Israel vs. Hamas

Remove all ads!

This is from Wiki as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

 

Thats what I had quoted first. But if you read the article, the Battle of Gaza was where Hamas used force to chuck out Fatah from control of Gaza. That is what inspired the retaliation from Fatah of ousting the elected Hamas officials.

 

I dont know how reliable statistics can be in a war zone, there was no international monitoring on the "election" it seems to most that Hamas took power as the entire political structure of the country was in disarray, it didnt require violence.
fatah and Hamas will always vie againes eachother as Fatah actually want peace.

 

I'll go back and read it again but I may have missed the part where Fatah was the elected party. I understood the article to say that Fatah took control and that fighting has been going on since. But I may have not read it correctly.

That's the typical reponse to not liking the outcome of an election.

 

Fatah are to my knowledge a clan of extremely corrupt what term should I use? Gangsters? Maffiosos? Hamas are and here I think most of us are in agreement a bunch of religious loonies. Now this is what the Palestinians are stuck with, a bunch of gangsters and a bunch of religious fanatics. This is what Israel has cultivated, crippling any reasonable Palestinian authority and of course the Palestinian have helped as well. I am not surprised but it seems many of you are surprised that people tend to be driven to extremities when everything is taken away from them.

The simplest way to deal with this the same way they dealt with similar issues in Northern Ireland and many other places. The stronger part chills out, remove the recruiting ground from the extreme groups. Everyone wants peace except for quite small groups on both sides. This is where I mean the ball is in the Israeli court, they actually have the power to mellow out and make the Palestinians less desperate, less angry and less extreme. It has been shown time and time again that brute force only make situations like these worse the only way for brute force to work is if you take it all the way and just kill off everyone who disagrees with you and even though I think there are plenty of people who would find that an acceptable solution I think even more would find it disagreeable. For every Palestinian killed two will join the military resistance. Do you think Hamas is sending rockets in the hope killing some random dude? No, they do it because they want Israel to react, they want Israel to continue with business as usual pissing off half the world and driving the Palestinians to their only protection, Hamas.

The simple reason for why I might come off as supporting Palestinians and I am not interested in defending myself but seeing as it is a quite flawed perception is that I expect better of Israel, they have the potential and ability to be the good guys in this conflict and they don't. The Palestinians don't, not as they are now.

 

Fatah was Arafat's party

Israel has tried chilling out, it doesnt work

Hamas wants the fighting to continue just as Israel doesnt care if it ends, in the end, both sides want fighting, theyre both as bad as eachother. Let it happen ,there's nothing the western world can do but watch.

Im sorry if I accuse you of supporting the palestinians, but I dont expect better of Israel, any more then I expected better of the US and the Uk in Iraq

 

I like what this journalist had to say -- she said it better than a lot of people can. I acknowledge her pro-Israel stance but dammit she makes sense to me.

 

Israel gives some of the civilians something like a 15 second warning. As one news guy commented here on getting the warning, "you spend the first 5 seconds just looking around for a place to hide." Good luck!

Sorry, actions speak louder, and often truer, than the editorial rants:

The whole civilian shield "story" seems to working for everyone except the "civilians." It's obvious Israel doesn't give a crap whether they are civilian shields or not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637/

 

I believe that the election was overseen by some international authorities. I'm pretty sure bodies such as the EU were impressed by the fairness of the election.

 

Fair enough -- I'm no Super Zionist who believes that any act is automatically purified if it is performed by an Israeli soldier. That still doesn't exonerate the Hamas bastards using the civilian shields, or the civilians they kill with their suicide bombers or rocket attacks. If they would stop that nonsense, I believe the Israelis would leave them be.

 

I agree. I'm a supporter of Israel for many reasons. But they are wearing me pretty thin this go-around. The thing to remember is that the Palestinians believe they are fighting for their freedom, while Israel is fighting for the sovereignty of its country.

Nevetheless, I agree with Tal's initial post on this thread and he said it better than I can. Yet, I don't believe that anyone on this thread approves of the tactics used by Hamas (to say the least).

 

What if Israel Was the Victim?

Interesting question.

 

War #3 - most likely true regardless of who the President happens to be, but it would be a near-certainty under the current Bush presidency.

 

Wow, talk about rewriting history to prove a point. I love how the author completly ignores the "victim" never honoring the original cease fire, shooting at farmers, and the launching of rockets and mortars and not having as one of their core principles the destruction of its neighbor.

