Highly dubious conclusion unless you believe the only goal of Hamas is peace and co-existence with the Israeli state, and these were the the only reasons individuals voted for them.
Agreed insofar as it is a bit of a mind exercise, since we're unlikely to see the day.
But a unified state would nullify two of Hamas' attractions (for lack of a better term):
1) Outright violence in the form of missiles / bombings are no longer necessary under a true one state situation.
2) Civic initiatives like schools / healthcare etc... that Hamas bankrolls will receive national funds.
I see three types of people voting for Hamas today: the violent, the reactionary, and the desperate, yet civic minded (again for lack of a better term). The violent are driven solely by point #1, and always will be. The reactionary will occasionally cling to point #1 but would drop Hamas in a heartbeat if there was peace. For the civic minded, they're holding and their nose voting for Hamas for point #2; they turn a blind eye / are not interested in the violence.
Under a putative single state, only the violent will be served by voting Hamas. Everyone else will migrate away. The violent, as anywhere, are the minority.
Agreed insofar as it is a bit of a mind exercise, since we're unlikely to see the day.
But a unified state would nullify two of Hamas' attractions (for lack of a better term):
1) Outright violence in the form of missiles / bombings are no longer necessary under a true one state situation.
2) Civic initiatives like schools / healthcare etc... that Hamas bankrolls will receive national funds.
I see three types of people voting for Hamas today: the violent, the reactionary, and the desperate, yet civic minded (again for lack of a better term). The violent are driven solely by point #1, and always will be. The reactionary will occasionally cling to point #1 but would drop Hamas in a heartbeat if there was peace. For the civic minded, they're holding and their nose voting for Hamas for point #2; they turn a blind eye / are not interested in the violence.
Under a putative single state, only the violent will be served by voting Hamas. Everyone else will migrate away. The violent, as anywhere, are the minority.
You miss the most powerful factor in the entire region, and the most attractive reason for voting Hamas into power: religion.
Hamas ran with a policy of instituting Sharia, not only in Palestine, but all of the Holy Land. Perhaps you would get a Hamas that puts aside the rockets and drifts closer to the modern incarnation of the Muslim Brotherhood, where its origins lay and a heavy influence still resides. To believe the virulent strain of Islamism in the region would just up and dissipate soon as the Jews and Muslims decided to live together in the same state, though, simply isn't realistic knowing the importance of the Muslim religion in the region and the history of Islamism in the area (and the resurrection of the Muslim Brotherhood elected into power in the surrounding countries since the Arab Spring). In a unified state Jews would very quickly be in the minority, and the gap between the two population groups would only continue to grow as the years progress, as the statistics show is happening already in the region.
As far as my opinion goes, a dismissal of Hamas following a "unified state" solution is an incorrect conclusion to make.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to HPLovecraft For This Useful Post:
Canada is a multicultural new world state. Totally different from what we're discussing. Also, Belgium, Switerland? What makes them so different? It's peolpe of the same religion and ethnicity. They speak a slightly different language. Hardly comparable to the Palestinian/Israeli situation. That's more comparable to an Iraqi Jew and an Iranian Jew both living in Israel. Also, South Africa is not an example of two groups of people getting along. Even now, cross-racial violence in South Africa is rampant and the distrubution of wealth is entriely lopsided. The white population is also in decline as thousands of people continue to flee the country. Even then, it doesn't really fit the criteria of two major groups just getting along. Whites in SA make up less than 10% of the population.
Agreed insofar as it is a bit of a mind exercise, since we're unlikely to see the day.
But a unified state would nullify two of Hamas' attractions (for lack of a better term):
1) Outright violence in the form of missiles / bombings are no longer necessary under a true one state situation.
2) Civic initiatives like schools / healthcare etc... that Hamas bankrolls will receive national funds.
I see three types of people voting for Hamas today: the violent, the reactionary, and the desperate, yet civic minded (again for lack of a better term). The violent are driven solely by point #1, and always will be. The reactionary will occasionally cling to point #1 but would drop Hamas in a heartbeat if there was peace. For the civic minded, they're holding and their nose voting for Hamas for point #2; they turn a blind eye / are not interested in the violence.
Under a putative single state, only the violent will be served by voting Hamas. Everyone else will migrate away. The violent, as anywhere, are the minority.
