The Children of Gaza = More than 7000 Killed.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

For the record, I despise Hamas and all terrorists. If Israel was able to find the leadership and members, without killing so many woman and children, they would have my full support. Answer one question for me. How many civilian casualties are acceptable, on the Palestinian side? 

 

As you said, this did not happen in a vacuum. So, what led to the Hamas leadership? If a 2 state solution were found 25 years ago, do you think this would have happened?

 

I was commenting about ongoing long term posting here. That people toss in the occasional disclaimer doesn't mean a whole lot.

I agree that there's an Israel-can-do-no-wrong brigade, but there's also a strong contingent of posters who are focused on 'Israel Bad' and nothing much besides.

 

Even your post above demonstrates this - it is not about Hamas's leadership responsibility, not about Palestinians leadership's responsibility. For you and others, this is about Israel. And if talking about 'vacuum' - that's a clear example of such thinking as well. Because regardless of Israel's leadership failure, and it's right-wing governments' policies - it is also true that the Palestinians' own conduct and positions also contributed as to how things stand.

 

You want to pin things on a loaded question? Seriously? Good luck with that. Could ask the same thing in reverse - how many terrorist attacks would it take?

 

The history of the conflict, and Hamas emergence were discussed many times on these topics. Sure, Israel's policies contributed to that - the perception that this somehow absolves Hamas (and by extension, the Palestinians) from responsibility is ridiculous.

 

I don't know why you reference 25 years ago, rather than say 75 years ago. That's your choice. By the time it was '25 years ago' a whole lot of bad blood accumulated. So to venture how things would have panned is anyone's guess. Hamas is not about a two-state solution, though, that's for sure.

 

 

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

Wow! You may not know the correct definitions of words, but you sure know your math.

 

I quoted a source.

[spidermike007]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The people of Gaza voted and elected Hamas. Hamas ideology is well known and certainly not a 2 state solution.

Here we go again with the vacuum? The events leading up to the election of Hamas must be considered. On both sides. 

 

It was in January 2006 that the Palestinian territories held what turned out to be their last parliamentary elections. Hamas won a bare plurality of votes (44 percent to the more moderate Fatah party’s 41 percent) but, given the electoral system, a strong majority of seats (74 to 45). Neither party was keen on sharing power. Fighting broke out between the two. When a unity government was finally formed in June 2007, Hamas broke the deal, started murdering Fatah members, and, in the end, took total control of the Gaza Strip. Those who weren’t killed fled to the West Bank, and the territories have remained split ever since. In other words, Hamas’ absolute rule of Gaza is not what the Palestinians voted for back in 2006. In fact, since the median age of Gazans is 18, half of Hamas’ subjects weren’t even born when the election took place.

 

Bush entered his second term, in January 2005, convinced that his mission was to spread democracy around the world. He assumed that democracy was the natural state of humanity: Once a dictator was toppled and the people could vote for leaders in elections, freedom and liberty would bloom forth. Around this time, Israel was withdrawing from the Gaza Strip—not just pulling out troops, but evicting some 8,000 Jewish settlers (most of whom were paid to resettle in the West Bank). Suddenly there was a vacuum of local authority. Bush thought democracy would fill a vacuum, so he urged the Palestinian Authority to hold parliamentary elections. One problem, though: Radical parties—notably Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which had boycotted the 2005 presidential election—decided to compete in the 2006 parliamentary contests. 

 

Sharansky wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon denouncing the disengagement as a “tragic mistake” and arguing that “any concessions in the peace process must be linked to democratic reforms within Palestinian society.” Sharon disagreed (he just wanted to be done with Gaza), and so did Bush, who’d been so persuaded by the first part of Sharansky’s democratic sermon that he ignored this crucial second part. But the election that put Hamas in power was not inevitable; it was premature. Israel and the leaders of the neighboring Sunni Arab nations, who inveighed lavish rhetorical support for the Palestinians but did very little to back it up, could have done more to help build the elements of a civil society and negotiate a peace. But ultimately, they didn’t want to. Elections only tightened the bonds of conflict and lent it a veneer of legitimacy. Hamas’ murderous assault on Oct. 7, the subsequent escalation of violence, and the possibility of a widening war—these are the latest and most bitter fruits of the elections’ legacy.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-elected-to-govern-gaza-george-w-bush-2006-palestinian-election.html

[Hawaiian]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

I quoted a source.

