Artemis I have to correct you on some points here:



This is a historical inaccuracy. Maybe you forgot but the Jews have always lived in this part of the world? King David, Salomon?? Ring any bell? In fact there is no other part of the world were Jews feel more connected to than that region. It is their historical birthplace!

Apart from that, lets take a close look at the creation of the state Israel.

1917: Balfour Declaration; druing WWI the British, in reaction to the ever growing anti-semitic movement in Europe, supported a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but also supported emergent Arab nationalism against the Ottoman occupation of the region.

1919-1930's: after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of Nazism the Jewish migration swelled, but was limited by the British to placate the Arabs.

1945: homeless survivors of the Nazi Holocaust sought refuge in Palestine, the only place on earth were they feel at home, but were turned away by the British because of Arab protests. Britain failing to work out a compromise, terminated its League of Nations mandate of 1918 and turned the matter over to the newly formed U.N.

1947: the U.N. divided Palestine into a Jewish and Arab zone, placing Jeruzalem under international control. The "tolerant" Arabs rejected the partition.

1948: The Zionist leaders, with support of the U.S., proclaimed the Republic of Israel. The Arab nations (Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq) invaded, but were defeated by Israel.

1949: at the cease fire Israel extended its territory by a half and established West-Jeruzalem as its capital. Jordan annexed central Palestine, including the West Bank, and assumed control of East-Jeruzalem and barred Jewish worshippers. Furthermore the Arab states refused to absorb the half-million Palestinian refugees who had fled.

In the decades after independence Israel under parliamentary government succeeded in building a modern, Western-style, urban industrial and democratic society with a large role for labor unions and extensive social services. Through ingeniously engineered irrigation schemes they reclaimed vast stretches of the Nigev desert.

Although they tried to develop a peacefull society, the Israelis were multiple times attacked by its neighbours:

1956: war with Egypt over the Suez Canal
1967: the Six-Day War
1973: the Yom Kippur War
1982: Lebanon War

It is only some years after the outrageous Yom Kippur War and the PLO, that Israel saw the rise of the nationalistic Likud Party and the whole dirty conflict developped itself as we know it today. It was a reaction against agression that Israel became more and more agressive herself.

But lets go back to those poor Palestinians who fled to countries like Jordan. Did they receive a good treatment ... were they supported? The answer, sad but true, is no, they were kept in camps (they are still there!) and were NOT allowed to settle themselves in these countries. This is a side which is often overlooked. While 1.5 million Palestines were living relatively well in Israel, the rest of them were treated poorly by their own "Islamic Brothers", put away in camps in border regions!! It is in these camps the PLO recruted most of its followers! It is in these camps organizations like Hamas could flourish!

Source: Plamer & Colton, A History of the Modern World
editted:

Oops it seems I went a little off-topic, sorry about that Jaime.

http://www.debka.com/



It looks like Hamas may have 90 days to figure out what they want to do. I think three months is long enough.

Let's consider something here. Hamas was prevented, by the Israelis, from campaigning in Bethlehem and another city I don't recall at this time, yet their candidates still won. Imagine the Republicans running for election, and not being allowed to enter their constituency to campaign for votes, and still winning the election. Do you think people would say Americans are stupid and don't know who they're even voting for, or would people say "wow they won the election even though they weren't allowed to campaign. They must really know what they want".
Hamas militancy is a small cog in their social wheel. No one likes to hear that but it's a fact. Death is more glamorized than birth, so it's easy to see why westerners think "terrorism" when referencing Hamas. Health care. Education. Social assistance. That's Hamas' appeal. They provide for their people when their "true" leaders won't. Don't see it as a vote for terrorism. See it as a vote for a full stomach and a hope for a new beginning in the latest chapter of the Middle East saga. Any terror attack on a helpless population is an act of evil no matter the stripe, Americans included. It's a repulsive act which, short term, may achieve their objective, but, long term, degrades we humans entire. When looking at a terror event, it's paramount (though never done in the West) to look closely at the reasons for the event, not just who, but why. Think about something here closely for a moment. And this is really an important fact and can serve as a clue to the less informed. The Israeli occupation, deemed illegal by international laws, is a harsh and brutal occupation where the occupied suffer greatly through the most basic of means i.e. standard of living. We all can agree on this. And it took 29 years (!) before any one single "Palestinian Suicide Bomber" detonated their first "suicide bomb" against Israel. If the shoe were on the other foot (ha! it always is and I notice no one in the west really trusts in that) we would be saying Israel displayed great great patience and personal physical restraint while hoping and waiting for a peaceful political settlement. No one cares to think of it in that (absolute and total) aspect of it; that the Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel is one of the later if not latest chapters of their history book, hardly anywhere near the first.
While many will consider this truth and reality a travesty or whatnot, I always come back to an unsettling issue. Rachel Corrie. Run over by an American bulldozer, not a peep from the US media. Imagine a US citizen run over callously by a Palestinian and the media being silent. I know. Hilarious thought.

Yup, not a peep from the US media...

