Israel v Hamas

If you check back to my posts on this subject, I have only mentioned the history of settlement to show that things are not as simple as others say. That bit that you have quoted was in response to Nonirenhorn who implied that the British stole the land away from the arabs.

What part of my sentence "we cannot change the past, and going on about it wont help us sort out the future. Let it be." didn't you understand?

Really, you should read my posts properly before criticising them.

 

You know as well as I do that's nonsense.

 

Well even the Arab world is split over whether Hamas is a terrorist group. You obviously know better. Maybe you learnt more in Germany about how Jews should be treated than you are letting on.

Bin Laden's family may have been half Saudi, and he was born there. But due to his terrorist links he was expelled in 1990 - and you suggest that Saudi should have been bombed if the US wanted rid of him!. :doh:

 

Err - Saudi Arabia is Al Quaida's core recruiting ground, it's not just about one man. However I actually suggested bombing them would have done the U.S. much more harm than good. As always you fail to grasp simple English.

 

Oh come on Carlos, I understand the argument that Israel has no right to the land they live on. I understand people's argument that Israel should not retaliate and death rates are too high. I may not agree for reasons I've stated but I understand

Surely nobody can believe that Hamas need to fire rockets into Israel. If Israel wanted to create genocide as some people suggest then they would do it with one nuclear bomb or two days of air strikes or five days of sea and aerial bombardment. They would not send in ground troops with a high risk of Israeli casualties

Egypt wanted peace and Israel traded land, Sinai peninsula, to ensure the peace continued
If Hamas wanted peace then it would happen

 

Are you really so arrogant as to think if someone disagrees with you that they're incapable of understanding your extraordinarily simplistic point? Classic ad hominem.

If you ignore the history of a particular situation you'll never get within a stone's throw of having a hope of solving it...particularly if the point you're ignoring is the very thing that caused all the issues in the first place. Out of hand dismissal of historical events that are inconvenient to your stance is the height of intellectual disingenuity.

 

On who's terms? Which has more powerful backers?

 

ZZ old bean. Please explain exactly what you are trying to infer here?

 

[video=youtube;djuaippXifM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djuaippXifM[/video]

 

Maybe a good start would be the 2000 Camp David summit where the the proposal included two state solution, Palestinian sovereignty for Gaza and West Bank, full israeli retreat out of land occupied in the 1948 and 1967 invasions

It was the closest this region has ever come to peace

 

14 years later ...

 

First you say this...

And then you say this....

What are you saying? Do you ignore history as completely irrelevant (your first statement) or if you ignore history you wont get within a stoines throw of solving it (you second statement)?

Or do you just go back as far as you want to, when it is in your favour and ignore the rest?

 

Ha, that old ditty ... I was in Nuremberg for that WC and not one German I know was offended by it. Any offence was imagined by the British media but go around insinuating anti-Semitism and you'll soon be paying huge amounts of compo.

 

I'm with you about minorities playing the race card too easily. Currently Jews are being forced out of France, shot in Belgium, threatened in UK so safe to say the anti semitism is very worrying across Europe

As for Germany, I was also in the steps. It was a great fun day...left before the police moved people on

 

As far as I know, only two groups in modern history have mandated to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth. Hamas and the Nazi's. You seem to support Hamas, even when much of the arab world and many palestinians dont, so I was wondering if your experience in Germany influenced you.

 

Most of it is just anti-Israel but not in France, anti-Semitism is rife amongst their North African contingent, ask Anelka!

 

Blimey.

Stating that historical borders of a defunct state from 2000 years ago do NOT justify the re-creation of a modern phoenix state with the same or similar borders is NOT the same thing as saying one should ignore historical context when evaluating a modern conflict.

Seriously, are you TRYING to take things out of context? It makes you very difficult to take seriously.

 

The stated Hamas agenda of wiping Israel off the map is no longer accurate and hasn't been for a long time. Yes, it WAS part of their original manifesto. No, that manifesto is no longer observed or considered the group's objective.

http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives...ce-of-nonviolent-palestinian-resistance-.html

Hamas have already stated what they want in the modern world: a two state solution along 1967 borders (i.e. before the illegal occupation of the West Bank/Golan Heights/Gaza strip et. al), plus a right to return for any Palestinian. That doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to me, considering Israel's occupation of said areas has been confirmed illegal by just about every international organisation you could care to name.

