Yeah. The difference is that the former is cooperating with terrorists that you’re trying to manipulate, and the latter is cooperating with terrorists that are manipulating you.
I can see why any government would prefer the former option to the latter, but a government that is truly, honorably serious about not dealing with terrorists and not condoning terror acts would refuse to participate in either one.
You left out a rather important qualifier in that quote. Specifically the very next sentence. Now, I admit it was a bit of a run-on but you could have least included the next couple of words.
Now, I am not in absolute agreement with mswas’s belief on moral relativism, however I do think that in issues between nation states [or their close equivalents] it has some value. A great deal of time and space has been wasted in this debate by arguing over who has the moral high ground.
Now, I don’t want to put words in his mouth but from what I’m reading I’m not seeing that mswas is trying to assert that Hamas and Israel are morally equivalent, but rather that in this case moral high ground is irrevelent to the goal of forming a lasting peace; which I agree with to a point. Of course, I think by alleging Israeli atrocities he is obscuring his own argument.
Now, perhaps I’m just repeating myself but I’m going to try this again sans the neighbor analogy [which I feel is a bit clumsy].
The concept of “real-politik” seems to have been dubbed outmoded for this day and age but I believe it still has a lot of value in certain situations. I believe Israel vs Palestine is such a situation.
Israel has one major goal, the safety of it’s people. Hamas, renouncing violence does nothing to further that goal. Given past performance, regardless of whether or not Hamas is forced to announce that it will renounce violence, Israel has every reason Hamas will simply pass the duties onto a splinter wings just as Fatah did.
On the other hand, it is possible though not likely, that gaining political control over the government will force Hamas to move towards the center. Even if this happens, Hamas is not going to want to publicly renounce violence or acknowledge Israel’s right to exists as that is going to make them appear weak.
Once again, at this stage in their relationship any promise given by Hamas has no credibility. Therefore, it is a waste of time to hold out for such a promise. Likewise, establishing the moral high ground is a public relations issue, not a policy one in this case. Israel needs to continue to assert and claim the moral high ground to gain support both internationally and at home but it’s simply wasting it’s time trying to get Hamas to say “I’m sorry.” Apologies make people feel better, they don’t stop bombs.
You aren’t familiar with the idiom ‘up and leave’, interesting.
My statement was in no way disingenuous. It’s clear Hamas have no genocidal intent to Israeli Jews or to Jewish people generally, so that’s what I said. There is no genocide planned and no malice. Calling Hamas ‘genocidal’ is as I’ve stated earlier; rhetoric to justify continuing taking of lands.
I’ve yet to see evidence Hamas wishes to implement a policy of ethnic cleansing. For example, a greater Palestine with a pre-1947 Jewish minority does not appear to offend any of Hamas’ principles.
Yeah… never mind the fact that Hamas’ own charter calls for killing Jews. Mmm hmmmmmm.
Who to trust, who to trust… Hamas’ own words, or what you’re making up?
The choice is so hard!
For the third time:
Except the whole “killing Jews and zionists” thing.
Little hole in your claims, that.
No. The former is pretending to support an organization in order to infiltrate and subvert it, the second is giving in to terrorism and letting terroism become an effective way of changing your national policies.
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?
One of the ways Israel protects itself is by targeting terrorist leaders. If those leaders are now part of the Palestinian government the moment Israel chooses to target them wouldn’t that be a declaration of war? So, Hamas takes a chance if they continue their terrorist actions and Israel is limited in what they can do in response. I think there is a fine line to war that would be very easy to cross intentionally and unintentionally on both sides.
Obviously that nested quote was by sevastapol, not Hamas. Although…
I agree, that there is a debate on this particular issue just flummoxes me. I’ve seen tremendous gains towards the Palistinian state over the past decade thanks to Israeli concessions. What have the Palistinians given in return?
On the contrary, the promise of the rejection of violence and acceptance of a Jewish state is crucial to further efforts in the peace process. It is the only concession Israel has ever received from the Palistinians, though hardly worth the paper it is written on, yet it is a start. It would be impossible to negotiate with an enemy whose formal and stated goals are to wipe you out. You have absolutely nothing to gain. Once Hamas rejects violence and accepts the Jewish state, further Israeli concessions and western aid can be tied to their compliance and thus more easily given. It is the carrot and stick approach.
Whose suggesting that Hamas say “I’m sorry” ?
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.
