleased at the election results as it pulls hamas into conventional politics. and besides, the transformation from "terrorist" group to political organization is a big part of the early history of israeli politics itself, so you would think that this would be not a terribly frightening outcome.

second is that hamas' showing does not surprise me: it is only surprising if you imagine that the coverage of israeli-=palestinian relations you see on american tv is anything like an accurate representation of what is happening on the ground.
another way: why does it surprise anyone that actions like building a wall to split palestinian and israeli land would radicalize the political situation amongst the palestinians? that it would is not rocket science, folks.

third: it is always heartwarming to see yet another dsiplay of conservative contempt for democracy. thanks, stevo.

negociate with terrorists....well that is certainly one way to shut down an informed discussion, isnt it? you have already decided everything, based on anecdotal information...so what's to talk about?

so what do you call hamas? what do you call a group of people who teach children to grow up hating israel and live and die for its destruction. What do you call people that blow themselves up on a sidewalk cafe? What do you call a group of people with a huge billboard overlooking an israeli army post that says "Sharon, your pigs die here" showing a picture of a hooded hamas member weilding a bloody knife in one hand and a decapitated head in the other? What do you call them?

RB, it could be beneficial to put Hamas in a coventional political position, that is ofcourse if you can see them amending their charter and ever accept any sort of peace with Israel. Such line of thinking is delusional at best.

Second, I don't think it comes as a big surprise to any America who pays attention to the situation, at least not me, that this happened. To the Palestinian people Hamas is great, it educates their children, feeds them, provides civil/social services, plus gives them hope against the evil zionists. Not to mention that by and large even the Palestinians knew Arafat and the PA was a joke and not working for their plight.

In response to three I don't see contempt this as "conservative contempt" for democracy. I just think it is an acknowledgement of the sad reality is that the choice these people made could potentially suck really really bad, for them, for Israel, for everyone. It was their choice to make no doubt, doesn't make it the right, or that we should have to accept it with a smile.

Got to agree with Stevo. What do you say when their head JUST said 3 days ago "We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay [on the land], nor his ownership of any inch of land."

I did not have to say anything, their talk, their actions, everything they do calls them a terrorist.

i wonder if hamas will be capable of leading. how have militant groups fared upon transforming into political parties (particularly majorities) in the past? i'm not just talking about sharon and arafat...any other countries to look at?

i guess israel's pullout didn't include negotiations last time, but i think further withdrawls (which haven't been discussed) are implicitly dependent upon palestine's ability to take care of itself.

you've got to admit political parties in america are missing a little of the fatah/hamas panache. you just don't see carl levin or ted stevens shooting a machine gun in the air after passing important legislation.

You know, perhaps we should have ostracized Israel when their terrorists were elected head of state (Menachem Begin).

Like I said, above, time will tell how this plays out.

a non-post. sorry folks.

Exactly what I was thinking. Palestine is quite the mirror image of Israel once upon a time. We can't assume that Palestine will turn out differntly or the same as Israel. Any hufing and puffing about terrorism is clearly premature.

Edit: Roach, is your lack of capitol letters a stand against capitolism?

i agree with charlatan: you dont know how this will play out--i think that pulling hamas into conventional politics could be a good thing.

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--you know, fatah under and since arafat---an analysis of the conflicts over the israeli settlement policy in the west bank--something like a rational understanding of israeli politics. if you want to proceed on that basis, fine--i would be interested. 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, and not posting to this thread is just as easy as posting to it if this is all that one can hope for.

same goes for the politics forum in general. but that is a different matter.

make an effort to creat the conditions for an interesting conversation and maybe the forum will start to come around a bit.

Funny how people would define who is a terrorist,
and who is a patriot.
If they are on your side they are patriots.
If they are against you they are terrorists.
Same acts by either side, different title given.
Would burning the personal home of the lieutenant goverment
be a terrorist act? Sure.
That's what the sons of liberty did.
And yes the British called them terrorists,
Yet the colonists saw them as patriots.
The Sons of liberty even opperated in cells
http://earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

When the colonies won the fight for independance,
and became a legitimate nation.
Those "terrorists" became our founding fathers.

Hamas sound much like the sons of liberty
Only the future will tell if they will be remembered
as the "founding Fathers" of a Palestinian Nation
or
A group of rouge terrorist's ultimatly destroyed by their enemies
The victor gets to write history.

