Israel-Gaza Strip conflict - who is to blame?

[John Cuthber]

Well, you may not think you are muddled, but yet you muddled the charter and the constitution.

Then you muddled the Koran with the hadith.

 

I didn't read it, because I don't disagree with your assertion of what it says.

And there are those in Israel with comparable views , the other way round.

So what?

 

There are nutters on both sides.

The interesting question is how come one lot got elected.

 

Well, at the moment the people doing the best job of recruiting to Hamas, are the Israelis.

[DimaMazin]

 

 

 

Maybe my advocating non violence and peace is a bad policy but given the resulting bloodbath and suffering that violence brings, maybe it should be given a chance.

 

This conflict is just another example of the haves verses the have not’s. The haves are so afraid of losing everything; they are willing to do almost anything to keep their opulence, including murder and genocide. Sure the have not’s want a little of what the haves have but mostly they just want to wake up tomorrow without fear of persecution and death. Why is sharing, such a human trait, diminished so badly through wealth?

Do you mean leaders of Hamas are the haves?

[dimreepr]

Do you mean leaders of Hamas are the haves?

 

 

 

It was really just a secondary rambling that I felt should be written down.

 

But how you imagined I meant Hamas as the ‘haves’ is completely beyond my comprehension.

 

Are you serious or is this just a mild case of trolling?

[MigL]

I apologized for my wrong wording John, If you choose to call that muddled, be my guest,

But then I'll have to accuse you of discriminating against old people.

 

Our discussion has become somewhat academic now,since a cease-fire has been announced along with Israel's announcing a lifting ( partial ? ) of the blockade at the Egyptian peace talks. Hamas has now grown in stature to the Palestinian people as they have won ( Hamas not the people who lost a few thousand of their family members ). All is now as it was several years ago.

 

Israel is confident that its Iron Dome system can stop unguided rockets so they are not worried, And Hamas will use the re-opened seaport to smuggle in more weapons. But Hamas are not stupid. They will 'sell' the aid the western world sends Gaza and buy guided,lo altitude missiles or ones which climb to height only in the last phase of their flight. Missiles which Iron Dome will have a very difficult time with. Hamas will attack again and Israel'sonly option will be another blockade to stop the flow of weapons. Then Hamas will attack again. railing against the new blockade and Israel will again defend itself.

And...

And ( cue the school children's song )...

And..."The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round".

 

Unfortunately everytime the wheels go around, thousands of Palestinians lose their lives under them.

Edited August 27, 2014 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

It's not just a matter of muddling the books or wrong wording is it?

It's more like saying that, because the Pope (Innocent III) said that the Jews were the enemies of Christians, it is part of the Christian scripture.

[MigL]

I am Roman Catholic John, non-practicing but raised and have taken all sacraments.

And yes, I agree, there are fundamental, nutcase Christians who blame Jews for killing Jesus Christ.

Even Popes, who supposedly represent God ( and His scriptures ) here on Earth can be nutcases.

Or have you forgotten the Crusades, the 'selling' of salvation, the burnings of heretics,the inquisitions, the siding with Germans in WW2, etc.

 

But Hamas is not a religious organization, it is supposed to be a political organization, and as such, their charter should carry considerable weight, as it is a statement of intentions, not of beliefs. It is therefore not muddled and it shouldbe considered.

I withdraw my reference to the Hadith, as that IS a statement of faith.

Edited August 28, 2014 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

I certainly hadn't forgotten the crusades- I thought about including them as an example of why it's roughly as logical to say that "Christians should kill Muslims" as it is that "Muslims should kill Jews".but that seemed to be complicating the issue.

 

There's little if any doubt that Hamas are a bunch of shits.

However they are a bunch of shits who were (more or less) elected.

You need to realise that the people who voted for them thought they were the "best available" option.

 

If someone puts you in a position where Hamas look like a good idea, then your real enemy is whoever put you in that position in the first place.

[dimreepr]

If someone puts you in a position where Hamas look like a good idea, then your real enemy is whoever put you in that position in the first place.

 

 

Exactly: +1 seems such a small reward for such a profound insight.

[MigL]

The people of Germany thought Hitler was the best available option after the guilt and retributions for WW1 were imposed on them. They elected him.

 

So.... what was your point again ?

Edited August 29, 2014 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

my point is that the retributions from WW1 were not imposed by Germany's friends.

The people who forced the Palestinians out of much of their land were not the Palestinians' friends.

[CharonY]

The people of Germany thought Hitler was the best available option after the guilt and retributions for WW1 were imposed on them. They elected him.

 

So.... what was your point again ?

