The American press has been ignoring the current wave of violence between Fatah and Hamas which has killed 17 yesterday and today has exploded into a full civil war Jerusalem Post with Hamas claiming to have taken over the entire Northern Gaza Strip.

Fatah outnumbers Hamas by about 8 to 1 but has a huge number of the their members that support Hamas.

Israel has been very active in targeting Hamas leadership, not taking sides but they have managed to send most of the leadership into hiding.

Questions for debate:

Is this the real deal or just another spat?

Who do you believe will come out on top?

Should anybody do anything to stop this?

If not how can the outside do anything to prevent the spread?

Looks like Fatah lost Gaza to Hamas Abbas to dismantle unity government with Hamas The Fatah Army has either remained on the sidelines or surrendered to Hamas.

Fatah's Army still has about 40,000 combatants versus about 5,000 Hamas but is either unwilling or unable to defeat Hamas. Hamas takes 3rd major Fatah stronghold

Hamas is being disarmed and imprisoned in the West Bank W. Bank: Fatah nabs 36 Hamas activists

So it looks like for all purposes that there are two "Palestines" that are hostile to each other and just about everybody else as well.

Questions for debate:

Should anybody do anything to stop this?
Yes, the US and Israel in particular. Just for starters, starving the occupied territories certainly hasn't helped, nor has arresting the Palestinian gov. leadership and expanding the Settlements. Let's not forget the ever increasing walls turning Palestinian lands into isolated Bantustans.

If not how can the outside do anything to prevent the spread?

I'll ignore the "If not" since it appears to me to not seque appropriately with the previous question. The parties should except the Saudi proposal of a return to the 1967 borders with a resulting two state solution agreed to by all the interested parties. It doesn't matter if the negotiation is with the elected Hamas government. Commonly parties engage in hard rhetoric and even fighting when differences remain unresolved but that is no excuse to refuse negotiations and likely relieve this present conflict. Once they agree to a settlement then they all have to live up to it. So far there is no agreement or even serious attempt by Israel to bring an equitable one about and the roadmap protocols are being violated on both sides so it seems unsurprising that violence becomes the only avenue for redress, even spinning off in a fratricidal direction.

Naturally, it's all Israel's fault. This topic is about the civil war in Gaza. Who is turning that land into a Bantustan? Egypt has a a wall isolating Gaza, not Israel. Let's hear your passionate arguments against the evil Egyptians.

As for arresting the "Palestinian" "leadership," are Hamas terrorists sworn to destroy Israel or not?



I trust by 'except' you mean 'accept' although the former is a better option.

In 1967, Egypt still occupied Gaza and wouldn't let the inhabitants leave the strip. Why would that be better than the present situation? Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel, so I doubt they'd like to take possession of Gaza today, inviting civil war and a government-by-death-cult into their own country. You are not being realistic here.

I am with Carlito on this one, it will probably end up being all Israel's fault some how.

I don't think anyone should step in one this one, let these two groups slaughter themselves. Hey maybe we should let the groups in Iraq do the same thing. Like DT said, the flavor of the month Imam is getting old. Everybody wins when Islamo fascists kill them selves.

As to the second question.. I say let's pull out of the middle east and let it implode on itself. These backwards people are not worth our time anymore.

carlitoswhey - I just loved his comment about starving people too. Since there has NEVER been a single person that has starved in any of the 'territories' in the past 59 years. Nor even one case of malnutrition though that might change Hamas murders 2 UN workers

Maybe dingo is just confused because aid to the 'Palestinians' has declined so much this last year. How much has it declined, well actually it increased 300%. Meaning they receive more aid than all other refugees in the world combined.

But yes that too is all Israel's fault. Now the violence is spreading to the West Bank Hamas militants killed in Nablus

This Israeli citizen would beg to disagree.
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=10578

My point stands. Israel's refusal to offer to engage in serious peace negotiations toward a two state settlement based on UN Res. 242 and instead continually tightening the noose on the Palestinians is the principal basis for the fighting going on there now. Hamas needs to be reined in but there has to be a carrot as well as a stick and Israel as yet does not seem inclined to offer that carrot. And the US continues to subsidize this ugly state of affairs doing what good to its own interests? None that I can see. One wonders what wrong the Palestinians have done to these hard hearted Likudist supporters on this board that makes them want to preclude a peace that everyone including Israel needs. You are no friend of any Israeli that wants peace and there are plenty of them. Presumably you want the West Bank Settlements to continue to expand under the cover of "Well you just can't make peace with these fellows." And then you can disingenuously ask "Gosh, what should we do?" How about taking your foot off the Palestinians back.

