John Cuthber Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) The point remains. Though the elections were far from prefect, they were not bad enough to discard, even if we don't like the outcome. Hamas won. And that's because a lot of people voted for them. So, once again, if many or most of the voters thought Hamas was a good idea, they must have been in a pretty rough spot. Their enemy is not Hamas, but whoever put them in that spot. Also, "that doesn't diminish our rights to not like the outcome or react acoordingly, such as not legitimizing or recognizing the 'sh*ts', or by cutting aid or even by segregation like a wall." Yeah, that will really help. And "I did note that both of your cited objections... " As far as I can tell, only one did. The other pointed out that many external observers thought the elections went quite well. Are you getting muddled again? Edited August 30, 2014 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 The point remains. Though the elections were far from prefect, they were not bad enough to discard, even if we don't like the outcome. Hamas won. And that's because a lot of people voted for them. So, once again, if many or most of the voters thought Hamas was a good idea, they must have been in a pretty rough spot. Their enemy is not Hamas, but whoever put them in that spot. Propaganda defines who is enemy, the same in Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 "Yeah, that will really help." Yes John, it will help about as much as electing known terrorists as your representatives. Or is stupidity tolerated for Palestinians but not for Israelis ? Both cited objections were in the same example. One starts "In the lead-up to the elections" and the other "During the elections" No 'muddling' here but certainly confusion on your end. Maybe the cobwebs in your head will have cleared by the time I get back from vacation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Stupidity is often excused if you feel you have no alternative. Presumably that's why you are prepared to accept the Israelis' stupidity in this matter. Also, from the point of view of those voting for them, they were not terrorists, but freedom fighters. Re. the objections, OK, fair enough, but the split seems a bit arbitrary to me. You muddled the charter and the constitution, You muddled the current policies with historic ones and You muddled Koran with the Hadith. Lets hope your vacation clears the cobwebs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiards Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Another despicable and deplorable move planned by Israel: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/israeli-settlement-west-bank-gvaot-condemned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) Another despicable and deplorable move planned by Israel: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/israeli-settlement-west-bank-gvaot-condemned Indeed it is, and yet another reason for Hamas/Palestine not to trust Israel, and so the cycle continues; aggression is passive and active, both of which just drives a wedge into trust and/or forgiveness. The price of which is peace. Edited September 2, 2014 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Then Hamas should change their charter, an official document, to reflect their new intentions. Or do you think we should just take the word of, as you put it, sh*ts ? And my point is that saying 'elections are not entirely legitimate' implies that they are at least partly legitimate. What is YOUR point, or are you going to keep changing it when called on it ? It would be good if Hamas changed their charter. On the other hand, perhaps it would be good if Israel changed their president, It just doesn't help when he says things like this "there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.” Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Abbas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands. From http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-finally-speaks-his-mind/ (and remember, this is recent and current, unlike the Hamas Charter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Palestine lives by help from other lands. If I live in Palestine should I be a moslem and should I hate Jews when I want to have my part of the help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now