Hamas Charter says they exist to struggle against the Jews and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.
As to first part, it's all conjecture. You think they would push Israelis out to sea. I think it would be like the cold war, mutual deterrence as both sides know things could turn out badly for them. In the world today, military violence tends to take place only when one side has an overwhelming advantage.
As to the second part, I really think you need to calibrate the meaning of a functioning liberal democracy with the meaning of the word atrocity. They're at opposition, and your continued use of them together speaks volumes.
There's no point in arguing conjecture, so not sure why you brought it up?
When Israel and their surrounding neighbors had much more comparable military capabilities the Jewish state was plunged into a war by being attacked from multiple sides. I can understand the skepticism shown by Israel when the argument that a more militarized Palestine would lead to peace is presented.
Is your suggestion then that Israel is not a liberal democracy or that they haven't committed any atrocities in this ongoing saga?
Hamas Charter says they exist to struggle against the Jews and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.
Hamas Charter says they exist to struggle against the Jews and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.
What purpose would an organisation have for making that their Charter?
What purpose would an organisation have for making that their Charter?
Why did the Germans document every tiny detail in their death camps? Because there are bureaucrats withing any organization that will insist on writing things down for clarity so there is no confusion, or for historical purposes. This is the most chilling thing from the Hamas charter and is at the core rules governing that organization.
Quote:
Preamble ″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it″.
Article 13 There is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer
According to Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, "The Hamas credo is not just anti-Israel, but profoundly anti-Semitic with racism at its core. The Hamas Charter reads like a modern-day 'Mein Kampf.'" According to the charter, Jewish people "have only negative traits and are presented as planning to take over the world." The charter claims that the Jews deserve God’s/Allah’s enmity and wrath because they received the Scriptures but violated its sacred texts, disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew their own prophets. "The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, 'O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Only the Gharkad tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews."(related by al-Bukhari and Muslim)
The charter contains references to anti-Semitic canards, such as the assertion that through shrewd manipulation of imperial countries and secret societies, Jews were behind a wide range of events and disasters going as far back in history as the French Revolution. The document also quotes Islamic religious texts to provide justification for fighting against and killing the Jews, without distinction of whether they are in Israel or elsewhere. It presents the Arab-Israeli conflict as an inherently irreconcilable struggle between Jews and Muslims, and Judaism and Islam, adding that the only way to engage in this struggle between "truth and falsehood" is through Islam and by means of jihad, until victory or martyrdom.
Why did the Germans document every tiny detail in their death camps? Because there are bureaucrats withing any organization that will insist on writing things down for clarity so there is no confusion, or for historical purposes. This is the most chilling thing from the Hamas charter.
I'll clear it up because I'm apparently being too coy. The Hamas charter is awful, Hamas is awful, both of these things: Known.
However, simplifying things down to "Israel is defending itself" and "Hamas just wants to kill Jews" is wrong on both accounts, and ignores the vast history between Israel and Palestine, along with the current ACTUAL goals of this conflict.
Neither side likes each other, neither side wanted a war, but they're in one now.
Organisations like Hamas exist in response to the oppression and occupation by Israel on the Palestinian people. It's where they get their power and relevance. Israel is not interested in a two state solution, nor is that even likely possible at this point. None of this makes Israel the bad guy, there is no "bad guy." Oversimplifying the history and goals of these people, on both sides, is one of the greatest injustices casual observes can commit.
Organisations like Hamas exist in response to the oppression and occupation by Israel on the Palestinian people. It's where they get their power and relevance. Israel is not interested in a two state solution, nor is that even likely possible at this point. None of this makes Israel the bad guy, there is no "bad guy." Oversimplifying the history and goals of these people, on both sides, is one of the greatest injustices casual observes can commit.
On the contrary, negotiations for a two state solution were in play during the 2009-2010 negotiations with a roadmap for Palestinian self-governance accepted by Israel and possible statehood. The PA was forced to walked from the negotiations by a Hamas-led coalition of militant groups over the possibility of compromise on the current state of Israeli settlements. The cancer to middle eastern peace then as is now is Hamas.
If you go back far enough you could also blame the British for making the current mess too. And I would argue Israeli oppression exist because of past aggression by Palestinians against Israeli people. Have there been any direct suicide attacks in Israeli cities since the walls went up? Aside from the current one's in the tunnels? While its no one side here completely free of blame, we tend to see an overall trend of broken truces and inability to compromise on one side.
A reasonable person might conclude that Hamas, which started the current war, wants it to continue and Hamas is relying on Israel's lack of concern for collateral damage against civilian sites that Hamas has turned into military installations (i.e. rockets in UN schools, i.e. UN hospital used for Hamas headquarters), to continue the conflict.
Last edited by FlameOn; 08-01-2014 at 02:15 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
There's no point in arguing conjecture, so not sure why you brought it up?
When Israel and their surrounding neighbors had much more comparable military capabilities the Jewish state was plunged into a war by being attacked from multiple sides. I can understand the skepticism shown by Israel when the argument that a more militarized Palestine would lead to peace is presented.