And CW the Gaza problem is not separable from the problem of the occupied territories in general. And please stop chucking the Israeli occupation on to Egypt. It is not Egypt that has illegal Settlements in Palestinian territory and his building new walls and has a military presence there and is progressively bulldozing Palestinian homes and olive groves and killing Palestinians. Your apples and oranges comparison is grotesque.

One whole Israeli is claiming this wow . Well this is another Israeli that disputes that, as does the UN. They state that there is more than a six month food supply in Gaza and that over 800 truck loads a day go into Gaza. The fact is that their GNP puts them on a par with countries like Kenya and their is no starvation there. Again nobody has ever starved so that is another myth busted.

UNSC 242 does not state what you claim, nor is it germane to the subject. Nor is there any such thing as 'Palestinian territory' unless Israel gives it to them. They never had any territory period. That is another one of your myths which we have busted several times.

And in any case that is not germane to Hamas (a religion terrorist organization) and Fatah (a secular terrorist organization) are fighting for control of Gaza and the West Bank.

There are many people living there that disagree with everything you wrote Hamas losing support Here's what HRW one of your favorite groups has to say Palestinian war crimes or maybe what the Palestinians have to say about how terrible the Israeli occupation was in comparision Infighting worse than the occupation But those are comments from people that live there.

My point stands but it shouldn't be so confined. Israel with its bloody policies is making life generally unliveable in Gaza etc. It has no road map for peace.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...articleID=11072

http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2007/02/0...set-for-a-coup/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16210.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6387843.stm


You are wrong across the board if one can transcend extreme partisan game playing and use the language in a normal way and not in a narrow legalistic agenda based way. What can I say. Your arrogance is showing I guess is about it.


Some folks think the Israeli government is a terrorist government and the Israeli state came into existence through the practice of terrorism. I don't imagine that's what you learned in Israel but the state of reality doesn't begin and end with what you were taught. Hamas was elected. That's called a democracy. You obviously have little respect for democracy.


What I wrote is that the Israelis had swept the Palestinians into a corner like rats so they were now fighting among themselves. Thanks for confirming it.

Is this the real deal or just another spat?
Real round Fatah up and kill them deal.

Who do you believe will come out on top?
Well, that's been answered, though I didn't doubt Hamas would win.

Should anybody do anything to stop this?
What for? It's strategically better for Israel in the long run if no one intercedes. Ram Caspi can have his virtual Gaza-wide noose. Ilan Scheinfeld can plow and salt Gaza; rabbi Mordechai can have his carpet bombing; Avi Dichter and Yuval Diskin can respond to every Qassam rocket by bombing Gaza City's well off sector; Major General Levin can cut Gaza up into little squares and destroy one square for every Qassam rocket; Moshe Ya'alon can cleanse the territory and Sderot's mayor can kill a Palestinian child for every murdered Jewish child.

If not how can the outside do anything to prevent the spread?
Respect the results of democratic elections. There was a time when Abbas and Haniya still had enough leverage to control their fighters. Without foreign aid both sides were reduced to roaming as unpaid mercenaries, not to mention the area is now susceptible to AQ infiltration, but Hamas showed more discipline in the end. Abbas and Haniya have lost too much face, and now Israel can finally wipe Gaza off the map.

Ignoring the morality of the situation for a moment: it is hard to imagine how this could possibly be any better for Israel.

-As opposed to fighting the palestinian militants and extremists, then can sit back with popcorn and watch as they kill each other.

-As long as the two sides are concentrated on fighting each other there will undoubtably be a reduction in the number of suicide attacks on Israel itself.

-The complete instability and violent bloodbath between the two sides in the Palestinian camp is the perfect argument for Israel holding off on full palestinian home rule indefinately.

-Israel can even choose to 'work with' Fatah AGAINST Hamas, egging the struggle on and watching the extremes in both camps kill each other.

-International pressure against Israel will diminish, as nobody expects major concessions from Israel when the palestinians are too bush killing each other to negotiate...

It is absolutely a win-win situation for Israel, UNLESS hamas eventually comes out victorious, as it will be a miltant hamas devoid of the few restraining influences it had before. And Israel can help prevent that by subtle assistance to Fatah" enough to keep them on top but not enough to win and end the fighting...

As I said, I'm ignoring the morality and human suffering for a moment here, but I don't think Israel has any interest in having the fighting stop, just not spread over into their territory.

I use a 'narrow legalistic agenda based way', not exactly. That interpretation is from the authors of UNSC 242, not me. Now why would an INTERNATIONAL LAW be defined in a narrow legalistic agenda based way? Might be something about laws. You state my 'arrogance' is showing, well you just swept away the every judical system on this planet and 3,000 years of jurisprudence and I am arrogant? Your's knows no bounds of arrogance.

Maybe you should inform the US Supreme Court that they shouldn't interpret laws in a 'narrow legalistic agenda based way'.