Going after government targets is legitimate, blowing up school buses/civilian buses/civilian anything is not, and is terrorism. Get serious with that crock of shit comparison.

Very different times dictated very different targets. I think the comparison is sound.

Let's put aside the US struggle for liberty for a moment and look at the number of civilians (jewish, arab and british alike) that the Irgun killed in their struggle for a Zionist state.

I don't see why Israel doesn't step up and say "ok.. here's your land palistinians.It's your now. We'll go away, here are the borders.. if you don't like it tough." Then there will be the two states and anything that happens after that will be considered two countries at war. Why have both sides been dragging their feet for so many decades? Sharon started to pull Israeli people from disputed territories.. ok. Now why not just finish the job by saying "ok, now you guys run your shit and we're outa here."

I don't think the US should involve itself with two sides who obviously don't want peace. If they truly wanted peace there would have been peace long ago. There have been border lines relatively agreed upon for a long time now. Both sides know where they stand, and anything else is just posturing. End this crap and leave eachother thehell alone. If you don't wnt to do that you don't want peace and are just talking out of your ass. (by you and your i refer to Israel and palestine for any posters who may mistake me for refering to them hehe)

Just end it.

To ad another view, the ANC was once a terrorist organisation in South Africa.
The won an election by the voice of the people and was heralded into power by one of the greatest leaders of our time, who himself was jailed for planning a coup which in some countries would be considered treason.

Yes they blew up shopping centres, buses, laid landmines in farm roads. But would you deny that they have proved themselves since then?

Responsibility is an impressive force that can change even the most vociferous of us.
They have to deliver the goods now or their people won't be so happy.

Personally I'd say this gives Isreal the green light to declare war on the Palistinian state.

By voting for Hama's the Palistinian's voted for war, and war they should recieve.

When has either side really stopped being at war with each other?

I wonder if any superpower would back Palestine in the next Israel/Palestine war. I'd like to think evereyone would either try to force them into negotiations, or would butt out, but I know the US wouldn't do either of those. This means that Palestine will be SOL in the conflict. I'd like to see the EU or the East pushing for an independant Palestinian state (a PEACEFUL state, of course).

really? you think every good political organization should be in charge of providing education to children and be the gatekeepers of hospital care? that seems like a disastrous idea. i'm certain you would hate the reality of living under such a system.

i don't understand the need morally equivocate at every turn. just because there is good and evil on both sides (as is always the case when dealing with men and women), it shouldn't prevent us from realizing that Hamas is an organization with plainly-stated evil as its objective. that a population actively supports such an organization is indeed an evil thing.

They haven't, this just makes it nice and legal for any action by Israel. Any action by Hamas will be directly tied to the government of Palestine, no longer a movement, it would be a declaration of war from a nation state against another.

And Will your statement doesn't seem to have any grounding in reality, as through this road map to peace that we have been so very much behind has forced Israel to the table and to make major concessions, we have very much been holding the leash tight on Israel as of late. Why would we shift from this policy in the near future in the case of war?

You ask that question of a Canadain? where that system is a reality.
And better reality than we have here in the states.
What with heathcare costs rising ten times inflation
companies and workers going broke trying to pay for healthcare.


equivocate

VERB: 1. To stray from truthfulness or sincerity: palter, prevaricate, shuffle. See TRUE. 2. To use evasive or deliberately vague language: euphemize, hedge, shuffle, tergiversate, weasel. Informal : pussyfoot, waffle. Idioms: beat about (or around) the bush, mince words.

Using big words to call someone a liar?
A nation to call their own is evil?
Resisting oppression is evil?
They are at war........
Wait.....I get it.... it evil if it's on the otherside
Good is only allowed for friends and allies
Evil is everyone else.

Which suggests that what Israel has done up until now hasn't been legal. That should give you some hint as to why the Palestinians are willing to go so far and do so much harm to the Israeli people.
Of course, there are thousands of independant Palestinian organizations involved in attacks, all only loosely associated with Hamas.
A giant wall around the West Bank isn't a concession, it's a prison. Our ultimate goal should walys be peace for all people. Letting Israel finally finish off the Palestinians isn't peace. It's genocide.

First all action taken thus far by Israel has been legal, one of the sole functions of a government is to protect its sovereign. They have recieved much condemnation sure, but they are doing what any other country would do, especially when it comes to dealing with a hostile population surrounding its country. The State Palestine lost the fight with Israel along time ago, it has been only through concessions from Israel that they exist today, some very generous concessions I might add.

