Nobody took the Nazis seriously until it was too late....
Nobody took the Nazis seriously until it was too late. Do we make the same mistake with Jihadis?
Consider:
According to Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, "The Hamas credo is not just anti-Israel, but profoundly anti-Semitic with racism at its core. The Hamas Charter reads like a modern-day 'Mein Kampf.'" According to the charter, Jewish people "have only negative traits and are presented as planning to take over the world."[23] The charter claims that the Jews deserve God’s/Allah’s enmity and wrath because they received the Scriptures but violated its sacred texts, disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew their own prophets.[24] "The Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, ‘O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews"(related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).[25] The charter contains references to antisemitic canards, such as the assertion that through shrewd manipulation of imperial countries and secret societies, Jews were behind a wide range of events and disasters going as far back in history as the French Revolution. The document also quotes Islamic religious texts to provide justification for fighting against and killing the Jews, without distinction of whether they are in Israel or elsewhere.[26] It presents the Arab-Israeli conflict as an inherently irreconcilable struggle between Jews and Muslims, and Judaism and Islam, adding that the only way to engage in this struggle between "truth and falsehood" is through Islam and by means of jihad, until victory or martyrdom.
(this from the Wikipedia article on the Hamas Covenant).
Hot air you say? Mere bombast? Or are these people serious?
ruveyn
John_Browning
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
I've never seen that before, but that's consistent with everything else the Palestinians have done and what the radicals believe.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
It's perfectly in line with what I heard muslims here saying, meaning, muslims I actually knew and spoke to and heard having conversations. This sounds just like all the rest of their biased retorics and it'd surprise me more to hear or read something moderate and intelligent from Hamas.
I think the creation of modern Israel was a terrible thing for Jews and for the world. It was like throwing a bone to a pack of dogs and expecting them not to try and eat it.
And yes, I think the world's leaders are underestimating the danger of Islam. In their desire not to offend anyone's religion, they are allowing the spread of a philosophy that advocates not only racism, but also murder and war.
Some are serious about that. But what are the options? Promoting dictatorships to contain them.? That didnt work and pushed their radicals abroad into the international jihad.
The best you can do is carrot and stick the Palestinians so that they can see the route forward and elect the right people.
Kraichgauer
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
The best you can do is carrot and stick the Palestinians so that they can see the route forward and elect the right people.
I don't think the status quo has any interest in that happening. The last thing the US wants to see is a credible, legitimate, organized, and nonviolent mass movement in Palestine. Israel, in its current state, would fold quite rapidly in that scenario. And that would be a disaster for US interests in the Middle East. Obviously also a disaster for those in Israel and Palestine who derive their power from the situation. I don't expect the situation to change, because there is only disincentive for those in control to do so.
The best you can do is carrot and stick the Palestinians so that they can see the route forward and elect the right people.
I don't think the status quo has any interest in that happening. The last thing the US wants to see is a credible, legitimate, organized, and nonviolent mass movement in Palestine. Israel, in its current state, would fold quite rapidly in that scenario. And that would be a disaster for US interests in the Middle East. Obviously also a disaster for those in Israel and Palestine who derive their power from the situation. I don't expect the situation to change, because there is only disincentive for those in control to do so.
Why exactly would a non-violent palestine mean doom for Israel?
I'm afraid I can't understand your line of reasoning on this at all.
I'm afraid I can't understand your line of reasoning on this at all.
It's the politics of the situation. All arguments in favour of foreign support for Israel rest on Palestinian violence, and Israel could not politically survive in isolation. It is extremely dependant on foreign support for its legitimacy, always has been.
I'm afraid I can't understand your line of reasoning on this at all.
It's the politics of the situation. All arguments in favour of foreign support for Israel rest on Palestinian violence, and Israel could not politically survive in isolation. It is extremely dependant on foreign support for its legitimacy, always has been.
A non violent palestine would have no effect on the massive build up of missiles by Iran on the Israeli border. The complete non-existence of the palestinians would also have little effect on the politics of the region.
Supporting Israel to contain Iran would easily justify military support to Israel. Even the Saudi's would secretly assist Israel to counter Iran, just so long as they could publicly condemn Israel to pacify their own people.
Truth is that if the muslim nations cared more for the suffering of the palestinian people than the ideology of destroying Israel, they would have accepted palestinian refugees decades ago. Or they would have spent billions in aid to the palestinian people allowing them to build a Dubai quality city, instead they are happy to have the palestinian people living in shite conditions so they turn to extremism while various oil rich muslim nations provide all the weapons and training.
It's not a matter of Israel's relations with its neighbours, but its internal policies. Unfortunately for Israel, the complete non-existance of the Palestinians is not a reality. Taken in sum (ie including the occupied territories) they are actually the majority population.