Some folks think that there is stravation in Gaza too, but they would be just as wrong. Elections do not constitution democracy. That is merely one indictator. This month Syria had an election and their President was re-elected with a 97% margin. That did not constitute a democracy in any way shape or form.

Israel has swept the poor 'Palestinians' into a corner, but it seems to me that they haven't. The fact is that Israel does not control the border between Gaza and Egypt nor has it for the last year and half. What Israel has done is say that they can't enter Israel. Every nation in the world has that right. So if Egypt doesn't let them in, Israel has swept them into a corner? Sounds like they created their own conditions to me.

Do American have a right to travel through Canada to get to and from Alaska? I don't think so, we happen to have an agreement that the Canadians allow us to travel through their country, but not a right.

Vermillion - you are absolutely wrong. The US is already pressuring Israel to make concessions to Hamas. Claiming that there is a militant wing and a political wing, just like they did with Fatah. So your entire analysis has already fallen apart.

Yes, it's only been months since Abbas and Khaled Meshaal were in togas, looking at the magic meteor together. Now, Fatah guys are being shot in the legs and thrown off buildings. Why, if we didn't know better, we would think that these savages actually don't care about human rights and what not.

You seem to suggest that a Hamas victory precludes Al Qaeda from running things in Gaza. I'm sure that you can connect the dots, but some others seem not to notice that the battles in Iraq, Lebannon and Gaza are in fact connected and indeed fronts in one war. Al Qaeda and Hamas differ in name only, and all of these thugs are working together, ultimately backed by Iran and money in Saudi.

Of course, no one is willing to say this - When the media aren't photoshopping out evil, they are just dupes and pretend not to notice it.

And yes, this is good for Israel, if for no other reason than it tips the next election to someone willing to deal with reality and not empty diplomatic promises.

Dingo, every time you type the words "olive groves" vis a vis the Palestinians, I throw up in my mouth a little. So stop that.

Is this the real deal or just another spat?

Oh, it looks real enough to me. This is what happens when you vote extremists into power. Fatah. Hamas. Whats the difference? There were four other parties in the Palestinian elections, none of whom had a militant wing and none of whom came any where close to getting into government. IIRC they managed to gather 11% of the total vote.

As for any idea that this is some how due to Israel, well, maybe in a round about way the Israeli's kick started this whole process by virtue of their not being Muslims, thats true enough. Allah forbid that a middle eastern state not be a Muslim state, and horror of horrors be a successful and prosperous nation of law and progress as opposed to a barbarity where whom so ever holds the quran in one hand and an AK74 rifle in the other rules. This conflict is the reality of an Islamic society. Had Isreal been founded by post colonial Muslims, as most of its neighbours were, then it would not be the nexus of terrorism it is today. The only reason why Israel gets the short end of the stick is because they are Jews. Unclean! Unclean! Were they Muslims they'd be no worse off than the Jordanians and the Palestinians would be as ignored by the rest of the world as the Druze, Alawites or Copts.


Who do you believe will come out on top?

Probably some Syrian or Iranian backed, bearded freak in black belonging to one of the myriad extremist groups who brought the Palestinians to where they are today. Ten to one he's called Mohammed something or other.


Should anybody do anything to stop this?

Well, various socialist groups in Europe have already called for increased boycott of Israel as a mark of solidarity to their 'oppressed bretheren in the occupied territories' (their words not mine), so some one obviously believes they can do something to stop Muslims from turning to violence instead of civilised dialogue. I do not anticipate any great success though.

As for me, I'm quite content to see the Palestinians reap the benefit of their elections. The only Palestinans I feel sorry for the children and the 11% who tried to vote for civilization in the election. As for the rest, I don't care one jot what happens to them just so long as my country doesn't cave in as other Europeans are now doing and start sending cash to Hamas in a truly stupid attempt to buy them back into power.


If not how can the outside do anything to prevent the spread?

We can't. This conflict follows its own internal, tribal, ideological logic. You'd have to belong to the tribe and subscribe to the ideology in order to create peace. The only other way I can see of creating peace in the middle east would be to eliminate all the Muslims. Its frightening how seducing such a terrifying thought can be but no doubt the slumbering beast exists in all of us and we can think ourselves lucky that we were not born in Gaza.

I had not heard there was US pressure on Israel asking them to make concessions with Hamas since the civil war exploded. Could you help me with a link please? What concessions exactly are they asking of Israel, considering it is at the moment not involved in the civil war?


Assuming such pressure exists... how exactly does that make my entire analysis fall apart exactly? Seriously, I don't get it. At best it migh influence one of my points, when I stated that "-International pressure against Israel will diminish, as nobody expects major concessions from Israel when the palestinians are too busy killing each other to negotiate...". Apparently there might be some pressure, we shall have to see. I still maintain the pressure on Israel to grant statehood to palestine will be seriously diminished while the palestinians are busy killing each other.

