Israel in coordinated missile attacks on Gaza

[Spion]

So, your Haaretz article is the truth, but mine is bullshit?

No. What I said was you point that Meshal 'doesn't speak for Hamas' was bullshit. There's a difference.

 

[Aldebaran]

Btw, who is it who's claiming that 500 have been killed?

Those who are dead probably. Since it is predictable that their voices will not be heard.

salaam.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Repeat after me:

Mah....moud.....Ah....med.....in....e......jad......

Yeah? What do you think he's going to contribute apart from hot air?

Maybe lend them some of his imaginary nukes?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Given that Israel previously elected actual fascists (and terrorists) Begin and Shamir and nobody blinked?.

You blinked, didn't you?

But you'll accept the election of fascists by the other side?

Double standard.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No. What I said was you point that Meshal 'doesn't speak for Hamas' was bullshit. There's a difference.

Haaretz said it. You just finished using Haaretz as a source.

 

[Spion]

Haaretz said it. You just finished using Haaretz as a source.

The amount of sense you are making is declining in inverse proportion to your use of grin smilies

 

[claphamboy]

And thanks to the Hamas Charter, we know what it is that Hamas wants.

But that charter is 20 years old AND OUT OF DATE, times have moved on.

I don't think you're correct about it being refuted. Here's an article from 2006 about it.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/05/opinion/op-goldhagen5

I'd expect the LA Times to do their homework before doing a story on a charter that's been renounced.

Also, this Palestininan site:

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/index.php

continues to carry the Charter. I assume they wouldn't, if it was no longer in effect.

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

The LA Times article is actually almost two years old and based on the out of date charter on the US-Palestininan site you link to, which is now working for me.

Now, if you had done your homework – on the VERY SAME SITE you would have found more up to date articles confirming that Hamas has changed and, therefore, by default confirming the 1988 charter to be an historical document and out of date.

This, of course, totally undermines your straw-man argument.

Here’s just one of those articles, date 20 July 2006:

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/fortherecord.php?ID=276

As I was saying, Hamas has evolved. It now understands that resistance comes in many forms, and in fact it felt strong enough in the year prior to the elections of January 2006 to call a ceasefire and to focus on political resistance. It maintained a unilateral ceasefire with Israel – although Israel did not reciprocate – since January 2005.

Hamas is also very much in touch with the population and their needs. Because it continues to organize amongst the people, it understood that people were tired of the suicide bombings and Israel’s retaliations. That is another reason why it called for a halt, or ceasefire. Because it organizes amongst the people, it also knows that the people are solidly behind a two-state solution and that it had to deal with this reality.

This is a big shift for Hamas. It went from a platform of liberating all of Palestine to accepting that a two-state solution has to be the outcome of the struggle. In this way it followed the pattern of Fateh in the 1970s and 1980s. If you want a very good discussion of Hamas’ pragmatic evolution, there is an article by Henry Siegman in The New York Review of Books about a couple months ago. There is also an analysis by Khaled Hroub, an expert on Hamas, which will be in the volume of the Journal of Palestine Studies that comes out at the end of the summer.
......
Basically, a Hamas that is pushing for peace, just like Fateh and the PLO pushed for peace before it–a peace that is based on a two-state solution, the Right of Return for the refugees, and mutual recognition between Israel and Palestine–such a Hamas will torpedo what is now called the Israeli convergence plan. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, even today from his place in hiding is still pushing this peace plan. He managed to publish an op-ed in The Washington Post a couple days ago, where he made the clearest statement to date of what Hamas’ aims are, or how it sees Palestinian aims and aspirations. He said, “Addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner. . . means statehood in the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law.” This is an extremely important statement because with the statement about the refugees, it can be read not that the Right of Return is negotiable, but that the way that that right is implemented is something that can be discussed. He specifies a capital in Arab East Jerusalem and statehood for the West Bank and Gaza.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You blinked, didn't you?

But you'll accept the election of fascists by the other side?

