Anger mounts as Gaza toll rises

[kblaze]

 

 

 

The Hamas offer of a truce being bogus is one thing, a bigger problem may be chalked up its ideology. Not seeing any serious negotiations coming to fruit when one side continues to uphold the notion of the others destruction as one ifs core tenants.

 

Leadership is indeed a major obstacle, and unless we're all going to be very much surprised, there isn't much hope looming on either side's horizon.

 

But seeing as we're having a go at this, there is indeed an issue I missed out on, and not an easy one to tackle. The Palestinian geographical split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would ideally be nullified through some sort of land swap. But as things stand this is unfortunately not an option (would just shift the problem and create a similar split through Israel). There are areas in the world where such a split is maintained, sort of, but not sure that this is applicable for a new nation and spirits still running high when it comes to its neighbor. Mind that the original UN partition plan incorporated this problem and even made it worse (adding the same in another area). Perhaps the Hamas could be contracted to build a really big tunnel....? Seriously, no great ideas from me on this one.

 

 

Lets be straight here; yes they need to come out and openly renounce their original "charter", but the fact is when they were actually elected in 2006, they dropped the call for Israel's destruction.

 

 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/12/israel 

 

I've tried googling "Hamas calls for Israel's destruction" and every link goes back to the charter. But you know my results could be skewed due to google's algorithm, so if I'm wrong, please show me.

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

The Hamas offer of a truce being bogus is one thing, a bigger problem may be chalked up its ideology. Not seeing any serious negotiations coming to fruit when one side continues to uphold the notion of the others destruction as one ifs core tenants.

 

Leadership is indeed a major obstacle, and unless we're all going to be very much surprised, there isn't much hope looming on either side's horizon.

 

But seeing as we're having a go at this, there is indeed an issue I missed out on, and not an easy one to tackle. The Palestinian geographical split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would ideally be nullified through some sort of land swap. But as things stand this is unfortunately not an option (would just shift the problem and create a similar split through Israel). There are areas in the world where such a split is maintained, sort of, but not sure that this is applicable for a new nation and spirits still running high when it comes to its neighbor. Mind that the original UN partition plan incorporated this problem and even made it worse (adding the same in another area). Perhaps the Hamas could be contracted to build a really big tunnel....? Seriously, no great ideas from me on this one.

 

 

Lets be straight here; yes they need to come out and openly renounce their original "charter", but the fact is when they were actually elected in 2006, they dropped the call for Israel's destruction.

 

 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/12/israel

 

I've tried googling "Hamas calls for Israel's destruction" and every link goes back to the charter. But you know my results could be skewed due to google's algorithm, so if I'm wrong, please show me.

 

 

The Hamas charter was never changed. While there's some wiggling as to why they do not simply change it and be done

with it, the bottom line is that it would undermine their raison d'etre and make differences between them an Fatah less

pronounceable. It would also mean cutting off some support from like-minded sponsors.

 

The paper referred to is not the Hamas charter, but their 2006 election manifesto. The main reasons for the incorporated

changes, omissions and somewhat less aggressive tone, were electoral. The main target being voters who were anti-Fatah

on corruption grounds, but reluctant to support Hamas's more violent (and religious) ways. The other consideration was a

financial one - Hamas was well aware that funds for the PA (especially those from USA and the EU) were conditioned on

playing nice (that is can't say things like death to Israel etc.), and was acting both in an effort to avert this danger and to

assure the voters all will be well.

 

Note that even the article quoted does not deny that Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and that the

armed struggle is not forsaken, just put on hold. This goes quite ok with the the concept of truce in this context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna

Talk by Hamas about accepting the 1967 lines are conditioned with saying that this is not a final deal. Coupled with the

not recognizing Israel and not dropping the armed struggle bits, hard to see how this is a sincere effort.

 

Not into playing secretary, but this is really not a chore, even in English:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/12/us-palestinians-qaeda-idUSL1229777020070312

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/world/middleeast/khaled-meshal-hamas-leader-delivers-defiant-speech-on-anniversary-celebration.html?pagewanted=all

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

We need to break any diplomatic relations with the terrorist, racist, child murderer and human rights abuser Israel, and of course expel its citizen and supporters. Other countries have done it (mostly rather left wing countries in South America), so why not us in Thailand.

