# Hamas wins **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 26, 2006, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687 "2006-01-26T13:14:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/181 "2006-01-29T22:56:04Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > False. The surrounding nations provided funds and training, but the entire Palestinian people was not involved in the aggression: Ya don’t say? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Likewise, the Palestinian **political groups** are hardly distinct from other Arab nations, especially when we look at funding and terrorist training. > [@tomndebb](#): > > the people who were rendered stateless in 1967 included only a tiny number of people who were actually engaged in attempts to destroy Israel–a number that grew as Israel refused to do anything but hold them stateless and take their land through “settlement” for almost 30 years. Refused to do “anything”? And the thousands of refugees which Israel absorbed are…? > [@tomndebb](#): > > Sorry. I was paraphrasing, not quoting, and I see no difference between claiming they do not deserve the same protection and no protection. There’s a pretty big difference between ‘some’ and ‘none at all’, wouldn’t you agree? > [@tomndebb](#): > > What is the objective level of diffference between the two levels of protection? In one, the Palestinians receive no protections, at all. In the other, the Palestinians must be treated humanely whenever possible but terrorists and their supporters within their midst can be captured or killed. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Based on Israeli actions beginning in the late 1980s, I would say that the Palestinians are granted only what “protection” the Prime Minister and the IDF happen to feel like each morning. To a degree, yes. Then again, to a degree there have been large populations of villages which are dedicated to helping terrorists, and it is hard to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism while polls have had support for terrorism up around seventy to eighty percent. If Palestine was to reneounce terrorism and thwart the terrorists in their midst I would have no problem, at all, with a two state solution where they had total control over their borders and citizens as per any sovereign nation on earth. > [@tomndebb](#): > > The land owners were not the Palestinians. The Jews bought land from Egyptians and Turkish property owners who only held it by grant from the Ottoman Turks. Yes, the Turks owned the land. Which, by the way, would mean that the land wasn’t the Palestinians’. It would also mean that the owners of the land sold it to the early Zionists. And although I misspoke by not mentioning that all of the lands sold weren’t sold by Palestinians, [it isn’t true that none were, either.](http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/PalestineInFocus/Ottoman/01.shtml) > [@tomndebb](#): > > Ignoring that point–that the Palestinians had to watch Europeans with money buy land from absentee landowners that the Palestinians had worked their whole lives but were too poor to purchase–goes a long way toward creating the mythology of the “peaceful” Jews being maliciously attacked “for no reason.” Erunh? So Jews bought land from its owners while the Palestinians weren’t able to buy their land, and that was a reason for violence? If, for instance, I have a job at a private school where I dorm as a teacher for however many deacades, and then someone buys the land and fires me, do I have a valid reason to be angry at them? > [@tomndebb](#): > > Those events do not justify the attacks, but they place them in a context that makes them more understandable. I don’t see how they were understandable. If anybody should’ve been attacked, it was the Turkish land holders, not those they sold to. The issue, however, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem put it, was sale of Arab lands to Jews. The prohibition wasn’t on Europeans or other foreigners buying land, but Jews. In addition, Amin al-Husayni was in league with the Nazis. In _that_ context the abhorence of sales to Jews is more understandable. Not that your objections are untrue, but they’re not all of the story. > [@tomndebb](#): > > The process was not unlike the taking of Indian lands in the Americas, where Europeans “purchased” land from European monarchs who had “claimed” it (or, later, from national governments that had claimed it or “bought” it with bogus treaties). How so? Are you opposed to governmental ownership of land in general, or is this situation unique for some reason? I’m honestly curious. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/182 "2006-01-29T23:10:43Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > 1. If you only read the first few pages, read the whole thing with an open mind, there might be something valuable there, maybe not. Again, I can’t vouch for it’s accuracy, but as I looked at various different web sites I quickly ignored any that appeared to be presenting facts only from one side or the other, this one seemed less biased. I’d rather not read the whole thing. It’s quote long and although I did read the first few pages, what I saw of their reasoning seemed wrong. Whould you please cite what facts you consider relevant and important? > [@RaftPeople](#): > > 1. When you say “first few pages of their spiel”, it sounds like there is an emotional component to your analysis. Well, I called their presentation absurd, I’m not quite sure what you mean to imply that about the quality of my argument if I also called their presentation a spiel. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > However, if I were in the shoes of the farmers that did not own the land and were subsequently not allowed to farm that land anymore, I would not be happy. In addition, if I found out that this was happening systematically to anyone that was not Jewish I would feel even less happy, probably angry. Perhaps. It seems, though, that their energy would have been better directed at the Ottoman empire for decades before the first wave of Aliah arrived. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > If someone did that to me today (I am currently a renter), and I was not allowed to rent or purchase housing in the area I choose because I am not a particular race, I would be angry enough to try to do something about it. Wouldn’t you? No, I don’t think so. If, for instance, the apartment building I’m living in now was bought and turned into a church I wouldn’t be all that put out. Then again, I think the analogy is breaking down somewhat. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > Forget about just/unjust/right/wrong/moral/immoral/ethical/unethical and just consider how you would react. If I don’t own the property I don’t have a claim to it. And if it’s bought by a group specificaly for that group’s activities I don’t really have much to be upset about, as I see it. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > Would you quietly take your family and walk away from everything you’ve worked for and hang out with all of the other people in whatever shelter you can find, including the UN refugee camps? I think that the analogy has totally broken down by this point. But, if I lived in a country and did not own the land, and then the owners decided not to rent to me anymore I might not be happy, but I wouldn’t have a claim to the land. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > This is my take on your position: > The Jews that bought the land were within their legal right to do so. > In addition, if you own land you can do whatever you want with it, including removing previous renters for any reason, and not allowing new renters that don’t meet your criteria. > Because of these two points, the Palestinians have no valid gripe, this is just the way the world works. To a degree… the Palestinians certainly do have valid gripes, many of them with the Arab regimes which refused repatriation. But yes, it may suck but property rights are the basis of civil society as far as I see it. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > In a sense, I do have strong tendencies that agree with parts of your position because I don’t believe in an absolute moral code. But the problem with this type of position is that it relies on current legal statutes to determine what is right and wrong. True enough. But I also think that my compromise would be best for all involved. Instead of insisting on a right of return which will never happen, we could invest billions into the Palestinian economy; build housing, schools, hospitals, transform refugee camps into true cities. The world has shown that they’re willing to help the Palestinian people, and solving the problems between the Palestinians and Israelis would go a large way to helping reduce global tensions. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > But if that is the case then (NOTE: I DON’T REALLY THINK YOU BELIEVE WHAT I AM ABOUT TO WRITE, BUT IT CAN BE ARGUED IT IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUS POSITION) you would have to think that the Jews have no gripe with Nazi Germany (I’m assuming the Nazi’s passed laws against the Jews, in which case what they did would be ok under said reasoning because the law is on the books). Naw, the difference there is that the Jews owned the land/property which was stolen from them. On a similar note, I don’t hold it against, for instance, the Amish for having Amish villages. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > So it really boils down to the following: > Are all things that are legal also ethical? Certainly not, and not all unethical things are illegal, and not all illegal things are unethical. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > If not, how do we determine if the Jewish people purchasing land and kicking out non-Jews is ethical? Well, because there would’ve been no point in buying the land if it wasn’t to use it for their own benefit. If they bought the land but the tenants got to decide how it was used then, for all practical purposes, the tenants had partial owernship of the land. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/183 "2006-01-30T00:06:14Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Finn** , > > Yes, Hamas, does indeed have a charter that calls for genocide and that propagates antisemtic bile of the worst sort. Yes, they have been a bunch of murderous thugs. But then again, I think it was Golda Meier that said you don’t need to negotiate with your freinds. > > Some here are entrenched in views and won’t let any little things like facts get in the was of opinions. You won’t convinvce them otherwise and lurkers only need to see the facts once. I may not have gotten an acknowledgement from **sentientmeat** on the inaccuracy of his claims regarding “The Fence” (and similar distortions are repeated by **Sev** ) but the facts with cites having been put out there once isenough I think. Ignore them or pit them. The points have been made. Show me the “calls for genocide.” Now we aren’t talking hostility, antipathy, dislike or war here. I want to see ‘lets kill all the [insert whomsoever here].’ Should be a piece of cake, if something so inflammatory exists. I have to wonder though, why Bush and Rice have reservations about Hamas disarming/not recognising Israel, but nary a peep about their overt policy of genocide. Curious no? Still an appropriate cite should clear all that up. Waiting… I haven’t distorted anything. On the contrary there is a large industry in distorting the recent history of the middle east in the US, largely funded by Israeli interests. There is so little domestic opposition to it that it is no wonder so many of these debates germinate. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/184 "2006-01-30T00:06:43Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Ya don’t say? I do say. And since the majority of Palestinians are now involved with the political groups and not all the political groups are supportive of Hamas or supported by other Arab bations, my correction to your claim is valid. > [@](#): > > Refused to do “anything”? And the thousands of refugees which Israel absorbed are…? What are you talking about? What Palestinain refugees were absorbed by Israel (as in, “allowed to become citizens”) following the 1967 war? They did not absorb Palestinian _refugees_ in 1948, they simply accepted as citizens those Arabs who they had failed to chase out of the country. > [@](#): > > There’s a pretty big difference between ‘some’ and ‘none at all’, wouldn’t you agree? > . . . > In one, the Palestinians receive no protections, at all. In the other, the Palestinians must be treated humanely whenever possible but terrorists and their supporters within their midst can be captured or killed. When the “protections” are not enshrined in law and are subject to the whim of whatever the political leader happens to choose on any given day, I would say that the difference between some and none are so negligible as to be meaningless. > [@](#): > > Yes, the Turks owned the land. Which, by the way, would mean that the land wasn’t the Palestinians’. It would also mean that the owners of the land sold it to the early Zionists. > . . . > And