Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Hamas to Der Speigel: "No matter what, the violence will never stop"

Hamas to Der Speigel: "No matter what, the violence will never stop"
Thread Tools
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 05:08 PM
 
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...424505,00.html

Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook is second in command of the political Hamas leadership in Syrian exile. In an interview, he tells SPIEGEL ONLINE that the agreement with Fatah on the foundation of a Palestinian state does not mean that his organization will recognize Israel. Hamas, he say, will remain committed to violence against its occupier.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Israel has accused the political office of Hamas of organizing the abduction of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Was this kidnapping ordered by Damascus?

Abu Marzook: No, that is not true. Israel has often falsely accused us in similar instances. It is not our task to make such decisions: They are made by the military wing. The military and political wings work independently of each other.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: That means that the political leaders are not consulted prior to an action?

Abu Marzook: We are no experts here on military issues. We never know in advance about military actions, when or how they take place.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: That would indicate that there is no coordination between the wings of Hamas.

Abu Marzook: But of course there is, because our actions relate to the same strategy, under which everything is organized. And that strategy is to resist the occupation of Palestine. A part of Hamas pursues this goal politically, and another pursues it militarily.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Now, Hamas has approved the so-called “Prisoners’ Paper,” which recommends a two-state solution. Does that mean that Hamas is now prepared to recognize the state of Israel?

Abu Marzook: With this agreement, we have primarily agreed to strengthen the resistance in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Aside from that, we have agreed on the goal of establishing a Palestinian state in these areas.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Doesn’t that mean that Hamas inevitably accepts the Israeli state in the rest of that area?

Abu Marzook: The paper does not say that at all. It is purely about the future of our people and about how a government uniting all Palestinian factions can work on building their independent state.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: And does Hamas also believe that an Israeli state can exist alongside a Palestinian state?

Abu Marzook: Hamas has always said clearly: We will never accept the occupation, because it is not legal, not correct and not just.



-----------------

There it is. The document does not recognize Israel, and Hamas never will make peace. Ever. By their own words.

And there is coordination among the wings. Because they all agree to destroy Israel through violence. Admitted.
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 05:16 PM
 
Of course, Israel's idea of reciprocity will never be put in question, will it?

This is one of these times where nbo one really remembers who started what and when and why.

That whole situation is really, really, really getting on my nerves: both sides are to be blamed for atrocity, death of civilians, women, children. Both sides have done a job to an environment that is probably less viable now than it was 1000 years ago. But who cares?

I blame both sides of the fence, for the actual situation, either through over dramatizing issues that should not be, or because of too far reaching memories where they rationalise ongoing vendettas.

This is tiresome, and the situation will never get resolved, that much is clear. Unfortunately, the big mouths will go on debating with guns and and bombs, while the children will never know anything but a state of ongoing wars, which they will repeat, without ever understanding the issues leading to this stupid, bloody human debauchery.

As far as I am concerned, both antagoinists deserved themselves and their fate. So sorry for the children though. So very sorry.
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT
Of course, Israel's idea of reciprocity will never be put in question, will it?
Are you kidding? It is every day, on these forums, on the cover of the NYT, and in a million other places, Israel's tactics are put under heavy scrutiny.
     
vmarks  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 05:41 PM
 
Besides the fact that Israel is constantly scrutinized, we remember exactly when these things began and who started what.

Israel declared its existance after much approval from the powers that held the land, after buying the land and settling on it and settling on unowned and unoccupied land, and defended itself from attack by those who would deny Israel's existance.

And Israel continues to defend itself aggressively from those who insist on its demise and the demise of its people, while likewise trying to make peace.

It settled with Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. It can make peace with its attackers who are willing to permit it to exist.

However, Hamas, the elected government, has declared that it cannot allow Israel to exist and that it will destroy Israel through violence. That isn't Israel's fault, and Israel didn't start that- Hamas did.

Hamas, for the uninitiated, is the offspring of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and also takes advice from Lebanon's Hizb-Allah. They are in part given safe haven by Syria when not passing time launching Qassam missiles into Israel.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 06:32 PM
 
EVERY.SINGLE.DEBATE the same basic history of this conflict has to be re-explained to those that want to pretend history can be ignored (or re-written) on a whim.

Vmarks, it amazes me that you never tire of rehashing all this. Personally, I'd probably get sick of trying to explain over and over to the same folks that yes, those that actually KNOW history do remember it, and no, it can't be re-written with every debate to suit the agenda du jour.
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 07:32 PM
 
Well it is true. I don't understand.

I guess every single person either on the side of Israel or on the side of Evil Arabs understand this better. I admit; I am an outsider, and all I see is the blood. The words of hatred coming from either side. The useless deaths.

I guess Freedom has a price, and sometimes, the credit goes on and the price to pay is forgotten.

What madness.

I won't give reason for any parties for what is going on. It is too easy to blame one party. But the essential is that innocents die, and both are to blame for it.
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 07:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Besides the fact that Israel is constantly scrutinized, we remember exactly when these things began and who started what.

Israel declared its existance after much approval from the powers that held the land, after buying the land and settling on it and settling on unowned and unoccupied land, and defended itself from attack by those who would deny Israel's existance.
Sounds like not everyone was aware of the deal, right?

Israel certainly has a right to existence; I will not argue against you for it.

But this will end very badly I fear. I guess both parties made their choice and were aware of the price for their decision.
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT
This is one of these times where nbo one really remembers who started what and when and why.
.
No it's not, only ignorant people or Liberals or terrorists don't remember. Anybody else who knows history remembers just fine. People who don't remember anything should better inform themselves before partaking in a debate.

It's time to wipe hamas out, this is just like I've been saying all along.

     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 08:22 PM
 
Meanwhile, Hamas's armed wing, Izaddin al-Kassam, on Sunday threatened to attack infrastructure facilities inside Israel, including schools, hospitals and universities
That's just sick.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...ticle/ShowFull
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 09:05 PM
 
It's really quite simple folks.

As Abe has been shouting for a while, it's a rule in certain religions that once land is under their jurisdiction (i.e. Israel area, pre WWII), it should remain under their jurisdiction and if lost should be regained by any and all means.

The sooner everyone gets it into their thick heads that this is the root cause behind the Israeli conflict, the better.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 09:13 PM
 
Correct, Doofy. That's why Bin Laden even talks about the 'tragedy of Andalucia' in his idiotic witterings.
     
vmarks  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 09:52 PM
 
Let's focus:

Hamas is claiming that they want to establish an Islamic state of Palestine. They have said that they will enforce the rules of dhimmitude, including special oppressive taxes for Christians. They have said they will never make peace, but instead practice violence.

We don't need to address Islam as a whole, we can simply address the way Hamas chooses to practice and their intentions to eradicate Israel and its people.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 10:01 PM
 
Those who think Israel are the bad guys have been either

1. Misinformed.
2. Brainwashed.

Or some of both.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 10:18 PM
 
Anyways can someone provide any hard evidence that Israelis stole land?
( Last edited by Kerrigan; Jul 2, 2006 at 10:37 PM. )
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 10:22 PM
 
Israel was attacked for it's land. In said war Israel took land to make a buffer zone.
Had Israel lost Israel wouldn't have existed.

But since Israel won, and pushed forward a bit, it's not fair!

But that is irrelevant. It's not the buffer zone they are talking about.

That's a smoke-screen. They want ALL of Israel gone.

Anyone that says otherwise is either lying, or misinformed.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
We don't need to address Islam as a whole, we can simply address the way Hamas chooses to practice and their intentions to eradicate Israel and its people.
This gives leeway to those in the west who, for reasons Kevin mentioned, think Israel are the bad guys. It does this by allowing them to believe that this conflict has somehow been caused by Israel driving Hamas into their current "desperate" position.

If the real underlying reason is given (a certain religion's territorial ruleset), then the actions of Israel are removed from the equation, leaving little room for doubt. Most of the western support for Palestine stems from people thinking it's a localised conflict related to Israel's actions, when in fact it's a global conflict related to anyone who's on a particular religion's land.

On a side note: I really don't get lefties. They'll bang on all day about George W Bush and his empire building but not a peep when it comes to other people and their actual empire building.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
On a side note: I really don't get lefties. They'll bang on all day about George W Bush and his empire building but not a peep when it comes to other people and their actual empire building.
Because the Middle East is far away.

Do you care for the victims in Darfur? Bangla Desh? Or anyother country of Africa, besides American military bases?

If we care enough for Israel, we should care enough for Saudi Arabia; has it been invaded? Nope. B ut Iraq has been; the weakest of the lot!

And you want us to take this foreign policy seriously?

Come on...
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT
Because the Middle East is far away.
If we care enough for Israel, we should care enough for Saudi Arabia; has it been invaded? Nope. B ut Iraq has been; the weakest of the lot!
Say what? The biggest threat to 'invading' Saudi Arabia was *drumroll* Saddam's Iraq, which DID invade Kuwait. And many leftists whined and protested against going to war to stop that too. Yeah, the "weakest of the lot" that was genociding its people and lobbing scuds at and invading its neighbors not all that long ago.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 11:07 PM
 
Leftists think that crimes committed by exotic foreigners are someone less atrocious than they really are.

But back on topic: what is the evidence that Israel stole land for Palestinians?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT
Because the Middle East is far away.
I'm guessing it's a bit further away from you than it is me.

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT
Do you care for the victims in Darfur? Bangla Desh?
Dafur and Bangladesh have already been lost to the invading hordes.

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT
Or anyother country of Africa, besides American military bases?
Why would I give a toss about American military bases?

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT
If we care enough for Israel, we should care enough for Saudi Arabia; has it been invaded? Nope.
I have absolutely no idea what you just said.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan
what is the evidence that Israel stole land for Palestinians?
Depends what you mean.

Some people say Israel stealing land = ALL of Israel.

Some people claim Israel stealing land = Land they took after they were attacked for their land for a buffer zone.

The first claim is totally bogus. The second claim is a complaint held by the people that were attacking Israel to steal it's land. And Israel has been giving that back, hoping it would bring peace.

Who here thinks if Israel lost, it would have gotten their land back, raise your hands.

All the Palatines have to do is stop attacking Israel. They don't want peace. They want Israel and the Jews gone.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 11:47 PM
 
It's depressing how Arabs handle the situation these days. In the Victorian days, Zionists (as they called themselves back then) sought land from the Ottomans, and the Ottoman landowners had no issue selling it to them. Heck, Ottomans had been renowned throughout history as being fair rulers of Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike. (See: Greece under Ottoman rule).

These days the atmosphere of religious coexistence has been poisoned by rabid anti-semitism.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 06:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan
Heck, Ottomans had been renowned throughout history as being fair rulers of Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike. (See: Greece under Ottoman rule).
Ottoman sultans were similarly diligent and inventive in regulating the clothings of their non-Muslim subjects. In 1577, Murad III issued a firman forbidding Jews and Christians from wearing dresses, turbans, and sandals. In 1580, he changed his mind, restricting the previous prohibition to turbans and requiring dhimmis to wear black shoes; Jews and Christians also had to wear red and black hats, respectively. Observing in 1730 that some Muslims took to the habit of wearing caps similar to those of the Jews, Mahmud I ordered the hanging of the perpetrators. Mustafa III personally helped to enforce his decrees regarding clothes. In 1758, he was walking incognito in Istanbul and ordered the beheading of a Jew and an Armenian seen dressed in forbidden attire. The last Ottoman decree affirming the distinctive clothing for dhimmis was issued in 1837 by Mahmud II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 11:14 AM
 
I think the 6 day war actually showed the world what kind of 'fighters' the Muslim/Arab world were. They have been bitter and resentful ever since. The Arab/Muslims started it, and had their collective butts kicked. Israel unfortunately, did what Bush 41 did and stop, when they should have kept going.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Let's focus:

Hamas is claiming that they want to establish an Islamic state of Palestine. They have said that they will enforce the rules of dhimmitude, including special oppressive taxes for Christians. They have said they will never make peace, but instead practice violence.

We don't need to address Islam as a whole, we can simply address the way Hamas chooses to practice and their intentions to eradicate Israel and its people.

Hmmm they said all that in the article you posted at the top? You must be reading something else.
     
vmarks  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko
Hmmm they said all that in the article you posted at the top? You must be reading something else.
Yes, that's actually a summary of information they have publicly declared since their election successes.

The first post in this thread covers what they specifically told Der Spiegel.
     
vmarks  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 06:10 PM
 
Interviewed by Wall Street Journal reporter Karby Legget (and published in the December 23-26 edition The Wall Street Journal), Hassam El-Masalmeh, who heads the Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem, confirmed the organizations plan to re-institute the humiliating jizya, a blood ransom Qur’anic poll-tax (based on Qur’an sura [chapter] 9, verse 29), levied traditionally on non-Muslims vanquished by jihad, and forced to live under Islamic Law (the Shari’a). Under the Sharia’s regulations, either the non-Muslim infidels must convert to Islam, or they pay the jizya—classically, in a humiliating public ceremony which often involved blows to the head or neck—and their life and belongings are protected. The nature of such “protection” is clarified in this definition of jizya by the seminal Arabic lexicographer, E.W. Lane, based on a careful analysis of the etymology of the term:

The tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain

The “contract of the “jizya”, or “dhimma” encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim “dhimmi” peoples. Collectively, these “obligations” formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims – Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists – subjugated by jihad. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include:

the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis); the prohibnition of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches, synagogues, and temples; inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims, including Zoroastrians and Hindus, wear special clothes; and the overall humiliation and abasement of non-Muslims.

It is important to note that these regulations and attitudes were institutionalized as permanent features of the sacred Islamic law, or Shari’a. Islam manifests itself as a political ideology, not merely a religion, when its teachings are followed on these and other prominent and enduring features.

During his Wall Street Journal interview, El-Masalmeh stated explicitly,

We in Hamas intend to implement this tax (i.e., the jizya) someday. We say it openly – we welcome everyone to Palestine but only if they agree to live under our rules.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113530381960630149.html

Nor is this the first time such pronouncements have been made publicly by Palestinian political, or religious leaders. Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi expressed these identical sentiments with regard to Jews during a Friday sermon broadcasted live on June 6, 2001 on Palestinian Authority Television , from the Sheik ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza:

We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a Dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as Dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as Dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
During his Wall Street Journal interview, El-Masalmeh stated explicitly,

We in Hamas intend to implement this tax (i.e., the jizya) someday. We say it openly – we welcome everyone to Palestine but only if they agree to live under our rules.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113530381960630149.html

Nor is this the first time such pronouncements have been made publicly by Palestinian political, or religious leaders. Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi expressed these identical sentiments with regard to Jews during a Friday sermon broadcasted live on June 6, 2001 on Palestinian Authority Television , from the Sheik ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza:

We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a Dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as Dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as Dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah.


So, are you worried about these particular statements? You show quotes some lower level officials made months ago about something they wish to someday implement in the future. I thought Israel didn't even recognize the Hamas government?

Aren't you just using Hamas propaganda to support your own propaganda?

Watching analysis the past few days on CNN and other sources I tend to agree that top leadership on both sides has neither the influence or support to take stepts toward peace with the other. The truth is both sides have legitimate grievances and until rational minds on both sides cease to antagonize each other the situation will just get worse.

So you say Hamas fires homemade rockets into illegal settlements, then hamas says Israel is holding 10,000 civilians in jail --- hundreds of which are women and children.

::shrug:: but what do I know... maybe shelling apartment buildings in refugee camps will bring peace. Or maybe Israel just has to occupy the westbank and gaza for another 40 years.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Besides the fact that Israel is constantly scrutinized, we remember exactly when these things began and who started what.

Israel declared its existance after much approval from the powers that held the land, after buying the land and settling on it and settling on unowned and unoccupied land, and defended itself from attack by those who would deny Israel's existance.

And Israel continues to defend itself aggressively from those who insist on its demise and the demise of its people, while likewise trying to make peace.

It settled with Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. It can make peace with its attackers who are willing to permit it to exist.
I'm surprised to see you resorting to halftruths to make your case:

Zionists and jews indeed bought some land in the area that is now Israel, but it was only 7% of what is now Israel. The rest was conquered and its inhabitants mostly uprooted and expelled.

And you are right that the international community approved Israel's existence, but only under three conditions: 1. That the status of Jerusalem doesn't get challenged. 2. That the refugees can return to their land in Israel, and 3. ( I can't remember 3. right now, but there was a 3....)

Sure the arabic countries likewise didn't respect some of the agreements, and most of them likewise faciliated the expulsion of jews, but still..

What you seem to ignore and to gloss over is the zionistic groundwork of Israel's ideology, which wasn't simply a state where jews could govern over themselves and therefore can protect themselves from persecution... Such a state could have been founded in many non-developed areas of the world. The significant element is the basic assumption and conviction that the land of Palestine both sides of the Jordan-river, were rightfully "the land of Israel", given by God to His chosen people.

This assumption and conviction permeates and fluctuates throughout all zionistic ideas and ideologies, despite the fact that most of the zionists were and are atheists or at least gnostics. It's a strange phenomenon that all zionists look upon "the land of Israel " as being given by God to His chosen people, eventhough most of them doubt or even deny His existence...

Going with with that ideological stance was the concept of the open eastern border that the early zionists were so fond of and that they equated with the western frontier of the early US, where the palestinians should play the role and fulfill the fate of the native americans..


Reality on the ground though led to a drastic change in position on that point, and now Israel cannot define borders on the eastern side quick enough, giving up its dreams of Greater Israel but still hanging onto the dream of clinging to the best parts of the Westbank and espescially all of Jerusalem.

What Israel always desperately tried is to portray itself as the victim in this conflict, as the David against Goliath, the one democracy in a sea of dictatorships, fighting against a hordes of arabs trying to push it into the sea... but that is far from reality. Israel is the Goliath and the palestinians are David, Israel is occupying Gaza and the Westbank and East- Jerusalem and oppressing millions of palestinians, using all means that a modern state has at its disposal, while the oppressed have only their patience and fanatism.

It's high time that the international community strictly enforces Israel to accept the territory inside the borders of 67 and West-Jerusalem as its dominion, and do everything to help the palestinians in establishing their souvereign state in Gaza, Westbank and East-Jerusalem, and enforce both to sign a permanent peace-agreement, while at the same time ensuring and controlling that the medias and schools of both sides don't propagate the maximalist goals of "Greater Israel" or "Greater Palestine".

Taliesin
     
vmarks  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 01:00 PM
 
You accuse me of half-truths, but make them yourself.

67 is not a border. It is where Israel stopped fighting.

Because Israel stopped fighting, it obviously does not feel the need or desire to conquer "both sides of the Jordan river." That's right: no "Greater Israel" is being undertaken.

Nor was it the serious plan. Israel accepted the sliver in 1937. Israel accepted the sliver in 47. The increase of land from 47 to present is due to attacks, in which our attackers lost.

Now Israel has no intention of giving up that which is necessary to maintain security. And because we have been the attacked, not the attacker, we get to decide what we will give up and what is necessary for security.

And we have- Sinai, for example. We offered the so-called "West Bank" back to Jordan. They didn't want it. It was Jordan's. Israel captured it fighting off the attacks of Jordan. In peace, Israel offered it back, and Jordan refused.

Why is it somehow the Palestinians now?

As for the early Zionists and considering other places, other places were considered: Uganda was on the list, even. But Israel was the true home, and the only option worthy of serious consideration.

And no one has answered my earlier question:

What is required for a state?

An elected government.
A plot of land to govern.

Why aren't the Palestinians in posession of a state in Gaza? They have the land, they have the government. They have borders, a military force, security forces, parliament, schools... What prevents them from fitting the definition?
( Last edited by vmarks; Jul 4, 2006 at 01:09 PM. )
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 07:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Y

What is required for a state?

An elected government.
A plot of land to govern.

Why aren't the Palestinians in posession of a state in Gaza? They have the land, they have the government. They have borders, a military force, security forces, parliament, schools... What prevents them from fitting the definition?

You are serious aren't you? Gaza is little more than one of the largest (if not the largest) refugee camps of internally displaces people on earth, apart from Darfur perhaps.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 07:12 AM
 
Nicko that was his point I think. WHY is it still run like such?
     
vmarks  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 05:05 PM
 
They have power, running water, sewage service, apartment buildings built to some semblence of a building code.

They have police, ambulance, hospitals.

At what point is it a city and not a refugee camp? The refugee camps the Middle East Jews (remember them? The ones that sought refuge in Israel from Iran, Iraq, Syria, and more?) lived in were tents. Fabric tents.

Please tell me why Gaza isn't the Palestinian state, other than the fact that the elected Hamas government will accept nothing less than the eradication of Israel before declaring one on Israel's grave?
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
They have power, running water, sewage service, apartment buildings built to some semblence of a building code.
The little time Israel isn't blowing those services and buildings up.
At what point is it a city and not a refugee camp? The refugee camps the Middle East Jews (remember them? The ones that sought refuge in Israel from Iran, Iraq, Syria, and more?) lived in were tents. Fabric tents.
Awwww. I almost feel sad now. Those poor people had to live in tents for a few months as refugees. That's of course a lot worse than living as a refugee for more than 50 years.

It's a refugee camp until the war ends. It doesn't matter if that's 1 week or 1000 years. As long as they are living under occupation and forbidden to return to their homes it's a refugee camp.
Please tell me why Gaza isn't the Palestinian state, other than the fact that the elected Hamas government will accept nothing less than the eradication of Israel before declaring one on Israel's grave?
Should I take this as you want Palestine to only consist of Gaza?

And the reason that it isn't a part of the Palestinian state is that Israel has yet to follow international laws and return the occupied land (and before you go twisting my words that means after '67 at the least). It is also not a part of the Palestinian state yet because Israel hasn't yet declared their borders like all legitimate nations have done.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
vmarks  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 06:14 PM
 
Sorry, no.

Israel complied with resolution 242 that says it return land captured in 67. Sinai. It offered the West Bank to Jordan, who declined.

Also, you say at least 67- which means you're ready for more than 67, you'd be pleased with the whole country. I don't have to twist your words, you give them to me.

And again, sorry: a refugee camp is not a refugee camp if it's a functioning metropolis under an elected government that speaks in the same forum as the rest of the world's nations. The PA speaks at the UN. It is elected. It has land and citizens to govern.

It is a state, and the only reason it isn't is because they don't really WANT a state. They want to destroy Israel.

They could have had a state in 1937. They could have had one in 1947. They could have had one in 2000. They could have had one by 2004 under Bush's roadmap.

Now they have one, and the only reason Israel is even in Gaza today is because an act of war was committed against her, and she is responding.
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Sorry, no.

Israel complied with resolution 242 that says it return land captured in 67. Sinai. It offered the West Bank to Jordan, who declined.

Also, you say at least 67- which means you're ready for more than 67, you'd be pleased with the whole country. I don't have to twist your words, you give them to me.

And again, sorry: a refugee camp is not a refugee camp if it's a functioning metropolis under an elected government that speaks in the same forum as the rest of the world's nations. The PA speaks at the UN. It is elected. It has land and citizens to govern.

It is a state, and the only reason it isn't is because they don't really WANT a state. They want to destroy Israel.

They could have had a state in 1937. They could have had one in 1947. They could have had one in 2000. They could have had one by 2004 under Bush's roadmap.

Now they have one, and the only reason Israel is even in Gaza today is because an act of war was committed against her, and she is responding.
Your posts would be a lot better if you somehow were able to make either the US or the Israeli national anthem (depending on the topic) play while we read them. Or perhaps just the flags with the same effect as Adam Betts used on his great screensavers a while ago.

We've been through all your historical revisionism before and I quite frankly don't want to spend more time on it (cue kev, spliff etc as the cheerleaders) so I'll only deal with the refugee camp issue.

As long as people aren't allowed to return to their homes they are refugees. And if they are so unlucky that they have to group together and create a "city" until they can return that city will be a refugee camp. A refugee camp doesn't need tents. It can also be a "city" if the situation stays unchanged for a long time.

refugee camp

n : shelter for persons displaced by war or political oppression or for religious beliefs

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
vmarks  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 06:45 PM
 
Well, you've gone wrong again.

Homes? What homes? People who weren't born over a half century ago are living in their homes now. Where should they return?

Refugee numbers over time reduce. The UNRWA and your politically motivated definition prolongs them, increases them.

Why would you want to increase the numbers of suffering people? Why wouldn't you instead work to reduce those numbers?

For the same reasons Lebanon refuses to absorb the "refugees", or Egypt, or Jordan? (Jordan has a good excuse. The last time they let Arafat and the Palestinians in, he tried to take over.) http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/blacksept1970.htm
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 07:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Well, you've gone wrong again.

Homes? What homes? People who weren't born over a half century ago are living in their homes now. Where should they return?
To the place their family was forced from (you'll of course say that they all moved out of their free will). Saying people aren't refugees after a certain amount of time is simply wrong. A system like that would mean that nations would simply have to hold on for a certain amount of time (is it one, two or three generations in your version?) and then the illegally acquired country is theirs.

Not to mention the hypocrisy in this statement coming from someone who supports Israel (but still chooses to live in the US). Israel has based all it's right to Israel as a country on "the historical connection to the area". The majority of Israeli Jews living there have no connection to the area for at least 500 years. But at the same time they don't see a problem with saying people forced from their homes 50 years ago (of whom many are still alive despite Israel's best attempts at keeping the average life-span of Palestinians down) have no right to the land.

Hypocrisy at it's best. But unfortunately that is to be expected of Zionists today.
Refugee numbers over time reduce. The UNRWA and your politically motivated definition prolongs them, increases them.
That's what happens when a nation continues to violate the refugees rights. That isn't their problem or the UNRWA's problem. It's your problem.
Why would you want to increase the numbers of suffering people? Why wouldn't you instead work to reduce those numbers?
UNRWA, the UN, and most civilised countries are trying to reduce those numbers. But Israel has so far denied them their inalienable right of return which means that those numbers will continue to inflate. If you are worrying about the increasing numbers then perhaps you should actually move to Israel and try to get involved in the politics there instead of in the US. Run for the Knesset and try to get it to accept the Palestinian refugees right of return.

That's the only way to decrease those numbers.
For the same reasons Lebanon refuses to absorb the "refugees", or Egypt, or Jordan? (Jordan has a good excuse. The last time they let Arafat and the Palestinians in, he tried to take over.) http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/blacksept1970.htm
A third party isn't required to "absorb" the refugees. The only nation that needs to "absorb" the refugees is the nation that violated international laws by acquiring land by the use of force.

And again, the hypocrisy of this argument stinks. Why aren't you arguing for other nations to "absorb" their Jewish populations? Why do you support the creation of a state that all of a sudden makes Jews everywhere outside of that state foreigners?

Why two different set of rules? One for "The Chosen People" and one for "The Desert People"(as Obi/bstone famously said)?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
vmarks  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 07:14 PM
 
Wow. Time to take you to school again.

http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplemen...ugees/6-7.html

The UNRWA consistently inflates numbers.

And when people resettle elsewhere, they are no longer refugees.

So the Palestinians in Detroit Michigan USA need to no longer be counted.

In every other instance, the pain of dispossession, statelessness, and poverty has diminished over time. Refugees eventually either resettled, returned home or died. Their children - whether living in South Korea, Vietnam, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey, Germany or the United States - then shed the refugee status and joined the mainstream.

Not so the Palestinians. For them, the refugee status continues from one generation to the next, creating an ever-larger pool of anguish and discontent.

The 'two different rules' question is best posed to the UN, which has one mission to reduce the number of refugees for the rest of the world, and the UNRWA that inflates and prolongs them for Palestinians.

The U.N. High Commission for Refugees applies this term worldwide to someone who, "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted . . . is outside the country of his nationality." Being outside the country of his nationality implies that descendants of refugees are not refugees. Cubans who flee the Castro regime are refugees, but not so their Florida-born children who lack Cuban nationality. Afghans who flee their homeland are refugees, but not their Iranian-born children. And so on.

The U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), an organization set up uniquely for Palestinian refugees in 1949, defines Palestinian refugees differently from all other refugees. They are persons who lived in Palestine "between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." Especially important is that UNRWA extends the refugee status to "the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948." It even considers the children of just one Palestinian refugee parent to be refugees.

The High Commission's definition causes refugee populations to vanish over time; UNRWA's causes them to expand without limit.

The High Commission definition would restrict the refugee status to those of the 726,000 yet alive. According to a demographer, about 200,000 of those 1948 refugees remain living today.

UNRWA includes the refugees' children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as Palestinians who left their homes in 1967, all of whom add up to 4.25 million refugees.

Or 3.8 million. or 7.4 million. Depending on whose numbers you subscribe to, and whose faulty math you're willing to overlook.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2006, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks

And again, sorry: a refugee camp is not a refugee camp if it's a functioning metropolis under an elected government that speaks in the same forum as the rest of the world's nations. The PA speaks at the UN. It is elected. It has land and citizens to govern.

It is a state, and the only reason it isn't is because they don't really WANT a state. They want to destroy Israel.

They could have had a state in 1937. They could have had one in 1947. They could have had one in 2000. They could have had one by 2004 under Bush's roadmap.

Now they have one, and the only reason Israel is even in Gaza today is because an act of war was committed against her, and she is responding.

Well technically Gaza is little more than a refugee camp which is under occupation by Israel. You can twist it any way you want, but thats what it is.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2006, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Well, you've gone wrong again.

Homes? What homes? People who weren't born over a half century ago are living in their homes now. Where should they return?

Refugee numbers over time reduce. The UNRWA and your politically motivated definition prolongs them, increases them.

Why would you want to increase the numbers of suffering people? Why wouldn't you instead work to reduce those numbers?

For the same reasons Lebanon refuses to absorb the "refugees", or Egypt, or Jordan? (Jordan has a good excuse. The last time they let Arafat and the Palestinians in, he tried to take over.) http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/blacksept1970.htm
So in other words, if you take something that does not belong to you then all you have to do is hold on to it long enough for the original owners to die out ... and then everything is peaches and cream in your world huh?

OAW
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2006, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW
So in other words, if you take something that does not belong to you then all you have to do is hold on to it long enough for the original owners to die out ... and then everything is peaches and cream in your world huh?

OAW
You talking about the Jordanians?
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2006, 07:44 PM
 
I think he's talking about France
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,