Rachel Corrie Memorial Website In Memoriam
:::NEWS REPORTS:::
A Tribute to Rachel Corrie - MIFTAH (Photo Essay)
Celebrating Rachel Corrie's Life - Seattle Times
Photo story: Israeli bulldozer driver murders American peace activist - Electronic Intifada
Mideast fight hits home - Israeli bulldozer crushes Olympia protester in Gaza - The Olympian
Daughter of Charlotte couple killed in Gaza - Charlotte Observer
Israeli bulldozer kills American woman - USA Today
Israeli soldiers kill American peace activist in Rafah - The Palestine Monitor
Israeli bulldozer kills U.S. student - The Globe and Mail
Israeli bulldozer kills American protester - CNN
American peace activist killed by army bulldozer in Rafah - Ha'aretz
Activists are no strangers to conflict - The Olympian
Corrie's death stokes both sides in Mideast conflict - The Olympian
Death of a Human Shield - Seattle Weekly
The Dead American - workingforchange.com
Activist's memorial service disrupted - The Guardian
Israel holds US woman's body - AFP/Cape Argus
Israel Violently Disrupts Rachel Corrie's Gazan Memorial Service - Electronic Intifada
Activist Had Soft Spot for Underdogs - Los Angeles Times
Rachel Corrie's Echo - The Nation
Activists: Death was no accident; Arafat offers condolences - Seattle Times

Your ignorance of basic facts such as these, which can be ascertained in less than 10 seconds on Google, provides all the credibility your argument can handle.


********************************************************************************
********************

Can the U.S., whether on it's own or as a part of the international community, engage Hamas in maintaining a level of peace in the region with successfull results? While I hope we can, I seriously doubt it.

To be successful, Israel must survive. To be successful (if we're to believe their charter), Hamas must destroy Israel. Not a lot of room in there for peace.

Do you think Hamas can be engaged the same way the IRA was? Unlikely. One key difference between Hamas and the IRA is that Hamas has a lot of competing terrorist organizations to contend with, as well as a lot of outside "backers" to satisfy. In order for Hamas to "engage" a la the IRA, they must first eliminate any challengers, and then wean themselves from outside money. I don't see that happening.

Ok so you misinterpreted my meaning as most do. When I say not a peep from the media, I am not refering to a tucked-away headlines, I am speaking of editorial outrage. I thought maybe people would have known what I meant, so sorry for the wrongful assumption.
As we know, since 911 the mainstream media has played a gigantic part of the run up to the war on terror and still continues to play a huge part in the post war occupation of Iraq. Editorial commentary post-911 was extreme and effective; to the point where important truisms were deliberately ignored. Recently we learned the NYTimes held damning evidence for over 1 year as a favor to Bush and Co. So we know the media is an umbrella which is able to manipulate the viewers/listeners and influence what they believe.
Don't list the token headlines but rather list the mainstream media's top echelon-righteous indignation against Israel for their actions. I don't think you can find it.
And thanks for the obvious amount of time you put into your response. It's always appreciated.

Then perhaps you should have said "a lack of editorial outrage, no legions of pundits bloviating" instead of a characterization that every reasonable reader will take to mean "silence."

Well, on the same page I've already linked, you'll find the Boston Globe has done editorials. Of course, not linked are the numerous editorials that are less than flattering of Rachel Corrie, editorials that have appeared in numerous venues, including the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps the MSM's reluctance to champion this story is because, well, they figured that most Americans are going to look at it and realize that, at best, Rachel Corrie was a foolish kid who's stupidity got her killed. Perhaps the MSM had bigger stories to tell.

True to a point I suppose, but her stupidity was based on the thought that the Israeli bulldozer operator would have acted in a humane way i.e. not running her over nonethelesss, for that is exactly what happened. We can ignore the whitewashing that was done in typical fashion. I don't know. I just think that there should be some sort of anger about her murder. Lacking that, either the public is callous and dangerously detatched from humanity, or the public is highly misinformed by a highly controlled media. I choose the latter.

JERUSALEM -- The incoming Hamas government will move quickly to make Islamic sharia "a source" of law in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and will overhaul the Palestinian education system to separate boys and girls and introduce a more Islamic curriculum, a senior official in the movement said yesterday. The Stern Face of the New Palestine

This certainly does not bode well for relations with Hamas. A commitment to sharia is indicative of a commitment to the rest of the dark side of the "religion of peace."

Can the U.S., whether on it's own or as a part of the international community, engage Hamas in maintaining a level of peace in the region with successful results?

The US will engage Hamas--when Hamas shows that it is a legitimate government.

Simply being elected does not make a government legitimate. A legitimate government has responsibilities, both to its constituents and to the world community.

What must each side do to be successful?

The burden is on Hamas to demonstrate that it is capable of being a governing authority. It must not use violence as a political tool. If it does it will lose whatever claim it may have had on legitimacy.

I'm not sure that Hamas is on the right track however. Today, Hamas political chief Khalid Mish'al wrote an op-ed. We will not sell our people or principles for foreign aid

It ends with this:



If I am reading this properly, Hamas is not willing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. "We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem."

Given this statement, it is unclear what the terms of Hamas' "peace" will be.

What must each side do to be successful?

Hamas must renounce it's charter, to start.

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full at link provided above. Following are highlights.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060131/ap_on_...HNlYwN5bmNhdA--



But it looks to me like Hamas won't renounce it's own charter, it's like the US renouncing the Declaration of Independence. Hamas is full of contradictions and is fueled by hatred. Unless they do a 180, I see no peaceful end to this.

I'm not sure why this isn't more knoHamas must renounce it's charter, to start.[QUOTE]
Are people familiar with Israel's Talmud? While we're on the topic of renouncing bad stuff...

Hammas' charter is based directly out of the teaching of the Koran and is backed up by very antisemetic doctrines. Hammas was elected into power, thus putting their doctrines as a stumbling block of peace. The israeli peoples faith and government are SEPERATE. You do have Zionists within, but their official government documents do NOT call for the destruction of Muslem peoples dictated by their religious doctrine, like the Hammas and their Charter, influenced heavily by the Koran and passages that support their radical hatred of a Jewish state.