Your comment doesn't even address my other five points, so if in fact this 'pressure' from the US really does make my 'entire analysis fall apart', I for one am at a loss to figure out how...

White House Seems Ready to Let Hamas Seize Gaza The US State Department can't wait to force Israel to make concessions.

As moif has pointed out Europe too is pushing. The EU voted to start supplying even more money.

So in short Israel is going to be forced to support 'moderate Hamas polical wing' by making gestures to these religious terrorists. Such as releasing murderers, rapists, etc. Handing over millions of dollars so they can buy more weapons, and opening the border to allow terrorists into their country.

Suicide bombers - Shin Bet stops 2 suicide bombers The civil war hasn't done anything to demish those efforts. Nor has there been any let up in the rockets raining down on Israeli cities and towns.

Postpone homeland - 97% of all 'Palestinians' have been under their own government rule for 14 years now. Yes the EU is pushing for Israel to withdraw from all of the West Bank and their capital Jerusalem.

Fatah vs. Hamas - Too late Hamas has won.

So yes every single point you made has already been proven to incorrect.

Really? Because that's not what your article says at all. It mentions nothing whatsoever about pressure on Israel to make concessions to hamas, in fact it SEEMS to say quite the opposite, with some US officials suggesting Israel work with Fatah to undermine Hamas.

"Senior Bush administration officials said no decision had been made. Some State Department officials argue that the administration could only support such a separation if Israel agreed to make political concessions to Mr. Abbas in the West Bank, with the goal of undermining Hamas in the eyes of Palestinians by improving life in the West Bank..

So perhaps you could provide a link that supports your statement, as opposed to one that directly refutes it?



Again, I didn't know that. I'm not denying it, simply stating that was news to me. Could you perhaps help me with a link that, since the Civil war, Europe has voted to supply more money to hamas, or for that matter, has been pressuring Israel to make concessions to hamas?



Really? The article you quoted above mentioned the possibility that the US might encourage Israel to work with the political wing of Fatah, not Hamas at all. So forgive me if your assertion that 'Israel is going to be forced to release murderers and rapists' seems a bit... unreasonable? But again I confess ignorance, perhaps you could link me to a soyurce which states that Israel is going to be forced to release murderes and rapists as concessions?



Well I never claimed it would stop, just that it might let up. However your evidence does clearly show that at least one attack has still been attempted, and I looked up rocket attacks myself and found two had hit Israel just three days ago, though nobody was hurt. We will have to wait and see if this civil war does in fact reduce the number of attacks, I may well be wrong about this one.



Really? You know more about this than me, but I was under the impression that Hamas had claimed victory in the Gaza strip, while Fatah still maintained control of the much larger west bank. The again I may be mistaken, as you state the civil war is over and Hamas won. I guess my opinion that the vast majority of the Palestinian territory was still under Fatah control was in error.



Yes, so you assert, but forgive me if I remain... skeptical... given the statements you have made above, and the evidence you provided demonstrating you to be in error.

How does this disprove Abbas and Haniya have no leverage? If anything showing up in togas to touch a meteor should make you ask why won't their subordinates get along.

Between Egypt's attempts to negotiate a ceasefire between Hamas and Fatah Israel took the opportunity to settle a few scores with Hamas. This escalation starts as far back as November 2006 with rockets fired at Israel on and off for six months until Israel decided to retaliate with air strikes and taking Hamas legislatures hostage (because it's worked so well for Palestinians). Why would you let up the pressure if you're Israel and both sides are at each others' throats? And why would Hamas not kill Fatah members when they know Abbas is cooperating with Egypt, Israel, and the U.S., getting a nice chunk of change and new toys in the process, while their party is undermined by being unable to provide for Palestinians and members of parliament are captured with the approval of at least the U.S.? Fatah was supposed to win the battle for Gaza and they still got served.


I think you've concluded I think Hamas's victory is a win for Palestinians. It's not a win for Gaza or the West Bank because we've never allowed Hamas a long term political or military victory in the territories. The people who stand to lose the most and will keep losing is the general Palestinian population because we won't consider negotiating with Hamas as long as Israel objects.

If anything I don't know to what extent AQ's influence could shape Palestinian "politics" and I doubt anyone can say for certain at the moment. Hamas wants to impose religious doctrine but while they'd welcome AQ's financial assistance since they're not going to see any assistance coming from us, I'm not sure they'd be too happy sharing power with an outsider.


Well, actually, we're fighting them in Iraq so we can fight them everywhere. If these activities are connected we are the common thread as jihadis/militants/nationalist fighters are leaving Iraq and putting their hard won experience to use.