although I misspoke by not mentioning that all of the lands sold weren’t sold by Palestinians, [it isn’t true that none were, either.](http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/PalestineInFocus/Ottoman/01.shtml) > . . . > So Jews bought land from its owners while the Palestinians weren’t able to buy their land, and that was a reason for violence? If, for instance, I have a job at a private school where I dorm as a teacher for however many deacades, and then someone buys the land and fires me, do I have a valid reason to be angry at them? > . . . > I don’t see how they were understandable. If anybody should’ve been attacked, it was the Turkish land holders, not those they sold to. > . . . > How so? Are you opposed to governmental ownership of land in general, or is this situation unique for some reason? I’m honestly curious. Are you really going to act this disingenuous? You don’t believe that the Cherokee had a reason to be upset when Georgia decided to reallocate their land to whites. You truly believe the Apache should have simply wandered away somewhere because they did not happen to have papers showing ownership of the Chiricahua or Huachuca Mountains? The Lenape, Penobscot, and Powhattan should have launched fleets to attack Britain when Europeans started arriving to take over the land they had chartered from the King? I agree that there are enough issues surrounding events that there is plenty of guilt to go around. You are the one who constantly frames the discourse as simply hateful Arabs persecuting innocent Jews (with minor nods to incidents on both sides). You also keep reaching back as early as you can to frame the issue while (it appears deliberately) avoiding the fact that the taking of Gaza and the West Bank was a specific event that changed the character of the situation–to say nothing of the deliberate choice to plant settlements throughout that region (without any pretense of buying that land). Whatever animosity existed up through 1967 between Israel and surrounding states, the choice to hold an entire group of people without a state while taking their land, piecemeal, is a major portion of today’s situation. Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan and has been carrying on talks with Syria for nearly a decade while an entire generation has grown up in despair. Many of Israel’s actions are understandable (in the way that the actions of some Palestinians are understandable), but they are still a proximate cause for their own troubles, today. ---
**Author:** ![EvilHamsterOnCrack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ab097/32.png) [@EvilHamsterOnCrack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EvilHamsterOnCrack)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/185 "2006-01-30T01:00:11Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > they simply accepted as citizens those Arabs who they had failed to chase out of the country. I believe that it was factually proven earlier in the thread that the Arabs had left not because they were chased out but because the Arab leadership had told them to. Correct me if I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/186 "2006-01-30T01:57:36Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > Show me the “calls for genocide.” Now we aren’t talking hostility, antipathy, dislike or war here. I want to see ‘lets kill all the [insert whomsoever here].’ Should be a piece of cake, if something so inflammatory exists. I’ve now provided the cite **three** times. Three. > [@Sevastopol](#): > > Still an appropriate cite should clear all that up. Waiting… What is it, exactly, that leads me to doubt that you’re on the up and up here? **Tom** , I’ll respond more in depth to your post in a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/187 "2006-01-30T02:33:30Z")
So I look through the [Hamas Covenant](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant) during my break and they claim of planned genocide is unfounded. Why then does the claim persist? Such claims exist to obscure the simple fact that in the plain light of day the actions of Israel in taking land are pretty unacceptable. This is where the talk of ‘fences’ and ‘genocide’ comes from. It’s smokescreen and flame to exlude cool and rational calculus from the situation. It’s much easier to forgive Israel’s conduct if the strongly arguable claims of the Palestinian people are instead reduced to an unreasoning genocidal intention. Because of course, there has been genocide attempted against the Jewish people, now cynically and maliciously exploited to further certain policies advocated within Israel. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/188 "2006-01-30T02:45:48Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > So I look through the [Hamas Covenant](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant) during my break and they claim of planned genocide is unfounded. I. Have. Quoted. It. Three. Times. Here’s a fourth: > [@](#): > > “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem). Why do you persist in making things up? Do you think that people can’t read simply because you invent stories about kindly non-malicious Hamas? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/189 "2006-01-30T02:45:56Z")
For the benefit of those interested, the [Hamas Covenant](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant) provides: [Our Attitude Towards … Followers of Other Religions](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant#F._Followers_of_Other_Religions:_The_Islamic_Resistance_Movement_Is_A_Humanistic_Movement:) > [@](#): > > Article Thirty-One: > > The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts. > > Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that. > … ---
**Author:** ![kezami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eb8c5e/32.png) [@kezami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kezami)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/190 "2006-01-30T03:08:26Z")
My take on this thread is that all the posters have assumed that Hamas’s ascent to power is a done deal and there is no internal palestinian dissent in that regard. Not so, apparently. Some important issues need to be ironed out: [ul] [li]Who will be in charge of the current PA (Fatah) security force?[/li][li]Will Sharia law be forced upon a largely secular Palestinian population?[/li][li]Will a Hamas led government follow the ‘Road Map’?[/li][/ul] There appears to be some serious internal resistance to a radical Islamist party attempting to govern. It’s definitely not all cut and dried. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/191 "2006-01-30T03:13:08Z")