Yes, it's true that the (English-language anyway) current Hamas charter is intentionally vague about the abolition of Israel, merely stating that their mission is to establish a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. I prefer to judge Hamas by their actions, vs. mere words. Though honestly, their words often say a lot.
During their supposed "truce" in 2005, Hamas killed something like 30 people in September alone...one of their weapons labs and a truck full of rockets exploded, killing a bunch of innocent potential voters in Palestine. Not to mention that they lobbed rockets into Israel all year long, despite the "truce."

Edited - just wanted to add this excellent point made by vermillion.


This is important to remember - the Palestinians are on the road to democracy, but not close yet. In real democracies, gunmen don't take over government offices, terrorists in jail don't run for (and win) Parlimentary seats, etc. We have a long way to go.

Gonna give Kyoto a whirl?


This is tame compared to MEMRI’s daily updates. And speaking of:


It seems to me Mash’al is versed in double-speak as well as any politician. Emphasize sections that support your take.

Some dates to keep in mind: Key Dates For New Palestinian Government



I am not happy at all with a second democratically elected government establishing Sharia. I’d rather deal with a Marxist Palestinian state than an Islamic Palestinian state. Beside from the fact that these secular third parties enjoyed little popular support, I doubt the U.S. was prepared to support parties with communist ties anyway.


The bolded section hits closer to home than I like. But who are these people calling for a special reverence? I could say everyone in the U.S. makes the same watered demand every four years. Some go as far as determining a predefined number gives them a mandate. There is a difference between a wait and see attitude and coming damn close to predicting Hamas will never change.


Just because Fatah’s connections to al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade isn’t consistently played up by the media doesn’t mean it was hidden from view. Any research into the PLO’s history and branching off will point the reader in the right direction. The same can be said of the alternative list Moif provided. The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine has the rap sheet of a terrorist organization, although it’s not listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. or the United Nations (Link). When the conflict is long enough everyone has a turn getting blood on their hands.

I’m puzzled at the chagrin that the U.S. would pinch its nose and deal with groups that are less than desirable, and dismay at the suggestion that it will likely do so again.


You’re mincing words. Democracy can be influenced with money, but sometimes no amount of money will change the people’s opinion. In the Palestinians’ case I think they voted for welfare because Fatah would not reform despite complaints, and the alternative parties could not provide materially or organizationally. In your country that may be the definition of voting your political beliefs. You just (rightly) disapprove of Hamas’ terrorist record, and determine the Palestinians share the worst of Hama’s “values,” in spite other considerations the Palestinians may’ve had that shaped the outcome of the election.


You’re right Moif. I don’t know where I got that idea. It couldn’t have been this:


Or this:


Or even this:


I had no idea you were being coy.


My position leaves room for doubt and possibilities. You appear to have chosen to believe that because low key parties in the election were not ousted for terrorist activities by the media a vote for these parties would signal a reversal in the Palestinians’ bloodthirsty preoccupation with wrecking havoc. Yours is the fairly straightforward and therefore “simplistic” position infering that the Palestinians electing Hamas more or less signifies a desire to return to hostilities and all other reasons to vote for Hamas were distant considerations.


I did not say we’re lowering a standard, I meant we’re removing their prerogative to self-interest.

I’m not sure where you’re going with Haider and Le Pen, and therefore not sure how to respond. France and Austria seem to have moderated themselves without international demands before becoming throwbacks to 1930’s Germany.


I don’t have time to search right now. I don’t remember if you’ve made these comments on or your blog, but aren’t you usually cynical about the Muslim media’s claims that there is solidarity concerning subjects like the destruction of Israel, the repression of women, and how they really feel about Iraq? If you’re doubtful about such claims why, in the Palestinian’s case, do you give credibility to “accepted truths” you normally reject?

Judging solely by your tone one would conclude that Israelis have suffered more carnage and death than the Palestinians have. If you go by statistics, the Israelis are superior in each aspect, and those aspects all relate to things involving life and death, so it's to be taken seriously.
30 civilians dying in an explosion is of course a travesty, but for many if not most in the West, that's where it ends. However, do you not think it morbidly morally wrong for Israel to fire a (US supplied) hellfire missile from the most lethal gunship in the world into a crowded apartment building thereby killing innocent civilians all in the hopes of killing the intended target? I recall one incident where about 14 innocent civilians died along with the inteded target and his wife, family, and kids. Someone gave that order, meaning someone had the opportunity to hold off until civilians were not at risk. Someone thinks that's insane? That you take any opportunity you get to kill the intended target? Then fine, and I'm sure the bad guy 'terrorists' thank you for sharing their own personal militant ideology. It goes both ways, always. Without fail.

It appears that you are responding to me here...Short answer - no.


I recall many many incidents where a Hamas or Fatah member walked onto a bus, into a restaurant or into the border crossing and blew themselves up, killing innocents as was their intention.

It does indeed go both ways. Are you denying that Hamas and its ilk target civilians intentionally as a matter of policy, while Israel sometimes kills innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time, and likely associating and supporting those target terrorists? Heck, they voted overwhelmingly for the terrorists, so it's hard to argue that they just didn't know the Hamas guy lived down the hall.

Also, why do you put the word 'terrorist' in quotes, when all civilized people agree that someone who intentionally kills civilians, women and children in order to affect political change is a terrorist? This is not in dispute.

This is, of course, a crucial point. I'm amazed how many people who accuse Israel or the U.S. being "terror states" can be so blind to it.