Let us focus for a second exclusively on achieving the main goal of the Israelis: being able to live a live in lasting peace in a Jewish state that includes Jerusalum as its capital. Given a victory by Hamas, how to best achieve it?
Does depriving a Hamas led PA of the funds to provide basic services move us closer to that goal? I don’t think so. Instead that leaves them with nothing to lose and no other path than terror attacks and begging Iran for funding. Even giving up their charter under apparent pressure oes not serve Israel’s best long term interest: Hamas leadership in control of the PA needs to be able to deliver security - being percieved as strong allows them the face they need to control their own. Publically castrating them would make them as impotant to deliver security as Fatah was. Publically demanding it when you know you won’t get it forces you to lose face when you channel funds anyway eventually, or forces you to follow through with something that is not in your own best interest.
Looking for a site that would confirm for me that my Golda quote was indeed hers I found this site designed for pastors. It quotes some of Nixon’s commandments for Statecraft. Now Nixon was a vile evil human being, but he did know foreign policy. Note in particular that “build a golden bridge of escape for your enemeies” bit. We must create a face saving way forward for a Hamas led PA that leads to where we want to go. Continued peace-for-now is rewarded with some funds through back channels. Quiet unofficial private work gets done on more substanstive changes like revoking their charter’s call for genocide and recognizing Israel over time so long as they deliver on peace for now. That is their bridge of escape and any other path leads them to swift reprisals both militarily from Israel and economically from the US and hopefully from the EU. All the while of course preparing for unilateral disengangement.
Point.
I should probably flesh out my position as, up till now, I’ve mostly been correcting factual innacuracies.
If there is any negotiation which goes on, by definition, Hamas must have already given up its stance of non-negotiation and that Israel has zero right to exist. So even if it’s back channel negotiations, it’s really a physical impossibility for there to be any negotiation unless Hamas has left its hardline, at least in private counsel.
To elaborate, if, as was floated earlier, Israel’s position with Hamas becomes “Say whatever you like and claim whatever you want, but no bombings inside Israel, and in exchange we’ll go easy with the gunships” then they would have already have to have given up their stated goals and methods. I should have differentiated between Hamas’ renunciation of their methods and doctrine when in negotiation with Israel, and their general for-the-masses screeds.
I guess it would be an Arafat in reverse, claiming in public that
Very good point, thank you. And it is, of course, your thread. I will respect your wishes and I may very well start a Pit thread over this, I’m still thinking.
I’d still maintain that, one way or another, Hamas should be forced to negotiate.
I wonder what the result would be if we could get supporters like the Saudis to lead the charge for a peace solution. Iran, of course, would be a different matter.
Perhaps… I do think that the Europeans were right to threaten the withdrawal of aid if there was a Hamas victory. And although it always Hamas to bluster and say they have plenty of Arab funding, it does encourage back channel negotiations as Hamas starts to feel the financial pinch.
Indeed, and I’d pretty much agree. But, I’d also say that if they’re negotiating for any limited ammount of peace then in all pragmatic terms they have already renounced their genocidal stance and their refusal to negotiatie.
I suppose I’m a cynic, but I don’t see Hamas changing their colors any time soon and think that folks should be prepared for just such an event. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if, finally, there can be a two state solution with security, but I tend to doubt it. We will see.
Ah well, I thought it would be a mistake getting in involved in this thread and it looks like I was right.
Well, that’s just the thing. They also haven’t acted on it. They have quite plainly held back from violence at some times and comitted atrocities at others, all the while spouting the same verbiage. You seem to think that there is an unbreakable link between what is said and what is done that holds true forever and always, when there plainly isn’t true.
Hang on a moment. You claim that there cannot ever be a possibility of accommodation with evil regimes, I point out that there are plenty of evil regimes in the world today that somehow manage to maintain a semblance of normal relations with the world, and you then bring up Arafat and go “Not At All”, as if this makes China, North Korea, Libya, Sudan et all disappear from reality. And you accuse me of non sequiturs?
Unfortunately, even the first sentence of this statement is something that you are unlikely to get a global consensus on in the next quarter-century. Getting acknowledgement of Israel having the moral high ground is even more fraught. If you are pinning your hopes for a peace settlement on that, then you really are in for the long haul.
Except that if they refuse to be ‘kept in line’ and fit in with your world-view, the ball will never start rolling. And in most cases that I am aware of where terrorist conflicts came to an end, the renunciation of violence was one of the last steps in a long process, not the first. I fear you may be setting an impossibly high opening hurdle.