 

Also that is not what happened. Hitler was appointed (not elected) chancellor after a parliamentary crisis. He was neither that powerful nor popular initially, but he got significant support from the established parties when the Reichstag seriously fragmented (for various reasons). That put him into a position of power which later on helped him getting the combined president and chancellor position (though at that point it was barely an election anymore). Barely any parallels can be drawn to the Palestine issue.

Edited August 29, 2014 by CharonY

[DimaMazin]

 

 

 

It was really just a secondary rambling that I felt should be written down.

 

But how you imagined I meant Hamas as the ‘haves’ is completely beyond my comprehension.

 

Are you serious or is this just a mild case of trolling?

Leaders of Hamas are haves relative to me and many Palestinians. Why shouldn't I apply the first law of Dimreepr to them?

[dimreepr]

Are you serious or is this just a mild case of trolling?

 

 

Leaders of Hamas are haves relative to me and many Palestinians. Why shouldn't I apply the first law of Dimreepr to them?

 

 

 

Well I guess that answers my question.

[MigL]

Re-read that history book, CharonY.

P. von Hindenburg didn' t like Hitler and didn't want to appoint him, but he had no choice as Hitler had the support.

In later years after the initial overthrow of the government, even Sadam Hussein , Mohamar Gadaffi and Fidel Castro were elected, although the elections were shams. All depends on your definition of election. Not all are above board like ours ( except for Florida of course ).

[Ten oz]

Re-read that history book, CharonY.

P. von Hindenburg didn' t like Hitler and didn't want to appoint him, but he had no choice as Hitler had the support.

In later years after the initial overthrow of the government, even Sadam Hussein , Mohamar Gadaffi and Fidel Castro were elected, although the elections were shams. All depends on your definition of election. Not all are above board like ours ( except for Florida of course ).

We all agree that Hitler was evil. We all agree that he had to be stopped. Hitler invaded his neighbors and is responsible for the death of millions. Hitler had a advanced military and was experimenting with WMDs. Hitler was a threat to the world. Invoking Hilters name as a comparison simply doesn't work . Hamas has not killed millions, doesn't have an advanced military arsenal, isn't a threat to every man women and child on earth. How Hitler came into power, who supported him, and why they supported him has no bearing in this discussion. Hamas is not going to evolve into a Nazi level threat.

[MigL]

Don't take things out of context Ten oz.

The original reason for bringing up Hitler was in response to John C., who legitimizes Hamas because they have been elected by the Palestinian people. Well so was Hitler.

As to your other points , you're absolutely correct, Hamas will never be a Hitler level threat.

 

Mostly because israel will 'never again' let it be a similar threat.

[CharonY]

Re-read that history book, CharonY.

P. von Hindenburg didn' t like Hitler and didn't want to appoint him, but he had no choice as Hitler had the support.

In later years after the initial overthrow of the government, even Sadam Hussein , Mohamar Gadaffi and Fidel Castro were elected, although the elections were shams. All depends on your definition of election. Not all are above board like ours ( except for Florida of course ).

 

I did and and as I said, he was not elected, as this position was not

He was appointed because the right-wing thought that they could use him to a) rally the workers and get them away from communists (remember, the fall of Russia is still in vivid memory and b) control him (among other reasons). You are also neglecting many things happening at that point, including parliamentary fragmentation, effective rule using emergency powers and other things. The appointment of the chancellor is not based on popular support. Though the economic situation did make the NSDAP, a deeply populist group highly attractive to workers as well as capitalists (due to their anti-communist stance).

But to get back on track (although the whole bit is off-topic by now), installing Hitler was a power-political move driven by the republican corner.

 

Now are there parallels to Hamas? Well in the broadest sense yes. There are economic issues, unrest and other similarities. But before I would do any judgement, I would have to read up much more on the power struggle there.

 

While I digressed a bit I would like to note that your assertion was that

 

The people of Germany thought Hitler was the best available option after the guilt and retributions for WW1 were imposed on them. They elected him.

 

I.e. that the people elected him (not true or at least only after he got power otherwise) and that WWI was the defining factor. Both of which are factually wrong. In discussing historical parallels it is extremely important to have the correct context and not override them with neat narratives that one may have built up.

[John Cuthber]

Don't take things out of context Ten oz.

The original reason for bringing up Hitler was in response to John C., who legitimizes Hamas because they have been elected by the Palestinian people...

 

 

Nope, I did not. what I said (quite clearly I thought) was

"There's little if any doubt that Hamas are a bunch of shits."

And I pointed out that, if you find yourself in a position where Hamas look good, your enemy is the people who put you in that position.

You made some spurious comments about Hitler whose "election" was roughly as dubious as Hamas'.

I repeated my point.

"my point is that the retributions from WW1 were not imposed by Germany's friends.