The difference can be seen in our tactics. When I hear about civilian casualties from a successful strike against a terrorist, my first thought is "too bad they didn't use a smaller missile." And, in fact, the trend in the U.S. and Israeli arsenals is toward smaller, more precise weapons. Think of the nonexplosive cement "bombs" with JDAM fins, or new concepts like the CBU-107, designed to destroy chemical and biological weapons facilities without using explosives.

We often hear that more Palestinian civilians than Israeli civilians have been killed in the intifada. What's not often reported is that many of the Palestinian civilians were killed by Palestinian terrorists. Case in point, a December 29, 2005, incident in Tulkarm:



The scorekeepers at the Palestinian Red Cresent Society simply note 3 deaths in their Daily Death & Injured Toll. (The IDF soldier doesn't count.)

Much more analysis of casualty figures can be found in this report from Israel's Institute for Counter-Terrorism.

Jobius Last the Palestinians killed more Palestinian than died in clashes with Israelis.

The Red Crescent Society routinely includes in their civilian count all genocide bombers, terrorists, people killed in road accidents, etc. and this all gets lumped under 'civilian' casualties, no Israelis are ever considered 'civilian'.

Yesterday in response to their loss in the election Fatah (President Abbas' 'political' party) announced that they too are now calling for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of the State of Palestinian from the Jordan River to the Sea. They too feel they lost, not because of corruption, but because they were not viewed as violent enough.

Hamas Leader Mahmoud Zahar on Al-Manar TV: "Palestine means Palestine in its
Entirety - From the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River... We Cannot
Give Up a Single Inch of it... Why Should We Recognize Condoleezza Rice...
or Israel's Right to Exist?"

The following are excerpts from an interview with Hamas leader Mahmoud
Al-Zahar, which aired on Al-Manar TV on January 25, 2006.

Hamas clips at Memri you can hear for yourself what they are saying.

In yesterday's Washington Post Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook proposes that the
Jews in Palestine return to the relationship of the good old days under the
protection of Moslem rule. He does not indicate in the piece how much the
special Jew tax should be or such technical matters as how far Jews should
be kept from the Western Wall since it has the status of being part of the
mosques complex.

According to the current Jerusalem Media & Communications Center poll a majority of Palestinians do desire peace, but only if is done violently. Only 13% believe that peace should be attempted via non-violence, which according to my math means that 87% support violence.

I would comment on the PCPS polls but they do not post their questions and only give a distorted summary to readers. If they did we would see that a vast majority of Palestinians support terror attacks against Israel, United States and Europe.

Iran recently announced that it was increasing it's financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah to the tune of 100 million dollars a year. Making them the largest single donor to Hamas.

I believe the facts speak for themselves. The United States and Europe has succeeded in creating a new terror state and the only answer is to stop supporting it and let Israel defend itself to the full extent that their armed forces are capable of.

I am not very good at math, but the numbers you provide do not necessarily leads to the conclusion that 87% is supporting violence. There is probably a large percentage that is somewhere between violence and non-violence.

Yeah? Then why do you believe Hamas's social programmes were so strong an influence in why they were elected into power?

It seems to me that a large amount of money is exactly what allowed Hamas to initiate the social programmes you seem to believe helped them into power...


Yes. That is a compelling argument based on a reasonable assumption of rational conduct.

Alas, I see little evidence of any rational conduct in the Palestinian territories these days.


Yes. But also, even if the Palestinians did have other reasons for voting for Hamas, I still don't believe those reasons (those quoted here) justify that vote.

As I've already said, nothing Hamas has done socially changes the fundamental foundation upon which their movement is based; the destruction of Israel.


Why did you cut out half my reply?

Yeah, sure I'm saying a vote for Hamas is a vote for war. Because it is! Hamas made no secret about its intentions. Their agenda is clear to a blind man.

The statement I took exception to was this:
I have never said that. I do not believe it.


Yes.

Where as you appear to believe that a vote for Hamas was not a vote for violence, but rather a sign that the Palestinians had no other choice.

To me this indicates you look upon the Palestinians as I might look upon small children. Unable to make complex or moral decisions, they turn to the biggest provider of social welfare as a child might turn to a parent.

Perhaps your right though. Maybe the Palestinians really are that stupid that they can't see beyond the welfare programmes of Hamas to the deeper reality of their situation. Maybe they really don't understand what Hamas is about and why it was created. Maybe in their feeble minds they can't see that Hamas's social programmes do not justify its position.

Maybe...

But I don't believe that. I see this as a very simple minded perspective that ignores the probability that the Palestinians are motivated by anger, wounded pride and outright hatred for the Israeli's.

I am very good at math and yes it does add up to 87%. The Jerusalem Media & Communications Center maintain their poll at JMCC. It shows at the bottom of the home page "Best Method to Achieve Palestinian National Goals, 33% believe Intifada is only is the best way, 13% negotiations only, and 55% both, 3% did not respond. So to claim that a majority support non-violence is false. They outright support violence, this by the way is way down. It used to be well of 70% that supported Intifada only but in no means is that non-violent.

I think that the statements from the various terrorist leaders would support that statement. Also the continual rocket attacks including the six more overnight would tend to support that as well.

This week gunmen from President Abbas' controlled Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades as well as Islamic Jihad stormed the EU offices in Gaza proclaiming "Danes and Norwegwens wer barred from the Palestinian terrirory until Copenhagen apologized for charactures of the Prophet Mohammad". So much for freedom of speech.

To claim that a majority is against violence is indeed wrong, I agree with you on that. But its those 55% who cannot really choose between violence and non-violence, that I was referring to. I have the feeling they can still turn to either way. An agressive and uncomprimisable stance from the outside world (Israel, E.U. and the U.S) could possibly lead more Palestinians to turn towards the violent ways of Hamas. The ultimate choice of this majority will be critical for the future.