Your comment about the loosely affiliated groups is a TOTAL copout, it almost doesn't merit a counter point because of its sheer ridiculousness. That not withstanding the sole goal of Hamas is armed resistance against Israel, the ending point being the total destruction; saying that terrorist action taken "by loosely affiliated groups" is just straight up false.

As for that wall, I remember a few people on these boards bitching about it, but then their voices seemed to lose all clout when the FACT was presented that since the walls rising, terrorist attacks have dramtically been reduced. But it must be some coincident perpetuated by teh Evil Bushco.

i think mojo was alluding to a more recognizable relationship between the two. "nice and legal" meaning... "more conducive to fitting within existing framework". there is far less established law/protocol in dealing with internationally-subsidized human bombs and more structure for relations between two sovereign states.

edit: mojo already addressed this before my response was submitted, i'll let him speak for himself.
where did this fantasy begin? i'd like to hear a serious argument establishing this in reality. it should explain how israel's supposed genocidal objectives jive with the thousands of palestinians living in israel-proper who enjoy full rights as citizens... even though jews living in hamas-controlled territory would have been butchered long ago.

the two sides are not on equal moral footing. i'm at a loss at why people try so hard to make them so.

As alpha points out, I do think government has a place in providing these things. Are you really ready to suggest that this all about communism (am I wrong that this is where you are heading with this?)


As for "morally equivocating"... you must be very comfortable in your black and white world where there is only one right answer and one wrong answer... I don't believe in an absolute world.

Hamas has done some very evil things. The state of Israel has done some very evil things. I condemn them both.

What I am reacting to is the one-sided support of Israel, who's own activities get white washed because their actions are state sponsored and carried out by a millitary rather than a rag-tag group with bombs strapped to their chests.

In the end, both sides are equally convinced of the rightness of their position and their methods for achieving their ends. Nothing good will ever come of this part of the world.

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

Yeah well here is the thing Willravel, World Organizations such as the UN have no sovereignity, they have no authority, they are empty words at best. Second off is Israel even party to the ICC? I don't know honestly, but I would bet the farm they are not, so again that makes anything they have to say moot.

:rolleyes: your original statement was speaking about political organizations (such as hamas) providing education/healthcare, not government. the two terms aren't remotely interchangeable.
that's nice. read my post again. it's quite obvious that i do not consider the issue black-and-white... but that's no reason to call it all black either. a world without absolutes is no reason to abandon critical observation.

Legality isn't about authority. The Judicial parts of government and other organizations decide on legality, it is up to the executive parts of said government or organization to back it up or not. They are inherently seperate by function.

If I see someone go and kill someone else, I

Legality isn't about authority. The Judicial parts of government and other organizations decide on legality, it is up to the executive parts of said government or organization to back it up or not. They are inherently seperate by function.

If I see someone go and kill someone else (for no reason, Murder 1), I can state that it is illegal (knowing that murder is a breech of US law), with or without the support of the police.

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...

It's too bad people continute to pretend that democracy is the end all solution to rouge nations. The US's founding fathers recognized the problems with democracy and set up a constitutional republic utilizing few aspects of democracy. The key difference is that in a democracy, the government exists to do the will of the people, in a constitutional republic the government exists to protect the rights of people. Unfortunetly, this system has deteriorated over the years.

I'd rather have a government that protects the rights of people, instead of a government that can be elected to do the will of the mob whether it be good or bad (terrorism in the case of Hamas). So what if the majority of the people are behind Hamas in this election, that doesn't give them the authority to commit terrorism.

Well said :thumbsup:

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.

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

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

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
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?

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

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.
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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:

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.....

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....

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.

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.
I'd look to why they want to destroy me, and work from there (instead of just and eye for an eye).
To the Hamas? To whome?
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).
That's true.
Maybe this new power will teach them responsibility. Who knows?
Palestine is literally in a corner, geographically speaking. Maybe you should take that into account.
Literally? Not figureatively?

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

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.

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).

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.

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. :icare:

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.

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

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

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!

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,
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.

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.

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.

Because mods don't read his posts, period.


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.

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.