The people who forced the Palestinians out of much of their land were not the Palestinians' friends."

and you ignored it.

Would you care to try again?

[MigL]

No I would not, John.

 

Your original statement was

"You need to realise that the people who voted for them thought they were the "best available" option."

So I think you may be a bit 'muddled'. Although I do agree with you that Hamas are sh*ts.

 

Hitler was elected as the head of his party. His party had more seats than other parties in the Reichstag. Von Hindenberg reluctantly allowed him to lead a coalition government ( of course this was before he granted himself extra powers and effectively became a dictator ).

How is that any different than how minority governments operate throughout the world today ?

Or do you think all the world has a two party system like the US does charonY ?

 

This is my last comment on the matter, I do hope the truce holds ( I have severe misgivings ) and hope for an eventual peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

[John Cuthber]

What's your point?

It's not as if I said the elections were entirely legitimate.

I said "However they are a bunch of shits who were (more or less) elected.".

 

Incidentally, you may find this informative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Current_status_of_the_Charter

"Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal indicated to Robert Pastor, senior adviser to the Carter Center, that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, "

 

So it's accepted that their old policy of the destruction of Israel is no longer valid.

It hasn't been their current policy since (at least) 2010) when that statement was made.

Why did you cite it?

[dimreepr]

It’s all too easy sitting on the outside looking in, to judge the actions of others, be it Hamas or Israel; forgetting they are humans just like the rest of us, that being born into either culture we too would feel aggrieved and want retribution from those we feel are responsible.

 

Is it any wonder it’s so difficult to change a grievance to acceptance, revenge to forgiveness or mistrust to trust?

[MigL]

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 ?

[John Cuthber]

There were certainly problems with the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006

 

For example,

"In the lead-up to the elections, Israel launched on 26 September 2005 a campaign of arrest against PLC members. 450 members of Hamas were detained, mostly involved in the 2006 PLC elections. The majority of them were kept in administrative detention for different periods. In the election period, 15 PLC members were captured and held as political prisoners.

During the elections, the Israeli authorities banned the candidates from holding election campaigns inside Jerusalem. Rallies and public meetings were prohibited. Also, the Jerusalem identity cards of some PLC members were revoked. The Carter Center, which monitored the elections, criticised the detentions of persons who "are guilty of nothing more than winning a parliamentary seat in an open and honest election".^"

^{But, on the whole it went well}

^"After polls closed, officials and observers called the vote "peaceful"; Edward McMillan-Scott, the British Conservative head of the European Parliament's monitoring team described the polls as "extremely professional, in line with international standards, free, transparent and without violence". His colleague, Italian Communist MEP Luisa Morgantini said there was "a very professional attitude, competence and respect for the rules."^[20][21] "

And Hamas won.

The vote is (as with all polls) questionable in parts but why do you doubt that it is "at least partly legitimate."

Is it because you don't like the outcome?

[MigL]

Yes of course, just like I didn't like the outcome of Hitler's election. I thought I made that abundantly clear.

Any time 'sh*ts' who abuse their own people are put in power, by so called legitimate elections, I don't like the outcome. Should that surprise you ? They have every right to elect whomever they wish, but 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.

 

I did note that both of your cited objections to the legitimacy of the election involved so called 'wrong-doing' by Israel. As if without Israel's involvement the elections would have been a model for all democracies to follow ( extreme sarcasm ).

That says something about your objectivity.

[Ten oz]

Yes of course, just like I didn't like the outcome of Hitler's election. I thought I made that abundantly clear.

Any time 'sh*ts' who abuse their own people are put in power, by so called legitimate elections, I don't like the outcome.

 

In the United states after the revolution a government was form and elections have since determined leadership. For a very long time those elected saw fit to displace natives and enslave a race of people. Horrible acts and yet the go to governmental sin for example for you and many other people is typically Hitler and the Nazi's. It seems as if an evil that goes unpunished or isn't stopped just becomes water under the bridge as history moves advances. Meanwhile sins punished and checked before their natural conclusions stand as examples for all time. Or in other words; history is written by the winners.

 

Should that surprise you ? They have every right to elect whomever they wish, but 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.

 

Ignoring problems doesn't work and treating adults like children always creates animosity. Which plays to John's point about why Hamas could become popular to begin with.

 

I did note that both of your cited objections to the legitimacy of the election involved so called 'wrong-doing' by Israel. As if without Israel's involvement the elections would have been a model for all democracies to follow ( extreme sarcasm ).

That says something about your objectivity.

The outcome of elections should not be the deciding factor for whether or not one supports elections. It doesn't really matter whether or not Palestinians would choose a model democracy. They have the basic human right to make decisions about their life and their representation.