I think the E.U. has done wisely to state that they will wait and see how things turn out in the coming three months while the Palestinians form a government. I am not very optimistic about a positive outcome, but we have to give them a chance at least to proove us wrong.

"could possibly lead more Palestinians to turn towards the violent ways of Hamas." Let's see six more rockets over night, genocide bombers, snipers, and fire bombings. This has been in the last three days and you are worried about more violent ways. How much more violent can they get? A 1,000 dead Israelis is not enough? Maybe if it was a thousand Europeans that might be enough. How many Israelis have to die before it is enough? Please answer that.

Those 55% want the violence, they know that it has worked and want it to continue, that is what they are saying. As for the EU they need only to look at what Hamas is saying right now. That they are going to kill all Danes and Norwegians in addition to Jews that they can get their hands on. That is today, not three months from now. That they are going to impose Shaira over the territory, and that the will continue the terrorism.

Between the US, EU and Israel accounts for well over 90% of the funds going to the PA and if we do not use those purse strings right now there will another terrorist nation, freely elected and funded by democracies. If that is not totally insane then the term does not mean anything at all.

And I am arguing that to claim that self interest is the only or most important element for the international community to make judgements on is a lowering of a standard.
The prerogative of “self interest” isn’t enough for political legitimacy, democracy is not enough and we have acknowledged this and demanded more from others time and time before.

Austria politically supported Haider out of self interest and most of the rest of the world felt this was not only inappropriate but completely refused to accept it as a legitimate form of government. EU nations completely rejected this political outcome, or prerogative of self interests, and instigated political “sanctions”. Were you in dispute with this? Did you appeal for others to have to consider the self interests of Austrians? I am just wondering if you felt it was unfair and repressive when we rejected the Austrian's political manifestation of self interest too ?


The international community does have a role to play in this world..we did create the UN with a purpose and it was not to sit idly by and not question and/or every act a nation commits for the sake of “self interest”.



I am not really sure what you are referring to...but I think you are trying to prove some personal hypocrisy on my part but I feel my view is completely compatible.

I have on countless times argued the role and importance I feel culture plays. I am very much aware of my own culture, I have lived within cultures that were foreign to me, I feel culture is a very instrumental thing to one’s ideals and perceptions.

I think avoiding the fact that the Palestinians have a culture that does in fact glorify death, martyrdom and religious sacrifice avoids a big piece of the picture...why discuss this topic and ask us all to dismiss one of the most binding and collective things the Palestinian people have...their culture? Surely this culture of theirs will outlive any perceived social disruptions or domestic troubles...most cultures do.

I also recognize the fact that Palestinian culture differs from that of Jordanian, or Syrian, or Iranian or Arabian and so on. I don’t really subscribe to the view that Muslims all have a shared “culture” a religion yes obviously..but in many issues culture reigns supreme.

What are you getting at Loreng? That I don't care that innocent Israelis are dying? If so, that's a harsh statement. If not, you should re-phrase your sentence.

All I am saying is that not every Palestinian is a terrorist. They elected Hamas, but that doesn't mean automatically that they are all shooting at Israelis or blowing themselves up. You said it yourself, only 33% outright support violence and the (ridiculous and appalling) call for a complete annihilation of Israel. 55% is somewhere in the middle. What I am saying is that we should at least give that group a chance to show their good will. We just have to give them some time to readjust to this new situation.

I just want to have a little, little bit of hope, a little bit of positivity, eventhough the situation seems hopeless.

I do not disagree with most things you have said. I just do not think immediate retaliation for the election results will improve the already tense situation.



If they do not change or improve in the next three months we can always shut down the funds. For now I think the E.U. has made a good choice.

What am saying is the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist entity. It has been all along, but mouthing the proper words of somewhat peaceful intent without any actions to put that in place. Now a totally terrorist organization is elected to rule their government. An organization that has announced their goal is death and destruction. An organization that has committed such acts already, and they categorically state that they will continue their terrorism.

So I ask how many more people have to die before we end this farce? How many more women and children have to pay the price for this 'process'? Too many have already died on both sides. Why do more people have to die "to give them some time to readjust to this new situation"?

I think that any money that goes to an entity that announces that it's goal is genocide makes them an partner to genocide and that is a war crime. The EU is not making a good choice, them are aiding and abetting a war crime. After Europes inaction in the 30's and 40's one would have thought that they had enough of genocide.

As for the 33% that is the percentage that think that is the only method that should be used, the 55% think that violence in addition to 'pretending to negotiate', that is no where in the 'middle' to my way of thinking.

And do I think that the EU doesn't care about Israelis being murdered, YES. I feel that as long as the Arabs are killing Israelis they do not care.

Why are no people in the west applauding a democratic election where the powers that be stem directly from the people's own personal choice? Anyone who truly cares about 'democracy' ought to be tickled pink an election came out so decisive. There's no winning with the western illogic. The people have spoken and for that all westerners who enjoy freedom should rejoice. I have to wonder sometimes whether people just talk out of their nose while never considering what they are really saying.

I’ve no doubt Palestinians are motivated by anger, pride, and hatred for Israel. Whether that hostility towards Israel is justified is debatable and really beside the point. But if you have decided electing anyone except Hamas meant that the Palestinians’ thirst for Israeli blood went down a pint and they want to survive long enough to form a state, I have to submit that Americans are as stupid as Palestinians or equally motivated by self-interest. After all, election after election we pay lip service to corruption, bad management, fleecing taxpayers, etc., but we don’t care enough to elect politicians that are “good” for us and the country because the reality is we don’t want to make lasting sacrifices.