[Morch]

We need to break any diplomatic relations with the terrorist, racist, child murderer and human rights abuser Israel, and of course expel its citizen and supporters. Other countries have done it (mostly rather left wing countries in South America), so why not us in Thailand.

 

Which countries expelled Israeli citizen in relation to politics of the Middle East?

Which countries cut relationship with Israel over politics in the Middle East recently?

Who are we? Are you a Thai citizen? Most posters on TVF are not.

Would taking such an action by Thailand include forcing the thousands of Thai workers in Israel to head back home?

 

[kblaze]

 

 

Lets be straight here; yes they need to come out and openly renounce their original "charter", but the fact is when they were actually elected in 2006, they dropped the call for Israel's destruction.

 

 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/12/israel

 

I've tried googling "Hamas calls for Israel's destruction" and every link goes back to the charter. But you know my results could be skewed due to google's algorithm, so if I'm wrong, please show me.

 

 

The Hamas charter was never changed. While there's some wiggling as to why they do not simply change it and be done

with it, the bottom line is that it would undermine their raison d'etre and make differences between them an Fatah less

pronounceable. It would also mean cutting off some support from like-minded sponsors.

 

The paper referred to is not the Hamas charter, but their 2006 election manifesto. The main reasons for the incorporated

changes, omissions and somewhat less aggressive tone, were electoral. The main target being voters who were anti-Fatah

on corruption grounds, but reluctant to support Hamas's more violent (and religious) ways. The other consideration was a

financial one - Hamas was well aware that funds for the PA (especially those from USA and the EU) were conditioned on

playing nice (that is can't say things like death to Israel etc.), and was acting both in an effort to avert this danger and to

assure the voters all will be well.

 

Note that even the article quoted does not deny that Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and that the

armed struggle is not forsaken, just put on hold. This goes quite ok with the the concept of truce in this context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna

Talk by Hamas about accepting the 1967 lines are conditioned with saying that this is not a final deal. Coupled with the

not recognizing Israel and not dropping the armed struggle bits, hard to see how this is a sincere effort.

 

Not into playing secretary, but this is really not a chore, even in English:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/12/us-palestinians-qaeda-idUSL1229777020070312

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/world/middleeast/khaled-meshal-hamas-leader-delivers-defiant-speech-on-anniversary-celebration.html?pagewanted=all

 

 

I didnt say that it has been changed. That was the freaking point of me saying "They need to renounce their charter".

That being said, there have been interviews with senior members in recent years in which they say that they can't get rid of it "for internal reasons", and that it is just "history". Yes I agree that is not good enough, but hey its something.

 

A "terrorist organization" taking ANY step away from extremism is a good thing. Doesn't matter if its temporary, dubious, whatever. Any step back should be encouraged. Am I wrong?

 

Second, you hit on THE KEY POINT when you said; 

 

"The main reasons for the incorporated changes, omissions and somewhat less aggressive tone, were electoral."

 

Lets think about that. They wanted to get MORE Palestinian votes, so they made their manifesto LESS EXTREME. Does that not prove that the mindset many have (including posters here) that ... collectively punishing Palestinians is justified given; A) they voted in Hamas, and (B Hamas wants to destroy Israel ... is completely BS because Hamas had to drop that call just to get their votes?

[Johpa]

We need to break any diplomatic relations with the terrorist, racist, child murderer and human rights abuser Israel, and of course expel its citizen and supporters. Other countries have done it (mostly rather left wing countries in South America), so why not us in Thailand.

 

Why yes indeed Jean Pierre, we need a new Albigensian style crusade against these blasphemers! And who better to lead and show the way towards total eradication than a speaker of langue d'oil.  Of course there is that small matter that your "us" in Thailand is just a bunch of tourists and expats. Perhaps you should take your campaign to the increasingly right wing country of La France.  And humble apologies if you happen to be Québécois or Occitan.

[dr_lucas]

 

We need to break any diplomatic relations with the terrorist, racist, child murderer and human rights abuser Israel, and of course expel its citizen and supporters. Other countries have done it (mostly rather left wing countries in South America), so why not us in Thailand.

 

Why yes indeed Jean Pierre, we need a new Albigensian style crusade against these blasphemers! And who better to lead and show the way towards total eradication than a speaker of langue d'oil.  Of course there is that small matter that your "us" in Thailand is just a bunch of tourists and expats. Perhaps you should take your campaign to the increasingly right wing country of La France.  And humble apologies if you happen to be Québécois or Occitan.