Oh come on. Please. If some hypothetical mighty outside force were to prevent Israel from retailiating against missile attacks, and were to prevent the IDF from stopping suicide bombers at the borders, and Hamas/IJO/Hizbullah were to exponentially step up their attacks then eventually they would achieve genocide?
That’s about as likely as Xenu appearing and eliminating Israel with a snap of his fingers. No-one has argued that Israel has no right to self-defence, only that it might have an obligation to turn a deaf ear to some voices and perhaps be a little more measured in its use of force.
A mixture of both. I certainly wouldn’t advise Israel to become less vigilant, but most of the reports I have read state that Hamas has held back its attacks recently.
One can expect it, certainly. But one is not likely to get it. Again, if you are holding out for both I think you are likely to be disappointed.
Whether it’s a charter or a classroom rant, words are still words. Words are powerful and dangerous, but I think they are still preferable to war. China still claims all of Taiwan, still indoctrinates it’s children against Taiwan and Japan, still encourages the occasional nationalist frenzy. Many other countries do similar things, but unless words turn to deeds they don’t count for that much.
That isn’t a third option though, is it? It is just a different method of trying to extingush the conflict through force. Something that has been tried before with a notable lack of success. Crushing the palestinian terror organisations has been tried before, and as I said, if that won’t work there are only two other options.
So you think it’s better to inflame the muslim world further and breed more support for Al-Queda than to give an inch to the enemy? I have to say that it’s certainly consistent with the rest of your position.
What of them? Who cares? Do you think incitement is any more effective in breeding hate than funerals for those killed by the IDF? So long as people are dying, the situation is unlikely to improve much.
Unqualified backing, irrespective of what they do? I think not. I’d suggest that whichever side shows a willingness to negotiate realistically and in good faith towards an equitable peace should be deserving of support. And that’s a test that both sides would have trouble passing.
Hmmmm. So the Israelis get leeway because of their troubled history, but the generation of Palestinians that have grown under Israeli occupation do not? Ah well.
Ah - well, here is where I think we get into a bit of an impasse. Because if the Israelis have many legitimate claims and the Palestinians do not, then I agree that there is nothing for the Palestinians to do but surrender, shut up and clear off. However, I think you will struggle to get a broad agreement around that situation.
My position, and that of some other posters, is that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is a complex problem with complex causes and probably complex solutions, and therefore it is debateable whether Hamas are likely to fall into the category of problem, cause or solution. As you have so comprehensively argued, your position is that the Israelis are largely in the right and the Palestinians are largely in the wrong, and there is nothing to discuss other than how they should accommodate to the Israeli position. So therefore we really do have nothing to discuss which is particularly relevant to Hamas rather than to any other palestinian faction.
Goodbye.
Intersting article in today’s NYTimes. “In Hamas’s Overt Hatred, Many Israelis See Hope”
Good point that. Under Arafat the PLO officially renounced violence, but continued to fund it. Abbas may have not funded it, but refused to face it. But the public face was of movement towards non-violent solutions. I’ll take your version, say whatever you like, but give up those goals in practical terms as proven in current actions, rather that Arafat’s saying the right thing but behaving the opposite.
Given the chance as I’ve proposed Hamas can do two things: they can move gradually towards a peaceful solution delivering on security for now in the meantime as they publically focus on cleaning house; or they can show the world that a unilateral disengagement process in a manner that is able to provide security is truely required, isolating themselves in the process.
Slaphead, did you read Finn’s last post before you wrote yours? Maybe you should.
It must be hard being so objective and superior. But yes, evidently I am simply not worthy of your Words From Atop the Mountain. Forgive me.
That surely negates their long history of acting and attempting to act on it, and the fact that sometimes they didn’t act because they were foiled. Surely.
:dubious:
Cite?
Instead, the fact is that Hamas’ actions have most often and more often than not matched up with their rhetoric.
Spot on. :rolleyes:
Is Palestine China? North Korea? Libya? The Sudan? Does bringing them up make Palestine disapear?
You bring up other countries, I point out that we should discuss the actual countries in this discussion. Not exactly a radical concept especially since analogy is always suspect.
Yep. You’re reifiing a linguistic fiction. One “evil regime” isn’t fungible and can’t be substitiuted willy nilly for any other “evil regime”.
Well then I should certainly give up.
Not necessarily. Europe has already threatened Hamas with suspension of aid, and the United states is firmly against terrorism. I think you overestimate the difficulty in getting the world to act in a moral manner.