However, to answer your question, it would mean war. I have no doubt that the U.S. and probably the U.K. would come to Israel's defense.

 

History would have to be radially different for those events to play out. Under current history if Israel was that unable to defend itself it would probably be under constant protection from the US and the UK, infact I doubt British troops would have left an undefended country.

 

This reminds me of an article (maybe I'll link to it later) I read in wikipedia about logical fallacies. I can't remember the name of the fallacy but it stated that the middle ground is always the best option. In other words, if you split the baby down the middle you'll get the best result. The example they used was interesting:

Beth wants no puppies strangled. Dave wants all puppies strangled. Therefore, if Beth and David go out and strangle half the puppies in the world, then that is the best result because the two met halfway. Right? WRONG.

This is how I see Hamas -- they have frequently stated that they want nothing less than the death of all Israelis and the dissolution of the Israeli state. How the hell do you meet these people halfway? Send over 50% of your population to be killed? Cede 50% of your land to them? Gimme a break. IMHO, Hamas and other groups like it must smarten the hell up and start making reasonable, marginally logical demands and holding at least somewhat reasonable values or they're never going to get any serious international support or experience any success.

I know others have mentioned before that their ideology cannot do that, but I disagree. This is one of those evolutionary law sorts of things -- Hamas and its brand of Anti-Semitic Islam must adapt or wither and die.

 

Reasonable demands have come out of the Palestinian side on several occasions. If Israel had agreed to the participation that was set up in the UN originally there wouldn't be any problem and they could have set it up many times since then but they do not want to. Hamas are lunatics but the Israelis are just as loonie and intransigent they just have the luxury of using more "discriminate" weapons.

 

Very enlightening backgrounder from the Economist, and it is remarkably even handed. Especially interesting to some here ought to be the references to Jabotinski's strategy of the 'Iron Wall' and how it manifests today. For someone living believing on the 'Iron wall' doctrine negotiations will always be dangerous appeasement at best. I think it well explains the near reflexive opposition towards any negotiations especially from the Likud quarters in Israel (and their co-belligerents at AEI, JINSA and AIPAC etc).

It is worth keeping Jabotinsky in mind, who, familiar with the region, famously quipped “if we were Arabs, we would not accept it either”. I dare say he had a far more sober assessment than I get from the 'Hamas is irrational(ly evil) and can only be dealt with by force' wing here:

Why can't we be as sober?

And some still don't get the problem with Hamas and their unwillingness to recognise Israel. I hinted toward that problem when I referred to not abandoning principles on gays. A truce is all Israel will ever get from Hamas, that or war. For a Nationalist (or revisionist) Zionist (i.e. Likudnik) the same is true, the 'Iron Wall' is all the Palestinians will ever get, well, maybe concrete will do. I am convinced that Israel will not solve their problem with Hamas with their current actions. Israel will not win, much less decisively so.

My big problem with Israel is that I don't think that their strategy of the 'Iron Wall' is sustainable, and that thus all attempts to perpetuate the impossible will only result in a worse outcome in the end. There have been a couple of wake-up calls for Israel - first the 1973 war, then Lebanon 1982 and 2006 - the time Israel was in the driver seat and could dictate terms thanks to their superiority is apparently over. In trying to restore their old position of unchallenged supremacy they are IMO chasing a mirage. It means that if for Israel to succeed in foreign relations military might is the only tool that promises success, then they follow the logic of militarism.

And make no mistake - no matter what Hamas does - in Israel religion, nationalism and hunger for Palestinian land are among the factors driving the current escalation. The Israelis, despite their stellar PR, are not saints, not even 'the good guys'. The constant expansion of settlementS speaks a clear language in that regard. Blessing everything that Israel does as self-defence conveniently glosses that over. It also leads to a distorted perception.

 

Ragusa, the Iron Wall theory may not be eternally sustainable, but it doesn't need to be, either. Given time, all nationalities removed from their ancestral land have lost their connection to it, all but the Jews themselves. This includes all other arab groups. The palestinians, having been removed from their native lands for several generations, will 'get over it', to put it simply. I'm not saying they'll stop hating Israel, just that it will be no greater hatred than any other arab community.

 

... all but the Jews themselves? Why? Are you staying true to religious principle there? You speak of the covenant?