 

 

I think he forgot to end with "Vive la révolution!!!"
 

[Jingthing]

 

 

We need to break any diplomatic relations with the terrorist, racist, child murderer and human rights abuser Israel, and of course expel its citizen and supporters. Other countries have done it (mostly rather left wing countries in South America), so why not us in Thailand.

 

Why yes indeed Jean Pierre, we need a new Albigensian style crusade against these blasphemers! And who better to lead and show the way towards total eradication than a speaker of langue d'oil.  Of course there is that small matter that your "us" in Thailand is just a bunch of tourists and expats. Perhaps you should take your campaign to the increasingly right wing country of La France.  And humble apologies if you happen to be Québécois or Occitan.

 

 

I think he forgot to end with "Vive la révolution!!!"
 

 

Kick out all the Jews who support Israel and ship them back where they belong ...

 

to ...

 

ISRAEL

 

...

 

[attachment=277921:tel-aviv-gay.jpg][attachment=277922:israel-flag-waving-smile-animated.gif]

 

That'll teach 'em them "Zionists"!

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

Lets be straight here; yes they need to come out and openly renounce their original "charter", but the fact is when they were actually elected in 2006, they dropped the call for Israel's destruction.
 
 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/12/israel
 
I've tried googling "Hamas calls for Israel's destruction" and every link goes back to the charter. But you know my results could be skewed due to google's algorithm, so if I'm wrong, please show me.

 
The Hamas charter was never changed. While there's some wiggling as to why they do not simply change it and be done
with it, the bottom line is that it would undermine their raison d'etre and make differences between them an Fatah less
pronounceable. It would also mean cutting off some support from like-minded sponsors.
 
The paper referred to is not the Hamas charter, but their 2006 election manifesto. The main reasons for the incorporated
changes, omissions and somewhat less aggressive tone, were electoral. The main target being voters who were anti-Fatah
on corruption grounds, but reluctant to support Hamas's more violent (and religious) ways. The other consideration was a
financial one - Hamas was well aware that funds for the PA (especially those from USA and the EU) were conditioned on
playing nice (that is can't say things like death to Israel etc.), and was acting both in an effort to avert this danger and to
assure the voters all will be well.
 
Note that even the article quoted does not deny that Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and that the
armed struggle is not forsaken, just put on hold. This goes quite ok with the the concept of truce in this context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna
Talk by Hamas about accepting the 1967 lines are conditioned with saying that this is not a final deal. Coupled with the
not recognizing Israel and not dropping the armed struggle bits, hard to see how this is a sincere effort.
 
Not into playing secretary, but this is really not a chore, even in English:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/12/us-palestinians-qaeda-idUSL1229777020070312
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/world/middleeast/khaled-meshal-hamas-leader-delivers-defiant-speech-on-anniversary-celebration.html?pagewanted=all

 
I didnt say that it has been changed.

You said:

the fact is when they were actually elected in 2006, they dropped the call for Israel's destruction.

If the charter still calls for Israel's destruction and Hamas have not officially renounced it, the rest is all bogus word games.

[kblaze]

 

If the charter still calls for Israel's destruction and Hamas have not officially renounced it, the rest is all bogus word games.

 

 

And you are entitled to that view

 

I never said the charter changed, I said they dropped the call for Israel's destruction - which was a fact. Nice try

[Ulysses G.]

The charter always called for Israel's destruction. They just did not bother to mention it their 2006 election manifesto, but that did not change the party line in any way.Your usual spin does not change the facts.

[kblaze]

The charter always called for Israel's destruction - no change. Your spin does not change that fact..

 

Oh I see you are confused over the difference of "call" vs. "charter".

 

"Call" meaning they are no longer actively "calling" for Israel's destruction.

 

The charter or "covenant", the original founding document has not changed.

 

Glad I can clear that up.

[Ulysses G.]

You seem to be the one who is confused. The charter still calls for the destruction of Israel and Hamas have not renounced it, so whatever point you were trying to make is hogwash. Nothing has changed. 

[Morch]

 

 

 

Lets be straight here; yes they need to come out and openly renounce their original "charter", but the fact is when they were actually elected in 2006, they dropped the call for Israel's destruction.