So much for my humble request not to turn this thread into rehash of the entire Israel-Arab conflict. Focus people focus! Repeat after me: “Israel is here and isn’t going anywhere. A Palestinian people currently exists and isn’t going anywhere.” **EvilHampster** , no it has not been established because it was not _completely_ the case. Both occurred. Long threads have been had on the who did what first. Certainly initial return of Jews to the area was met with hostility by Arab leadership. The tone was mainly established by that infamous Grand Mufti. That hostility included many massacres of long established Jewish communities. The hostility was clearly a top-down and not a grass roots affair. Mostly the Jewish response was one of restraint but not entirely and in some cases Arabs were, shall we say, “encouraged” to leave by Jewish forces as independence approached. Those episodes and plans to motivate more Arab emmigration have been well-documented. Up to that point no such entity as a Palestinian people existed, but once those who left (both willlingly and unwillingly) were stuck in border camps (rather than absorbed by Arab nations) the identity became extant. It must be noted that roughly equivilant numbers of Arab Jews who had lived for many generations (thousands of years) in Arab lands were forcibly displaced and their property confiscated by Arabs in Arab countries. These Arab jews were aborbed into Israel. A postage stamp area was created for the Jewish people and _if_ Arab leadership had accepted it, probably it would have collapsed for lack of resources, but Arab leadership wanted it all. Calls at the time included calls for the sea to run red with Jewish blood. Israel was clearly an underdog and her history from 1948 til 1969 was mostly one of improbable successes. 1969 was a turning point. After that victory Israel offered land for peace but was answered with the infamous “three nos” No recognition of Israel, no negotation with Israel, no peace with Israel. But Arab leadership still acted as if Israel was going to go away and that absorption of the refugees would be conceding their defeat. They were kept as political pawns. Israel became an occupying power and, bluntly put, Israeli leadership allowed their own incredulity that land for peace was not being accepted to delude them into thinking that a few settlers wouldn’t be a big deal since Arab leadership would be coming around soon. Both the Palestinian populations and the settler movements grew and Israel did not always do a great job as an occupier. For their part, Arab leadership switched from direct engagements to fostering a new kind of warfare: terrorism. Arab leadership used the evil that was Israel to their domestic advantage: focus on Israel gave a distraction from their own poor treatment of their own. Israel became to Arabs what 9-11 is to the Bush administration- an excuse for everything. Prolonging the conflict became a vested interest for many in power, including Arafat who maintained a personal fiefdom. Which brings us to today’s situation… A Palestinan people feel wronged and blame “The Jews” more than their own brethern, who are at least equally to blame. Many opportunuties for peace have been ignored by Arab and Palestinian leadership and in each case the remaining prospects for the Palestinian people have worsened. But Arab and Palestinian leadership has not really cared because it still served their interests. **Sev** , **Finn** has cited the Hamas charter and the words that specifically call for the death of the Jews (genocide) where ever they hide on several occassions. I’ll not repeat it more than I just did. **Tom** , I am very disappointed in your disingenuity. Israel did not choose to become an occupying force and leave a people “without a state”, that decision was forced upon them by the Arab response to initial land for peace entreaties (the three nos). Settlements were a mistake, no doubt. But one that was stumbled into as a consequence of a few seats holding the balance of power in Knesset and a paucity of willing partners on the Arab side. Israel has failed to be the ideal occupier, but then I know of none that have done better. The fact that Palestinians in the OT are still better off than Arabs in many Arab countries is hardly an endorsement but it is also a weak indictment. I’d love to read responses to **Kezami** ’s post! ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/192 "2006-01-30T03:29:03Z")
**DSeid** there is no part of the Hamas Charter that says what you claim, namely: _“specifically call[s] for the death of the Jews (genocide) where ever they hide”_, Let alone responds to my request: _“Show me the “calls for genocide.” Now we aren’t talking hostility, antipathy, dislike or war here. I want to see 'lets kill all the [insert whomsoever here].”_ ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/193 "2006-01-30T03:39:13Z")
**DSeid** : I’ve done my best… but debates like this always seem to rely on the background. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I do say. Sticking to a false claim takes… something. > [@tomndebb](#): > > And since the majority of Palestinians are now involved with the political groups and not all the political groups are supportive of Hamas or supported by other Arab bations, my correction to your claim is valid. If by valid you mean the fallacy of composition, then yes. Are you _honestly_ asking for cites showing the PLO’s, Hamas’, Islamic Jihad’s, the PLF’s, etc… relationships with surrounding Arab nations and Hamas’ same involvement? Honestly? [Here’s just a taste.](http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm#pij) Still want to maintain that the Palestinian political parties are distinct entities from foreign regimes? I find it odd that you refuse to retract a blatantly false claim, as I have **never** said anything about the entire Palestinian people, and as it is a **fact** the the Palestinian political groups have had ideological and political and monetary connections with the surrounding Arab nations. So, either you can admit that the Palestinian political groups are not distinct from seperate Arab regimes, and, further, that the **fact** does not indict all Palestinian people, or you can provide a cite for the Palestinian political leaders refusing the support of the surrounding Arab regimes. It’ll be hard to do, though. Unless you want to maintain that since American political parties are bound up with Big Business then all Americans are too? It’s called a fallacy for a reason, after all. > [@tomndebb](#): > > What are you talking about? What Palestinain refugees were absorbed by Israel (as in, “allowed to become citizens”) following the 1967 war? They did not absorb Palestinian _refugees_ in 1948, they simply accepted as citizens those Arabs who they had failed to chase out of the country. **Tom** , I’m somewhat surprised by your performance here. [I already provided a cite.