Some more facts rather than hypotheticals and comparing a genocidal campaign against Israel to a campaign for territorial unification and indepenence in Ireland.
[
](http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n/hamas_e.htm)
This is the result that even appearing to submit to terrorism has. The terrorist claim that they’ve won, that their methods are working, that they have no reason to negotiate since what they’re doing already works. This is how Hamas responds to concessions.
So what? A week ago, Hamas was still angling to win an election. Today, they have not yet taken the reins of power.
I understand your point that they have a bad track record, but what are you proposing? Nuclear strike on their headquarters? A blockbuster bomb on their parliament at the openiong of the session where they take power?
Regardless of their proclamations, they need to work with Israel on some basic levels simply to survive. Rather than deciding to match their rhetoric, why not simply wait and see what their actions actually are?
You seem to have a need to keep their terrible nature in front of us. What do you hope to accomplish with that? Are you hoping to raise recruits for a mercenary team to invade Palestine and wipe out the Hamas leadership? Are you trying to get everyone ion this thread to deny the possibility that anything good could possibly happen? (And why?)
I guess you have not made your position clear, other than that you are going to hate and discount everything emanating from Palestine until Hamas is gone–regardless of what really happens over the next few years.
Well, for what it’s worth, they constitute the background of this debate. If, for instance, one can’t even admit that Hamas’ struggle is genocidal and loses the moral high ground, what hoenst debate can be had?
I thought that I had. To the point:
-Hamas is engaged in a campaign of genocide, and the US and/or Israel are not.
-Engaging in a campaign of genocide is not morally acceptable.
-The campaign of genocide which Hamas is taking part in is not recent nor the result of oppression.
-Hamas is not defending themselves, as they have launched attacks in the middle of peace negotiations.
-Hamas targets civilians while the IDF does not.
-Stating that Hamas and its supporters are genocidal is not racist or an indictment of all Arabs and all Palestinians.
Are these not within the scope of a discussion on Hamas’ role?
It’s hard to discuss the issue on the table if errors are being made. If, for instance, one makes the claim that Hamas’ actions are the same as Israel’s and they’re both genocidal then you can’t argue that anybody has a moral high ground. But since that’s not true, it should be argued against.
No, but it might suceed or fail based on its stated intentions and unwillingness to negotiate and acceptance of genocide and terrorism.
Fair enough though, I think I’ve refuted every claim made with facts and cites. I do believe that they’re important background in which to discuss the actions of Hamas and Hamas’ intentions. However if I have to point out any other inconsistencies I’ll start a Pit thread. Thanks for taking the time to answer me.
What evidence is there that their leadership no longer wants genocide or to destroy Israel? They have been using the exact same rhetoric even when Palestinian elections weren’t even a possibility.
I can see how you missed it, but back in post 119 I said:
“How about global sanctions until they renounce terrorism? How about substantial economic rewards once they do?”
I believe that the UN and the US should sanction them heavily until they renounce terrorism, and then at that point there should be a real and credible drive to provide a two state solution coupled with massive economic investment in Palestinian territories.
Perhaps, perhaps not. They already recieve massive funding from the Saudis, for example. If simple subsitence and continued terrorism are their goals, then they don’t need to negotiate.
Well, because I have seen what their actions are. I don’t believe that simply having the reigns of power will change their rhetoric. They did claim that they would not negotiate if they won.. Now, they may’ve been simply trying to get elected, but if they’ve done something in the past, and they’ve held to the same philosophy until the present, why is it beyond the pale to assume that they’ll hold to it in the near future?
The realization that there can be no pacts between men and murderers, no appeasment of genocidal regimes, no acceptance of rogue nations. If Al Queda took control of a country, would we regognize them diplomaticaly?
No, and no.
Something might possibly happen that’s good, but it’s doubtful given their history and current stated goals. Something good might happen, but the easist way to ensure that is to make Hamas renounce their genocidal claims and come to the negotiating table. The best way to do that is to realize that they are not just any other government, that they are genocidal murderers, and they they need the international community to force their hand.