Violence no longer required? I think you need to look at the history of every other country in the middle east and see just how rampant the sectarian violence is.
The Jews simply cannot compete with the birthrates of the Muslims. In Israel more women go to University than any other country in the world. In the Gaza Strip the average woman has 6 children. I really don't see how the two cultures can be compatable, and I really don't see the Muslim population pushing for anything but an islamic government.
You miss the most powerful factor in the entire region, and the most attractive reason for voting Hamas into power: religion.
Hamas ran with a policy of instituting Sharia, not only in Palestine, but all of the Holy Land. Perhaps you would get a Hamas that puts aside the rockets and drifts closer to the modern incarnation of the Muslim Brotherhood, where its origins lay and a heavy influence still resides. To believe the virulent strain of Islamism in the region would just up and dissipate soon as the Jews and Muslims decided to live together in the same state, though, simply isn't realistic knowing the importance of the Muslim religion in the region and the history of Islamism in the area (and the resurrection of the Muslim Brotherhood elected into power in the surrounding countries since the Arab Spring). In a unified state Jews would very quickly be in the minority, and the gap between the two population groups would only continue to grow as the years progress, as the statistics show is happening already in the region.
As far as my opinion goes, a dismissal of Hamas following a "unified state" solution is an incorrect conclusion to make.
As an addon I believe that if peace ever broke out in that region that was acceptable all of the violent groups bent on the destruction of Israel would not only lash out in a final attempt to reach martydom, but they would do everything that can to poison any peace agreement.
Part of any peace plan has to include a co-operatative extermination of the leadership of those terrorist groups to have a hope to succeed.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Canada is a multicultural new world state. Totally different from what we're discussing. Also, Belgium, Switerland? What makes them so different? It's peolpe of the same religion and ethnicity. They speak a slightly different language. Hardly comparable to the Palestinian/Israeli situation. That's more comparable to an Iraqi Jew and an Iranian Jew both living in Israel. Also, South Africa is not an example of two groups of people getting along. Even now, cross-racial violence in South Africa is rampant and the distrubution of wealth is entriely lopsided. The white population is also in decline as thousands of people continue to flee the country. Even then, it doesn't really fit the criteria of two major groups just getting along. Whites in SA make up less than 10% of the population.
How so? I would argue that Switzerland and Belgium in particular have more differences inside than Palestine/Israel. In Switzerland's case, Italian & French are both Latin Languages, while German is Germanic. Completely different. In Israel/Palestine's case, Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic Languages. In Switzerland's case, 39% are Catholic, 31% are Protestant and 20% have no religion. I would say historically, those three groups have never really gotten along. For Belgium, it's more of the same. In Canada's case, wars were fought between French and English, but at the end, they put their differences aside and created one state. I concede with South Africa, but when you have such a small population of whites, that holds most of the power, well let's just say things are bound to get ugly.
Canada is a multicultural new world state. Totally different from what we're discussing. Also, Belgium, Switerland? What makes them so different? It's peolpe of the same religion and ethnicity. They speak a slightly different language. Hardly comparable to the Palestinian/Israeli situation.
I'm not really disagreeing with your overall point, but there was a time in Europe that I don't think anyone thought that French and Germans could ever get along, let alone in small countries like Switzerland and Belgium. Add to the mix that both are almost equal mixes of Catholics and Protestants, which nowadays doesn't mean much, but 160 years ago, it was a bigger deal.
I really don't know if that is the solution for Israel or not, but one thing is for sure, the solution will be one built over generations (like the Swiss model). It is also a model being used for Bosnia. I don't think that anyone is expecting everything to be peachy from the getgo, but hopefully one day.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
How so? I would argue that Switzerland and Belgium in particular have more differences inside than Palestine/Israel. In Switzerland's case, Italian & French are both Latin Languages, while German is Germanic. Completely different. In Israel/Palestine's case, Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic Languages. In Switzerland's case, 39% are Catholic, 31% are Protestant and 20% have no religion. I would say historically, those three groups have never really gotten along. For Belgium, it's more of the same. In Canada's case, wars were fought between French and English, but at the end, they put their differences aside and created one state. I concede with South Africa, but when you have such a small population of whites, that holds most of the power, well let's just say things are bound to get ugly.