Israel has three options: do nothing and allow the situation to continue; two-state solution; or the one-state solution. They have opted to do the first, indefinately. But they can't maintain it indefinately, without support.
If they take the second option, they have severe military problems because of the geography. That's why the territories were occupied in the first place.
If they take the third option, Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state and becomes a pluralist society. If that could even work.
For Israel to maintain itself, in its present manifestation as a Jewish state, the only option is to do nothing and allow the situation to continue. So you see why they must have foreign support to maintain political stability, internally. It's not just a matter of arms and funds, its mainly a matter of simple political support.
Israel couldn't survive on military support alone. It needs political support too. It invests vast amounts of time, effort, and money into maintaining that.
True, but has no real bearing on the topic.
And you think then the Palestinians would give up on self-determinacy? Not at all. It would invigorate it. It would probably cause a more political/economic/diplomatic approach on their part, rather than terrorism, but so empowered, they would be far more effective at the former. And they would use it to get either the one-state or two-state solution, neither of which is tolerable to Israel as it is currently constituted.
Not that Israel has billions in aid to give away. It's a tiny country, with very few natural resources, and dependant on aid itself. Per capita GDP is not that great by the standards of advanced economies, and there's not that much population overall even if it was. Some people seem to think it is an enlarged Luxembourg; it is not.
It's not a matter of Israel's relations with its neighbours, but its internal policies. Unfortunately for Israel, the complete non-existance of the Palestinians is not a reality. Taken in sum (ie including the occupied territories) they are actually the majority population.
There are more arabs in the occupied territories than in Israel and the occupied territories don't have voting rights. Politically it doesn't matter
if the arabs out number the jews 2:1, 10:1 or 100:1, if they don't have voting rights, they don't have voting rights.
If they take the second option, they have severe military problems because of the geography. That's why the territories were occupied in the first place.
If they take the third option, Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state and becomes a pluralist society. If that could even work.
For Israel to maintain itself, in its present manifestation as a Jewish state, the only option is to do nothing and allow the situation to continue. So you see why they must have foreign support to maintain political stability, internally. It's not just a matter of arms and funds, its mainly a matter of simple political support.
The entire world is not a single entity in Western Europe holocaust guilt is sufficient to ensure political support for Israel for a long time to come. Even our far right parties, champion Israel. Fear of Iran is enough to maintain political support in the US in the long term.
Given that the US and Europe together have a higher military budget than the rest of the world combined, Israel has nothing to worry about on either front.
I also disagree that political support from abroad has any influence what so ever on the voting patterns or political make up of Israel's internal politics. You seem convinced it does so please provide some detail and examples where this is the case.
Israel couldn't survive on military support alone. It needs political support too. It invests vast amounts of time, effort, and money into maintaining that.
True, but has no real bearing on the topic.
And you think then the Palestinians would give up on self-determinacy? Not at all. It would invigorate it. It would probably cause a more political/economic/diplomatic approach on their part, rather than terrorism, but so empowered, they would be far more effective at the former. And they would use it to get either the one-state or two-state solution, neither of which is tolerable to Israel as it is currently constituted.
Not that Israel has billions in aid to give away. It's a tiny country, with very few natural resources, and dependant on aid itself. Per capita GDP is not that great by the standards of advanced economies, and there's not that much population overall even if it was. Some people seem to think it is an enlarged Luxembourg; it is not.
I was talking about the muslim nations giving aid to the palestinians in the form of building an economically viable city instead of providing them with guns and rockets, sorry I didn't make that very clear.
if the arabs out number the jews 2:1, 10:1 or 100:1, if they don't have voting rights, they don't have voting rights.
Right, but legitimate rule is derived from the consent of the governed. Politics is about establishing legitimacy ... Israel can't do so on its own, it would never be respected and therefore never legitimate. It needs external political support to exist.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston
Foreign policy is basically never a product of public opinion, but of realpoliticks. Israel is of interest to the US and Europe only so long as it can viably serve their interests - if they continue to have any in the area.
If I was Israel, I'd be making real nice with China right about now.
You seem to think a regime can be propped up with guns indefinately. It can't. That's been proven over and over again. The consent of the governed, in the absence of very robust external political support, is mandatory.
Well that won't happen either, where is their incentive to do so? It causes their enemy problems, so they, like Israel, benefit from the ongoing non-solution. The real question here is, why hasn't the international community stepped in and imposed a solution? Heresy, I know. Blue helmets in the occupied territories, oh the horror. But realistically .....
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
I seem to do everything late, lol. |
13 Jul 2025, 4:30 am |
Running late |
29 May 2025, 7:22 am |
Diagnosed with Autism late 50s |
17 Jul 2025, 7:09 pm |
Late diagnosed, new to Wrongplanet |
06 May 2025, 4:49 pm |