I haven’t said that, at all.
I have said that Hamas is a poor negotiating partner and that there can be no real negotiations until they renounce terrorism as a legitimate means of opperation. I have said that I want to see a two state solution. I have said that we should impose sanctions on Hamas until they cooperate.
I never said Hamas had the moral highground. You didn’t address my claims, you tweeked the context of what I said a little to suit your agenda.
What I said was that Israel has the upper hand, so it’s easier for them to speak magnanimous rhetoric. Both sides have engaged civilians in combat because well, the distinction of civilian and combatant is blurred. You would call any Palestinian combatant a terrorist, but wouldn’t call the Israeli combatants the same. This is due more to their relative position and negotiating strength more than it is due to any sort of moral issues.
I am judging both sides by their ACTIONS not their rhetoric. I can fault both sides rhetoric. I think it’s absolutely horse hockey that Israel has some divine claim to that land. They are there now, they won, so the land is theirs, that’s all it is, it’s not righteousness, it’s might makes right, and I’m not going to judge and villify one side or the other simply because you want me to. I don’t think either side is hero or villain, I think that judging any side in any conflict like that is absolutely ludicrous.
Let’s take the ultimate example the one where everyone loves to point out their evil, the Nazis. We talk about the Nazis as villains and the US as the good guys. However, what about all those Nazi doctors that didn’t go to trial in Nuremburg who ended up working for the United States Air Force and NASA after the war? What about IBM selling machines to tabulate records on the Jews in the concentration camps? I wouldn’t look at either side of that conflict as being the good guys or the bad guys even though one was genocidal and the other was not.
I never once claimed either Israel or the United States engaged in a policy of genocide, but there are a lot of colonial dominance issues at play regarding both of those states that I have issue with. The United States does have a history of Genocide BTW, what we did to the American Indians is comparable to the holocaust in terms of numbers. Some tribes simply no longer exist at all now.
Befiore the Holocaust the Zionist National Congress was trying to build a Jewish homeland in Israel, and they were being helped by the British. The Palestinians basically came out at the bottom of the pile on this issue as they got fucked over by the other Arabs, the British, the Americans and the Jews. I can understand why they might be angry enough to be genocidal. However, they are in a weakened position, if they want to continue a policy of genocide now that they are in a position of official power Hamas will be wiped out completely by Israel. I think Hamas knows this. So now we have an organization that’s been doing right by their citizens for a while, and I’m interested to see what direction their rhetoric takes in the future. You keep telling me I’m ignorant, but I’m one of the only people in this thread who saw this coming. I would have told you a year ago that I thought Hamas would eventually be the ruling party. If I wanted to do the digging, I could probably find a thread where I pointed that view out in some past Israel thread.
Basically there are WAY to many factors that go into this that it’s easy to label one side as good and the other is evil, and no matter how much argument you give me I’m not going to take a stance for one side or the other. I can agree that Genocide is wrong, but I don’t have to judge the Palestinians and Israelis by the same criteria because their situations are different. I think the Israelis have done a lot of callous things themselves, and they HAVE killed Palestinian civilians in this war.
One thing that’s important to realize about this, is that in Palestine anyone is a potential terrorist, they don’t necessarily know who the next person to pick up a gun will be. Conversely in Israel, they are a military state, where military service is a standard part of their lives, so most ‘civilians’ are either potential soldiers or retired soldiers. It’s a different paradigm than the one in which we live, and I think you’re viewpoint on it is too simplistic, and I don’t agree with it. You can throw me facts all day long, and I’ll learn from them, but you’re going to have to recognize that just because I see the facts you toss at me doesn’t mean I am going to inevitably come over to see your side, and that I am not necessarily ignorant or lying because I do not see it the way that you do.
It’s a war pure and simple both sides are fighting, war sucks, that’s no new revelation to any of us. I’d like to see peace and I am interested to see what Hamas does, because you might be surprised, Hamas might actually turn Palestine around and actually do right by the Palestinian people, and I’d love to see that because it’s in everyone’s best interest.