Double standard.

If you can show that Hamas are connected directly as Begin and Shamir were to actual documented fascist movements, I'd be very interested. I don't toss that word around lightly but in the case of Jabotinsky's movement and hence his follower Begin and Shamir who split off into an even more extremist group (pro-Nazi ffs), I think it's justifiably used. Certainly Mussolini thought Jabotinsky's mob were fascists and said so.

Edit: while you're at it, I'd be very interested to see any evidence that any post-Begin Israel government has repudiated any of the essential points of the position articulated by Jabotinsky in 'The Iron Wall' and similar texts. I guess Rabin might have done, but I haven't heard about it if he did and I can't easily imagine any of the others doing so.

 

[audiotech]

Repeat after me:

Mah....moud.....Ah....med.....in....e......jad......

up yours idiot

 

[Aldebaran]

Because they don't.
I'd have thought that someone with a modicum of class consciousness, such as yourself, would have a clue that the representations of the power-elites of "the Arab world" don't necessarily represent the grass roots, but obviously not.

It is more complex than that, but let's say simply that what you see or hear in public demonstrations not necessarily represents normal, daily discours. It is only at occasions like this, where the blatant hypocrisy of the uSA and its puppy the Western world (read: politicial world) in its blatant support for Israel's crimes becomes unavoidable to be exposed (again), demonstrations and their slogans become more apparently "true" and "genuine" than what you would hear on a normal daily street.
And for my sake, it should be much louder heard everywhere, but not in the Arab street, but where the criminal hypocrisy has its home.
But my voice doesn't count because overruled by the Arab/Muslim street. And with every right on its side.

salaam.

 

[TAE]

In case you aren't reading the quotes, which is what I expect, each quote is different, dealing with different aspects of the Hamas Charter.

yeah but why did you keep quoting them in different posts instead of just making one post with one link?

I think it makes sense to keep in mind exactly who it is that the israelis are dealing with.

The elected government? The militant wing of hamas? Civilians? It also makes sense to keep in mind who Israel is actually bombing.

Haaretz said it. You just finished using Haaretz as a source.

As did you. Do you believe the article he posted?

Gandhi preached nonviolence, and achieved a country.

Yet the IDF has no choice but to bomb civilians?

 

[RhymnRzn]

At this point I am quite sure these warmongers are poised to make Gaza into a no-man's land, and hope to make it a buffer zone where there will not be so much as one little rogue rocket/gnat to appear under the intense focus of their flesh-threshing-machine, which is focused upon their neighbors dwelling place.

If the tree called Israel bears no fruit of peace after this long a time, they should dig about the tree, and dung it. Otherwise, why does it cumber the ground? or, why pump resources into a destined shipwreck?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The amount of sense you are making is declining in inverse proportion to your use of grin smilies

Okay, I'll try it without grinning. You throw up a Haaretz story at me, and when I don't immediately respond, you say it's 'too uncomfortable' for me.

I respond with a newer Haaretz article. Your response? My article is bullshit, but yours is ok.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But that charter is 20 years old AND OUT OF DATE, times have moved on.]

It should be out of date, but far as I can see, it's still the charter of Hamas.

Btw, 20 years old isn't that old for something like that. The US Constitution is over 200 years old.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

up yours idiot

More clear concise argument.

Uh oh: I'm grinning again.

You guys just bring it out in me: sorry.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

yeah but why did you keep quoting them in different posts instead of just making one post with one link?

Sometimes I get concerned about the attention span of the reader.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As did you. Do you believe the article he posted?

I don't doubt that Meshal said those things, but as my later article showed, that was eclipsed by further events. It looks as if his relatively dovish message didn't go well with the rest of the boys in the organization.

 

[claphamboy]

It should be out of date, but far as I can see, it's still the charter of Hamas.

Btw, 20 years old isn't that old for something like that. The US Constitution is over 200 years old.

As far as you can see?

