What would happen now, since Hamas is in power, that they find they can not afford to pursue the “death and destruction” rhetoric anymore? That sort of talk is easy when you are an outsider, but not so “useful” once you are in charge. Suddenly, if things go bad, people know it’s your fault. I expect that expect for electioneering rhetoric, Hamas will start to “mellow out”. They will have to run things and budget, and organize and oversee. Real work. They will also have to provide for policing and security. They will be responsible. If they are practical or pragnatic, they will also understand that as the ruling party, if they declare “death to Israel” and someone acts on it, then that will not be some independent group they can disavow - it will be treated as an act of war. I expect Hamas to become more moderate with time.
Still, there seems to be a tone of, if you all will forgive me, “They are bad. They will do bad things. We have to kill them now”. An exaggeration maybe, but still it isn’t much of a jump.
Palestine had their election, and I will assume for now that it was an honest election. If we reject the new government, or help anyone attack them now openly, officially or secretly, then all our talk about freedom and democracy is horse shit. We will have to then admit we don’t give a damn about that, just so long as we have our own little puppets in power.
Finally, I doubt they would openly attack Israel. I don’t think they have that big a death wish.
I don’t understand this. Are the Palestinians children that they don’t understand the consequences of their actions? They elected a terrorist organization for their government and have to live with the results of that action. Assuredly they must have known that outside funds that they are currently getting could be curtailed because of their actions. The US response should be, “Change your stated goals, or you don’t get anymore of our money”. There is nothing hypocritical in this attitude. It is your money and you can put whatever caveats you want on it before you give it away.
I’d strongly disagree with this. Have another look at this summary from an Israeli peace organisation.
[ul][li]The land in question is not underirrigated dirt: it comprises 80% of the fertile land and 65% of the water resources.[/li][*]Such a meandering wall is less secure compared to a simple Green Line path, which would be less than half the proposed length. And if the resulting ‘narrowness’ of Israel is a security issue, why has the wall at the narrowest point (around the prison town of Qalqilya, which will never see another sunset) already been built? [/ul]Negotiation over path of this wall is crucial to whether Hamas controls a state that is viable or not. If the state simply has not the resources to support itself even in principle, we ought not be surprised at what atrocities its desperate people commit no matter how unreservedly we condemn them. (I repeat, I unreservedly condemn Hamas atrocities, but to understand is not to excuse).
Sentient, Gush-Shalom isn’t famous for its factual accuracy. They also published maps of what was offered by Barak, which was interesting because all the participants said that such maps never existed and that the concepts presented were different than as described by Gush-Shalom.
In this case their information is (I presume knowingly) out of date or inaccurate in the first place. (Much of it was based on predictions from Palestinian sources, not from any official plans.) See here.
Uzi, all I’m saying is let us judge and respond not to rhetoric but to actions. If Hamas behaves responsibly, then respond accordingly, albeit cautiously and all the while moving forward with the capacity for unilateral disengagement.
Actions do speak louder than words which is a point I try to make consistently when the company I work for comes out with it latest ‘Integrity’ initiative on an annual basis. And if it always didn’t look like a way to pass the buck down to the guy on the ground and take it off the big guys making millions in the boardroom back in corporate, I’d be inclined to be more supportive of said initiatives.
Hamas has a proven track record of killing Israelis. I don’t think it is much to ask someone to say publicly that they promise to stop killing you before you deal with them. I’d think it would be a prerequisite.
Yes, but I never made any claims about the Palestinian dedication to peace. We can go around and around in circles about who’s to blame in this issue, I just want to make sure no one gets away with sentimental bullshit regarding the righteousness of Israel. Both sides are fighting a nasty bloody balls out war, not just the Palestinians. That’s all I’m saying.
From the title of this thread, I find myself imagining a radio broadcast featuring an excited Palestinian announcer saying (in overblown Russ Hodges-style):
“Hamas wins! Hamas wins! Hamas wins!”
And then (to complete the sports analogy) floats in the unmistakable voice of Osama bin Laden, doing his best Al Michaels imitation:
“Do you believe in miracles?”
There was a cartoon in Friday’s USA Today showing two men identified as “GM” and “Ford” seated in a car hurtling off a cliff. The caption read “Thelma and Louise”.
The cartoon could easily be adapted to reflect the results of the Palestinian elections. The figures in the car could be relabeled “Palestinians” and “Hamas”.
Or they could represent “Palestinians” and “Israelis” reading a road map marked Hamas as the car goes over the cliff.
What’s funny about this, is that people don’t like the outcome of democracy in the middle east. Hamas is probably going to do better for the Palestinians than Fatah ever could, and I feel that they are a better hope for peace than anything we’ve seen thus far. Anyone that’s surprised when democratic elections put fundamentalist muslim governments in place in the middle east where we’ve been meddling for years, has gotta be extremely naive.
Get over your view of good and evil, then come back and take a more serious look at the issue. You all defend your right to violently defend yourself, they are just doing the same, it’s politics as usual. I just hope western politicians don’t fuck it up with all this hypocritical rhetoric about terror states. They aren’t doing anything we aren’t doing except, lacking the resources to dominate countries on the other side of the world.