You see Genocide as this ultimate evil, and it’s up there as far as ultimate evils go, but another evil is destroying any and all infrastructure that a people have, isolating them and keeping them incapable of self-determination because their people are spread out into pockets of refugee camps and cannot get from one to another. Keeping people infantilized and in a cage is also pretty far up there in the realm of ‘evil’. So you can scream “but genocide” all you want, and it’s not going to sway me because while one side has stated a goal of genocide and the other hasn’t, both sides have committed evil acts, and continue to do things that are atrocious.
Erek
The realities of the situation would suggest, in my view, recognition of the fact that Hamas is not only in no position to commit genocide, they also do not appear to be making any very convincing efforts to commit genocide. There is, as I mentioned, a very real gap between what people say and what they do. Hamas have ranted and raved but not mounted any suicide attacks for a while - would you be happier if they made a few emollient statements that they would negotiate towards establishing a shrunken Israel on a few tiny fragments of Old Jerusalem, but restarted their bombing campaign at maximum intensity? How about if they offered another 10-year ceasefire and claimed it was to strengthen their forces for a final assault to exterminate the Jewish state - would you suggest the Israelis turn it down purely because of the attached wording? You can’t have everything, so where woudl you prefer progress, in the language or the violence?
It’s certainly true that there cannot be a lasting and comprehensive peace until all the parties involved have come to terms with each other’s right to exist and all the crazy and apocalyptic threats are expunged from the political discourse, but currently even a short-term peace is worth working for, and I don’t thing getting hung up on language is worth it. North Korea, the Cold War, Cuba, Taiwan - it has been shown that mutual hatred and opposing ideology are no bar to estlishing relative peace for a decade or two.
It’s well-established that giving in to terror breeds more terror, and I agree with you completely on that point. However, it doesn’t change the fact that when a government finds itself faced with an ongoing long-term terrorist conflict it can’t extinguish there is a simple choice - continue the conflict indefinitely or try to defuse whatever is feeding the terrorist support base, either by giving in to some demands or making efforts in other areas and thereby make the conflict winnable or persuade the terrorists to stop. If we get to a point where the ‘War on Terror’ has been going for decades without any sign of resolution and people are still dying in large numbers, then most likely the US will be taking a good look at what it can offer Al-Queda or it’s successors in order to buy peace. In fact, one of their main demands has been substantially met. Would you have preferred to keep a substantial US presence in Saudi Arabia purely to show the US wasn’t ‘giving in’?
Might I suggest “Say whatever you like and claim whatever you want, but no bombings inside Israel, and in exchange we’ll go easy with the gunships” as a possibility? I certainly don’t see the value of rejecting it out of hand
I have to say, I find your need to paint this discussion in purest shades of black and white a little depressing. In a two-sided conflict that has been going on as long as the Isreali-Palestinian one, the one thing that’s certain is that both sides will have at least some legitimate grievances and have committed at least some horrible crimes. It seems you are starting from the premise:
[ul]
[li]Anything the Israelis do is justified because they face the threat of genocide[/li][li]The Palestinians cannot possibly have any legitimate claims because all their suffering is caused by Arab governments or their own stupidity in becoming refugees[/li][/ul]
In which case there isn’t really a lot to debate and I fail to understand why you are engaging in this thread.
The real issue is in two parts:
Being concerned with argument, this forum addresses issue (2). The answers put forward so far are:
(1) Speak of a ‘defensive’ ‘fence’ well inside Palestine, & from what I understand of your reply to FA,
(2) Demonise Palestinians such that any actions to their detriment are thereby just.
mswas, where has Hamas promoted genocide? Reclaiming of the territory currently occupied by Israel, yes. Eradication of the persons currently there as an end in itself? Or the Jewish people generally? Short of this I don’t see the genocide charge made out.
Yes, rhetoric, one definition of which is
On the other hand they might mean everything they say, but we can’t tell with them any more than we can with Kim Il Sung or Ahmadinejad. We live in an uncertain world full of lies, after all.