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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

extending what ubertuber said: you have to take seriously the fact of occupation and its brutality.
you have to take seriously the israeli settlement program, how it has been orchestrated, what its purposes are, and its implications for palestinians--for example, the "settling" near water supplies...
you have to take seriously that the settlement program is a de facto annexation program, backed by the military force of a regional superpower.
also, remember the sharon strategy from a few years ago--humilitate arafat on the one hand while at the same time claiming that the problem is that there is no-one to negociate with amongst the palestinian population--totally disengenuous, amazingly cynical, with--again--brutal consequences for the folk who live on the ground.

you have to keep in mind that fine humanitarian policy of bulldozing the houses of the families of suspected militants.

you need to keep in mind the corruption under arafat as well--combine that with the facts concerning the israeli occupation of the west bank etc., and it does nto take a rocket scientist to derive that the plo/fatah would be seen as weak and corrupt--add to that the way israel has chosen to proceed since 1967 in the occupoed territories, and the resulting radicalization would seem such an obvious possibility that you would have thought that even the incompetents in the bush administration would have seen this coming.

but no.

on the other side--again--israeli politics is not singular--there are all kinds of groups/organizations that take full cognizance of the fiasco that the occupation has been, in all kinds of ways, for israel itself, who have positions that are nuanced well beyond anything i or anyone else whose viewpoint is distant coudl have on the matter--then you have likud--then you have idiots like netanyahu, who yesterday likened the rise of hamas to that of fascism in germany....

i do think that hamas has to recognize israel's right to exist--there is nothing to be done about the fact of the israeli state--it is a fact---but israel should be accepted by all as a legitimate state--and should be held to account for its actions as any other state would be had it undertaken this kind of action.

i would think that if most of the folk on this board lived in palestine, they too woudl have at least seriously considered voting hamas in this election. if you do not think so, then you dont know what the situation on the ground has been like in the west bank.

This is a small excerpt from a NY Times editorial:

Some good points are made in this piece. Once you get past all the hand-wringing, there may be some potential for substantial movement in relations between Palestinian and Isreali officials. Just as "only Nixon could go to China", perhaps only Hamas can treat with Israel effectively. After all, it's hard to imagine Hamas-granted concessions as selling the cause out.

While I still (naievely perhaps) hold out hope that rational minds will prevail, I have to admit that things do not look good as Hamas continues to be stubborn and apparently unwilling to make any concilatory moves.

The latest tax withholding by Israel appears to be a good move on their part. Time will tell.

With neither side willing to talk to the other, this could go south. Thankfully Hamas continues to honour their cease fire agreement. Let's hope Israel can recognize that as a step in the right direction and a position from which they can both move forward.

Bidding their time until it is convienent(sp) to strike? All of the tax withholding doesn't seem to be putting any pressure on Hamas anyways; to make matters worse the Arab nations are saying they will step in with assistance once the west and Israel starting withholding the money.

Lets just face it guys.

The only solution that will bring any lasting peace to the area involves piles of bodies.

Israel can not give enough to appease the Muslim nations. They are still embarrassed by the 67 war, and their utter humiliation by Israel. When speaking to my Jordanian friend who I mentioned before, he said they refer to the men of that generation as 'the losers' (rough translation) who couldn't do anything right. They want revenge, they have spent 40 years teaching their children to hate the Jews, and only a fear of a repeat of 67 has kept them from all out war.

I view the whole area like an earthquake zone. Every time the next conflict gets postponed it adds to the stress and will make it worse when it does happen, but it will happen in this generation.

The only place I am confused is why Western Europe embraced the Palestinians so firmly, and I think it goes beyond the extremely biased news coverage they seemed to have. I think its due their own antisemitism, but rather than just saying it, they have decided to embrace their enemies instead. There are still men alive today who helped ship Jews to the death camps all through out Europe, and I think that mind set has yet to firmly die. This is also coupled with fear of what the Muslims in their own countries might do. Jews don't tend to hold mass rallies demanding death to their enemies, Muslims do. Yes I am calling the leadership of Western Europe cowardly and antisemetic. Now I think the people of Western Europe are slowly waking up from the cowardly part, I don't know about the antisemetic part.

I have to disagree with you on your thoughts Ustwo. Your first premise that the only solution is a pile of bodies is a self fuffilling prophecy. If we resign to war as an only solution then war is the only solution but if we keep hope for other means then there is always still a chance that better resolutions will occur.

You are right about teaching the childern though but the way to combat that is not to kill them. Doing that would just inflame the next generation and so on. Violence will ONLY spawn more violence, if you don't believe me then look at the fertal cresent. It has been in war for thousands of years, a war that continues because people keep using violence. I believe if you want to stop the violence then we need to target the nation with non-violent solutions. For instance, work with the leaders to change the school systems and create moderate muslims. Work with the countries and help them so that the people can see you are not their enemy. (help is not taking their oil).