Hamas has roots in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and enjoyed some help from Sharon who wanted to undermine Arafat's control over the PLO. Islamic Jihad is based in Damascus but operates in Gaza, and AQ simply waits for states to approach failed state status or political failure as is the case in Lebanon with refugees existing in legal limbo. So, yes, AQ is "spreading" but in some cases, and definitely in Iraq, it seems we're not discouraging their expanded operations.


I don't believe Israel wants to diplomatically handle anything. I think it wants to appropriate the territories for greater access to water and strategic elevated areas. It rejected the terms of the first Arab League Summit in 2002 and will likely reject this year's offer.


You read that article as if the U.S. really cares about what's going on in Gaza. I read that article as if the U.S. wants Abbas to consolidate power in the West Bank so Israel can steamroll Gaza and Abbas can pick up the pieces—with Israel's leave, of course.

Granted.

Of course you are joking, "3,000 years of jurisprudence"? Talk about overkill. Quite matter of factly when the resolution was passed it was understood there would varying interpretations. You of course take the uniquely Israeli interpretation that 242 is whatever the Israelis say it is.
http://www.mideastweb.org/242.htm



The difference between a contested election and a noncontested one would seem to be obvious but apparently not with you.


It's hard to believe you're really that clueless. Israel occupying Palestinian land and then forcing the refugees into a small corner which it bombards with regularity has absolutely nothing to do with the border between Gaza and Egypt unless you expect Arab countries to continually absorb refugees that Israel creates.



Having read you CW the idea that a relevant fact that ran counter to your ethnic cleansing agenda would cause you to throw up doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The Israelis are bulldozing the olive groves of Palestinians to make way for more Settlements, roads and restrictive fences etc. If you like I'll repeat it.


It seems like you left out a couple of minor matters like aggressive colonial expansion and ethnic cleansing - ah yes, just details.


Thanks for sharing your genocidal fantasies. Seriously, I appreciate it because most folks wouldn't be so out front candid. Also it helps explain some of your other comments, not only on this thread but others.

No, I don't deny Israel has expansive tendencies and has grabbed land in the past. My point, which you seem to have completely missed in your eagerness to jump to conclusions, is that Israel is not alone in this regard. It shares its character with numerous of its Muslim neighbours. The big difference between Israel and its neighbours is that the surrounding Muslim community (and their socialist friends in the west) care a great deal about Jewish expansion and very little about Muslim expansion, even when that expansion has cost many hundreds of thousands more more deaths than Israel is responsible for. Example... and another... and one more...

You show me the outrage amongst Muslims as to these atrocities commited by a Muslim nation against innocent people. There is none. The Muslim world does not care one jot about innocent people. They don't even care about the Palestinians! All they care about is the fact that Jews dared to create a state and succeeded. If the Israeli's had been Muslims and not Jews, you'd never even have heard of the Palestinians.


Actually I was speaking about humanity at large. This is what is meant by the use of the word 'us' in this sentence instead of 'me'. Sorry to contradict your glee but I do not have 'genocidal fantasies'.


edited to repair a link

I doubt it's just a "spat," this is much more serious as it has thrown any possible plan for a Palestinian state or short-term peace into limbo.

Looks as if a Hamas free cabinet has been formed and Israel has stated that the new parliament is a good step for peace. The U.S. has also pledged to end its aid embargo. I think the present plan of positive incentives through aid and even military aid should continue to be utilized. I have read nothing which has indicated that Hamas can be negotiable about Israel's existence or to have any inclination for peace. I believe the U.S. and Israel should provide intelligence information to the Abbas government.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Christians are under attack in Gaza.


Whenever Abbas is doing his utmost, I always feel better. Too bad the Christians don't have any olive groves.

Has anyone at all noticed that, when Israel pulled out of Gaza, Islamic extremists took over? Anyone? Bueller? Why exactly is this better, just because they had an election?

Well it looks like we know who's side Jimmy Carter is on:

Washington Post Story via AP



So Carter thinks as long as you are democratically elected it is OK to use terrorism?

No Carter thinks you should honor democracy when you are hollering to the rooftops that democracy is a reason for mucking around in ME politics. It's not clear that all the actions of Hamas against the Israelis were authorized by the Hamas government leadership. In any case you seem to share the general American mindset that the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory along with murdering Palestinians and ethnicly cleansing them to make way for Israelis settlers is not terrorism but resistance is.

One wonders why rationally Americans would take such positions, as we have no historical conflict with the Palestinians and it just feeds the Jihadist movement and Arab hostility in general, and then the polls come in and they show a quarter believe the arrival of Jesus is imminent and for many of them the necessary condition for the rapture to take place is the restoration of the Holy Lands to a Zionist condition. Throw in a few more irrationalities and a super effective Israeli lobby and you begin to form a clear picture of why an effective majority of Americans are willing to operate against their own countries interests.