Is your suggestion then that Israel is not a liberal democracy or that they haven't committed any atrocities in this ongoing saga?
I just like pointing out the messages inherent in people's use of language.
If a liberal democracy is engaged in atrocities, as you state Israel has been, what is the corrective measure for that liberal democracy?
On the contrary, negotiations for a two state solution were in play during the 2009-2010 negotiations with a roadmap for Palestinian self-governance accepted by Israel and possible statehood. The PA was forced to walked from the negotiations by a Hamas-led coalition of militant groups over the possibility of compromise on the current state of Israeli settlements. The cancer to middle eastern peace then as is now is Hamas.
If you go back far enough you could also blame the British for making the current mess too. And I would argue Israeli oppression exist because of past aggression by Palestinians against Israeli people. Have there been any direct suicide attacks in Israeli cities since the walls went up? Aside from the current one's in the tunnels? While its no one side here completely free of blame, we tend to see an overall trend of broken truces and inability to compromise on one side.
A reasonable person might conclude that Hamas, which started the current war, wants it to continue and Hamas is relying on Israel's lack of concern for collateral damage against civilian sites that Hamas has turned into military installations (i.e. rockets in UN schools, i.e. UN hospital used for Hamas headquarters), to continue the conflict.
Firstly, it's incorrect to claim Hamas started the current war. It was escalation between the two, and to lay blame on one party is indicative of bias. Neither are innocent in the beginning of this war.
Secondly, sure, you can blame the British. You can, in fact, start at multiple different points in history in order to suit whatever narrative you'd like. My point, was that neither action is being done with the sole goals of "defence" or "killing Jews". The intent of both of these governments is complex and layered, and their reasons for action are the same.
Lastly, while true that a two state solution may have been in the cards half of a decade ago, my comments were directed at present day, as most of this discussion is. 5 years ago is irrelevant when the mood has changed:
Quote:
Netanyahu ... made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank.
Quote:
Netanyahu ... elaborated, “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
Quote:
A less-than-sovereign entity? Maybe, though this will never satisfy the Palestinians or the international community. A fully sovereign Palestine? Out of the question.
Lastly, while true that a two state solution may have been in the cards half of a decade ago, my comments were directed at present day, as most of this discussion is. 5 years ago is irrelevant when the mood has changed:
As much as I hate to say it, but he might be right. I can't see the situation ever getting better without one of the sides gaining a decisive victory. It's to the point now that I think worrying about the short term future is off the table and Israeli politicians are looking at what they can do to ensure their security 100 years or more from now. There comes a point in many conflicts when you have to decide whether or not you want to live perpetually in a state of cold war and violent outbreaks, or if it would be better to battle it out until some is utterly defeated. It's sad, but this is what human history is full of.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
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 FlamesAddiction
As much as I hate to say it, but he might be right. I can't see the situation ever getting better without one of the sides gaining a decisive victory. It's to the point now that I think worrying about the short term future is off the table and Israeli politicians are looking at what they can do to ensure their security 100 years or more from now. There comes a point in many conflicts when you have to decide whether or not you want to live perpetually in a state of cold war and violent outbreaks, or if it would be better to battle it out until some is utterly defeated. It's sad, but this is what human history is full of.
Israel has already won their decisive victory. I'm not sure how it is even debateable. Short of genocide or mass forced migration, building walls and checkpoints that fully enclose the rival nation seems pretty decisive to me.
Israel has already won their decisive victory. I'm not sure how it is even debateable. Short of genocide or mass forced migration, building walls and checkpoints that fully enclose the rival nation seems pretty decisive to me.
As long as someone is still firing rockets into your country, it's not a complete victory. Once those capabilities are removed, or once they have an enforceable peace agreement, there will always be an ongoing state of conflict.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Firstly, it's incorrect to claim Hamas started the current war. It was escalation between the two, and to lay blame on one party is indicative of bias. Neither are innocent in the beginning of this war.
While neither is completely innocent I agree, I lay blame on whoever pulls the trigger first in any escalation after a period of peace. In this case, three Israeli teens were kidnapped by Palestinians. While this is not likely a Hamas proper-led initiative, it's highly liekly that ultimate responsibility lies with a faction of said group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Secondly, sure, you can blame the British. You can, in fact, start at multiple different points in history in order to suit whatever narrative you'd like. My point, was that neither action is being done with the sole goals of "defence" or "killing Jews". The intent of both of these governments is complex and layered, and their reasons for action are the same.
You give far too much credit to Hamas right now. Hamas is not a bureaucratic government in the sense of the United States or Israel but right now a para-military (cell based similar to the structure used by many terrorist groups), semi-government organization that is haphazardly cobbled together as the de-facto government of the region. Unfortunately due to this structure all it takes is a few crazies or splinter groups acting as "Hamas" to really kill the peace for everyone involved. It's likely what happened with the three teens that were killed and likely the cause of the situation now. Until there is some way Palestinians can be rid of the organization of Hamas and it's ideals, I'm not sure how much peace can be had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Lastly, while true that a two state solution may have been in the cards half of a decade ago, my comments were directed at present day, as most of this discussion is. 5 years ago is irrelevant when the mood has changed:
Well you see why the mood changed no? A two state solution was offered, it was rejected with rocket file. You offer an unconditional ceasefire, only to have it violated 90 minutes later with a kidnapping of a high profile Israeli officer. Can you blame Israeli for it's shift in mindset? Baby steps... though apparently even that is not possible.