Answer me this Ustwo, if Martin Luther King had avocated all out war on white people would black people have ever gained their rights? People do not respond well to being attacked, people get defensive, patriotic, and will defend themselfs and those near them blindly even if they are wrong to do so. Unfortunatly patriotism is a double edged sword. One edge is great for rallying against an enemy but the other edge creates blinding hatred amoung us and them. This is precisly what many liberals hate about the patriotism pushing that the admin did. They played peoples emotions in order to gain blinding support.

Now why has Western Europe embraced Palestine? First I don't believe they have. Paleistine is still fighting tooth and nail for every right they have. They still are not recognized as a soverign nation. It doesn't seem like they have much support from anyone outside of the muslim world than me. Isreal on the other hand has massive support from the rest of the world. Much of this support is due to the painting of all Palistinians as terrorists other parts of it comes because of Isreals close ties with many world leaders. Ustwo you need to look at the situation in context, Isreal has all the power and Palistine has none. Palistine feels greatly oppressed but has no "legal" methods of defending it's rights. This is why people like Hammas are formed, this is why they get so much support. Never forget that our founding fathers were Terrorists. Our founding fathers broke every rule of war for the time. They targeted officers, not soldiers. They didn't wear uniforms, they hid and ambushed armies. Why did our founding fathers resort to such means? Because they had no power in the current rules of war. The rules favored the British and if they were to follow them they would have lost. So they changed the rules anyway they could to gain an edge because they were desperate for freedom.

The FF were not terrorists just because they did not stand in lines to get mowed down by a regular army. Terrorism is something that is done against a populace for a political goal; our founding fathers started a formal revolution with the foundation of our nation read Declaration of Independence.

It's called common sense and perhaps ingenuity to fight by a means that you can win. America formed a continental conventional military coupled with a militia, even if they acted as solely as partisans or guerillas (which they didn't), that would not make them terrorists. Please stop with this pathetic attempt to make things relative for the likes of OBL and Al Qaeda, it is historically false and borderline insulting comparing the FF too cowards who blow up buses and market places.

Question for me is did majority of palestinians vote for change in their government and hamas just happened to be the other option or do they really back every thing hamas has been for. I haven't looked into whether there were other political parties to choose from.

If there weren't, what a choice they had, decades of corruption on one hand or formerly known as terrorism on the other and thats just hopefully.

question seems to be now will the other middle east countries really support hamas when the aid from other countries is gone if they don't change the ideals they've had all along.

I have little interest in politics usually, other than abusing politicians, except a week before election day when i figure it out somehow, but i'm fascinated by how this is going to go, look forward to the news each day.

Iran is trying to rally the "Muslim Brotherhood" for financial support and the likes now that the West is threatening to cut off aid. Not to mention the only countries with formal peace agreements with Israel are Egypt and Jordan (might only be truce as far as Jordan is concerned). That still leaves oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran who are major backers of Palestinian terrorism, and other countries like Syria who really want a shot at Israel.

Mojo I am going to have to disagree with you on this point. I stand by my belief that for the time the gurilla fighters (anyone remember what they were called?) that fought against the redcoats could easily have been considered terrorists by the british crown. They did not wear uniforms and they did not fight in a way that was considered fair for the time. While the British troops would line up our troops would hide and ambush. It was a smart move by our troops because the methods of warfair back then were silly. But they were considered the proper methods of war. If the criteria for being called a terrorist is the targeting of civilians then where does that leave the US government with Hiroshima and Nagisaki? It is my belief that the word terrorist has been so loosely used by this Administration that we now have a gray area on what is a terrorist. Are the 9/11 hijackers terrorists? I most certianly would say so. Is the Iraqi doing what ever he can to stop the US a terrorist? I'm not so sure, even if he doesn't wear a uniform, even if he uses roadside bombs. The word terrorist has lost it's meaning since 9/11 and has now been redifined to mean anyone that fights against the US unfortunatly the fear and passion that the word draws out in people has remained the same. Now this word is being used to manipulate people into supporting Bushes agenda because as long as we are fighting "terrorists" then anyone who stands against this action is an unpatriotic american hating liberal who wants our troops to die. So I have a problem with people using this word now days. There should be a law like Godwin's Law but dealing with the word terrorist instead afterall it is being used to generate the same fear and passion that the word Nazi used to.