 

 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/12/israel

 

I've tried googling "Hamas calls for Israel's destruction" and every link goes back to the charter. But you know my results could be skewed due to google's algorithm, so if I'm wrong, please show me.

 

 

The Hamas charter was never changed. While there's some wiggling as to why they do not simply change it and be done with it, the bottom line is that it would undermine their raison d'etre and make differences between them an Fatah less pronounceable. It would also mean cutting off some support from like-minded sponsors.

 

The paper referred to is not the Hamas charter, but their 2006 election manifesto. The main reasons for the incorporated changes, omissions and somewhat less aggressive tone, were electoral. The main target being voters who were anti-Fatah on corruption grounds, but reluctant to support Hamas's more violent (and religious) ways. The other consideration was a financial one - Hamas was well aware that funds for the PA (especially those from USA and the EU) were conditioned on playing nice (that is can't say things like death to Israel etc.), and was acting both in an effort to avert this danger and to assure the voters all will be well.

 

Note that even the article quoted does not deny that Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and that the armed struggle is not forsaken, just put on hold. This goes quite ok with the the concept of truce in this context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna

Talk by Hamas about accepting the 1967 lines are conditioned with saying that this is not a final deal. Coupled with the not recognizing Israel and not dropping the armed struggle bits, hard to see how this is a sincere effort.

 

Not into playing secretary, but this is really not a chore, even in English:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/12/us-palestinians-qaeda-idUSL1229777020070312

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/world/middleeast/khaled-meshal-hamas-leader-delivers-defiant-speech-on-anniversary-  celebration.html?pagewanted=all

 

 

I didnt say that it has been changed. That was the freaking point of me saying "They need to renounce their charter". That being said, there have been interviews with senior members in recent years in which they say that they can't get rid of it "for internal reasons", and that it is just "history". Yes I agree that is not good enough, but hey its something.

 

A "terrorist organization" taking ANY step away from extremism is a good thing. Doesn't matter if its temporary, dubious, whatever. Any step back  should be encouraged. Am I wrong?

 

Second, you hit on THE KEY POINT when you said; 

 

"The main reasons for the incorporated changes, omissions and somewhat less aggressive tone, were electoral."

 

Lets think about that. They wanted to get MORE Palestinian votes, so they made their manifesto LESS EXTREME. Does that not prove that the  mindset many have (including posters here) that ... collectively punishing Palestinians is justified given; A) they voted in Hamas, and (B Hamas wants to destroy Israel ... is completely BS because Hamas had to drop that call just to get their votes?

 

 

Just supplied a couple of links to Hamas leaders sticking with the old version. There are plenty more, especially when checking Arabic sources and more so, Hamas media channels.

 

I think that there is a certain gap between Western conceptions of what Hamas says and how these words translate into reality. The concept of eradicating an enemy is not quite something you hear much these days in the West, so it may sound unreal, and therefore not credible. The concept of signing a long term treaty with the intention of breaking it when conditions are favorable is another example.

 

Until there are concrete actions, it is hard to be excited with words.

 

The manifesto thing is exactly the same as above. The Hamas said outright it does not let go of core beliefs. So basically, everything is just postponed for later. There is no real change, but like their Western counterparts - they made an election promise which was not meant to be kept. Making the manifesto somewhat less extreme as a temporary measure to garner support does not strike me as something out of the ordinary. You see this sort of thing all over the world, why not Hamas?

 

Consider their action and what they are saying when not on the campaign path.

 

I do not believe that Gazan's should suffer because they voted Hamas. At best, I stated that they suffer because of Hamas, and probably even that was qualified further. This line of reasoning is not something I advocated, so not for me to protect it.

[Bwanatickey]

 

People seem to forget the reason why Hamas starting firing rockets into Israel (I'm not supporting Hamas but the innocents killed). Netanyahu used the kidnapping of three Jewish boys in Gaza to have a soft invasion to "look" for the boys which he claimed were kidnapped by Hamas. The poor boys were already dead which he knew as the murder was recorded via mobile phone. He then used a soft invasion to arrest hundreds of Palestinians, kill 11 Palestinians, and bulldoze the homes of those accused even though they hadn't been tried yet. Hamas, predictably started firing rockets after 2 years of relative peace which gave Bibi Netanyahu exactly what he wanted, and excuse for a full invasion to not wipe out Hamas. The Israeli government not only wants to rid Gaza of Hamas (which is a terrorist organization but duly elected as the government), but will do anything in it's power to either force the Palestinians out of the territories that have been pushed into or exterminate them. They make talk about a two state solution to keep the Americans happy but will never settle for a Palestinian state.