The broad-brush argument that electing Hamas can literally mean Palestinian society would prefer destroying itself in the process of seeking the destruction of Israel isn’t an honest or insightful tack. In fact, it’s the same jingoist argument used by militant Palestinians justifying the murder of innocent Israeli civilians. The mere fact that Israelis elect hardliners like Sharon and the Israeli government until recently turned a blind eye to illegal settlement expansion into Palestinian territory was “proof” of the Israeli public’s complicity in the Israeli government’s crimes.


Of course it’s not the only or most important (though, pretty high up there for any people, IMO). Then again I’ve been mindful to let on that I don’t think it’s gonna be smooth sailing from here. The international community can make demands for Hamas to change. The U.S. can withdraw assistance, although I assume the funding gap this creates would be filled by an entrepreneurial terrorist organization or state. This is why I would argue against it.

What I object to is what I have perceived on this thread to be an assumption that in the Palestinians’ case it is their obligation to put world opinion ahead of their needs.


To be honest I wasn’t even aware of those elections until you brought them up. That’s why I said: “France and Austria seem to have moderated themselves without international demands before becoming throwbacks to 1930’s Germany.”

As for the sanctions themselves, it is comparable to the U.S. withholding funds.


Feeling persecuted? Looking for inconsistencies in other peoples’ arguments is an everyday occurrence on . It’s a good way to whittle bias, misinformation, etc. What’s special about your views that they shouldn’t face the same scrutiny?

Anyway… I won’t argue against the importance culture plays in shaping people’s attitudes, but I probably do place emphasis for the possibility of irregularities since I think I'm one of those. I haven’t even given much thought to their “culture.” Not because Palestinians don’t have one or because attacks planned and carried out by militants robs them of it (although some would argue so), but because I have a hard time acknowledging a culture with a people that can’t point to their home on a map without getting into an argument.

Does Palestinian culture stress death and religious sacrifice? Maybe—no, probably.

Is this what sets Palestinian culture apart; are these the definitions of what it means to be Palestinian? I would say yes if you believe Palestinians would be the only people on earth to resort to moralizing death and martyrdom in a drawn out conflict/occupation.

It seems to me you are setting Palestinians apart from the “Muslim mindset” you like to challenge precisely because of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. If you modify/amend your opinion as you feel appropriate in the Palestinians' case, you have to allow the possibility that if the situation is removed (I don’t mean Israel, Loreng) the “culture” will change.

Well we give them (the Palestinians) a billion $$$ a year and have supported their cause against often hard line Israeli governments. We should expect that in return the new Palestinian government would recognize the right of Israel to exist and also be willing to renounce violence in return for a process that insures them a future state. The Europeans who try to leave all the heavy lifting to the US should be involved.

IMO if they decline to do as we ask we should just stop sending them money.




Time will tell. Hammas seems to be a tough organization to change and the very fact that they got elected tells you the majority of Palestinians may agree with their core ideals. If this is true and they refuse to recognize Israel the region is in for some very tough times.

This is a case of unintended racism here. Let me say this again. Islam extremists, the 'terrorists' (whom the US have supported in the past and will again in the future) form a tiny tiny fraction of the whole of Islam. This notion that Muslims are all terrorists is religious racism rooted in ignorance. What folly. Ted, you're a Catholic (hypothetical). Wouldn't you think it stupid if some tourists' from who knows where show up at your house because they've always wanted to see what a twelve-child (condoms are a no no) family lives? Or someone finding out you're Catholic and immediately rips into you because they feel condoms are fine and you're an idiot for being against them? Or if someone asks what sodomy feels like when they discover you were once an Altar server at your local parish. Or if you're a Jew people come up and ask why you're not wearing that beanie thing on your head. Or if you're native American and some people come and ask you to teach them to send lettered-smoke signals to some friends in the next county.
All of these examples all can be responded with one thing: "So what and what the heck does that have to do with anything anyways"? People have to stop being racist whether they realize they are or not.
The core of Hamas is not terrorism and killing people. It's to provide for their people. They do all the same things Americans toot as being 'democracy exporters' to Iraq. Hamas provides medical care. They provide education. They provide the most basic social services. Blowing things up are a far last among mainstream Hamas supporters. In fact, I'd say Hamas would much rather prefer not having to resort to violence after 29 years of brutal occupation. 29 years before the 1st suidice bomber set himself up to his virgins or whatever they (westerners of course) say.

Ted, just to get the facts straight:

1. The U.S. financial support is not a billion dollars a year. It is 400 million.



2. The E.U. is the biggest financial supporter of the Palestine State, giving 500 million euro (612 million dollar) last year.


Link



Could you please explain to me what you mean with this sentence.... The E.U. are threatening Palestine with the same thing as the U.S.
Change the charter of Hamas and stop terroristic activities towards Israel or we will stop the financial aid.

Why is it that we can cut funding to a government because they're hindering the peace process based on their charter and a ideological stance and the fact that they've yet to renounce violence but they haven't done anything as a government yet. While, Israel, who is continuing to build a wall through a people's home land, which as been declared illegal by the international community and is severly hindering the peace process still continues to recieve financial support? One of these has a tangible effect on people and the other is just words (for now). As a government, Hamas has yet to do anything, while Israel has continued to thumb their nose at the international community. I say, cut funding to both.

I say, cha-ching! If the US cut aid to Israel, be prepared to live in a more prosperous America. The US does give Israel quite a bit of money. Astronomical.