Canada is not a good example. Like I said before it's a new world multicutural state. The same concept does not exist in the old world.
Also Germanic and French Swiss are both the exact same ethnicity. The divide between Catholic/Protestant is not as same as the divide between Jewish and Muslim. Especially now. Most protestants and catholics are non-practicing and simply don't care now. 100 years ago, you had an entirely different story and sectarian violence between protestants and catholics was huge.
Like I said before, a better comparable would be Iraqi and Iranian Jews getting along in Israel. You might pretend that the Germans/French are entirely different people, but they are only separated by a few miles. If you can't see how the Israelis, who have more college graduates than any other country in the world (especially female), are a fundamentally different than the surrounding Arab population too a much greater degree than Swiss Germans vs. French, you're being willfully blind.
I'm not really disagreeing with your overall point, but there was a time in Europe that I don't think anyone thought that French and Germans could ever get along, let alone in small countries like Switzerland and Belgium. Add to the mix that both are almost equal mixes of Catholics and Protestants, which nowadays doesn't mean much, but 160 years ago, it was a bigger deal.
I really don't know if that is the solution for Israel or not, but one thing is for sure, the solution will be one built over generations (like the Swiss model). It is also a model being used for Bosnia. I don't think that anyone is expecting everything to be peachy from the getgo, but hopefully one day.
Bosnia was part of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was recently cut into nine seperate states. I don't see how that's a model for a one-state solution. If anything it just shows that the best solution is often just to put a giant wall between people.
You miss the most powerful factor in the entire region, and the most attractive reason for voting Hamas into power: religion.
Hamas ran with a policy of instituting Sharia, not only in Palestine, but all of the Holy Land.
I guess then it comes down to the percentage of people who voted for Hamas for the explicit establishment of a Sharia state*.
What is your best source of data and/or guess on that number?
Conversely, do you think a similar type of strategy is evinced by looking at the popularity, or lack thereof, of a politician like Avigdor Lieberman?
* This question is somewhat similar to the votes Republicans received because of Todd Akin's views on abortion. I would contend that it is the minority, but have no proof for or against that.
This is a video of Arab students protesting the Israeli actions in Gaza. A raid siren goes off after a Qassam rocket is fired from Gaza. The protestors quickly run to an Israeli made bomb shelter.
Violence no longer required? I think you need to look at the history of every other country in the middle east and see just how rampant the sectarian violence is.
I will if you will
But let's not make hyperbolic demands of each other. You've not looked at the "history of every other country in the middle east," so there is no point in pretending to base your argument off of fantasy. Unless you clearly label it as such.
I'm all for thought exercises, provided they're striving for a degree of intellectual honesty and consistency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
The Jews simply cannot compete with the birthrates of the Muslims. In Israel more women go to University than any other country in the world. In the Gaza Strip the average woman has 6 children. I really don't see how the two cultures can be compatable, and I really don't see the Muslim population pushing for anything but an islamic government.
Again, I'm not pushing for a one state solution. Therefore I've no rebuttal to any your points, regardless of their relevance or irrelevance.
I honestly don't think a two state solution could work. Even if that is currently what both sides are working towards, I think the end game is a single, bi-national state. That way, settlements don't have to be torn down, Israeli-Arabs aren't forced to move into the Palestinian state and both sides can essentially live where they want in what they both claim as their ancestral home land. The biggest concessions would have to be for the Israelis to accept that they will never have a "Democratic Jewish Nation", but rather a "Democratic Homeland for the Jews". With the former being a a country for only Jews and the latter being a safe haven for Jews, but with Arabs living side by side as equals. The Palestinians would have to give up the "Right of return" as well as having a country just for them.
No way this would work. They would be welcoming back cafe bombings, busloads of Israeli soldiers being blown up, busy markets being targets, etc.
The only reason Israel cordons off the Palestinians is it's the only way to keep their people safe. There is no way they let down their guard as it would give Hamas and Hezbollah el al the green light to wage war from within. And that would be very scary.
As an addon I believe that if peace ever broke out in that region that was acceptable all of the violent groups bent on the destruction of Israel would not only lash out in a final attempt to reach martydom, but they would do everything that can to poison any peace agreement.
Part of any peace plan has to include a co-operatative extermination of the leadership of those terrorist groups to have a hope to succeed.
