Israel vs. Hamas

Remove all ads!

This

this,

and this

says it all for me. Not very many of you would just roll over and take it if someone fired a rocket at your house. While I am not 100% into the idea of "if you're not there, you CANNOT understand and therefore should shut up" school of thought, I am of the opinion that we should all at least try to perceive things from the perspectives of as many sides as possible. And that includes the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

 

A have read a couple of Thomas Sowell's books. My favorite was Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Sowell is pretty old now. He's got to be in his 70s, and last I heard he was a professor at Stanford. He's actually pretty much a liberal himeself - I'm surprised you like him, Snook.

 

What Snook posted doesn't sound much like a modern liberal to me. Then again, if he's in his 70's or so now, he may be a very old type of liberal.

 

In the US both sides support Israel wholeheartedly.

 

Law is reason free from passion.

politics should follow in the same light, the only way to gain peace is to drop the emotions which cause the war, and let logic settle the diospute.

in short, peace isnt possible

 

Good point.

By that logic one could argue that everything is pointless (including your comment, which then begs the question why to post it) because emotion is omnipresent and rational solutions thus are impossible to find. While that observation at times indeed can be made, it is hardly a rule. After all, absolutes like absence of passion are things monks strive to achieve for a lifetime - suggesting that such states are rare. In the absence of those rare moments of zen, reality for us unenlightened is always muddled. Get used to it. Your comment ranks as one of those dispensable truisms that are good only for a quip but little else.

 

And after WWII, Israel and the citizens therein would have the least tolerance for a group preaching genocide.

TGS: Your article brings out an interesting point--the only way to truly resolve such differences and bring a resolution to a conflict is to go in and beat the living hell out of the nation that screwed with you in the first place. And the only way to win the war is to ignore the bleeding hearts that don't have the stomach for what has to be done. Is the US paralysed by the people? If so, then we better start learning Arabic and prepare to convert to Islam...

 

If the BBC is to be believed, IDF soldiers are deliberately shooting women and children in Gaza. Their TV reporting from the scene today interviewed doctors in hospitals who asked the obvious rhetorical question as to why they have children patients with multiple small arms wounds. One child had two bullets in the head. Small arms bullets, in the head - not fragments from large calibre weapons. Well, if in the conduct of the troops racial hatred and misconduct is involved, then the Israeli people need to know and to put a stop to it.

From Haaretz:

IDF begins deploying reservists into Gaza as part of ground op.

 

And of course hamas is above killing palestinian citizens.
Thats why the son of one of their leaders sought sanctuary in the US after seeing hamasa members torturing their own people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-son-of-Hamas-leader-becomes-a-Christian.html

 

martaug,
you ought to read this: How Propaganda Hijacked Israeli Strategy in Gaza

... that, of course, is all pointless, as Hamas cannot be dealt with because they don't stick to their end of the deal Contradicting information doesn't matter ...

PS: And as for Palestinian-on-Palestinian infighting, that is a classic that well pre-dates Hamas. There was a joke about Palestinians, from the 1970s, that Palestinians can't cross a street without a fight over who's in charge and goes first. Also, you are aware that Hamas, aside of fighting with Israel, is also fighting a civil war with (US, Israeli and Egyptian sponsored) Fatah i.e. the PLO? Not that Fatah needed the encouragement, but judging by how Hamas mopped the floor with them when Fatah tried to take over Gaza, they sure need the support.

 

Ragusa, that's very interesting information. I still think their only real chance of achieving anything is a non-violent approach to garner international support. If Hamas is as disciplined as this article claims, it's a perfectly reasonable goal, if not an expectable one.

 

Ragusa, what is so wrong with supporting a group that will(at least) acknowledge your right to exist, fatah, when the other group, hamas, is a pack of raving mad dogs?
The enemy of my enemy is an ally(for now).

Now as to why the peace agreement between hamas & israel wasn't continued, hamas refused the most basic talking block on the table, the right of israel to exist as a country. When your enemy wont even acknowledge your right to exist, there is nothing to talk about.
Call me a militaristic barbarian but to my way of thinking, you bargain in good faith until it is proven that your advesary is unwilling to deal truthfully & honestly.
Now when that has been shown, as it has over the decades with hamas, you show NO mercy & inflict enough pain & suffering on your opponenets so that their own people will tear apart anyone that even thinks of renewing hostilities.
How to do this you say?
Its very simple, abhorrent but simple.
For every casualty inflicted on your population you inflict X(whether this is 1,000 or 10,000) number of casualties on your opposition. Not just in lives but in homes, businesses, infrastructure. After the lose of about 10% of their population & infrastructure destroyed for the deaths of less than a(at most) 100 of the "hated infidels" you will be amazed at the number of honest people who will be willing to stand up to the bullies in hamas.
When your only choices are between letting hamas get your country bombed back into the stone age or act like civilised humans & police your own lunatics, i'm pretty sure the second will win out.