And why is Israel building a wall? To protect its citizens from being blown into little bits. And who is the international community to tell them they can't protect their own citizens with a defenive (not offensive) measure?

And I completely disagree with the "racism" language above. It is not racist to assume the majority of Palestianian voters agree with the ideals of Hamas. They VOTED for them. Even if you hold the stringent belief that they do not share Hamas's ideals, I'm baffled as to how you can call someone, who makes a justifiable assumption based on voting statistics, a racist.

It's not "just words" from Hamas that are the problem, psyclist, it's the suicide bombers. Hamas has been the leading practitioner of these atrocities. One of their newly elected parliamentarians is the proud mother of three such "martyrs," and would be happy to see her remaining three sons meet the same end, provided they take some Israelis with them.

That's why Israel built the wall, of course. And it's working. The Tulkarm bomber I mentioned earlier in the thread was on his way into Israel, and if it hadn't been for the checkpoint, he would have killed more than just one IDF soldier.

If the Palestinians can get their act together, shut down the terror attacks, and negotiate in good faith with Israel, I expect the U.S. (and the rest of the international community) to lean hard on Israel to dismantle more settlements and move the wall back so it doesn't impinge on Palestinians' right to move freely in their own territory. But until that happens, I can't blame Israel for wanting to protect itself from these killers.

So why is it that this "defensive wall" just happens to be cutting through land in the West Bank that doesn't belong to Israel? Why is it that this wall just happens to putting all the valuable resources of the West Bank in control of Israel? Why is it that Palestinian houses are being destroyed for this wall? Could it be that maybe this wall has more uses than just keeping suicide bombers out? This isn't a new idea, the idea of a wall was established way before the first suicide bomber:


--Ze'ev Jabotinsky The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs) (1923)


Regradless of the motives of the Israeli Apartheid Wall (since everyone likes to play word games), Israeli's have blood on their hands too and yet we cut them a virtual blank check without fail. For those of you who don't feel we should be dealing with or supporting a group that has suicide bombers, have you heard of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)? They're listed as a terrorist organization and yet their political wing (what, a terrorist group with a political wing?! Impossible!) the National Council of Resistance of Iran has a capital located in good 'ole Washington D.C.

If Bush is serious about democracy in the Middle East he has to see it through to the end regardless of the results. A true democratic party needs money, trade, and investment in order to spur the economy and supply its population with basic needs. If Bush chooses not to hand over the money to the Palestininans, he'll be killing any chance of a true democracy in Palestine.

Thanks for the quote, psyclist. I'll wager you're right that there were no suicide bombers before 1923, but doesn't your quote show that the Palestinian Arabs have gone more than 80 years without giving up hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers? A common chant at anti-Israel rallies is "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea." "Free," I think, should be read as "Jew-free." At best, this would be ethnic cleansing; at worst, genocide.

A good friend of mine sent out an email a while back with a picture of him in an amusing political T-shirt. It showed a group of American Indian men armed with rifles. The caption was "Homeland Security: Fighting Terrorism Since 1492."

I laughed, but it inspired the same question I'm inclined to ask here: Are you opposed to all human migration, or just white people leaving Europe?

A few things I dont understand about americans take on the rest of the world.

1: That suicide bombers are worse upon a nation than real missles, bombs, theft of wealth and homes, bulldozers, walls and enslavement. (The same 'theories' are strong about Iraq, noone can understand suicide bombers there, yet give pass to major -mass -military bombings, invasion, occupation and mass slaughter of civilians for 'our' cause, whatever THAT actually turns out to be.) The logic fails me.

2: That 'others' religious idealisms are wrong because we (think we) cannot understand them and therefore cannot stomach allowing them to live as they deem necessary in conjunction with their beliefs and control of their own resources, in their own countries. Despite free elections.
(Ie: Sharia)
We have some pretty interesting religious beliefs in this country, to some quite extreme. We continue to deny some people rights accorded to all others and to thwart freedoms of the individual because someones God says its wrong.
We have an (allegedly) religious administration at present, by their own admission, working to bring christian thought into every form of governing. Many see nothing wrong with a Judeo-Christian governing body based on a widely accepted belief system in THIS nation, however, when others vote their conscience and elect religious governments, we decide them 'wrong'.

3: That WE can support terrorists when and if we see fit, we can call them other names like 'freedom fighters', but when people are truly enslaved, their fight for freedom and the same subsequent violence we call for in our own cause, in others is called terrorism. This has included many freely elected, by the people, socialist and religious governments.
Anyone, who is not a superpower or its allies and fears the violent doctrine of a Judeo-Christian superpower just 'might' take exception to this lack of fairness in dealings and denial of the 'freedom' we allegedly stand for. Beyond that, a right to self determination, being what every individual desires at base level is challenged by this ultimate hypocrisy of the United States and has been throughout our young history with nations.
You may have fair elections, but if we dont like the results, youre still screwed.

Hamas, as Vermillion noted, has been more than just a terrorist organization, much more than was Sinn Fein who were little more than a protection racket in the end. When making a decision to support food, education and some human dignity over enslavement, you vote for food and human dignity, without much to lose really. How much more can they lose? Theres little left for them but to do what Isreal did in electing Sharon.

Palestinians made some Major mistakes in past negotiations, much do to Arafats incompetance and greed. Israel has never taken the high road, even though theyve always had the upper hand in strength. They plundered the place because they could.

Can the U.S., whether on it's own or as a part of the international community, engage Hamas in maintaining a level of peace in the region with successfull results?