Do you acknowledge the extreme right wing zionist movement that is also a major obstacle to peace in the region and the internal safety of Israel that also poison any peace agreement?
Do you acknowledge the extreme right wing zionist movement that is also a major obstacle to peace in the region and the internal safety of Israel that also poison any peace agreement?
Sure, can you provide me with a list of violent acts taht they've comitted over the last couple of deades though?
I'm not being a smart a%% I couldn't finds them
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Sure, can you provide me with a list of violent acts taht they've comitted over the last couple of deades though?
I'm not being a smart a%% I couldn't finds them
Settlers commit a pretty wide range of violence. I think a key different is that Israelis popular will is able to confront them, while confronting a group like Hamas is much trickier.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
Settlers commit a pretty wide range of violence. I think a key different is that Israelis popular will is able to confront them, while confronting a group like Hamas is much trickier.
I spoke to some Palestinians from Gaza just Sunday who really didn't think the support for Hamas was very high. Just no other options for them at the moment there, and no ability to confront. They did say that their family is very opposed to the rockets being launched as the inevitable repercussions are well known to everyone in Gaza.
In this case, I think Israel would have a tougher time with its right-wing then Palestinians in the event of a one-state style solution. The riots over like 2500 settlers being removed from Gaza were pretty frightening.
Sure, can you provide me with a list of violent acts taht they've comitted over the last couple of deades though?
I'm not being a smart a%% I couldn't finds them
It's becoming a serious, serious issue for the IDF.
Quote:
Radical Jewish activists have staged politically motivated attacks against Palestinians and pro-peace Israelis before. In the early 1980s, for example, one group, known as the Jewish Underground, carried out a series of bombings against Arab mayors and shot three Arab students in the West Bank. And in 1995, an Israeli law student, Yigal Amir, assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, dealing a devastating blow to the peace process. Israeli authorities have investigated and prosecuted those involved in these operations, and they have disrupted other attacks before they could occur. Yet they have failed to stem less dramatic violence, such as arson and assault. According to UN investigations, in 2011, extremist settlers launched almost 300 attacks on Palestinian property, causing over 100 Palestinian casualties and destroying or damaging about 10,000 trees of Palestinian farmers. The UN has also reported that violent incidents against Palestinians have proliferated, rising from 200 attacks in 2009 to over 400 in 2011. The spike in assaults on Palestinians by settlers has come despite the fact that over the same period, Palestinian terrorism fell dramatically.
To be clear, arson and the destruction of trees do not belong in the same category as suicide bombings, and using the word "terrorism" to describe such vandalism risks moral equivalency. Yet "terrorism" is defined not only by the act itself but also by its purpose: to produce a psychological effect, terror, as a means of advancing a political agenda. This definition fits the aim of extremist settlers, who often scrawl the Hebrew words for "price tag" at the scene of the crime -- a message to their targets that they will exact a price for any act that they oppose. Such attacks target innocent Palestinians in response to and as a deterrent against Palestinian terrorism and target Palestinians, pro-peace Israelis, and Israeli soldiers alike for supposedly anti-settlement measures taken by the Israeli government. By seeking to frighten a rival population and intimidate a government, the extremists mimic the typical methods of terrorist groups across the globe.
The Israeli government does not support or condone settler violence, but it has failed to adequately combat it. Soldiers have been known to look on as violence occurs, and they sometimes do not aggressively seek the perpetrators after the fact. According to Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights organization, of 781 incidents of settler abuse monitored since 2005, Israeli authorities closed the cases on over 90 percent of them without indictment. And the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has reported that the IDF is currently probing 15 cases, all of which took place between September 2000 and December 2011, of Israeli soldiers witnessing clashes between settlers and Palestinians and failing to intervene.
Israel's halfhearted response to settler violence is partly a result of the fundamental anomalies of military rule. Unlike East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights, other territories that Israel conquered in the 1967 war, the West Bank was never annexed by Israel, and Israel applies civil law there only to Israeli citizens. Although the Israeli police have authority over criminal matters among settlers, the military governs most aspects of public life, from security to construction permits. The Palestinian Authority assumed sovereignty over parts of the West Bank following the Oslo accords, but Israel still controls "Area C," which includes all the settlements, four percent of the Palestinian population, and 60 percent of the total land. Within that territory, the IDF faces the extremely difficult task of safeguarding both Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli security forces may have helped drastically reduce Palestinian terrorism, but the military unsurprisingly remains wary of Hamas and other militant organizations and views the defense of Israeli citizens as its main task.