 

How on Earth do I seem to support Hamas? By not supporting Israel's bombing of innocent civilians, sorry old bean but you'll have to do better than that?

What experience in Germany? Racist fool!

 

I am TRYING to understand your point, as you wrote two conflicting sentences.

So to clarify, in this particular issue (Palestine) how far back is significant?

 

They're not even remotely in conflict with each other, which renders your question pointless.

 

If only it was just the NA contingent - google the 26th Jan march through Paris and you'll see it is a cross section of white right and left wing marching for Jews out of France. Israel is witnessing a huge surge in French emigrating there

It's all very sad

 

It is still part of their manifesto (not was), as they refuse to change it. It is a load of nonsense that they can't. "Internal reasons" what does that mean. Hamas has only been in existence for a few years. Definition of "manifesto", first one I found, is "a public declaration of policy and aims, especially one issued before an election by a political party or candidate". Does that mean for life? What "internal reasons" are so powerful that it prevents a change that would, almost at a stroke, remove most of any moral high ground that Israel are claiming.

Yes, the solution seems reasonable, but not whilst Hamas maintain their stated manifesto intentions. How can they live as neighbours with that hanging over the situation.

 

Oh please...I can assure you that Hamas are absolutely intent on wiping out Israel and creating an Islamic state.

What you believe is not unreasonable was offered to Arafat at Camp David in 2000...he refused.

The reason the West Bank and Gaza was originally occupied was to ensure that there was no repeat of Egypt/Syria/Jordan etc invading Israel with an intent to wipe it off the planet

 

It is a straight forward question, how far back is relevant to the current situation, bearing in mind those two sentences you said above.

 

You're trying to draw a link that isn't there between two unrelated points and then tie it up by pretending I made a point that I didn't.

Allow me to state in simple terms.

- The fact a nation once existed is not sufficient justification to resurrect it
- One should not dismiss any historical PEST factors when looking at a conflict because they may well be part of the solution

These two opinions are not remotely at odds with each other.

There is only one person on this thread who has made any attempt to ignore/dismiss historical events, and that is you:

In that light, perhaps you'd like to answer your own question.

 

Well, I'm very glad we have you here to clear everything up for us.

Hamas became the elected Government in 2006. This lines I quoted above were from 2008.

What Arafat (a Fatah leader) did in 2000 is irrelevant to the above two points.

So it's now acceptable to illegally occupy land for decades if you can come up with a justification? Those lands have been illegally occupied for almost 50 years. That's completely beyond justification.

 

Who occupies Gaza?

 

Just a few of your comments

"all the major arms dealers are Jewish"

"Israeli's are K*ntz!"

If I remember right, you also think that all Polish workers were rubbish.

 

By any objective standard, Israel. They control the airspace, territorial waters, movement of people/trade and the Palestinian population registry for Gaza.

Pulling back a few settlers didn't equate to releasing the territory, not even close.

 

Aren't they? if not then my mistake.

Anti-Israeli maybe but not anti-Jew. Also very much tongue in cheek and no-one seems offended. I met plenty of younger and much nicer Israeli's while I was there.

You remember wrongly but how is that anti-Semetic anyway?

And how on Earth do you arrive at the conclusion I'm pro Hamas from any of that ... that's ridiculous.

 

Reread the thread and you will see people's opinions on why Israel controls the borders from a personal experience rather than on Wikipedia...what you choose to believe is your own right

 

To be fair, I have not seen one comment on this thread that I would deem anti-Semitic. I am truly surprised at the support that some has of Hamas

 

You know full well there isn't support for Hamas but Israel's methods of "defending" themselves are a very bitter pill for any pacifist to swallow.

 

My comment about "let it be" obviously refers to very historical issues, not recent history.

I wont avoid answering tricky questions, Arakel.

In this case, I think any arguments over rights to the land prior to 1948 are pointless as it is not clear which side has the better claim. Then I would say that the key date is 1967.

For the World to demand return of those territory's entirely, could give the arabs encouragement to try try and overrun Israel again. So I think there should be a worldwide concerted effort to enforce a return of some of the occupied land (maybe half) with a UN presence along the borders. Hamas must be disbanded, with UN enforced elections, etc.
...I think. :-\