 

This is pretty fair logic all around, IMHO. Trouble is, both sides are convinced that the other side is unwilling to deal truthfully and honestly. That's why we'll have violence in the Middle East until a trusted neutral third party can be found to mediate the dispute and keep them away from each other. Trouble is, I think the only neutral third party is the Shazlekki from Planet Weebo. It seems like everyone on this planet is biased one way or another.

 

You're sure about that?

April 21, 2008: Hamas leader accepts Israel's right to exist after Carter visit
May 31, 2006: Hamas Officials Already Recognize Israel's Right to Exist, Apparently

Besides, have you ever considered the ideological element on the Israeli side? What about Israeli settlements?

Well, thank you. What I see is first is that Israel's lamentations on how unbearable the situation in Israel had become due to Hamas shelling are less than honest (and have more to do with bolstering a case for military action). Second, claims on that Hamas cannot be dealt with are inaccurate. Third point is that Hamas, stupidly, allowed themselves to be provoked (by Israeli actions like on November 4th, or when Israel failed to lift the blockade as it had previously agreed to) into giving Israel the excuse for the war of choice they wanted. Hamas did certainly act stupid. It also means that Israel could have avoided this pointless exchange.

And now Israel is escalating that provoked war into nowhere. From a purely military perspective Israel uses modern weapons and superior force because it has the necessary assets and their use minimizes direct Israeli casualties, while the Palestinians have only limited ability to respond in kind. The Palestinians are a lightly armed and divided proto-state, forced to use guerilla and insurgent methods including suicide bombings and attacks on civilians, while they have every incentive to smuggle in arms and weapons. The Israelis can fight as formal, uniformed combatants. The Palestinians must generally fight as paramilitaries and covert action groups in civilian dress. Labelling either side’s methods as illegitimate is highly questionable. Each side fights in the way it finds most advantageous, and the moral and ethical difference between Palestinian suicide bombings and Israeli “collateral damage” is IMO dubious.

The key to destroying guerilla and insurgent movements is not only to defeat their current structure and manpower, but also to remove the support that breeds new movements and the causes that create new terrorists. Israel cannot succeed in either of the latter goals. The Palestinians do have a genuine grievance, and that grievance generates support, for Hamas or a potential successor. Everyone who claims the opposite deludes himself. As long as that problem remains an acceptable military solution will remain a mirage.

Both sides are where they are as much out of self-inflicted wounds as any fault of their opponent. Both sides have failed to reason out the consequences of their strategies and military actions. Without firm external pressure, they will drift almost endlessly in and out of violence. Their only hope of peace will be one of mutual futility and exhaustion. This is a grim prospect.

 

Thast funny ragusa since the first 2 paragraphs state

So, NO they don't recognise israels right to exist.

Hopefully this time they(the israelis) will finish the job & to heck with what the public outcry from around the world is.
It sure seems as if they mean it considering we recently shipped them 3,000 TONS of ammunition.

 

I read both articles, and it would seem that even though Hamas will not explicitly recognize Israel, there may be some in the party who are willing to make a de facto recognition of the state. If they are willing to do that, that may be the best anyone could hope for. If I were an Israeli, and a Muslim said to me "I firmly believe that your state has no right to exist, but I'm not going to send suicide bombers or rockets into your territory anymore" I'd be freaking thrilled. Half a loaf is better than none, especially when that half loaf involves a cessation of violence.

 

Absolutely.

martaug,
from an Islamist point of view Palestine, all of it, is a Muslim land, and to them it is against Islam to ever give up Muslim lands. They thus consider the existence of Israel as a nuisance much like the Crusader States of old. With which Muslims also made truces, said hudna, that held for decades or longer and were renewed multiple times. Considering the Israeli-Palestinian history that's something they never had so it ought to be worth an attempt. In dealing with Israel Hamas does recognise it as a partner.

Inseparable from the question of the recognition of Israel is the question of borders. Who again here put forth the pretty impertinent Israeli claim that, as the Palestinian are not even a people, how can they have a right for their own land? Yes, they only, like, lived there for centuries! The Israelis have never accepted the right of a Palestinian state to exist based upon 1967 borders, based on international law. It is true that publicly Hamas has not accepted Israel's right to exist, but it goes both ways. Israel's annexation of Jerusalem is illegal under international law (as in 'thou shalt not expand in self defence'), as is the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli acceptance of Hama truce offer would mean giving up land that Israel has annexed. Considering the peculiar persistence of settlements in the occupied territories I rank the probability of that happening as near zero percent. Apparently Israel likes the settlements, and Jerusalem. Hamas people have repeatedly said that they would accept a settlement with Israel along the 1967 borders. You are aware that for Hamas a recognition of Israel would include accepting borders other than 1967, that is ceding land to Israel? That means that by recognising Israel Hamas would discredit itself religiously and politically by what would from a Palestinian perspective amount to surrender. They will not do that. Does that mean they cannot be dealt with? No.