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7043956&postcount=119) IBut I’ll cite it again. [ > [@](#): > > The implied danger of repatriation did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number as a condition for signing a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return; agreed to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953); offered to pay compensation for abandoned lands and, finally, agreed to repatriate 100,000 refugees. > [snip] > > After the Six-Day War, Israel allowed some West Bank Arabs to return. In 1967, more than 9,000 families were reunited and, by 1971, Israel had readmitted 40,000 refugees. By contrast, in July 1968, Jordan prohibited persons intending to remain in the East Bank from emigrating from the West Bank and Gaza. ]([http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html](http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html)) So tell me, is 40,000 refugees “no” refugees, **Tom**? Your statement, by the way, about the Arabs they “failed to chase out of the country” is not only false, but I’ve already proven so with a cite. Certainly, there was violence in some towns but there were also appeals to the Palestinians to stay and massive Arab appeals for them to leave. I [have already cited it.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7040658&postcount=71) > [@tomndebb](#): > > When the “protections” are not enshrined in law and are subject to the whim of whatever the political leader happens to choose on any given day, I would say that the difference between some and none are so negligible as to be meaningless. I clearly stated what protections they should have and what limitations those protections should have specifically in the circumstances of fighting terrorists. Are you going to argue against what I’ve said, or argue against what some Israeli politicians have done as if addressing what other people have said addresses what I have? > [@tomndebb](#): > > Are you really going to act this disingenuous? Didn’t a mod say something in this thread about nobody saying anybody was lying? Besides, **Tom** , it’s hardly disingenuous for me to not hold a strawman position which you’ve just invented and tried to claim I hold. > [@tomndebb](#): > > You don’t believe that the Cherokee had a reason to be upset when Georgia decided to reallocate their land to whites. You truly believe the Apache should have simply wandered away somewhere because they did not happen to have papers showing ownership of the Chiricahua or Huachuca Mountains? The Lenape, Penobscot, and Powhattan should have launched fleets to attack Britain when Europeans started arriving to take over the land they had chartered from the King? The Native Americans owned their land. That’s a slight distinction that your analogy blurs in your haste to invent charges of lyin, er, disingenuousness. Palestine changed hands from the Israelis of ancient times to the Romans to the the Bizantines to the Caliph Umar to the Seljunks to the Crusaders to the Mameluke to the Ottomans and the Egyptians. During all of this time there were Christians, Jews, and Moslems who were living there, sometimes after displacing those who were there before them. In the time of the Spanish Inquisition the Turks invited Jews to live in the region. Some had descendants who remained centuries later. So the situation of who, exactly, had the best historical claim to the land is nowhere near as simple as you’re making it out to be. If you were consistent in your logic you would view that descendants of… who, the Hitites, and Cananites as the rightful heirs to the land? The descendants of the ancient Israelis? The Romans who lived there? Why choose one point and say that the tenants of the Turkish land owners were the true owners of the land? I will ask again, do you have an objection to governmental ownership of land in general, or only in this case? Were the centuries of Turkish ownership of the land not enogh to secure their property rights? If not, why not? > [@tomndebb](#): > > I agree that there are enough issues surrounding events that there is plenty of guilt to go around. You are the one who constantly frames the discourse as simply hateful Arabs persecuting innocent Jews (with minor nods to incidents on both sides). Which fact do you disagree with? -The '48 war was one of extermination. -The surrounding Arab regimes remained commited to their genocidal goals and did not stop trying. -Israel was forced to defend itself several times from invasion and terrorism designed to kill them and/or drive them into the sea. > [@tomndebb](#): > > You also keep reaching back as early as you can to frame the issue while (it appears deliberately) avoiding the fact that the taking of Gaza and the West Bank was a specific event that changed the character of the situation Avoid the issue? Hunh? As far as I can tell nobody has even **raised** that issue in this thread, it’s hard for me to avoid something that isn’t there. Can you cite any previous post in this thread which has discussed Gaza or the West Bank? I’m serious here, if I missed something I apologize for not reading closely enough, but even looking back over this thread I can’t see how I’m avoiding any issues deliberately or not. Otherwise I fail to see how territory captured in one defensive war is any different from territory captured in another defensive war. > [@tomndebb](#): > > –to say nothing of the deliberate choice to plant settlements throughout that region (without any pretense of buying that land). Yes, that was wrong of them. Does that change the fact that Israel has been fighting against people who wanted to wipe them out? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/194 "2006-01-30T03:48:00Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > **DSeid** there is no part of the Hamas Charter that says what you claim, namely: _“specifically call[s] for the death of the Jews (genocide) where ever they hide”_, Who do you think you’re fooling? I have quoted it four times now. Your continued erm… disingenuousness is shocking. Do you really think people are so foolish that they cannot read if you make something up? Again, [here is Hamas’ charter.](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm) Anybody can find the quote which you are claiming does not exist right at the end of article seven. Why persist in this absurd and patent denial of what anybody can read? > [@Sevastopol](#): > > Let alone responds to my request: _“Show me the “calls for genocide.” Now we aren’t talking hostility, antipathy, dislike or war here. I want to see 'lets kill all the [insert whomsoever here].”