If Israel could not defend itself its citizens would either be forced to leave, or be killed. This isn’t exactly rocket science. Likewise, if a 95 pound woman is trying to stab a Ju Jitsu expert with a knife she probably won’t get it done, but if he doesn’t fight back she just might.
Why, exactly, do you think that a sustained campaign of civilian targeted murder wouldn’t ever have any effect? Or is now the time to resume talking about how it was such a mistake to get into a debate with people who don’t share your views?
Because Israel isn’t going to give up and let its civilians be targeted with impunity. Your premise that, if Israel does nothing and Hamas is given free reign, genocide won’t be achieved… well, it’s rather ludicrous.
Perhaps nobody has argued that in this thread, but it’s hardly something that nobody has argued. Sevastapol, for instance, has gone on record as saying that pregnant Israeli women and their children can be legitimate targets for murder.
For some time the security fence was a deterent. Recently there has been a truce between the terrorists and Israel. But, again, that doesn’t change the fact that terrorism is Hamas’ M.O.
Wrong.
Words have effect, and if someone’s words cause people to blow themselves up, that is, again, incitement. It is either naive or wilfully ignorant to pretend that the words that are being used have no real effect in terms of violence.
False dichotomy. The rhetoric in Palestine is coupled hand in hand with the actions taken. The system of indoctrination can be blamed for the rise of under-18 suicide bombers, etc…
So why, exactly, are you ignoring that words do do turn to deeds and that the system of indoctrition does lead to violence?
Hmmm… different from the first two options. Yep, it’d be a third.
Can we please stop the abuse of the English language in this thread? The word “force” actually means something.
But it has worked, to a degree. They have had their freedom of action limited. Or do you think that events like this don’t show that Israel’s policies can help reduce terrorism?
Your claims that it “won’t work” are based on other countries. But being super-objective and superior you might not realize why that’s a bad thing.
And have I stopped beating my wife yet?
~checks~
Nope, never said that or anything like it. Sorry.
You’re also stating the issue in absurd terms. Not everybody in the Muslim world was angered by us staying in Saudi Arabia, and those who hate us weren’t convinced to be less “inflamed” by us leaving. Moreover, giving in to Al Queda does and will breed support as people see that Al Queda’s tactics work against us.
Why do you enjoy false dichotomies so much? Do you think that those funerals lack incitement? Do you think that, as set up by the Palestinian charter, an educational system dedicated to producing people who hate Israel doesn’t have a great effect?
Funny, I never said that.
Would you, perhaps, like to stop beating up that scarecrow while being objective and superior and return to the actual debate?
Whatdya know, that’s Israel.
Is that a joke? Israel has attempted to come to the negotiating table time and time again. Rabin was murdered for it with his blood staining a copy of Shir Ha’Shalom. The Palestinian government’s reaction has been, consistently, to respond with terrorism.
Um… no.
Israel gets leeway because since '48 they have been fighting a defensive war against an overwhelming enemy whose goal is genocide, and who would still invade and slaughter the Israelis if they got a chance. Self defense is a legitimate justification for a great many things.
And no, before you go tilting at your strawman again, “a great many things” ≠ “anything at all.”
Really? So if one side has many claims, and the other has some but not many, they should not only cease negotiations but leave the land entirely?
Gosh… I guess you’re too objective and superior for me to understand.
Cite?
Negotiation implies compromise, and I’ve already said that there should be a two state solution. Your claim that I have said that there is nothing to discuss other than how they can accomidate the Israelis is, simply, made up.
Especially if you persist in pretending that what I’ve actually said is really the strawman you feel most comfy arguing against.
Adios.
There is plenty of material to debate, but there is less room to debate if you couch the debate in false terms in this manner.
Your statement deliberately ignores Deir Yassan, El-Bureig, Qibya, (to say nothing of complicity in Sabra and Shatila), and equates the military invasions of surrounding Arab nations (last attempted over 30 years ago) with the Palestinian people caught in the middle between Israel and the Arab states who were taken and held as stateless prisoners in their own homes for 38 years. By attempting to set up the “good guys” and the “bad guys” with an explicit claim that you have no desire to secure protection for the people whom you have labeled “bad,” you force the debate back into the realm of a blame game rather than looking for practical solutions to get out of an endless cycle of violence.
Since I quoted Nixon, Ithink it is only right to balance out with some Kennedy quotes too!
I can’t say whether this site is accurate or not, but it claims to be a website established by American Jews, and when I spot checked 1 item (the establishment of the UNRWA due to refugees in '48) it seemed to be accurate.