 

 

Spot on.

 

Somehow this word Hamas is being overused, we are being continuously told by the Media that Hamas is running the show, but are they really in charge?

[Morch]

 

 

People seem to forget the reason why Hamas starting firing rockets into Israel (I'm not supporting Hamas but the innocents killed). Netanyahu used the kidnapping of three Jewish boys in Gaza to have a soft invasion to "look" for the boys which he claimed were kidnapped by Hamas. The poor boys were already dead which he knew as the murder was recorded via mobile phone. He then used a soft invasion to arrest hundreds of Palestinians, kill 11 Palestinians, and bulldoze the homes of those accused even though they hadn't been tried yet. Hamas, predictably started firing rockets after 2 years of relative peace which gave Bibi Netanyahu exactly what he wanted, and excuse for a full invasion to not wipe out Hamas. The Israeli government not only wants to rid Gaza of Hamas (which is a terrorist organization but duly elected as the government), but will do anything in it's power to either force the Palestinians out of the territories that have been pushed into or exterminate them. They make talk about a two state solution to keep the Americans happy but will never settle for a Palestinian state.

 

 

Spot on.

 

Somehow this word Hamas is being overused, we are being continuously told by the Media that Hamas is running the show, but are they really in charge?

 

 

I sense a conspiracy theory waiting in the wings or an impeding hilarity. Possibly both.

Do tell.
 

[sirineou]

 

The Chomsky video is particularly apropos IMO

 

I am sorry but if one is to have an opinion in the subject ,one has to make a minimum investment

 

 

I am personally quite at home with knowledge on the topics at hand, and with the opinion of both gentlemen mentioned, even without spending an extra 3 hours of my life re-hashing things I've read, heard and watched before. Reading this and related topics it is quite evident that knowledge is not a requirement for having an opinion, at least for some, which runs contrary to your assertion.

Sadly it seems that linking lengthy clips with particular points of view is considered an opinion, and that having to submit to watching them represents minimal investment.

 

If you are so at home with knowledge on the topic at hand, why ask all the questions?

The videos were presented in response to your request for information.

Non the less, I am glad you are so well educated, though I never said you were not, I did not say "you" I said One needs" why would you think that "one" is you? other than the  fact that my statement was miss represented by an other "one" of the trifecta of Israeli apologists in this thread.

Anyway, being so well educated in the subject and what Noam Chomsky has to say about it, could you please tell me , what if any of it you disagree with?

 

[dr_lucas]

 

 

The Chomsky video is particularly apropos IMO

 

I am sorry but if one is to have an opinion in the subject ,one has to make a minimum investment

 

 

I am personally quite at home with knowledge on the topics at hand, and with the opinion of both gentlemen mentioned, even without spending an extra 3 hours of my life re-hashing things I've read, heard and watched before. Reading this and related topics it is quite evident that knowledge is not a requirement for having an opinion, at least for some, which runs contrary to your assertion.

Sadly it seems that linking lengthy clips with particular points of view is considered an opinion, and that having to submit to watching them represents minimal investment.

 

If you are so at home with knowledge on the topic at hand, why ask all the questions?

The videos were presented in response to your request for information.

Non the less, I am glad you are so well educated, though I never said you were not, I did not say "you" I said One needs" why would you think that "one" is you? other than the  fact that my statement was miss represented by an other "one" of the trifecta of Israeli apologists in this thread.

Anyway, being so well educated in the subject and what Noam Chomsky has to say about it, could you please tell me , what if any of it you disagree with?

 

 

 

Morch did not ask you questions. I did.

And you evaded them by posting links to videos that suppose to answer questions you keep on evading.

This is fine to post videos in response to questions on your personal opinion, if you are the person in the video, but since you are not, why don't you simply answer the few simple questions about your own personal opinion.

Here they are again:

What is occupied exactly?

What do you suggest that Israel ("The-Zionists") will do exactly? 