One wonders whether this is the place that is going to be the spark that's going to lead to the end of history. Seems likely.



This was the money quote:


Maybe you should choose your words more carefully.

At the risk of paraphrasing Ann Coulter, converting the Muslims would also eliminate them, minus the genocide. As I'm sure you're aware, that's how the Muslims got there in the first place, being converted from Christianity or whatever. Just a thought.


Also, you may want to stay away from accusations of "irrationalities" when you post rationalizations like this laugher.

No doubt Moif was thinking of conversion - my bad.


As I recall the first actions that happened after the Hamas government was elected was the kidnapping of one or two Israeli soldiers. That was suppose to be the spark that set off massive intervention in Gaza. I believe the Hamas leadership claimed no orders came from them on the matter. It would seem like an odd impotent action for them to take given the response it was likely to induce. So I'm inclined to agree with them. Of course when you had the aid cutoff and the massive attacks on Gaza by the Israelis, the arresting of a third of the Hamas government then you can say all bets were off. But I'm inclined to believe from what I read that Hamas was prepared to go with a negotiated settlement but they wanted to hold off on recognition as a card to play in the negotiations. In any case, how can you recognize a country when the boundary lines aren't settled?

Should anybody do anything to stop this?

Yes, the US should stop subsidizing Israel until they get serious about a peace settlement. That, hopefully, would set the stage for a resolution of the present crisis. You have the Palestinians fighting over crumbs and lousy choices presently. Expand the playing field and hope could come back and with that cooperation.

Perhaps. I do not believe that it ought to be necessary though. Taking a single sentence out of context to make an accusation of that calibre strikes me as wishful thinking.

Sure enough, you have an opinon, but there is no need to personalize the debate. It is not about me, nor any perceived desire for genocide I might have.

The point I made regarded the ease with which humanity can slip into carrying out atrocity. If the way by which this point was made conveys the impression that I too might be so easily be swayed then this is because I might. I too am human and it is my constant concern that I may be treading the wrong path. In other words, it is frightening how seducing such a terrifying thought can be. The very quote you used to describe me as having genocidal fantasies is the very quote which tells you I regards such things as frightening.

The idea that a difficult political struggle can be solved by simple means, whether it be by a pragmatic disregard for human rights, an oppressive religous ideology, or merely turning the other cheek and refusing to get involved is universal. Living in democracies, we all have to carry the burden of responsibility for what is done in our name. That includes accepting the consequences for voting terrorists into power. Planet Earth has seen full well what happens when democracy is used as a tool for oppression and there is no moral obligation that I can see validates the election of Hamas into power. Nor grants them legitimacy simply because they were elected. A murderer elected is still a murderer. The notion that the rest of the world is beholden to Hamas simply by virtue of their election success is just as ridiculous as the notion that the Hamas leadership bears no responsibility for the actions of Hamas, whether they sanctioned it or not.

The fact of the matter is plain and simple. The western world believes Israel has a right to exist, thus the western world backs Israel. In particular Europe also believes the Palestinians have a right to their own state, thus the Europeans back the Palestinians. Indeed we pay them a ridiculous amount of money every year. So much so that they apparently cannot survive with our charity. This aid is conditional however. It is hinges on a stated affiliation to a peace process that grants both sides the right to exist.

Hamas, upon election, refused to grant Israel the right to exist. It continued its message of armed struggle unabated. Hamas believes in violence and the destruction of Isrsael and made this clear to the meanest understanding and when someone demonstrates an element of their character, you'd better believe them. Those who follow Hamas have been seduced by the idea that violence can solve their problems. They have accepted the terrifying thought of which I spoke and as Carlito points out, Hamas has already begun to initiate oppressive measures against its rivals.


edited to fix quote tags

I would strongly suggest that you might try looking up some information because your recall is very flawed. One of their very first actions was to murder a women because she was out with her finance. Then they launched over 1,200 rockets into Israeli cities murdering a few people and injuring dozens, a few suicide bombers, a few more roadside bombs and then invading Israel murdering some soldiers and kidnapping one.

This what they actually did, not you recollection exactly. Hezbollah was the one that invaded Israel and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. Wrong border.

As for recognizing a country when the boundary lines aren't settled, why not? Name one good reason? The only reason not to is because a country feels that any land is too much and that is exactly what Hamas has said. The only people that have ever done any ethnic cleansing are the Muslims. And now they have turned on the Christians. In the PNA the number of Christians has been reduced by 60% since the the establishment of the PNA. In Israel the number is rising.

Giving into terrorists does not appease them in any way whatsoever. It merely encourages them to kill more people which all of the Arabs support.