Really? I could have sworn I saw all those things happening on the news on a fairly regular basis. I think you may be indulging in a bit of rhetoric of your own.
Why this obsession with the moral high ground? Are you more interested in Israel being right, or in its citizens having the freedom to live their lives free of the fear of terrorism? The historians can settle the rights and wrongs of this after our grandchildren are dead of old age, but the opportunity for peace may be (not the caveat, please) now. It seems wasteful not to at least try for progress, irrespective of how nasty Hamas have been in the past.
A recent article on the Hamas victory by Richard Dreyfus (pretty pessimistic overall) reminded me, somewhat startlingly, that Israel actually helped give Hamas its start back in the sixties and seventies, in the belief that Islamist fundamentalism would be a good thing. Like the US funding the Islamist mujahideen in 1980’s Afghanistan to undermine the Soviets there, Israel thought the Islamist right would be a useful counterweight to secular Palestinian nationalism and pan-Arabism:
I know that Israel didn’t intend at the time for Palestinian Islamism to become what it has at present, but they did encourage it, hoping that it would weaken the Palestinian cause by internal dissensions with the PLO. Back when Muslim fundamentalism seemed small and weak compared to the threats of Communism and secular nationalism, both Israel and the US took significant steps to promote it (even though its apocalyptic rhetoric and pan-Islamist aims weren’t much more moderate than they are now).
So does Israel or the US really have a justifiable claim to the “moral high ground” in this case? No, I certainly don’t think we should condone terrorism, but striking heroic poses about how “there can be no pacts between men and murderers” does come across as a tad hypocritical, given what we know about how those “murderers” got their initial support and encouragement.
No, the generally accepted definition of “genocide” is “the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such” (emphasis added). I think the goal of eliminating Israel as a state would have to fall into the category of “genocidal”, even if all Israeli citizens were merely evicted or assimilated into the successor state without any bodily harm.
I humbly differ:Genocide
Well, Sevastopol, your quote is what the coiner of the term “genocide” said about it half a century ago, not the currently accepted definition, which is what I gave. However, on reading the whole of your link, I think your interpretation may be closer to the intended meaning of the term than mine was:
So exterminating Israeli Jews would be genocide, but it may be that simply renaming Israel and the Palestinian territories “Palestine” and adopting a new constitution, by itself, wouldn’t be genocide. In the same way that there was nothing genocidal about eliminating the political entity of “East Germany”.
However, in practical terms, I doubt that the political existence of the Israeli state could be ended without genocidal tactics, so I don’t think the term is really a misnomer.
Genocide is a term of pure malice, as I see it. Which plainly doesn’t reflect Hamas’ intentions towards Israelis. Probably no-one would be happier than Hamas if Israeli Jews just up and left and where’s the malice in that?
Given that the Israelis are not going to shut up and leave, what are the intentions of Hamas? Your statement is just a bit disingenuous, although if it makes you feel better, I suppose we could say that Hamas only wants to perform ethnic cleansing in the area.
That policy has worked ever so well when treating with Castro and making him act in a responsible manner, to say nothing of the Kim dynasty in North Korea.
I think that preemptive sanctions (that cannot be enfiorced, given the porous border with our “ally” Saudi Arabia), would be a mistake. Whatever their rhetoric, I believe that we will be better served by responding to actions that they perform once in power. Any effort by the outside to meddle in the affairs of the Palestine government would be seen as a justification for the position that Hamas has taken and will strengthen their hold on the country. (It would also be a bit of a violation of our claim that we supported democracy in the region. The Iraqi insurgents and al Qaida would have a field day pointing out that we only permitted puppet regimes that talked according to our prescribed rules.)
Did Israel support them before or after they turned to suicide bombings?
As already pointed out, it fits the definition to a T. Moreoever, it doesn’t matter if they want to eradicate the people who live there just to eradicate them, or if they want to eradicate them so they can play bingo and hopscotch.
Moreoever, the denial that they want to murder the Jewish people in general is simply false, and not one o’ them thar ‘differences of opinion’.