You have a lot of non-negotiables on either side, to which IMO a truce, not killing each other and getting used to each other, offers an infinitely superior solution to chasing the mirage of a 'Siegfrieden' a la Gaza - which is IMO doomed to produce nothing but death, destruction and further radicalisation. What I mean with that? Unusual for an Islamist movement, Hamas is regional in nature; they are also relatively moderate in that they are willing to compromise. It has come under intense criticism for this moderation and it's regional nature from pan-Islamic groups, especially Al Qaeda. As there is a Palestinian grievance, there is also a need to express it. Al Qaeda is looking forward to Israel crushing Hamas to fill an emerging vacuum. Considering the indiscriminate carnage Al Qaeda unleashed in Iraq - if you didn't like Hamas, Al Qaeda's Tafkiris are far more radical. Even if Israel is successful in crushing Hamas, what I doubt, odds are they get far more than what they bargained for.

Hamas puts forward a lot of its argument in religious terms. Some of those religious terms are wildly fantastic, but they are primarily rhetoric for the sake of religious consistency. That was what I referred to before as 'not abandoning religious principle'. If you expect Hamas to do that, by recognising Israel, you know nothing about pious people. Hamas has no chance at all to ever 'wipe Israel off the map', much like Al Qaeda has no way of ever establishing the worldwide caliphate that neo-cons like to scare the American audience with. They know that, too, but keep preaching it for religious consistency.

Before Israel assassinated Sheik Abdul Aziz al-Rantissi, he publicly pointed to an acceptance of Israel within its borders before 1967, in return for ending the armed struggle and Hamas' eventual recognition of Israel.

Before the mid 1980's the entire struggle was almost complete Secular and Leftist in nature (Arafat was a left nationalist). Religious Fundamentalism is just the flavour of the day, just as Arafats left Secularism and Pan-Arab movements were before. In the end, Hamas emerged as a response to the Palestinian problem, much like Fatah and the PLO did. In the absence of a solution another response will emerge.

So Hamas might do a long term hudna, if given a Palestine based on 1967 borders, this mostly to appease its most hardcore followers. Hamas has proven that it would live up to such a deal even without 'recognising Israel's right to exist'. The absence of that 'formality' is consequently no excuse for not dealing with Hamas, and a convenient if dishonest excuse for those in Israel who prefer things the way they are.

 

Thats funny ragusa, as they(the palestinians) weren't willing to except the borders in '48 let alone in '67 what the hell makes you think they would honor them now?

 

You see, the point is that it is a hudna. Israel is nuclear armed, with a superior army. Hamas cannot possibly beat them.

A hudna is a traditional Arab solution for when two tribes go to war but when neither can overcome the other and not stand the other. Its a peace treaty without the normalisation if you will. So you can see why its so apt here.

While a hudna is translated as "temporary" it must be remembered that temporary in the Middle East is very different to what it means in the West. In the case of hudna it mostly means peace until such time that I know I can beat you. Given the disparity of the two parties, any hudna between Hamas and Israel will likely last a while. (h/t to mo)

Then, I explained that Hamas is a regional organisation and the problem Al Qaeda has with that. Hamas' claim to Palestine is basically Nationalist, expressed in religious language - unsurprising, after all Hamas is an expression of Palestinian grievances. Key to that is that Islamist Hamas would accept secular borders. For Islamists that is extremely moderate. For Al Qaeda as a pan-Islamic group borders are irrelevant. They consider Hamas regionalism as un-islamic and are bitterly opposed to them.

 

Ragusa, your arguments are eloquent as always. But my worry is this:

A hudna sounds great, but the Palestinians (and indeed, the whole Muslim world) are greatly fractured. If I were an Israeli, as I said in an earlier post, I'd be thrilled at the promise of some Palestinians to not atack my territory but I'd also be scared spitless of some other Palestinians just ignoring it and continuing the attacks. Certainly if the attacks continued after the hudna I'd want to do something about it besides ask them politely to stop killing my countrymen.

Bottom line is, there needs to be a unified Palestine to make this idea work, and a unified Palestine is going to be . . . difficult to achieve, to put it mildly. I believe that the Big Five should roll in and make some brutal changes, basically shoving the two sides apart and keeping them from asinine behaviour. I know that's not likely to happen either.