Hamas in their very own words, by their leader

Post Reply New Topic

I know that, "any in the region except for Israel" is setting a very low bar for democracy and transparency. But the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is able to meet that bar.

While I wholeheartedly agree that conditions in Israel are superior to those in the West Bank, I don't think that is relevant.



But also the organisation that has sat down at the table and subtantially negotiated a land swap. Negotiated peace is the best approach to nation building, and Fatah appears to be the only vehicle for that. Are they perfect? Far from it. (And so, too, is every government on the planet). But they are still the "tallest m***et."

Winning wars will do that.

ruveyn

Its got nothing to do with Libyans, or Islam. The problem is religious nutjobs of all flavours. Have you seen my location? Right now where I am, we've got youths blocking the roads every night and throwing petrol bombs at police over the removal of a 2 x 4 foot sheet of cotton. Our so called leaders are complicit in this behaviour. Theres nutcases in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Christianity. My point is Gadaffi was the least nutty of all possible candidates. NATO have let the genie out of the bottle by facilitating and assisting his killing.

It depends. On its own it means nothing. On the other hand, if you had, for instance, shot a BB gun into the backyard of the person who you say broke into your house, but didn't hit anyone, and said you didn't do anything wrong because the robber has real guns and you only have a BB gun, your stated desire to kill the person would tend to undermine the credibility of your protestations.



Actually, not recognizing Israel would be more like claiming that the robber didn't have the right to own his own house, while at the same time he respect your house by not breaking in to it.

Let me guess, you arrive at this conclusion by completely ignoring events between 1947 and 1967 like all Israel supporters seem to do?

Actually, no, I choose not to ignore events prior to 1947 - you know, the inconvenient truths such as the fact that there has never, ever been an independent Palestine, that the lands in question have therefore never "belonged" to the Palestinians, that the Palestinians have only been outraged by the occupiers of the land in question when the occupier has been Israel, but not when the occupier was the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, Jordan, or Egypt.

I also chose not to ignore events in the 1947 to 1967 time period as you claim. For one thing, I chose not to ignore the fact that the land being occupied most recently belonged to Jordan and Egypt, as these countries annexed the West Bank / East Jerusalem and Gaza in 1948. The "Palestinians" were strangely silent when "their" lands were conquered by these foreign countries.

I chose not to ignore the fact that Jordan would historically have been part of Palestine, that Jordan is not ruled by Palestinians nor is a Palestinian state by any real definition, and yet the Palestinians to this day have no problem with the country of Jordan.

I choose to not ignore the fact that the Palestinians had no problems with assorted Arab countries starting unprovoked wars with Israel with the goal of destroying Israel and now are upset that they live under Israeli rule as a direct result of these lands being conquered during those wars.

And I chose not to ignore the fact that the Israeli's have as much right to exist and live in some portion of this land as the Palestinians do, while the Palestinians refuse to acknowledge this and are completely adverse to the concept of sharing the land

It's too late now to argue whether Israel deserved to exist or not. At the time, I would've probably said "no" to Israel's existence, but what was done was done, and it would be unethical for any of us to demand that Israel be wiped out now. Now the best method to fix all the problems there is to find a way to peaceful coexistence for both sides.

...which can't be done when most Palestinians don't recognise Israel's basic right to exist, and when most Muslim countries (including terrorist organisations) are so viscerally and hatefully anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.

I'd love to see a Palestinian state, a peaceful, prosperous and free one where Muslims, Jews and others have equal rights, trading peacefully with Israel and her Arab/Muslim neighbours. War is good for no-one, especially for those people being used as pawns in an endless, stupid war that no-one will ever win.

At the moment though, that's terminally naïve.

visagrunt: They might be slightly (ever so slightly) better than Hamas, but I'm sure Israel hasn't taken their eyes off the fact that Fatah would wipe them out as a people if they got half a chance.

The interesting thing is that Jews and Palestinians do not have to love each other to co-prosper. All they have to do is stop the bloodshed. Which is what the Jews of Israel (and elsewhere) have been hankering for.

ruveyn

Agreed. Every country is founded on a crime - Israel is no exception, its crime is just more recent. Israel exists, and people should accept its existence.

However, what people should not have to do is to accept the legitimacy of Israel as it currently exists. That doesn't make sense. I would never expect a Maori to accept the legitimacy of New Zealand as it currently exists. They could not do such a thing without betraying their ancestors.