[
](christianactionforisrael.org)
[
](The new anti-Semitism | Religion | The Guardian)
[
Why this line, again? They have acted on their rhetoric time and time again.
Not at all. Look at what happened when Israel tried to negotiate with Arafat, for instance. Every time he didn’t get what he wanted at the negotiating table he turned to suicide bombings.
False dichotomy, which further ignores the practical reality of the situation. The global community has a history of coming down hard on Israel while letting their enemies have free reign. The importance of the moral high ground is that the international community has to, finally, recognize it and act accordingly.
But I’ve never said we shouldn’t try to progress. Merely that Hamas needs to be kept in line and to renounce terrorism as a legitimate means of statecraft. And that once that’s done, we can really start the ball rolling.
But they are, on both counts. If Israel is prohibited from responding with its military, as many advocate, and if attacks and militancy continue, what possible outcomes can there be? They do not, primarily fight the IDF in pitched battles because their goal is not the destruction of the Israeli military, but of Israeli civilians.
Do you think they haven’t been trying, or that their efforts have been thwarted?
Again, this is a false dichotomy. One can expect progress on both fronts and for the same reason.
The problem is it’s not ‘just’ language, it’s incitement. Check the Palestinian charter which essentially calls for indoctrination in a culture of violence against Israel. To the degree that this is their official position it is a grave danger.
Why not a third option? Invoke international sanctions and force Hamas and the PA to come to the negotiating table and renounce their genocidal ambitions?
If there weren’t already tensions with the Saudis and we weren’t already looking at leaving, then yes, we definitely should’ve stayed simply to show that we couldn’t be intimidated. It’s a very dangerous sign to give to our enemies.
And what of the schoolchildren schooled in hate? Or the rallies organized around cries of ‘death to Israel, death to the Jews?’ Sometimes words are just words. And sometimes they’re incitement.
Sure, both sides have fucked up. But one side deserves international backing, and one does not.
No, not anything the Israelis do is justified, but a great many things are. Since their inception they have been targeted again and again for genocide, attacked by their neighbors, and under siege. Under such circumstances, self defense allows great leeway to be taken.
Further, the Palestinians do not have very many legitimate claims. Not ‘no’ claims, but certainly not very many. This is compounded by the large volume of distortions that are told to garner sympathy.
There isn’t much to debate unless someone already agrees with the position that slaphead holds? Why do you assume that there’s nothing to debate or no reason for me to be debating if I believe that the agressors for more than 50 years do not deserve the same protections as their victims for more than 50 years? Can I not argue a point unless it agrees that there is a moral equivelancy between the genocidal and their victims? There are modern day Nazis, and the world has been appeasing them for quite some time now. Even back in '48 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was opperating to oppress the Jews with the support of Hitler. It is important that the real dynamic of events be recognized because historically it has not been. If the global community had acceted with responsibility over the last half of a century we would not be in this situation now. And it’s about time they started living up to their responsibilities.
:rolleyes: Cite? Show me one response I gave that didn’t address your claims. Not quite the same as responding to factual refutations with “I won’t address your dreck”.
Again, Israel has had the same stance since '48. Their enemies have had the same stance since '48.
No, it isn’t. Pick up a rock or a gun, and you’re now a combatant. Eat in a Sbaros, and you’re still a civilian.
You playing fast and loose with language again? It is not due to any negotiating strength, but due to the fact that Palestinian combatants in general target Israeli civlians while the IDF targets Palestinian combatants. And I’m still waiting for a cite about the massacre you claim happened.
Yeah, I haven’t given a laundry list of cites and facts about how it’s been a genocidal war against Israel since 1948, nopers, naw awww. It’s just because I say so.
If you can’t even say that the Nazis were the “bad guys” then what exactly does your judgement count for?
Yes, you did. You said that what Hamas has engaged in is the same thing that the US has done and that Hamas and Israel do the same thing.
Your lack of knowledge about history is a seperate issue from your projections about Hamas taking power.
Again, some things are able to be disagreed upon, but some are not. Most of your statements about history, for example, are simply false. Not matters of opinion, false. And you have not retracted them even when they are proven false.