The very site you have used as a source to back-up your argument that the Charter is still in effect, has published articles confirming it isn’t as Hamas has changed.

I suggest you take your blinkers off.

 

[audiotech]

More clear concise argument.

Uh oh: I'm grinning again.

You guys just bring it out in me: sorry.

Tell me, how is mockingly chanting the Iranian presidents name by you, to a reasonable summary by me, of the military forces held by each party an argument of any kind?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It should be out of date, but far as I can see, it's still the charter of Hamas.

Btw, 20 years old isn't that old for something like that. The US Constitution is over 200 years old.

Yep, Jabotinsky's 'Iron Wall' dates from the 1920's and as far as I can tell it's still the plan.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Tell me, how is mockingly chanting the Iranian presidents name by you, to a reasonable summary by me, of the military forces held by each party an argument of any kind?

Because it gets boring trying to be civil to people who have no interest in listening.

 

[claphamboy]

Because it gets boring trying to be civil to people who have no interest in listening.

Now you see the problem that so many have when trying to debate with you.

 

[Spion]

I respond with a newer Haaretz article. Your response? My article is bullshit, but yours is ok.

You said: "Too bad Meshal doesn't speak for Hamas anymore."

The Haaretz article said: "The group's overseas leadership, headed by Khaled Meshal, has been losing control, while the power held by the Islamic group's young activists in Gaza has grown."

Do you see the difference between 'doesn't speak for anymore' and 'losing control'?

I didn't say the article was bullshit. I said what you said was bullshit. And it still is. And that's without getting more deeply into what 'losing control' actually means concretely

 

[audiotech]

Because it gets boring trying to be civil to people who have no interest in listening.

I've listened with interest to your ill-thought out ideas for some time now.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I've listened with interest to your ill-thought out ideas for some time now.

I'm glad to hear that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The Haaretz article said: "The group's overseas leadership, headed by Khaled Meshal, has been losing control, while the power held by the Islamic group's young activists in Gaza has grown."

It's a fine point, but I'll concede it.

However, the outside world, Israel included, would be reasonable to be sceptical of the import of the words of a man who is losing power within his organization, especially when those diametrically opposed to what he's saying, are gaining power.

 

[Spion]

It's a fine point, but I'll concede it.

However, the outside world, Israel included, would be reasonable to be sceptical of the import of the words of a man who is losing power within his organization, especially when those diametrically opposed to what he's saying, are gaining power.

Show me what they say then. And don't bother trotting out the old charter thing because you've no idea who 'says' that to anyone

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Show me what they say then. And don't bother trotting out the old charter thing because you've no idea who 'says' that to anyone

Find it yourself.

We're at that time of day when it's afternoon here, but it's near the witching hour there, and some comments from some people are becoming excessively spittle-flecked. And as a result...

I'm off to watch the final episodes of Season 5 of The Wire.

 

[TAE]

I don't doubt that Meshal said those things, but as my later article showed, that was eclipsed by further events. It looks as if his relatively dovish message didn't go well with the rest of the boys in the organization.

I would not be so quick to dismiss his stance; right now the hawks may rule on both sides, but the time for talks will come and if such a high ranking figure can hold such views then there will be others in Hamas (and in Israel) who will also be willing to find a solution that both sides can live with. That is my hope in any case.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I would not be so quick to dismiss his stance; right now the hawks may rule on both sides, but the time for talks will come and if such a high ranking figure can hold such views then there will be others in Hamas (and in Israel) who will also be willing to find a solution that both sides can live with. That is my hope in any case.

Bear in mind also, that by actually seriously discussing that proposition say with the US government or the UN, Meshal's credibility is enhanced.

Which is why I don't think Israel will tolerate it. The Israeli propaganda machine has worked really hard to undermine the credibility of anyone proposing settlements based on the right of return and '67 borders.

They're much happier with people who give them a reason to drop bombs on civilians than with people trying to negotiate anything remotely approaching fair deal for the Palestinians based on credible positions.