It gives a summary of ancient history and a little more detail into current history (last 50 years). It doesn’t take too long to read and I would highly recommend it. If the details are reasonably accurate, I can now see why the US is so strongly linked with the hatred of Israel. Additionaly, while I understood that people were displaced with the establishment of Israel, I have a more clear picture of what “displaced” means.
Not false terms, at all. A war of extermination was waged in '48. For decades after the Arab nations surrounding Israel remained commited to its destruction.
I’m not ignoriong anything. (And you list left out events like the King David Hotel). Yes, there has been mud and blood on both sides, but the fact still remains that had '48 not been an exercise in extermination then events would not have unfolded as they did. Heck, even the cite provided by Raft states that Palestinian resistance to Jews paying money for land and then exercising political control over their land would result in armed conflict.
Yes, Israel has some commited serious actions that are not excusable but it doesn’t change the fact that they’ve been under siege since the state was created. The fact that Israel has, in the past, commited war crimes does not change the fact that they have been fighting a defensive war since their inception. Yes, Sharon should’ve been hauled before an international tribunal, but events such as Sabra nd Shatilla don’t change the overall reality of the situation, namely, that Israel has been fighting against being pushed into the sea for some time now.
Likewise, the Palestinian political groups are hardly distinct from other Arab nations, espec ially when we look at funding and terrorist training.
Come on Tom, I figured you weren’t going to engage in deliberate misquoting. Did I ever, anywhere, say that I “no desire” to secure protection for the Palestinians? Or did I explicitly say that they don’t deserve the same level of protection? A people fighting against extermination deserve, in my book at least, a degree of latitude in protecting their lives.
The first thing I noticed is that I couldn’t find any cites refrenced in the first few pages of their spiel. Further, some of their reasoning is just wonky. They state, unequivocably, that the original wave of imigration tried to buy land, and that they wanted that land for Jews. There’s nothing illegal or unethical about that.
It goes on to become more and more absurd. They actually say that the only pressures were financial and social, but that the Palestinians were so opposed to Jewish immigration that the only way to secure it would be by force of arms. The hostile nature of the Palestinians is then used as “evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program”. Evidently legally buying land is unjust if you’d require military protection to avoid being butchered.
Further they complain about how land purchased by Jews was land that the Arabs couldn’t gain any advantage from. Yeah… that’s what “property rights” are. If I buy a home from you, you aren’t entitled to continue collecting monetary benefits once I start living in it once I’ve paid the purchase price.
Then they talk about ‘illegal’ sales of land, but do not suggest that the Palestinians who sold the land were in any way forced to do so.
If you’ve got any other points they raise that you support, perhaps you could quote them?
False. The surrounding nations provided funds and training, but the entire Palestinian people was not involved in the aggression: 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.
Sorry. I was paraphrasing, not quoting, and I see no difference between claiming they do not deserve the same protection and no protection. What is the objective level of diffference between the two levels of protection? 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.
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. 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.”
Those events do not justify the attacks, but they place them in a context that makes them more understandable. 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). In the Americas, the Europeans had more efficient military, so each individual dispossession was “settled” rather quickly rather than extending for decades, but the processes have much in common.
RAMALLAH (WEST BANK): The leader of Hamas suggested on Saturday that the Islamic group could create a Palestinian army that would include its militant wing - responsible for scores of deadly attacks on Israelis - in the aftermath of its crushing victory in parliamentary elections.
Israeli officials condemned the plan, demanding that Hamas renounce violence. Palestinian security officers, including loyalists from the defeated Fatah Party, said they would never submit to Hamas control.
“Hamas has no power to meddle with the security forces,” said Jibril Rajoub, a Palestinian strongman. **The Hamas chief, Khaled Mashaal, reiterated that Hamas would not recognise Israel. He also indicated attacks on Israeli civilians would continue, **accusing Israel of targeting Palestinian civilians.
So much for a peaceful Hamas…
forgot the link:
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 did see quite a few references to support their information, for example the quote from Truman as to why he supported establishing Israel.
When you say “first few pages of their spiel”, it sounds like there is an emotional component to your analysis.
Correct. Nothing illegal or unethical. I agree.
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.
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?
Forget about just/unjust/right/wrong/moral/immoral/ethical/unethical and just consider how you would react.
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?
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.
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.
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).
So it really boils down to the following:
Are all things that are legal also ethical?
If not, how do we determine if the Jewish people purchasing land and kicking out non-Jews is ethical?