What do you suggest the Palestinians will do exactly?

What are the resolution to the problems you describe?

Which Apartheid is there in Israel?

[kblaze]

 

 

 

 

Interestingly enough, the link does start with mentioning something often repeated on these topics - 

 

As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by United Nations Human Rights Council since its creation in

2006 the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined.

The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council...

 

Now, I'm sure that some would say Israel's evil deeds are equal to those of the rest of the world, but perhaps, somewhere

deep inside they know how ridiculous this is.

 

 

Funny how posters who criticize Israeli policy are so quickly thrown under the bus as being in a loony anti-semite conspiracy camp.

 

Yet, you and others so quickly surmise that the ONLY reason Israel has been condemned by the UNHRC so many times is there is some kind of anti-Israel conspiracy within the UN.

 

How about not being so paranoid as to WHY there are so many resolutions and instead look into whether the resolutions have merit?

[kblaze]

 

 

Just supplied a couple of links to Hamas leaders sticking with the old version. There are plenty more, especially when

checking Arabic sources and more so, Hamas media channels.

 

I think that there is a certain gap between Western conceptions of what Hamas says and how these words translate

into reality. The concept of eradicating an enemy is not quite something you hear much these days in the West, so it

may sound unreal, and therefore not credible. The concept of signing a long term treaty with the intention of breaking

it when conditions are favorable is another example.

 

Until there are concrete actions, it is hard to be excited with words.

 

The manifesto thing is exactly the same as above. The Hamas said outright it does not let go of core beliefs. So basically,

everything is just postponed for later. There is no real change, but like their Western counterparts - they made an election

promise which was not meant to be kept. Making the manifesto somewhat less extreme as a temporary measure to garner

support does not strike me as something out of the ordinary. You see this sort of thing all over the world, why not Hamas?

 

Consider their action and what they are saying when not on the campaign path.

 

I do not believe that Gazan's should suffer because they voted Hamas. At best, I stated that they suffer because of Hamas,

and probably even that was qualified further. This line of reasoning is not something I advocated, so not for me to protect it.

 

 

I wish other posters followed your thinking in that regard (bolded above). It needs to be remembered that Hamas won 44% of the vote - not 100%

 

Regarding the 2006 election, will you agree with me that, everything else aside, it is a good sign that they had to "drop the call" for Israel's destruction from their platform (not the charter UG) temporarily in order to garner more Palestinian votes?

 

If all Palestinians were violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction, wouldn't Hamas have doubled down on the call for Israel's destruction for the election? 

[up-country_sinclair]

 

 

 

 

 

Interestingly enough, the link does start with mentioning something often repeated on these topics - 

 

As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by United Nations Human Rights Council since its creation in

2006 the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined.

The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council...

 

Now, I'm sure that some would say Israel's evil deeds are equal to those of the rest of the world, but perhaps, somewhere

deep inside they know how ridiculous this is.

 

 

Funny how posters who criticize Israeli policy are so quickly thrown under the bus as being in a loony anti-semite conspiracy camp.

 

Yet, you and others so quickly surmise that the ONLY reason Israel has been condemned by the UNHRC so many times is there is some kind of anti-Israel conspiracy within the UN.

 

How about not being so paranoid as to WHY there are so many resolutions and instead look into whether the resolutions have merit?

 

 

This is so true. 

 

The Hasbara-bots repeatedly cry and wail about the numerous UN resolutions against Israel as if it some sort of vast conspiracy, when it is actually directly related to the numerous atrocities and illegal actions committed by Israel. 

 

And if there wasn't any merit to the charges, why doesn't Israel provide evidence to the contrary instead of hiding behind the apron of the US?

 

 

[coma]

  The score so far..........

 

 1875 Palestinians killed, including 430 children.

 

 9567 Palestinians wounded, including 2878 children.

 

 63 Israeli Defence Force personnel killed

 

 2 Israeli and 1 Thai civilian killed.

 

 

[dr_lucas]

 

 

 

Just supplied a couple of links to Hamas leaders sticking with the old version. There are plenty more, especially when

checking Arabic sources and more so, Hamas media channels.

 

I think that there is a certain gap between Western conceptions of what Hamas says and how these words translate

into reality. The concept of eradicating an enemy is not quite something you hear much these days in the West, so it

may sound unreal, and therefore not credible. The concept of signing a long term treaty with the intention of breaking

it when conditions are favorable is another example.