Again, I’ve already provided cites on the Arab role in the refugee camps. And the security measures are necessary precisely because of the genocidal nature of the campaign. If you’re fighting with someone who has a knife and means to kill you, and you pin them to the ground but they still say that as soon as they get up they’re going to gut you, then you keep them pinned.
When’s the last time either of those nations attacked anybody else? Sanctions would be there to limit Hamas’ effectiveness if they don’t choose to behave in a civilized manner. Not to provide a panacea.
We could certainly give them an option to renounce their ways before invoking sanctions. And, IIRC, the United States has never used it’s full economic might to support sanctions. If they refused to do bussiness and let their banks be used, at all, with any firms which supported Hamas then we’d see something intersting going on.
Perhaps. But I don’t see a problem with putting them on notice that if they don’t renounce their ways actions will be taken.
Possibly, unless it’s known that it is Hamas which is holding Palestine back from economic sucess and that billions in aid would be forthcoming if they behaved in a civilized manner.
Well, obviously we don’t support democracy. Democracy is also, in and of itself, something of a contradiction. A people can democraticaly elect a fascist government, for example.
True enough. But then again I think it’s absurd to support a country just because they elected someone. One can support the process of democracy while not supporting democraticaly elected regimes.
And I shall pout furiously now that you are still able to call posters disinenuous. Because, especially after I’ve already given a cite, claims like:
Are absurd.
Yeah, no malice there. Nothing about killing Jews with malice. They would be perfectly happy if they all packed up and left and they don’t want to kill Jews. Hamas plainly doesn’t have any malice. Plainly.
Both. Not only did Israel encourage the anti-secular, Islamist organizations of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood despite their early violent clashes with secular Palestinian groups like the PLO, but it continued to fund Hamas even when it turned to terror against Israel:
Hamas had been quite clear from the start about embracing the doctrine of armed struggle to establish a trans-national Islamic state. But Israel was willing to adopt “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” tactics back when it looked as though Hamas would weaken the cause of the PLO. And even after Hamas emerged as an explicit and violent threat to Israelis, Israel thought it could still be the puppet-master and exploit Hamas’ activities for its own political advantage.
So I have a hard time sympathizing with Israel’s claims to the moral high ground here. If Israel had really been serious and consistent about opposing violence and terrorism and not dealing with avowed enemies of Israel, it wouldn’t have provided Hamas with key support.
Israel danced with the devil when it suited their purposes, and now they’re pointing at their former dance partner and yelling “Oh no! Look! It’s the devil!” Really? You don’t say.
More of Hamas’ and the PA’s lack of malice:
[
](http://www.teachkidspeace.org/doc1021.php)
[
](http://www.pmw.org.il/KAJ_eng.htm)
Etc, etc, etc.
Plainly, they have no malice, at all. None.
But the cite you give says that they inserted double agents into Hamas and that in order to do so they needed to support them to a degree.
It’s also not clear from your cite exactly what went on after Hamas turned ugly. Did certain elements in the Israeli right want to support them, or was it official Israeli policy?
And yet, the PLO was a largely terrorist organization as well. Playing one group against another, in that situation, doesn’t seem all that outlandish.
True enough, but it’s still the Devil that they were dancing with.
All right, but then don’t come around striking heroic poses about how you “don’t deal with terrorists”.
Why not? There is a quantative and very real difference between dealing with an opposition group in order to weaken your rivals, and giving in to their demands that are backed up by terrorism.
Your site says that they were aiding Hamas in a covert operation in order to identify Hamas members. That’s hardly honest support.
But, again, it seems that no actions that Israel can take other than surrender are acceptable. Oppose Palestinian terrorists, and they’re accused of not wanting peace. Use covert ops to subvert their enemies and cause infighting and they’re blamed for supporting terrorism. (As reported by unnamed US officials). Never mind that Hamas would have still have substantial support without Israli involvement.
Along similar lines, America supported the Mujhadin in Afganistan, but that doesn’t mean that when Al Queda murders American civilians that America has lost the moral high ground.