You’re right, Erek. We should get over our view of good and evil. It’s an outmoded concept. We shouldn’t bother to pretend that we care about justice or morality. We should just do whatever we want, when we can get away with it. There won’t be any consequences. We’re the most powerful nation in the world. And there is no-longer anyone who could be even the most pitiful threat to us, now that the Soviet Union is gone.
Anything we do is justified, as long as we win.
Is… that really what you want us to do, Erek? Is that what you think we have done? Because there are depths that we could sink to, that other countries have, historically, that we have not.
I’m offended. I really am. And I want you to think about what you’ve said.
Why? How does that serve a purpose beyond setting up a false moral equivelancy? There has been a stated goal of genocide for decades now. Why ignore that fact?
But again this is a false equivelancy. The original statement was that Israel has renounced violence except when dealing with terrorist leaders. It would’ve been more accurate to leave out the word leaders, but firing rubber bullets on a mob who are throwing rocks (which can be lethal weapons) and have gunmen in their midst is hardly something to place on the same level as the deliberate and targeted murder of civilians.
Those people who still say that their negotiating partners have no right to exist and should be exterminated? THey’re the best hope for peace so far?
One side wants genocide.
One side does not.
Why ignore this?
No, there is not an equivelancy between the two. In one case the Israelis are defending themselves, in the other Hamas and its allies have been targeting Israeli civilians.
For all the US’ flaws in warfare, we have never deliberately tried to maximize civilian casualities while avoiding military targets.
Please list the peoples/nations we are currently or have in the past attempted genocide against.
Do they have the power to accomplish this genocide?
Ummm yeah ok. Israel is this beacon of hope. How many multiples more palestinians are killed in any given year than Israelis again? I forget is still like ten dead Palestinians for one dead Israeli?
That’s what they say when their back is against the wall. We’ll see what they say when we let them out of the cage and give them some room to move. That’s what Tony Montana said when the Colombians were raiding his house too, and no matter how badass his little friend was, he still went down.
Yeah, so let’s make sure we keep fueling the flames.
It’s easy to keep the moral highground when you have all the guns. That’s how the British maintained it.
The US killed as many Afghani civilians in the 6 months following 9/11 as Americans died in the 9/11 attacks.
What they say when their back is to the wall, and what they say when they have something to lose are two different things. We’ll see what happens.
Meanwhile you can compare civilian deaths on both sides.
I was wrong it’s not 10 times, it’s only 5 Palestinians per Israeli.
If Hamas is going to remain a bull$hit-violence organization that is bad for its own people, THOSE people have to realize it. While not in power, they can blame all of their problems on Israel of Fatah… but now that HAMAS occupies an official capacity, we can all hope that they will hold themselves to higher standards, or that people will say, “Hey, things still suck”, and realize that maybe HAMAS was no better than anyone else.
I have a feeling one might compare the situation lightly to the one in the US – It’s easy to blame Republicans for the problems, because they are in power and they suck. If they suck bad enough, people may vote for more Democrats, who also suck, but they are not in power, so do not carry the entire accountability. When things don’t get any better, they turn back and recognize that those Democrats suck (vicious cycle). If they (and we) actually go through an enlightenment period (which I doubt), then they will all be voting for independants, based on the content of their character and ability, instead of party enuendo ------ I can always cross my fingers and hope, yes?!
Hmmm, sounds like a story of morals that Plato mentioned once, hmm, Atlantis maybe?! Technological giants?, wealthy?, thought they were more powerful than the gods (Trans: ultimate force of nature)? I wish someMSWAS’s would at least listen to kiddie bedtime stories.
… is that a defense?
“Well, they want genocide and they’re trying real hard but as of yet haven’t managed it.”
:dubious:
Anywhere where I actually said that Israel is the beacon of hope? No, eh?
You do notice that you totally dodged the actual situation just to continue with this tired rhetoric? Yes, more Palestinians have been killed. Does that change the fact that the Israeli response of rubber bullets is most often used with murderous rock throwing mobs who have gunmen in their midst? Doesn’t, does it?
Simply false. That’s what’s been said since before '48.
Well, citing a work of fiction as an example. I’m sure beat.
Like I said, any response other than laying down and allowing themselves to be butchered is demonized. If they protect themselves they’re “fueling the flames”. Again, one side wants genocide, the other does not. You’re ignoring this fact.
What the heck is this supposed to mean? Do you think this is somehow a refutation of the fact that Hamas has a stated goal of genocide and the Israelis are defending themselves?
What part of the word “deliberate” is confusing you here?
Again, your understanding of history is flawed, at best. They’ve been saying this since they were the dominant power in the region and the soon-to-be Israelis were smuggling in weapon parts in crates of tractor parts.
Which proves what, exactly? That the Israelis are better at protecting themselves than the Palestinians are at exterminating them?
So? Does this change anything? The Palestinians support and carry out a campaign of genocide, and in the process they don’t manage to kill as many people as they lose. This makes their position morally equivelent to someone trying to not be butchered?