 

Until there are concrete actions, it is hard to be excited with words.

 

The manifesto thing is exactly the same as above. The Hamas said outright it does not let go of core beliefs. So basically,

everything is just postponed for later. There is no real change, but like their Western counterparts - they made an election

promise which was not meant to be kept. Making the manifesto somewhat less extreme as a temporary measure to garner

support does not strike me as something out of the ordinary. You see this sort of thing all over the world, why not Hamas?

 

Consider their action and what they are saying when not on the campaign path.

 

I do not believe that Gazan's should suffer because they voted Hamas. At best, I stated that they suffer because of Hamas,

and probably even that was qualified further. This line of reasoning is not something I advocated, so not for me to protect it.

 

 

I wish other posters followed your thinking in that regard (bolded above). It needs to be remembered that Hamas won 44% of the vote - not 100%

 

Regarding the 2006 election, will you agree with me that, everything else aside, it is a good sign that they had to "drop the call" for Israel's destruction from their platform (not the charter UG) temporarily in order to garner more Palestinian votes?

 

If all Palestinians were violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction, wouldn't Hamas have doubled down on the call for Israel's destruction for the election? 

 

 

Yes, of course (answering your last question).

Did Morch (or me or anyone else) say all Palestinians are violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction?

[kblaze]

 

 

 

 

Just supplied a couple of links to Hamas leaders sticking with the old version. There are plenty more, especially when

checking Arabic sources and more so, Hamas media channels.

 

I think that there is a certain gap between Western conceptions of what Hamas says and how these words translate

into reality. The concept of eradicating an enemy is not quite something you hear much these days in the West, so it

may sound unreal, and therefore not credible. The concept of signing a long term treaty with the intention of breaking

it when conditions are favorable is another example.

 

Until there are concrete actions, it is hard to be excited with words.

 

The manifesto thing is exactly the same as above. The Hamas said outright it does not let go of core beliefs. So basically,

everything is just postponed for later. There is no real change, but like their Western counterparts - they made an election

promise which was not meant to be kept. Making the manifesto somewhat less extreme as a temporary measure to garner

support does not strike me as something out of the ordinary. You see this sort of thing all over the world, why not Hamas?

 

Consider their action and what they are saying when not on the campaign path.

 

I do not believe that Gazan's should suffer because they voted Hamas. At best, I stated that they suffer because of Hamas,

and probably even that was qualified further. This line of reasoning is not something I advocated, so not for me to protect it.

 

 

I wish other posters followed your thinking in that regard (bolded above). It needs to be remembered that Hamas won 44% of the vote - not 100%

 

Regarding the 2006 election, will you agree with me that, everything else aside, it is a good sign that they had to "drop the call" for Israel's destruction from their platform (not the charter UG) temporarily in order to garner more Palestinian votes?

 

If all Palestinians were violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction, wouldn't Hamas have doubled down on the call for Israel's destruction for the election? 

 

 

Yes, of course (answering your last question).

Did Morch (or me or anyone else) say all Palestinians are violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction?

 

 

No, you two did not.

[Ulysses G.]

Actually, nobody did. Another Straw Man.  

[Ulysses G.]

The score so far..........

According to Hamas...

[kblaze]

Actually, nobody did. Another Straw Man.  

 

Do you even know what a Straw Man is? Or are you just posting for the sake of posting.

 

My sentence;

 

"If all Palestinians were violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction, wouldn't Hamas have doubled down on the call for Israel's destruction for the election?"

 

is what is known as a rhetorical question 

[metisdead]

Troll posts and replies have been removed.

[Ulysses G.]

 

Actually, nobody did. Another Straw Man.  

 
Do you even know what a Straw Man is? Or are you just posting for the sake of posting.
 
My sentence;
 
"If all Palestinians were violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction, wouldn't Hamas have doubled down on the call for Israel's destruction for the election?"
 
is what is known as a rhetorical question 

 

Setting up an argument on a premise than no one is making but YOU.

straw man
: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated

[Pattszero]

My Jewish pals have just left after our weekly breakfast. 

 

Even the guys that describe themselves as racist are appalled at the current imbroglio.