_ It’s been quoted four times now. Four. Just who do you think you’re fooling? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/195 "2006-01-30T04:46:11Z")
Oh, and, so as not to hijack this thread with further refutations, with textual cites, of the same absurd claims that Hamas is not filled with malice or commited to killing the Jews, I would like to [invite Sevastopol to a thread in the Pit.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7048459#post7048459) Fun will be had by all. Bring pie. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/196 "2006-01-30T06:52:29Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Your statement, by the way, about the Arabs they “failed to chase out of the country” is not only false, but I’ve already proven so with a cite. Certainly, there was violence in some towns but there were also appeals to the Palestinians to stay and massive Arab appeals for them to leave. I [have already cited it.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7040658&postcount=71) And your citation is one loaded from one biased perspective. The claim that the Arabs abandoned the region at the behest of other Arab leaders has been a popular fiction for 60 years, but the reality is that the image of Arab leaders telling civilians to get out of the way and reclaim their holdings after the destruction of Israel while Israelis begged the Arabs civilians to stay is simply not real. There was some rhetoric by Arab leaders that matches the myth, but it was generally ignored by the Arab populace for months until the aftermath of Deir Yassin when the factual claims that families were grenaded in their homes and men who had surrendered were shot in cold blood were mated to lies that surviving women had been raped to encourage the Arab populace to flee in terror–and the Israelis did nothing to discourage the stories, with Israeli leaders expressing satisfaction that the tale would be effective in getting more Arabs to leave. In fact, Mechim Begin, himself, reported that Deir Yassin was the beginning of the Arab exodus and Ben Gurion has been noted to have remarked favorably on that exodus that did not _begin_ at the suggestion of Arab leaders, but at the terrorism inflicted by Israeli goons. > [@](#): > > So tell me, is 40,000 refugees “no” refugees, **Tom**? No, and I will admit that I was unaware that 40,000 people were allowed to return over a period of 20 years. > [@](#): > > Didn’t a mod say something in this thread about nobody saying anybody was lying? Besides, **Tom** , it’s hardly disingenuous for me to not hold a strawman position which you’ve just invented and tried to claim I hold. The word disingenuous does not mean “tell a lie.” It means to insist on a single perspective with limited facts that may have a clear bias for the purpose of shaping an argument that would be better examined more objectively. Thus the following: > [@](#): > > The Native Americans owned their land. That’s a slight distinction that your analogy blurs in your haste to invent charges of lyin, er, disingenuousness. > > Palestine changed hands from the Israelis of ancient times to the Romans to the the Bizantines to the Caliph Umar to the Seljunks to the Crusaders to the Mameluke to the Ottomans and the Egyptians. During all of this time there were Christians, Jews, and Moslems who were living there, sometimes after displacing those who were there before them. In the time of the Spanish Inquisition the Turks invited Jews to live in the region. Some had descendants who remained centuries later. > > So the situation of who, exactly, had the best historical claim to the land is nowhere near as simple as you’re making it out to be. If you were consistent in your logic you would view that descendants of… who, the Hitites, and Cananites as the rightful heirs to the land? The descendants of the ancient Israelis? The Romans who lived there? > > Why choose one point and say that the tenants of the Turkish land owners were the true owners of the land? > > I will ask again, do you have an objection to governmental ownership of land in general, or only in this case? Were the centuries of Turkish ownership of the land not enogh to secure their property rights? If not, why not? The exchange of rulers over two millennia is not the issue. The granting of titles to land by people who held it by right of conquest is pertinent, but not the issue. The people working and living on the land were Arabs who were generally not permitted to own it until the end of WWI. Until that time, paper ownership was merely a formality as no outside landholder was forcing the people to move elsewhere. It is hard to tell whether you really cannot see that an outside group buying up the land would be distressing to the people who actually held the land or whether you simply need to hold that position in order to maintain your good guys and bad guys scenario. Is it your position that the Penobscot should have simply moved peacefully out of the Connecticut Valley since the encroaching Englishmen had purchased the land through charters from the English king? > [@](#): > > Avoid the issue? Hunh? As far as I can tell nobody has even **raised** that issue in this thread, it’s hard for me to avoid something that isn’t there. Can you cite any previous post in this thread which has discussed Gaza or the West Bank? I’m serious here, if I missed something I apologize for not reading closely enough, but even looking back over this thread I can’t see how I’m avoiding any issues deliberately or not. Otherwise I fail to see how territory captured in one defensive war is any different from territory captured in another defensive war. I have pointed out that the most serious issue today is the result of actions taken following the 1967 war. The people of Gaza and the West Bank were not incorporated into Israel to become citizens with the rights and obligations of citizens; they were forced to live as stateless people on their own land. When Germany and France exchanged ownership of Alsace-Lorain, the people living there became citizens of whichever country happened to win the last war. When the U.S. swept Northwest Mexico into its borders, the people became U.S. citizens. The Israelis did not take the same action, but held those people stateless while encouraging settlers to take prime real