Haaretz has learned that intelligence officials have warned repeatedly over the past few months that right-wing activists would try to sabotage military vehicles inside bases to thwart attempts to evacuate outposts.
The information was reportedly on the desks of Central Command's top brass, which raises questions about the army's functioning during Monday night's settler violence against the Israel Defense Forces.
"In my 30 years in the IDF I never saw such hatred by Jews toward soldiers," GOC Central Command Avi Mizrahi said Tuesday.
Primarily, the "price tag" policy launched by extremist settlers has become a major factor in developments in the West Bank.
The policy's roots lie in the August 2005 disengagement from Gaza and the subsequent destruction of nine houses in the West Bank outpost of Amona about six months later.
Ever since then, the extreme right has sought to establish a "balance of terror," in which every state action aimed at them - from demolishing a caravan in an outpost to restricting the movements of those suspected of harassing Palestinian olive harvesters - generates an immediate, violent reaction.
Even if this reaction cannot stop an evacuation, the theory goes, the damage it causes - whether the victims are Palestinians or Israel Defense Forces soldiers - will cause the government to think twice before ordering additional evacuations.
Diskin said that hundreds of people are regularly involved in extremist violence, and if necessary, they could recruit another few thousand people for a violent confrontation.
In recent months, the Shin Bet has discerned a gradual rise in right-wing violence. Even though settlers still see no great likelihood of settlements being evacuated in the near future, the fact that senior government officials such as outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni and Labor leader and Defense Minister Ehud Barak all speak constantly of the need for such an evacuation increases the sense of being under pressure.
And the distance from hitting and kicking soldiers and policemen to a political assassination is shorter than it seems.
The September 25 pipe bomb attack on Israeli professor and prominent peace activist Zeev Sternhell outside his Jerusalem home suggests that some extremists may already be engaging in price-tag attacks in Israel proper. Although Rabin's assassin was a lone gunman acting on the extremist ideology of unorganized fellow travelers, the Sternhell attack appears to have been the result of an organized group of right-wing extremists seeking to incite like-minded individuals to action.
According to Israeli public security minister Avi Dichter, the bombing was believed to be an ideologically motivated terrorist act perpetrated by radical Jewish extremists intent on killing Sternhell. In Sternhell's neighborhood, investigators found pamphlets, signed the "Army of Liberators," offering 1.1 million shekels (roughly $320,000) to anyone who kills a member of Peace Now, a left-wing Israeli group. The pamphlet stated, "The State of Israel, our 2000-year-old dream, has become a nightmare. This country is ruled by a mob of wicked people, haters of the Torah who want to erase the laws of God. . . The state of Israel has become our enemy. . . The time has come to set up a state of Jewish law in Judea and Samaria. The time has come for the Kingdom of Judea."
The pamphlet echoes long-stated fringe propaganda, but Israeli security officials fear it represents an extremist threat that has evolved since the days of the Temple Mount Underground (a Jewish terrorist group that plotted to blow up the Dome of the Rock mosque in the early 1980s). Although the perpetrators of this attack have not been identified, security forces state that a new, organized Jewish underground may be responsible for the bombing and could be planning additional strikes.
I spoke to some Palestinians from Gaza just Sunday who really didn't think the support for Hamas was very high. Just no other options for them at the moment there, and no ability to confront. They did say that their family is very opposed to the rockets being launched as the inevitable repercussions are well known to everyone in Gaza.
In this case, I think Israel would have a tougher time with its right-wing then Palestinians in the event of a one-state style solution. The riots over like 250 settlers being removed from Gaza were pretty frightening.
Firstly, it was 7,000 settlers removed from the Gaza Strip, not 250. Secondly, was it more "frightening" than dragging bodies behind motorcycles or throwing people off of buildings, which is what Hamas does to their opposition or anyone they decide is a "spy".
Also, Hamas won a general election in 2006. So they must have had some popularity, despite their stated goal of military conflict. The whole rockets thing really wasn't a surprise to anyone. Hamas's popularity also seems to be climbing with Palestinians, not declining:
