[thunderous_funker]

Are you unfamiliar with the Settler Movements? The people that prayed down the Destroying Angel to kill Ariel Sharon for pulling out of Gaza?

This is vastly covered ground and I'm not going to rehash it.

Hamas won what appears to be a free and fair election. The Palestinian people have put their trust in Hamas to deliver a better quality of life. My contention is that if life dramatically improves for Palestinians (I'm talking basic necessities for health, food, shelter, work, security) all the crazy talk of driving Israel into the sea will be mostly forgotten by the majority.

Its easy to talk vengeance when people are still dying. IF the killing stops long enough for some good old fashioned prosperity to settle in, Hamas will start looking and talking like a real political party and not merely an insurgency.

That's a pretty big "if", but if Hamas can't deliver it they will loose quickly to the next insurgency movement.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Former President Carter said Thursday the Palestinian elections were "completely honest, completely fair, completely safe and without violence."

Carter, who led an international observer team from the National Democratic Institute, also said he hoped that the Hamas Islamic group would act responsibly now that it appears to have been elected to power in Palestinian elections.

"My hope is that as Hamas assumes a major role in the next government, whatever that might be, it will take a position on international standards of responsibility," he told a news conference in Jerusalem.

The terrorist group Hamas vowed not to disarm or negotiate with the Jewish state if it enters the Palestinian parliament after the election.

Isn't that basically the same thing Bush said in the interview?

THE PRESIDENT: Peace is never dead, because people want peace. I believe -- and that's why I articulated a two-state solution early in my administration, so that -- as a vision for people to work toward, a solution that recognized that democracy yields peace. And the best hope for peace in the Middle East is two democracies living side-by-side.

So the Palestinians had an election yesterday, and the results of which remind me about the power of democracy. You see, when you give people the vote, you give people a chance to express themselves at the polls -- and if they're unhappy with the status quo, they'll let you know. That's the great thing about democracy, it provides a look into society.

And yesterday the turnout was significant, as I understand it. And there was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that's positive. But what was also positive is, is that it's a wake-up call to the leadership. Obviously, people were not happy with the status quo. The people are demanding honest government. The people want services. They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find health care.

And so the elections should open the eyes of the old guard there in the Palestinian territories. I like the competition of ideas. I like people who have to go out and say, vote for me, and here's what I'm going to do. There's something healthy about a system that does that. And so the elections yesterday were very interesting.

On the other hand, I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a -- if your party has got an armed wing. The elections just took place. We will watch very carefully about the formation of the government. But I will continue to remind people about what I just said, that if your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace. And we're interested in peace.

I talked to Condi twice this morning. She called President Abbas. She also is going to have a conference call today about the Quartet -- with the Quartet, about how to keep the process on the road to peace.

Edit: is Bush becoming a Liberal?

[thunderous_funker]

A rare moment for me to commend Bush for saying the right thing. In fact, on the subject of the 2-state solution Bush has said more of the right things than any of his predecessors (except maybe Ike). That deserves credit.

OTOH, he failed to take real action at some critical moments which might have stemmed some of the horror that continues there. Of course, not that his predecessors did any better but I wish at least on this issue Bush had been truer to his word.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

A rare moment for me to commend Bush for saying the right thing. In fact, on the subject of the 2-state solution Bush has said more of the right things than any of his predecessors (except maybe Ike). That deserves credit.

OTOH, he failed to take real action at some critical moments which might have stemmed some of the horror that continues there. Of course, not that his predecessors did any better but I wish at least on this issue Bush had been truer to his word.

Well said.

However, with or without Bush, the US in general has done alot for the Palestinians. More then most other countries anyway.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Isn't that basically the same thing Bush said in the interview?

Exactly. Funny how certain members, or the one making that cartoon, didn't notice that.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Exactly. Funny how certain members, or the one making that cartoon, didn't notice that.

Blinded by bias.

[Kevin]

Again.. it was what he didn't say AT FIRST.

[Corpse of Chewbacca]

The chaos continues....

30 PA policemen storm Gaza's parliament building
associated press, THE JERUSALEM POST Jan. 30, 2006

About 30 Palestinian policemen stormed the parliament building in Gaza City on Monday, firing in the air, witnesses said.

The officers closed the gates behind them, and some climbed onto the roof. It was not immediately clear why they took over the building.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

With the PA Police taking over the parliment building, how can one possibly consider order being restored?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Corpse of Chewbacca

The chaos continues....



With the PA Police taking over the parliment building, how can one possibly consider order being restored?

PA police is mostly Fatah. They have something to gain from creating a chaos. But don't worry. Order will soon be restored. (though you will see it in the Western papers as Hamas activists taking on the PA police)

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

PA police is mostly Fatah. They have something to gain from creating a chaos. But don't worry. Order will soon be restored. (though you will see it in the Western papers as Hamas activists taking on the PA police)

No. In western papers, the ones i've read, they have been reported as Fatah dudes.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

No. In western papers, the ones i've read, they have been reported as Fatah dudes.

I think you didn't completely understand what I said. I was talking about what will happen. Not what has happened.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I think you didn't completely understand what I said. I was talking about what will happen. Not what has happened.

What will happen already has happend. The western media reporting on this subject that is.

[Corpse of Chewbacca]

So, von, what you're saying is the PA police are the bad guys and the Hamas terrorist (the same who advocate for murdering innocent Israelis) are the good guys.

Personally, I don't believe either are the good guys. Fatah might have a chance to prove they might be good, but Hamas is just all evil.

[thunderous_funker]

Good vs Evil doesn't really enter into it.

Elements loyal to a corrupt government that was justed voted out of power by a fair and free election are now resorting to violence to disrupt a clear transfer of power.

In Iraq, that gets called terrorism. So why does it called "good" in Gaza?

[vmarks]

Elections alone are not a true test of democracy. Democracy requires, as a prerequisite, the emergence of a political culture that is supportive of freedom. Can a radical Islamist group like Hamas, that envisions the militant takeover of neighboring states, be regarded as a partner in such a democratization process?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Corpse of Chewbacca

So, von, what you're saying is the PA police are the bad guys and the Hamas terrorist (the same who advocate for murdering innocent Israelis) are the good guys.

Personally, I don't believe either are the good guys. Fatah might have a chance to prove they might be good, but Hamas is just all evil.

Did I say that or is that what you think I meant?

[Corpse of Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Did I say that or is that what you think I meant?

So, von, what are your feelings for Hamas and their murderous intentions?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Corpse of Chewbacca

So, von, what are your feelings for Hamas and their murderous intentions?

And have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Did I say that or is that what you think I meant?

Why not just ask the question instead of skirting around it all the time.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by segovius

And have you stopped beating your wife yet?

This is not quite framed as the type of circular question you're trying to suppose it is. For example; he could answer that he does not much appreciate Hamas because of their murderous intentions. Answering your question above is clearly lose-lose. I'll reword it though and direct it to the both of you to avoid intellectual conundrums;

How do you feel about Hamas?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

How do you feel about Hamas?

Like I've stated so often before. They need to drop the terrorism (real terrorism that is) and continue to focus on the good work they have done for the Palestinian people.

And I like this idea of theirs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4658872.stm

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Good vs Evil doesn't really enter into it.

Elements loyal to a corrupt government that was justed voted out of power by a fair and free election are now resorting to violence to disrupt a clear transfer of power.

In Iraq, that gets called terrorism. So why does it called "good" in Gaza?

Because one sect is calling for the annihilation of a sect of people and the other is not? BTW; who called Fatah "good" anyway?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Like I've stated so often before. They need to drop the terrorism (real terrorism that is) and continue to focus on the good work they have done for the Palestinian people.

And I like this idea of theirs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4658872.stm

Originally Posted by from article

Khaled Meshaal, who lives in exile in Syria, said the force would include its militant wing and would "defend our people against aggression".

He said Hamas was ready to "unify the weapons of Palestinian factions, with Palestinian consensus, and form an army like any independent state... an army that protects our people against aggression".

"This idea of theirs" involves turning an independent armed faction into a state-sanctioned military group. Is this what you really want? While it could be good if the armed factions were to renounce their anti-Israel intentions if they don't you now have an army representing a state making declarations of hostility against another state and that means real trouble, that means war.

But I have my own question for you: Do you think Hamas should concede to the demands of the West and lay down their arms and renounce their anti-Israel intentions?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Like I've stated so often before. They need to drop the terrorism (real terrorism that is) and continue to focus on the good work they have done for the Palestinian people.

And I like this idea of theirs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4658872.stm

Within the "idea" that you claim to appreciate are statements such as;

"As long as we are under occupation then resistance is our right."
Can you explain what "occupation" means in this context?

"Hamas has also rejected international calls for the group to renounce violence or face cuts in aid to Palestinians."

I just don't see how this is going to get the Palestinian people anything, but more heart ache, sanctions, and blood shed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

But I have my own question for you: Do you think Hamas should concede to the demands of the West and lay down their arms and renounce their anti-Israel intentions?

I don't think you can call for them to lay down their arms however, a good start would be to renounce their intentions of eliminating an entire sect of people. Hamas has made it clear they will not even take the step of rhetoric, let alone actions of peaceful interest.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

"This idea of theirs" involves turning an independent armed faction into a state-sanctioned military group. Is this what you really want? While it could be good if the armed factions were to renounce their anti-Israel intentions if they don't you now have an army representing a state making declarations of hostility against another state and that means real trouble, that means war.

As you can see in the part you quoted they are talking about unifying all the factions into one. I'm all for that because as soon as they do that they have to become more responsible with their actions.

But I have my own question for you: Do you think Hamas should concede to the demands of the West and lay down their arms and renounce their anti-Israel intentions?

No, they should not lay down their arms. Absolutely not. A people under occupation has the right to fight against it.

As for their anti-Israel intentions. IMO they can be against Israel all they want. I've got no problem with that. But it is how they act on it that matters. And as they have said before:

Hamas could agree to a long-term "hudna", or truce, if Israel accepts a Palestinian state based on the internationally-recognised borders of 1967, one of the group's senior leaders has said.

Speaking to CNN, Mahmoud Zahhar also called for the release of Palestinian prisoners, an end to Israeli "aggression" against Palestinians, and a geographic link between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

"At that time, with assurance from other sides, we are going to accept to establish our independent state at that time, and give us one or two, 10, 15 years time in order to see what is the real intention of Israel after that," Mr Zahhar said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/4661066.stm

And here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...cnn_topstories

The CNN story is more detailed.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I don't think you can call for them to lay down their arms however, a good start would be to renounce their intentions of eliminating an entire sect of people. Hamas has made it clear they will not even take the step of rhetoric, let alone actions of peaceful interest.

Good point. Like with the IRA factionalism in Northern Ireland the words of renouncing violence--followed by NOT committing violence--preceeded the de-commissioning of arms.

But Hamas MUST, MUST, MUST publicly and unequivocally state the renunciation of their desire to "push Israel into the sea".

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Within the "idea" that you claim to appreciate are statements such as;

"As long as we are under occupation then resistance is our right."
Can you explain what "occupation" means in this context?

As in the post above it's pretty obvious what occupation is. All the territories occupied after '67. And as long as they are occupied every Palestinian has the right to resist that occupation.

"Hamas has also rejected international calls for the group to renounce violence or face cuts in aid to Palestinians."

I just don't see how this is going to get the Palestinian people anything, but more heart ache, sanctions, and blood shed.

What it gets them is making sure they won't be controlled by the West. Being independent means nothing if everything you do is controlled by a foreign nation.

[Kevin]

Them refusing to denounce their terrorism plans means they will get cut off. Which means they will get no help. Which means more than likely they will fail. Which of course will be blamed on the Jews.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

No, they should not lay down their arms. Absolutely not. A people under occupation has the right to fight against it.

As for their anti-Israel intentions. IMO they can be against Israel all they want. I've got no problem with that. But it is how they act on it that matters.

So, if you view the Palestinian people as being under occupation, who do you think is doing the occupation? and how do you view the (in)actions of the Palestinian Authority in light of this presumed occupation? Do you think the PA is legitimately representing the needs of the Palestinian people? And if not, what governing body should represent the Palestinian people?

And you have "no problem" with Hamas, as the main party in the PA, continuing to claim to "push Israel into the sea"? But, as long as they never act on it is okay? Good.

Here is my claim, coming from dcmacdaddyland. I think we should kill all the Palestinians and give all their territory to Israel. Now, do you support my claims to violence as long as I don't act on them? If not, then you are a hypocrite. You can't say it is acceptable for a Hamas-led PA to act in one way but deny that way of acting is acceptable for another country.

So, if you are OK with a Hamas-led PA continuing to assert their desire to "push Israel into the sea" please come out and say you are OK with an Israeli government publicly claiming to eliminate all the Palestinian people. Otherwise please come out admit to being a hypocrite. Thanks!

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So, if you view the Palestinian people as being under occupation, who do you think is doing the occupation? and how do you view the (in)actions of the Palestinian Authority in light of this presumed occupation? Do you think the PA is legitimately representing the needs of the Palestinian people? And if not, what governing body should represent the Palestinian people?

Israel is obviously doing the occupation. The PA has mostly been inefficient in doing what is needed (provide basic services, stop attacks on Israeli civilians, etc etc). Now they have elected Hamas to govern themselves and therefore Hamas should represent them. And I trust Hamas to deliver what is needed much more than I trusted the old faction.

And you have "no problem" with Hamas, as the main party in the PA, continuing to claim to "push Israel into the sea"? But, as long as they never act on it is okay? Good.

Here is my claim, coming from dcmacdaddyland. I think we should kill all the Palestinians and give all their territory to Israel. Now, do you support my claims to violence as long as I don't act on them? If not, then you are a hypocrite. You can't say it is acceptable for a Hamas-led PA to act in one way but deny that way of acting is acceptable for another country.

So, if you are OK with a Hamas-led PA continuing to assert their desire to "push Israel into the sea" please come out and say you are OK with an Israeli government publicly claiming to eliminate all the Palestinian people. Otherwiss,e please come out admit to being a hypocrite. Thanks!

The difference is that you are claiming that "you" want to kill all Palestinians. Hamas hasn't done that. They view Israel as an illegal state. They have the right to believe that. Just like other nations (like Israel) believes Palestine doesn't exist as a nation.

So like I said, the difference is in "your" claim of killing people and in Hamas' claim that Israel is an illegal state.

You can clearly see their stance on the matter in the articles I linked to above.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

As in the post above it's pretty obvious what occupation is. All the territories occupied after '67. And as long as they are occupied every Palestinian has the right to resist that occupation.

That's what I thought. So as long as an Israeli lives in the region, there is an occupation. Well, that makes it easy then. The new Palestinian government will be held to account and it will be their own doing. To believe the Israeli is going to simply leave or submit to Hamas is laughable. Perhaps just as laughable as assuming Hamas would submit to the West and/or Israel. The only answer would begin with peaceful rhetoric, the type of rhetoric Hamas has made clear they will not engage. The only conclusion will be war and it will be ugly now just as it was then. It's unfortunate.

What it gets them is making sure they won't be controlled by the West. Being independent means nothing if everything you do is controlled by a foreign nation.

It's unfortunate.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That's what I thought. So as long as an Israeli lives in the region, there is an occupation. Well, that makes it easy then. The new Palestinian government will be held to account and it will be their own doing. To believe the Israeli is going to simply leave or submit to Hamas is laughable. Perhaps just as laughable as assuming Hamas would submit to the West and/or Israel. The only answer would begin with peaceful rhetoric, the type of rhetoric Hamas has made clear they will not engage. The only conclusion will be war and it will be ugly now just as it was then. It's unfortunate.

huh? Perhaps it's time for you to take a history class or something. Read what I said again and try to figure it out.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

huh? Perhaps it's time for you to take a history class or something. Read what I said again and try to figure it out.

OOOR you could explain yourself, and not dodge the question.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

huh? Perhaps it's time for you to take a history class or something. Read what I said again and try to figure it out.

Excuse me?!? Would this be the history class that shows a failed 3 pronged military front tasked with eliminating the newly declared state of Israel? Had this not happened, Israel would not have the land you're calling occupied. I figured out exactly what you said. Keep in mind that to return to the status you claim is fair would be to drive a wedge right through the center of the Israeli people and drive them outward.

I repeat, it's unfortunate.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

3 pronged.

Whatever happend to Lerkfish?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Whatever happend to Lerkfish?

Speaking of 3 pronged?

I don't know.

[boots]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Elections alone are not a true test of democracy. Democracy requires, as a prerequisite, the emergence of a political culture that is supportive of freedom. Can a radical Islamist group like Hamas, that envisions the militant takeover of neighboring states, be regarded as a partner in such a democratization process?

Well, I kinda of agree with this. Democracy (as it seems you are talking about) is not a thing, it is a process. Democracy does require those things. But the process kind of has to start somewhere. Free elections is a good place to start. Now we have to see if the process continues or if it fails. Then we start again.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

"This idea of theirs" involves turning an independent armed faction into a state-sanctioned military group. Is this what you really want? While it could be good if the armed factions were to renounce their anti-Israel intentions if they don't you now have an army representing a state making declarations of hostility against another state and that means real trouble, that means war.

I certainly won't endorse everything in the reasoning, but I've said earlier (and vW clarified his statement on this) that a sovereign country (or are we no longer talking about a 2 state solution?) will require defensive military at the least. Even when we restructured Japan, we didn't begrudge them a defensive military.

Before ya'll jump on that as supporting the militant factions, I do not. I am simply saying that a military will, at some point, need to develop. I don't trust Hamas to make the necessary conversion of the militants, but I do think there is a point here.


On another tangent of this, I was thinking last night (I know, my first mistake) about what would happen if we (the US, UK, etc.) pretty much just cut off all aid and contact with a Hamas lead government. The answer scared me. They don't need us or our aid. Iran will back them up with more than they really need from us. That won't end well.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The difference is that you are claiming that "you" want to kill all Palestinians. Hamas hasn't done that. They view Israel as an illegal state. They have the right to believe that. Just like other nations (like Israel) believes Palestine doesn't exist as a nation.

So like I said, the difference is in "your" claim of killing people and in Hamas' claim that Israel is an illegal state.

You mean to tell me Hamas has never claimed to want to "push Israel into the sea"? If that is not a claim to kill Israelis then what is it?

Oh, and I agree with you, Hamas does have the right to view Israel as an illegal state. Just like Israel has the right to view a terrorist group legitimately elected to power as a terrorist state.

So, we've got one nation (Israel) viewing the government of another nation (Palestine) as terrorists. And we've got one nation (Palestine) viewing another nation (Israel) as not having the right to exist at all. Sounds like the ingredients for a nasty relationship.

As to your point of returning to pre-1967 border, I wouldn't be opposed to that. Israel gives up the land, Hamas publicly renounces their desire to "push Israel into the sea", and both Israel and Palestine exist side-by-side.
Of course, the first time there is a Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel, that would, and should, be seen as an act of war against Israel by Palestine and Israel should have every right to re-invade their neighbors who have just attacked them. The only way any agreement will work is if the governing authority that rules the Palestinian people/territories takes a zero-tolerance approach to suicide bombers originating in the Palestinian territories.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Excuse me?!? Would this be the history class that shows a failed 3 pronged military front tasked with eliminating the newly declared state of Israel? Had this not happened, Israel would not have the land you're calling occupied. I figured out exactly what you said. Keep in mind that to return to the status you claim is fair would be to drive a wedge right through the center of the Israeli people and drive them outward.

I repeat, it's unfortunate.

The year 1967. Educate yourself.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

You mean to tell me Hamas has never claimed to want to "push Israel into the sea"? If that is not a claim to kill Israelis then what is it?

Israel the country (borders on a map) is what they mean. Not the Jewish people.

Oh, and I agree with you, Hamas does have the right to view Israel as an illegal state. Just like Israel has the right to view a terrorist group legitimately elected to power as a terrorist state.

Indeed.

So, we've got one nation (Israel) viewing the government of another nation (Palestine) as terrorists. And we've got one nation (Palestine) viewing another nation (Israel) as not having the right to exist at all. Sounds like the ingredients for a nasty relationship.

Agree. But that's nothing new.

As to your point of returning to pre-1967 border, I wouldn't be opposed to that. Israel gives up the land, Hamas publicly renounces their desire to "push Israel into the sea", and both Israel and Palestine exist side-by-side.
Of course, the first time there is a Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel, that would, and should, be seen as an act of war against Israel by Palestine and Israel should have every right to re-invade their neighbors who have just attacked them. The only way any agreement will work is if the governing authority that rules the Palestinian people/territories takes a zero-tolerance approach to suicide bombers originating in the Palestinian territories.

Completely agree.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The year 1967. Educate yourself.

Where am I wrong? It's not enough to say "educate yourself". I've ended more threads with facts than you've started.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Where am I wrong? It's not enough to say "educate yourself". I've ended more threads with facts than you've started.

Where you are wrong:

• So as long as an Israeli lives in the region, there is an occupation. [wrong because Israel would still hold the majority of the area]
• The only answer would begin with peaceful rhetoric, the type of rhetoric Hamas has made clear they will not engage.[look at article I posted above]
• Would this be the history class that shows a failed 3 pronged military front tasked with eliminating the newly declared state of Israel? [wrong because we were talking about '67 and Palestine had little to do with those wars.]
• Keep in mind that to return to the status you claim is fair would be to drive a wedge right through the center of the Israeli people and drive them outward.[wrong. Palestine will still be cut in two while Israel holds on to the majority of the original Palestinian land]

Want me to spend more time educating you?

This is what I said just to remind you.

As in the post above it's pretty obvious what occupation is. All the territories occupied after '67. And as long as they are occupied every Palestinian has the right to resist that occupation.

[PacHead]

Remember when people would defend the Palestinians by claiming only a tiny minority were terrorists or terrorist supporters ? Well, now that that claim has been totally invalidated, it sure will be entertaining to see Hamas run a government. Hamas winning is the best thing that could have happened in a long time. As more and more chaos breaks out and western states no longer will fund the terrorists, Hamas can always blame the Jooos in the end for their problems.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Whatever happend to Lerkfish?

He passed away.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...cnn_topstories

The CNN story is more detailed.

The CNN story at least tells the truth about what a Hudna is:

A "hudna," historically, has referred to a long pause in hostilities, during which armies prepared for later battles.

And remember, both the PLO/PA, and Hamas have gotten behind the phased plan- first insist on a return to pre-1967 borders, and then insist on a return to pre-1947, thereby eliminating Israel.


Oh, and Hamas wants to bring back the jizya tax.

[Corpse of Chewbacca]

This man is a true visionary. Finally....

Sheikhing up the real Islam
GAIL LICHTMAN, THE JERUSALEM POST Jan. 31, 2006

At a time when the Muslim world seems to have been taken over by Islamic extremism, worshipping shahidim and virulent hatred of Israel and the west, Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi is an outspoken critic of this fanaticism, suicide bombings and jihad and supports the "Jewish divine right" to the Land of Israel.

With a doctorate in Islamic sciences from the Institute for Islamic Studies and Research in Naples (by authorization of the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia), and ijazzah (authorization to teach) both Koranic exegesis and Islamic law from the prestigious University of al-Azhar as-Sharif in Cairo, Palazzi backs his somewhat surprising positions with citations from the Koran and traditional Muslim sources.

The 45-year-old Sunni scholar was in Israel earlier this month, his first visit since shortly before 9/11, to attend a meeting of the newly-reconstituted Sanhedrin (religious high court, led by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz), lecture on Wahhabi terrorism and visit the Jewish community in Hebron.

Speaking with In Jerusalem, Palazzi states that he views the dominance of Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi heresy as the main problem facing the Islamic world today. He views Wahhabi as a "totalitarian cult that stands for terror, massacre of civilians and permanent war against Jews, Christians and non-Wahhabi Muslims."

Since the rise of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, some 300 years ago, Sunni scholars have written hundreds of books and issued thousands of fatwas declaring Wahhabism to be a heretical cult, refuting its mistakes and exposing its deviances. And, by virtue of his ijazzah, Palazzi believes it is not only his right but also his duty to publicly refute this heresy.

In this, he is not alone among Muslim scholars. What distinguishes Palazzi is his views on Jews and the Land of Israel.

Palazzi believes that Israel exists by "divine right" and that the Koran clearly states (Sura 5:21) that God granted the Land of Israel to the Children of Israel and ordered them to settle there. In addition, it is predicted that before the end of days, God will bring the Children of Israel to retake possession of the Land, gathering them from the different countries and nations (Sura 17:104).

Oddly enough, Palazzi's reading of the Koran is backed up by, of all sources, Al Qaida.

The Al Qaida website recently carried an article entitled, "The Jews Are Unworthy of the Promised Land. As translated by DEBKAfile.com, the article reads, "Allah decided to test the Jews when they were still an oppressed people [while in Egypt]. He seeks to lead them to the path of faith and victory and therefore urges them to conquer the Land of Israel. They [the Jews] are even more afraid to fight for the Promised Land than they are of God. For this reason, the Jewish People does not find it hard to break the covenant between God and Abram which awarded the Land of Israel to the Jewish People for all generations."

But while Al Qaida comes to the conclusion that the Jewish People has not lived up to its end of the bargain and therefore the covenant is abrogated, giving Muslims the right to the Land, Palazzi believes that the covenant is still very much in force.

"In 1919, when the Hashemite Emir Feisal first heard of Zionism, he exclaimed that he was seeing what was announced in the Koran - the Jews coming back to the land." Palazzi points out. "And this was one of the reasons he signed his historic agreement with Chaim Weizmann."

He blames the British for fomenting discord between Muslims and Jews and maintaining a "divide and conquer policy."

According to Palazzi, until two decades ago, Arab opposition to the State of Israel was based on nationalism, not Islam. "The propaganda in Nasser's Egypt was based on Israel as a denial of Arab nationalism and the unity of the Arab world," he explains. "There was no idea of a revolutionary party based on Islam. Islam was considered a religion not related to politics." This changed with the collapse of Nasserism, the rise of oil-rich Saudi Arabia and the Iranian revolution.

"When Arab nationalism was destroyed, this left a void, which was filled by Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism," he continues. "Because Israel borders on the Arab countries and is in the center of the Middle East, it is a more direct threat to Arab regimes. They are afraid that if there were normal relations between their countries and Israel, their citizens would be able to compare between the democracy and advanced society in Israel and their own backwardness."

As for Jerusalem, although not mentioned by name in the Koran, Palazzi cites Islamic sources to prove that the city is the site of Solomon's Holy Temple.

"Today, official Palestinian Authority propaganda denies any connection of the Jews to Jerusalem," Palazzi says. "In doing so, they are not only revising history but also classical Islamic sources. The Koran presents the same history as the Bible. This was clear to Muslim scholars for centuries - Al Aksa and Solomon's Temple are in the same place. When the Caliph Omar first arrived in Jerusalem, he called the city Bayet Al Makdis - Beit Hamikdash or the House of the Temple. This was shortened to Al Quds."

While in Israel, Palazzi also took the time to travel to Hebron to visit the Jewish community. "I am particularly sensitive to Hebron," he claims. "This is a place that clearly reflects historical discrimination against Jews. If there is one place about which no one can question the right of Jews to live - even more so than Jerusalem - it is Hebron. To suggest that Jews should not live in Hebron is defiling Jewish heritage. Yet the world seems to ignore this."

He continues, "Every political power seems to be interested in making Hebron free of a Jewish presence, as well as various Israeli governments. I am afraid that after Gaza, Hebron will be next. I went to visit the Jewish community to tell them that they are living in the land where Jews have more right to be than anywhere else."

Palazzi was born in Rome to a non-observant Muslim family of Syrian origin who had been living in Italy for more than a century. He had no special interest in religion when he was growing up, but he was interested in spirituality and metaphysics. This led him to study philosophy at the State University of Rome.

During this period, he became interested in Islam. Upon graduation, he went to Cairo to study.

"There I studied under Sheikh Muhammed al-Mutawali as-Sharawi, one of the most outstanding Islamic leaders. He felt it was necessary for the Muslim world...to return to the days of Andalusia [the Golden Age of Spain] when we had good relations with the Jews. Sharawi was the one who convinced Sadat to open relations with Israel."

Returning to Rome in 1984 after four years in Cairo, Palazzi found a changing Muslim community. Whereas most Muslims were once from Somalia and Afghanistan, the community had begun to experience mass immigration from the Middle East.

"The extremists starting arriving and began to try to take control of the community," he relates. "That is when I started to distinguish my position from theirs. I took a clear stand on the Middle East - that there is no problem with the existence of Israel - and on developing good relations with the Jewish community."

Palazzi feels that the level of propaganda under the repressive Arab regimes is so massive that people are not free to learn the truth. "The main role of Muslims in free countries is to speak out," he proclaims. "We have to convince the world of the nature of the threat of Wahhabism before it is too late."

Palazzi's lecture on Wahhabi terrorism was sponsored by the Root and Branch Association, a small non-profit group that claims to promote cooperation between "B'nai Israel (Children of Israel) and B'nai Noach (Children of Noah) in Israel and abroad" and supports a largely right-wing and religious program.

Palazzi is co-chair of Root and Branch's Islam-Israel Fellowship, which "promotes cooperation between Jews and Muslims both within the State of Israel and abroad, and between the State of Israel and Muslim nations, based upon a correct Jewish understanding of the Bible and Jewish tradition, and a correct Muslim understanding of the Qur'an and Islamic tradition."

Palazzi made light of the risks inherent in making his opinions public, although on other occasions he has cited the names of Muslims leaders killed for proclaiming similar ideas.

"My task is to help Muslims understand that Muslim fundamentalism contradicts the principles of our religion," he has written. "Doing so is not a theological game and risks lives."

"Palazzi has been speaking out for years," notes Raphael Israeli, a professor at the Hebrew University's Truman Institute and Department of Middle East and Islamic Studies. "He is a lonely voice who is shunned by orthodox Islam. There are things written in the Koran as he cites them but then there are also contradictory things written. It all depends on where you put the emphasis."

Says Israeli, "Not many Muslims are paying attention to him. Islamic fundamentalism is the winning direction. Maybe there are other Muslim intellectuals who think like him, but they are not heard. Maybe they are afraid to speak. If he lived in an Islamic country, he would have been killed long ago. But he is in the West, so he can speak."

Adds Prof. Moshe Sharon, also of the Hebrew University's Department of Middle East and Islamic Studies as well as the Institute of Asian and African Studies, "Palazzi is talking about the true Islam, based on his understanding of the Koranic texts. What others use for fanaticism and war, he is saying can be read to show peaceful coexistence and the rights of the Jews to Israel... If you interpret the text correctly, you will find the positive. What he is doing is a wonderful thing."

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Corpse of Chewbacca

This man is a true visionary. Finally....

He is only a "visionary" because you agree with him. Come back when you have an essay you like from someone you disagree with and then we can discuss the honesy of your assessment of said person as "visionary".

[vmarks]

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1014

Mahmoud Al-Zahhar: We will not give up the resistance in the sense of Jihad, martyrdom-seeking, sacrifices, arrests, the demolition of homes, and the uprooting of trees, at the same time, nor the shattering of the Israeli enemy’s honor in all the confrontations - the war of tunnels and of security against the Israeli enemy, which ultimately led to its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank.

[...]

We will not allow a situation in which a person who is wounded cannot be treated anywhere, unless he goes to the Israeli enemy, or is transferred across the border. Our education system will not represent Palestine as a coastal strip stretching from Rafah to Beit Hanoun. We will teach them their history and the geography of Palestine. Our ministry of culture will teach them how the martyr is turned into prose, literature, and poetry, and how a woman, who used to cook and do the laundry, turns into one of the heroes of Palestine.

[Corpse of Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

He is only a "visionary" because you agree with him. Come back when you have an essay you like from someone you disagree with and then we can discuss the honesy of your assessment of said person as "visionary".

I might say it's interesting to note that instead of writing to the material in the above posted article you wrote to me (the poster). However, it's not interesting based on who it came from.