estate that would diminish the capacity of any future Palestinian state to survive. (I know, the Arab states refused to negotiate–which ignores the fact that Israel, actually holding the land, could have taken steps to either establish an actual Arab state unilaterally or to incorporate those lands into Israel. Instead, Israel dithered around with no clear goal for so long that an entire generation grew up hating them. Certainly there have been agitators encouraging that hatred, but the Israelis gave them a lot of material with which to work.) > [@DSeid](#): > > Israel did not choose to become an occupying force and leave a people “without a state”, that decision was forced upon them by the Arab response to initial land for peace entreaties (the three nos). Settlements were a mistake, no doubt. But one that was stumbled into as a consequence of a few seats holding the balance of power in Knesset and a paucity of willing partners on the Arab side. Israel has failed to be the ideal occupier, but then I know of none that have done better. The fact that Palestinians in the OT are still better off than Arabs in many Arab countries is hardly an endorsement but it is also a weak indictment. I’m sorry, but Israel held the land. Among the various possible bad solutions, the worst had to be doing nothing except stealing land piecemeal. It may be true that it was decided by a few seats in the Knesset, but those seats were held because of Israeli voters. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/197 "2006-01-30T11:58:55Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Are you honestly going to say that if America could disable Al Queda by giving it nominal support that you’d be against that and that such an action would lose America the moral high ground? I’d be against America giving al-Qaeda **actual** support, such as formal recognition, encouragement, and funding, even if our ultimate goal in so doing was somehow to “disable” the organization. And that **actual** support is what Israel gave Hamas, and the support continued even after its willingness to engage in violence and terror was fully revealed. Hell yes, I think such behavior significantly weakens one’s claim to the moral high ground when complaining about terrorist organizations. It also reveals a certain lack of common sense. How is supporting an organization, even “nominally”, supposed to be a means of “disabling” it? You’ll notice that Israel’s bright idea about supporting Hamas **didn’t** actually result in disabling the organization, which is currently more powerful than ever. “Supporting terrorists in order to destroy them” makes the supporters look not only morally complicit in terrorism, but dumber than a box of rocks to boot. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/198 "2006-01-30T13:07:51Z")
**Tom** , What was that land immediately before that war? Oh, it was controlled by Jordan and Palestinians were kept in border camps there? What were Israel’s options once it won the land in a defensive war? It could have annexed it all. That would have been the worst option. Legal but the worst. It could have offered it land for peace. That was the best. That’s what they did and were met with the three nos. In retrospect, knowing now that Arab leadership would not come around and see the logic of land for peace and that the settler movement would have over 30 years to grow, letting settlers in a few previously unhabited places there was a bad idea. But retrospect is a funny thing and honestly I can’t see how any party wanting to rule was going not make that, at the time apparently inconsequential, concession to get those critical few Knesset votes. To hold Israel as the main culpable party when the same land was just owned ouright by Jordan before hand for twenty years with no effort to do anything other than let the Palestinians rot as non-citizens in border camps, no country created, no rights ceded, is unfair in the extreme. Remember that Arabs who fell on the Israel side after 1949 got citizenship and rights. Arabs who fell on the Arab side got screwed. **kezami** , my hope is that Hamas will not negotiate directly but will nevertheless continue to follow the road map as Israel unilaterally disengages. Sharia will not be imposed. Security forces is the big sticker. Those need to work with Israelis. I think that they will replace Fatah but that is where things have the most immediate potential to blow up badly. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/199 "2006-01-30T13:16:16Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > What were Israel’s options once it won the land in a defensive war? It could have annexed it all. That would have been the worst option. Legal but the worst. I don’t think it’s legal. AFAIK, it is against international law to retain territory conquered in war, even in a war of self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/200 "2006-01-30T13:28:07Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And your citation is one loaded from one biased perspective. Poor form. Instead of debating the facts presented you fall back on an ad hominem fallacy? In addition, I’ve cited such sources as The Economist, the New York Post, and both British and Arab leaders… those are biased? In which direction? > [@tomndebb](#): > > The claim that the Arabs abandoned the region at the behest of other Arab leaders has been a popular fiction for 60 years, but the reality is that the image of Arab leaders telling civilians to get out of the way and reclaim their holdings after the destruction of Israel while Israelis begged the Arabs civilians to stay is simply not real. Are you kidding? So Arab leaders who said that they were responsible were… lying? In addition, the British had independant confirmation that in Haifa appeals were being made that the Palestinians should stay. Other British reports said that the Arab leaders were telling the people to leave. Were the British lying too, in addition to Arab politicians? And by the way, just to put it into context, Deir Yassin, while inexcusable, happened in order to free up the road between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, where the Jews were under siege and themselves at risk of being killed. The Jewish Agency, also, immediately condemned it. > [@tomndebb](#): > > There was some rhetoric by Arab leaders that matches the myth, but it was generally ignored by the Arab populace for months until the aftermath of Deir Yassin when the factual claims that families were grenaded in their homes and men who had surrendered were shot in cold blood were mated to lies that surviving women had been raped to encourage the Arab populace to flee in terror–and the Israelis did nothing to discourage the stories, with Israeli leaders expressing satisfaction that the tale would be effective in getting more Arabs to leave. What are you talking about “did nothing”? Is that like the 40,000 refugees absorbed who were ‘nothing’ too? And how can you claim it’s a myth _if it happened?