But you didn't disagree with it.  Tacit acceptance of something incorrect.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   The alternative would be for Israel to stand back and allow Hamas to attack, murderer and rape Israeli woman and Children on a regular basis in terror attacks . 

 

The alternative would be to negotiate in good faith instead of supporting terrorists as a way of diving a nation. Until that happens Israel will never prevent terrorist attacks. Any claim to the contrary is Israeli propaganda. No rational person believes that a military defeat will prevent terrorist attacks in the future.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Hawaiian said:

But you didn't disagree with it.  Tacit acceptance of something incorrect.

 

BS. Another far right apologist who wants to tell me what I believe.

[Jingthing]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

The alternative would be to negotiate in good faith instead of supporting terrorists as a way of diving a nation. Until that happens Israel will never prevent terrorist attacks. Any claim to the contrary is Israeli propaganda. No rational person believes that a military defeat will prevent terrorist attacks in the future.

No rational person believes that it's possible to negotiate in good faith with "Kill all the Jews" Hamas.

It's like you think they are like Canadians or something!

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Here we go again with the vacuum? The events leading up to the election of Hamas must be considered. On both sides. 

 

It was in January 2006 that the Palestinian territories held what turned out to be their last parliamentary elections. Hamas won a bare plurality of votes (44 percent to the more moderate Fatah party’s 41 percent) but, given the electoral system, a strong majority of seats (74 to 45). Neither party was keen on sharing power. Fighting broke out between the two. When a unity government was finally formed in June 2007, Hamas broke the deal, started murdering Fatah members, and, in the end, took total control of the Gaza Strip. Those who weren’t killed fled to the West Bank, and the territories have remained split ever since. In other words, Hamas’ absolute rule of Gaza is not what the Palestinians voted for back in 2006. In fact, since the median age of Gazans is 18, half of Hamas’ subjects weren’t even born when the election took place.

 

Bush entered his second term, in January 2005, convinced that his mission was to spread democracy around the world. He assumed that democracy was the natural state of humanity: Once a dictator was toppled and the people could vote for leaders in elections, freedom and liberty would bloom forth. Around this time, Israel was withdrawing from the Gaza Strip—not just pulling out troops, but evicting some 8,000 Jewish settlers (most of whom were paid to resettle in the West Bank). Suddenly there was a vacuum of local authority. Bush thought democracy would fill a vacuum, so he urged the Palestinian Authority to hold parliamentary elections. One problem, though: Radical parties—notably Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which had boycotted the 2005 presidential election—decided to compete in the 2006 parliamentary contests. 

 

Sharansky wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon denouncing the disengagement as a “tragic mistake” and arguing that “any concessions in the peace process must be linked to democratic reforms within Palestinian society.” Sharon disagreed (he just wanted to be done with Gaza), and so did Bush, who’d been so persuaded by the first part of Sharansky’s democratic sermon that he ignored this crucial second part. But the election that put Hamas in power was not inevitable; it was premature. Israel and the leaders of the neighboring Sunni Arab nations, who inveighed lavish rhetorical support for the Palestinians but did very little to back it up, could have done more to help build the elements of a civil society and negotiate a peace. But ultimately, they didn’t want to. Elections only tightened the bonds of conflict and lent it a veneer of legitimacy. Hamas’ murderous assault on Oct. 7, the subsequent escalation of violence, and the possibility of a widening war—these are the latest and most bitter fruits of the elections’ legacy.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-elected-to-govern-gaza-george-w-bush-2006-palestinian-election.html

I posted that yesterday, however when I posted it I kept to the forum rules with a headline and 3 sentences.

 

"For a shorter article. The one explains things. Hamas came to power in Gaza before Netanyahu via dodgy elections. You may want to look a Bush's role in this.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-elected-to-govern-gaza-george-w-bush-2006-palestinian-election.html"

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1314367-the-children-of-gaza-more-than-7000-killed/page/18/#comment-18571245

 

[Hawaiian]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

BS. Another far right apologist who wants to tell me what I believe.

I thought you to be smarter than that.  Not only doesn't know the correct definition and then turns around and lies about it.  The last time you started something with me the moderator deleted both of our posts.  So knock off the BS you accuse me of.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No rational person believes that it's possible to negotiate in good faith with "Kill all the Jews" Hamas.