That will really depend on how truthful we are to our stated beliefs and how honestly they desire to negotiate peace. By precedent I think we are all still in a world of trouble.

What must each side do to be successful?

Cutting the rheortic and bluster before anything has happened would help on both sides.

Do you think Hamas can be engaged the same way the IRA was?

It was really tough with the IRA. Britain asked for complete disarmament and that of course fell on deaf ears, and I expect we will go the same route. Its just not smart for the other side so it could take years.
I think there is a smigen of hope now that both sides are starting over, with both Sharon and Arafat gone. If both sides can just come to THE IDEA that they MUST live together, if there are negotiating moderates on each side and they can get their extremist factions to die down understand that a peace negotiation needs compromise in order not to have enternal hell there, perhaps they can deal.

I (personally) have given up hope on this long ago. For too long we have spent money and time and given best efforts, of all our greatest mediators. Its enough to make one just sick with humans. Ive often thought we should just withdrawl all support, let them both duke it out until the best country wins (which would be Israel) and then pick up the pieces when there are only a few hundred people left. But thats not a real possibility, is it?

As to my last post, I am fully aware of the history. The problem is that Palestinians as well as Isrealis must have a place of their own, we cant kill them off or enslave them because they were banished from Jordan and we created Israel. Both need to be accomodated. (Westerners should learn their lessons finally from Yugoslavia, Iraq and here, you cant create false borders and countries) Unless someone wants to take them all, perhaps in Utah? We must make at least as fair a pact for them as we made for Israel.



I love this T-shirt. Ive seen it many times, and its true. I hope you are not saying that its ok that migration=enslavement (or genocide) , as in white people 'leaving Europe', nice easy way to put it when a wall was proposed in order to give people absolutely 'no hope' back in 1923. I truly hope that Palestinians are not in this day and age retired to what will basically be an enclosed reservation of mass porportions. Most times, white people leaving Europe or anywhere else has wreaked havoc on others lesser armed.

Well, this twist in the sorry affair between Israel and Palestine (the withholding of £35mill by Israel) demonstrates the intention that Israel has towards Palestine new leadership. Nothing changes does it. New leadership but same old issues, same old nonsense and same old bullying.

Apparently, against Bush’s demand and purported respect for the democratic process in Arab countries, unless Bush and Israel agree with the result, it doesn’t really matter how democratically elected the leadership of Palestine is. You might push that the Germans elected Hitler and look how that turned out, while I might retort that the US elected Bush.

Regardless of who is elected, surely you have to respect a nations’ democratic process, and the result of it. Until the elected party gives you reason to behave differently, how can one country have the right to override another’s elections? And this refusal to give legally entitled, and supposedly internationally enforceable payment of monies, is nothing more than an attempt to provoke Hamas into a reaction, so then Israel can turn around and say “look, see, we were right”. If you kick a sleeping lion, expect to get bit. And don’t expect sympathy when you do.

It’s funny really: you stomp all over a millennia old breeding ground for sharks and then when you’re attacked you cry foul; you chase wolves from land, and hunt and kill them so you can fell the trees and mine the oil, or just for the hell of it, and when they defend themselves you cry foul. Anyone would think it was a personality trait, to attack something and then claim to be fouled when it defends itself. You create a country on land that was already inhabited by other peoples, and then wonder why they're not happy about being squashed into a small corner by military might supported by the biggest militant in the world (Bush).

This latest Israel–Palestine affair is pretty much: you can't have your money unless you recognise Israel (and promise not to defend yourselves when we take advantage of you, marginalise you and prevent your access to lands that have been yours to roam and farm for millenia before the creation of the new country).

It is the equivalent of the school bully pinning a kid against a wall, taking his lunch money (or money for health and medicine in this case) and demanding that the kid call him sir if he wants it back.

The only way that peace can be wrought in the area is if BOTH sides quit their offensive manoevres. Sly moves like this by Israel are just as provocative and unhelpful for the peace process. And why is it done? because Israel choses to exert its power? Do you think Hamas will back down if you keep pushing? Would Israel back down when Hamas push? Both parties have to stop pushing. And the likes of Bush offering clear support for one side is NOT going to provide a neutral environment for talks.

Now, i'm sure one or another person will come back and say how Israel is the innocent party on this. Which is pure and absolute horsefeathers.

If you want peace in the area, BOTH parties have to put aside their differences and show some goddamn respect for each other. And both includes the Israel-Bush alliance as well as Hamas.

You have made three very basic assumptions, all which are fallacies.

First off you claim that the land belongs to the Arabs. First that is totally incorrect, it is disputed territory. Israel is the only ones to have a legal claim to the land. In fact they have four international laws and treaties that give them claim to the land, the Arabs have no legal claim. Israel has taken the high road and agreed to partition the land, the Arabs have not. When Israel captured the territory in 1967 it was occupied by Syria, Egypt and Jordan. How many UN resolutions were introduced concerning their occupation? The 'Palestinians' claimed the territory in 1968.

Second that the fence is meant as the international border. That too is false, though it may some day become the border Israel has said that is still subject to negotiations.

Your third and most basic fallacy is that it is somehow illegal to build a fence to protect your citizens in territory that may not be your own. It is not and I refer to India building a fence in Kasmer, Russia in Chechneya both of which is to keep out terrorist. Yet neither have even drawn a UN comment. Then we have the Saudi fence in Yemen to keep out smugglers, and lets not forget the European Union that has built a fence in Africa to keep out illegal immigrants. So it is not illegal to build a fence to protect ones citizens.

Your use of the term "Israeli Apartheid Wall" tells me you don't even know what the word means. Israel has over 1 million Ar