_ That’s just surreal. > [@tomndebb](#): > > In fact, Mechim Begin, himself, reported that Deir Yassin was the beginning of the Arab exodus and Ben Gurion has been noted to have remarked favorably on that exodus that did not _begin_ at the suggestion of Arab leaders, but at the terrorism inflicted by Israeli goons. And Arab leaders have remarked that the prime causes of evacuation were their demands that the Palestinians leave. Why cherrypick your sources and claim that there was only one factor behind the Palestinians leaving? > [@tomndebb](#): > > No, and I will admit that I was unaware that 40,000 people were allowed to return over a period of 20 years. This is really getting absurd **Tom**. How many years are between 1967 and 1971? It’s not 20, is it? > [@tomndebb](#): > > The word disingenuous does not mean “tell a lie.” It means to insist on a single perspective with limited facts that may have a clear bias for the purpose of shaping an argument that would be better examined more objectively. Eh, I guess I won’t mince semantics here and get into a discussion of what the definition that uses the word candor implies. > [@tomndebb](#): > > The exchange of rulers over two millennia is not the issue. The granting of titles to land by people who held it by right of conquest is pertinent, but not the issue. Well, it is kinda the issue, as your claim rests on who owned the land. If, as was the case, many of the people who lived there had imgrated there during various conquests, why are their claims to territory valid but others are not? It’s not neat to avoid that point. > [@tomndebb](#): > > The people working and living on the land were Arabs who were generally not permitted to own it until the end of WWI. Until that time, paper ownership was merely a formality as no outside landholder was forcing the people to move elsewhere. That’s not a ‘formality’. Just because the land owners didn’t force the tenants off didn’t mean the tenants owned the land. Just like if I was dorming at a private school while teaching there that doesn’t mean I’d own my room. > [@tomndebb](#): > > It is hard to tell whether you really cannot see that an outside group buying up the land would be distressing to the people who actually held the land or whether you simply need to hold that position in order to maintain your good guys and bad guys scenario. And you again talk about the people who actually held the land… but those would be the _owners_. I’ve asked you how we determine who the real owners of the land are, but you’ve evaded my question. Will you answer it? Moreoever, while it may be distressing, _that doesn’t make it wrong._ If you’ve been living in an apartment all your life, and then I buy your apartment building and tear it down and build storefronts, it may piss you off but it isn’t wrong. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Is it your position that the Penobscot should have simply moved peacefully out of the Connecticut Valley since the encroaching Englishmen had purchased the land through charters from the English king? Again. **Tom** , the Native Americans owned their land. The Turks had owned Palestine for centuries. Would you argue that, now for instance, America does not have sovereign right to its land and that the real owners of the entire country, in 2006, are the Native Americans? > [@tomndebb](#): > > I have pointed out that the most serious issue today is the result of actions taken following the 1967 war. The people of Gaza and the West Bank were not incorporated into Israel to become citizens with the rights and obligations of citizens; they were forced to live as stateless people on their own land. The territory was offered back to its previous owners in exchange for peace. The deal was refused. And you place all of the blame on Israel for not absorbing a population that they tried to give back to their original countries? > [@tomndebb](#): > > (I know, the Arab states refused to negotiate–which ignores the fact that Israel, actually holding the land, could have taken steps to either establish an actual Arab state unilaterally or to incorporate those lands into Israel. Instead, Israel dithered around with no clear goal for so long that an entire generation grew up hating them. Certainly there have been agitators encouraging that hatred, but the Israelis gave them a lot of material with which to work.) You can’t force people to become a state if they don’t want to. And if Israel never planned on capturing the population and forcing them to become Israelis, why would they have to do so just because the Arabs refused to negotiate? Territory was captured in a defensive war. They then tried to give it back in exchange for peace. They were refused. So instead of the countries who owned that land taking it back, it was Israel’s responsibility to make it a permanent part of their nation? That would definitely make it difficult to trade it for peace later, wouldn’t it? > [@Kimstu](#): > > I’d be against America giving al-Qaeda actual support, such as formal recognition, encouragement, and funding, even if our ultimate goal in so doing was somehow to “disable” the organization. And that actual support is what Israel gave Hamas, and the support continued even after its willingness to engage in violence and terror was fully revealed. I disagree. Actual support, in my view, would be, well, supporting and trying to help an organization. Pitting two rivals against each other in the hope that they’ll weaken or destroy each other isn’t supporting them, it’s subverting them. Moreoever, the cite you provided says that the continued ‘support’ after they began a campaign of terrorism was in order to infiltrate and keep tabs on the organization. > [@Kimstu](#): > > It also reveals a certain lack of common sense. How is supporting an organization, even “nominally”, supposed to be a means of “disabling” it? The same way that supporting Iraq and Iran both during the war was meant to weaken both of them. > [@Kimstu](#): > > It also reveals a certain lack of common sense. Most likely true. The enemy of my enemy is rarely my friend. But I don’t agree that trying to disable a group by pitting it against another makes you morally complicit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687.md?page=11)