As much as I hate to say it, but he might be right. I can't see the situation ever getting better without one of the sides gaining a decisive victory. It's to the point now that I think worrying about the short term future is off the table and Israeli politicians are looking at what they can do to ensure their security 100 years or more from now. There comes a point in many conflicts when you have to decide whether or not you want to live perpetually in a state of cold war and violent outbreaks, or if it would be better to battle it out until some is utterly defeated. It's sad, but this is what human history is full of.
I fully agree, which is why I take a bit of issue with the romantic notion from some of the pro-Israel crowd that there is some solution of Palestinian submission that doesn't completely dismantle what it is they desire.
The only way Palestine gains sovereignty is if Israel backs off completely, and they've very clearly said that's not going to happen - why would it? Getting pelted by rockets, no matter how well defended you are from them, isn't going to give a nation any reason to ever loosen the noose. Even if those rockets are a direct result of years of Israel's oppression on these groups (which created the terrorists they deal with today), it doesn't matter, because that oppression was just a direct result of Palestinian aggression, and so forth and so on.
Israel is defending itself from Hamas and other groups, which are defending themselves. The more Israel destroys, the more reason they create for resistance. It's a cycle that won't ever end. Even if Israel completely destroys any semblance of what Palestine is now, the historic lines have been drawn so strongly that they will ALWAYS have to deal with terrorism.
The idea of an entire population of people throwing their hands up and saying "Alright, we were wrong, feel free to occupy us." is, unfortunately, ridiculous.
Just look back at the German occupation of France. That is how this looks from the eyes of a Palestinian. The western world looks back and celebrates the French resistance, and those that went in and liberated France. France fought throughout the occupation. They didn't take it laying down nor did they give up. Why would any nation?
The Following User Says Thank You to Chill Cosby For This Useful Post:
For those that view this as a 'war', if you are a settler, living in occupied territory during an 'active war', aren't you responsible for any violence you experience while choosing to live in a war zone?
The standard for Palestinians seems to be that Hamas is ordering people to stay in harms way.
If Rocket and Mortar attacks originating from Egypt and Gaza are impact settlements that have been constructed on contested land in an 'active war' zone, isn't that the same situation as the Palestinians?
Shouldn't we be saying Israel is using human shields by providing an environment which entices settlement building?
Isn't that the same standard? If you don't want to get hit by rockets, don't live in occupied territory?
Are you even serious? Not even close to the same thing.
A. Israel isn't launching rockets from beside or on top of schools, hospitals, and playgrounds with the knowledge that the enemy will strike back at those launchers.
B. Israel doesn't set up military operations within hospitals.
C. Israel isn't encouraging those same settlers to stay put knowing an attack is eminent.
Israel isn't a saint but saying they are using human shields to the extent that's happening in Gaza is absurd. Makes me question you're motives.
Anybody have a link other than the IDF saying that Hamas is telling civilians to stay after warnings? I just don't buy that. Sounds like a made up rumour and it has taken off by pro-Israel folks defending Israel after one of their cowardly attacks on civilians.
Anybody have a link other than the IDF saying that Hamas is telling civilians to stay after warnings? I just don't buy that. Sounds like a made up rumour and it has taken off by pro-Israel folks defending Israel after one of their cowardly attacks on civilians.
Anybody have a link other than the IDF saying that Hamas is telling civilians to stay after warnings? I just don't buy that. Sounds like a made up rumour and it has taken off by pro-Israel folks defending Israel after one of their cowardly attacks on civilians.
You really need to just calm down and read a bit more. Israel isn't just cowardly attacking civilians, it just doesn't give a ##### about collateral while Hamas wants more collateral damage. In between are any remaining peaceful Palestinian civilians who are stuck between Hamas killing them for not wanting to be martyred and the IDF killing them for trying to live their lives close to a Hamas "military" installation aka school/hospital/government building.
There are actually videos of about 20 odd Palestinians being killed and then dragged for through the streets on motor bikes for disagreeing with what Hamas is doing in the area. I will not post these as they are NSFL (much worse than the ISIS ditch execution videos from the other middle eastern craziness thread).
To answer your questions about the telling Gazans to stay put, this was widely reported in BBC and Reuters and others days ago on TV when I saw it. Including quotes from US intelligence, Bill Clinton and a couple of other EU heads IIRC along with Israeli sources.
Quote:
The number of civilians who have died in Gaza is a great tragedy — many of those deaths could likely have been avoided if Hamas leaders had not urged Gazans to ignore IDF warnings to leave a combat zone. As former US President Bill Clinton told India’s NDTV last week, “(Hamas has) a strategy designed to force Israel to kill their own (Palestinian) civilians so that the rest of the world will condemn them.”