It's like you think they are like Canadians or something!

 

Both sides will believe that until a permanent solution is agreed.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Hawaiian said:

I thought you to be smarter than that.  Not only doesn't know the correct definition and then turns around and lies about it.  The last time you started something with me the moderator deleted both of our posts.  So knock off the BS you accuse me of.

 

Again, I quoted an article without comment. What I got in return is precisely what I said. An attempt to tell me what I believed.

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No rational person believes that it's possible to negotiate in good faith with "Kill all the Jews" Hamas.

It's like you think they are like Canadians or something!

 

 

Detached from reality. I suggestion to engage in good faith with the terrorists Hamas........

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Both sides will believe that until a permanent solution is agreed.

Back to what rational people believe -- there is no permanent solution in sight. PERIOD. 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Back to what rational people believe -- there is no permanent solution in sight. PERIOD. 

 

Of course there is.

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Again, I quoted an article without comment. What I got in return is precisely what I said. An attempt to tell me what I believed.

Link to the article? an email you got that no one else can check is not a link. If you posted it with no comment then lets see, you know the rules:

 

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source"

 

Here is your post and claim:

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Link to the article? an email you got that no one else can check is not a link. If you posted it with no comment then lets see, you know the rules:

 

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source"

 

What article? If there was a link to an article I would have posted it. Do you think I'm lying?

 

The intercept IS a credible source. Again, trying to shoot the messenger because the message is unpalatable to you.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Both sides will believe that until a permanent solution is agreed.

 

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Of course there is.

 

The Oracle Has Spoken.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

What article? If there was a link to an article I would have posted it. Do you think I'm lying?

 

The intercept IS a credible source.

You said article............

 

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Again, I quoted an article without comment. What I got in return is precisely what I said. An attempt to tell me what I believed.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

You said article............

 

 

An email constitutes an article. It does not have to be a column or a story. Articles are content.

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

The alternative would be to negotiate in good faith instead of supporting terrorists as a way of diving a nation. Until that happens Israel will never prevent terrorist attacks. Any claim to the contrary is Israeli propaganda. No rational person believes that a military defeat will prevent terrorist attacks in the future.

 

@ozimoron

 

You seem to imagine that the other side (whether represented by the PA or Hamas) is blameless, straightforward, peace-seeking and true to its word. For the likes of you, there's no hope - you do not care about facts, knowledge, balance or anything much other than making daft pronouncements.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

An email constitutes an article. It does not have to be a column or a story. Articles are content.

Couldn't care less, first you claim you never said article then 2 minutes later I show you that you did, now we need a link to the full text as per forum rules:

 

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source"

 

You claim you made no comment aswell.

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Of course there is.

No there isn't.

Well informed people that are in touch with reality know that.

You and your ilk imagine there is a quick and simple minded answer to one of the most complicated deeply ingrained conflicts in history. Dream on. 

 

 

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

The Oracle Has Spoken.

At least he doesn't claim to be Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico.

[Hawaiian]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

What article? If there was a link to an article I would have posted it. Do you think I'm lying?

 

The intercept IS a credible source. Again, trying to shoot the messenger because the message is unpalatable to you.

He doesn't eat garbage.  Do you?

[Morch]

Just now, Jingthing said:

At least he doesn't claim to be Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico.

 

All in good time.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Couldn't care less, first you claim you never said article then 2 minutes later I show you that you did, now we need a link to the full text as per forum rules:

 

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source"

 

You claim you made no comment aswell.

 

were you at any time ever in doubt that I was quoting an email?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Hawaiian said:

He doesn't eat garbage.  Do you?

 

Apparently so, I read posts in this thread.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

were you at any time ever in doubt that I was quoting an email?

Do you understand what this rule says?

 

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source"

[TroubleandGrumpy]

32 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Back to what rational people believe -- there is no permanent solution in sight. PERIOD. 

Rational People - just like Common Sense - there is not enough of them these days. 

There is no 'solution' because Hamas does not want a 'solution'  - they want only one thing - and that is best summed up by their own PR statements that are echoed in the west by the extremely ignorant and stupid people protesting in support for them - 'From the River to the Sea'. 

Hamas wants all Jews removed and all the lands Israel controls turned into a new Palestine State. 

[Hawaiian]

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Apparently so, I read posts in this thread.

No denial.  Can I assume you do?