I agree that a democratically elected government does not make the world "beholden" to it, but I don't think anyone has been arguing for this position. Surely, you would agree that a fair and democratically elected government has more political justification for its existence than, say, a dictatorship? If not, then why all this emphasis on democracy? Why don't we instead emphasize that a politically virtuous government is one that doesn't support terrorism (as defined by the West) no matter what type of government we see? Instead, we choose to believe that democracy=good when clearly we can see that is not necessarily the case.

========================

Here's where I'm confused. We complain that a Hamas-lead government doesn't recognize Israel, yet we (the US and Israel) effectively don't recognize a Hamas-lead government. Bleh...



I refute thee thus: Qaddafi.


Hmm... Such a charitable point of view. One wonders why you support the invasion of Iraq.

As if not recognizing a UN member state, secular parliamentary democracy is EXACTLY like not recognizing a terrorist group dedicated to elimination of all Jews on the planet, notably those next door. Right after they execute, mutilate and otherwise terrorize their rival Fatah terrorists on the Gaza Strip. Sure, same thing. Tomayto / tomahto. Bleh, indeed.

I can agree with you on this one Logophage.The point of holding elections is to begin an arbitration process with the people. This has been accomplised. The problem is when outsider forces refuse to recognize or enter this same process of communication.

A second point which adds complexity to the situation is accepting the premise of politically irrational labels as Mr. Bush hands them out. Example, by labelling one side a terrorist the dialog process shuts down immediately. Look no farther than the loreng's no negotation statement. This is an immature arguement because it seeks to marginalize at the whims of white house politicians. It takes the labelling of the enemy at face value. I can think of several times over the last 18 or so months where offers to halt suicide bombers have been made for aid or freedom of movement. No response. I can think of two times where offers to recognize Israel were made in omnibus bills when the unitary government was set up. Again no negotiation at all. You cannot run a system based on perpetual demands which fly in the face of over a million people. It just wont work!

Now what is missed by many is the blockade of Palestine has continued on for a year and a half. Desperate measures are of no surprise to a economically dependant state like Palestine. It is worth noting that a country (and for all intensive purposed Gaza is treated as a separate country) held under seige has the right to resist. Right now the right to resist occupation is being blurred with the recognition of Israel. This is a very important point which is not addressed. If any media outlet let's a member of Hamas merely speak, the have are deemed to be supporting propagandic exercises so this point will remain buried for years to come. This is the result of non negotiable practices which have kept us all in the dark. I'm not asking you to support Hamas, but I am asking you to let them come to the podium.

I'm sure you can find somewhere in my words where I was stating that Israel's government and Hamas are morally equivalent? If not, then spare me the moral outrage.

Do we? Is there such a constant emphasis on democracy? You yourself quoted Qaddafi. He is not elected.

I believe a democracy is a government that reflects the wishes of an electorate, and as such carries more validity than a dictatorship which can never be said to reflect the wishes of an electorate. As such a democracy has more legitimacy in negotiations with other countries. It can truly represent. This doesn't mean however that the people of a country can elect criminals into power and expect the rest of the world to ignore the fact of their crimes simply because they were elected. It just doesn't work like that.

I believe that the reality is more nuanced. That democratically elected governments must deal with criminal governments and dictators when there is no other choice. In Palestine, there are chioices, amongst others, refusing to pay money to Hamas and dealing with Abbas (also elected).

I can agree with what you've written here on a philosophical level. However, it is clear that in some cases we (the West) will take the politically expedient route if the political fallout of doing so is not too great. Our recent change in our relationship with Qaddafi is a salient example. Let me outline the relationships so that we're more clear:

Libya: base for terrorist/terrorist leadership + dictatorship == good
Pakistan: base for terrorism + dictatorship == good
Saddam's Iraq: no terrorism (base or leadership) + dictatorship == bad
Iraq: base for terrorism + democracy == good
Palestine: base for terrorism/leadership + democracy == bad

I agree that Hamas is a less than savory organization with clear ties to terrorism. Yet, if Qaddafi can become a "reformed terrorist" whose criminality we have clearly ignored, I don't see why Hamas cannot also fit into this category. In fact, Hamas has more moral authority than Qaddafi as it was democratically elected; Qaddafi on the other hand is a dictator.

However, it would be naive to think that the reason Hamas won the election was because Palestinians desire terrorism. Palestinians desire security and economic viability which was not being delivered by Fatah. The election of Hamas was a natural outcome of dissatisfaction with the old government.


Huh? All countries have a choice. If the US doesn't want to deal with a country or a leader, then they can simply not do so. It is of course a country's right not to give money to another unless doing so abrogates a treaty.

Israel and the United States both recognized the PNA government in 1992. Might try a history class there. They refused to deal with a terrorist government, that is an entire different matter. The US recognizes Cuba, the government refuses to deal with the Cuban government, a huge difference.

And appeasing Qaddafi did what exactly? Has he moderated in any way shape or form?

When did I EVER support the invasion of Iraq? Please show one instance when I did that. And yes every single Arab nation does support the genocide of Jews. Diplomatically, militarily and financially.

I admit to not having a detailed account of events in that region although I think I have pretty good general picture of what's going on and who is doing the major messing around with who. For starters I was right about the Gaza soldier kidnapping. Does the name Gilad Shalit come to mind? Shalit appears to have been a pretext for a preplanned Israeli coup against a democratically elected government. I'm pressed for time so for now I will just respond on that point and then later hopefully come back and deal with you, moif etc on other matters.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-deba...l_gaza_3707.jsp

Hmm... I seemed to have written "effectively don't recognize" as opposed to "don't recognize". Yes, you are, of course, technically correct. The PNA is recognized. And Cuba is recognized. The governments of neither are recognized. I'm at a loss as to why that makes any difference.


It hasn't done much. Appeasing Qaddafi is just a salient example of how the US does deal with terrorist governments.


You're right, loreng59. You have never supported invasion of Iraq: my mistake. Sometimes I get confused over who is posting what.

As for the second part, can you provide evidence for your assertion that every single Arab nation supports the genocide of Jews?

Well, I read my post there and don't see the moral outrage, but if you're not saying that they are equivalent, then why are you 'confused'?


1 - What is "Palestine?"
2 - "Resisting occupation" from whom? This entire thread is about a Gazan civil war that is taking place completely free from occupation. Unless you count Fatah as occupiers? You are aware that Israel pulled out of Gaza, yes? That the "blockade" is from Egypt as much as anybody?

The difference is very basic. Recognizing a country means that your country states yes that state exists and has a right to exist even if you don’t like their government. Recognizing a government means that you will negotiate with it. During World War II the US recognized Germany, but did not recognize the Nazi regime. That is the difference.

Qaddafi actions were a direct result of the US bombing large portions of his country’s infrastructure back into the stone age. Appeasement did not do that.

As for Arab countries, good lord. Diplomatically try every one of the hundreds of resolutions against Israel, not a single Arab government has ever voted against one of them. Financially, the hundreds of millions of dollars funding all of the terrorists attacking Israel. Militarily with supplying arms, and actual military attacks and invasions, of which every Arab nation has been involved in from Morocco to Iraq. The terrorists have stated that their targets are the Jews in Israel.

From the Convention on Genocide:
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
{a} Killing members of the group;
{b} Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
{c} Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
{d} Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
{e} Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Thank you for the correction. I always figured that we should have just dropped a nuc on Baghbad and been done with it myself.

I agree with you. Qaddafi is a terrorist and ought to face charges. I was nauseated to see European leaders, especially Tony Blair given the Lockerbie bombing, shaking his hand as if all were forgiven. Qaddafi saw a possiblity and took it. In allowing him to do so the west betrayed much of its own laws and morals. However, the case for allowing Qaddafi into the fold again was no doubt made for political expediency. I cannot be sure whether or not western apparent-amnesia is not a method of controlling a rogue regime. The same seems to be so for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The consequences of defying these nations is too dangerous given the over all situation. This is what I meant by a lack of choices.


Perhaps. But if this is true it means the Palestinians are very stupid. Voting for a terrorist group like Hamas on the basis for a desire for peace is ridiculous. Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It can NEVER bring about peace with the destruction of Israel. Nor can Hamas bring about economic viability since the Palestinians are dependent on western aid and western aid is conditional on a peace process that Hamas is unable to commit to.

In other words, a vote for Hamas is a vote for conflict. Plain and simple. I do not believe the Palestinians are too stupid to understand that (which means however that I do believe they are stupid enough to want conflict). I have to accept this conclusion because I cannot see any other from the result of the Palestinian election that put Hamas into power. In essence the Palestinians are demonstrating for all the world to see that they have no internal unity. That the tribalism of Arab culture does not fit into the western notion of a nation state. This is not my way of saying they are 'bad people'. Only that the expectation of democracy in Arabic/ Muslim nations should take into account the tribal structure of Arabic society. Currently, it doesn't and this is demonstrated by the way Arabic nations fracture so easily.

Its been said that there never were any Palestinians. That Palestine is not and never was a state. I agree with this now (I didn't always) because its more or less true. Prior to the foundation of Israel, the region called Palestine was an ambiguous region under the administration of other exterior powers. At no point was there ever a nation there called Palestine and the people who inhabited the region were not an homogenous group known as the Palestinians. They were a mixture of various peopl