• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

What the USA, Israel and Media (Western) DO NOT want you to know about Hamas

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
OTIS said:
There are significant long-term considerations to take into account with the adoption of such a term, and it would be irresponsible if not negligible for Hamas or any other Palestinian authority to embrace it with the cavalier approach preferred by Israel and certain western powers.




Yasser Arafat said:
The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.


Yasser loves your insight Otis!
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Typical of the glib to think it only takes some utterance and signing of a term to bring real peace and security. A responsible state will consider all chess pieces when going for the king. 1993 the cold war was over, the US didn't have its boot directly in the middle east and the climate internationally was of cautious optimism. Considering today in an approach that involves much more than thinking the fix simply involves a need to 'say uncle', one would see two things come a "right to exist" given to Israel. 1: a further watering down of the term with the subsequent hostilities that would undoubtedly still take place. 2: a set up for the removal of whoever signs it and a crisis of authority in government elected who no longer represents the people it has a responsibility to with the ostensible bend to international dictates.

Anyhow, this IS splitting hairs.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
It really is splitting hairs. Furthermore, Areyanna you didn't address the fact that many countries have less than perfectly borders will still enjoying statehood. Is Turkey not a state? What about Jordan? How 'bout Canada? Canada's a state! (Obvious sarcasm)

You say with great confidence that Montevideo's reductionist over-simplification of statehood is the most internationally accepted definition. I reject your premise. It is not the most widely accepted definition.

Maybe in university textbooks it is, but in the feild of development, for example, a government's ability to actually govern and secure its population is far more important.

And I don't know if you did this on purpose, but you TOTALLY confused the international community's recognition of Palestinians' right to a state, with its recognition that Palestinians ARE a state. These are mutually exclusive. The state doesn't exist yet, however it enjoys basically universal recognition of its right to exist...including by Israel. If Israel recnognises the Palestinian state's right to exist--despite the fact that it does not YET exist--then the Palestinian must do the same for a state that already DOES exist.

Without an understanding like this, there can be no peace...merely a ceasefire. Israel has an armistice with Syria, but no peace. As has been pointed out, Jordan and Egypt both agreed to "mutual recognition" between themselves and Israel. Therefore, the precedent exists and is not nearly as etherial as you are trying to make it seem.

Hamas is an organisation whose hands are drenched in blood. They always explicitly OPPOSED the peace process. They oppose dialog with Israel. Period. This is like the Arab League's "Three Nos" "No peace. No recogniition. No negotiation." Considering the extreme and violent nature of the organisation now piloting the PNA, Israel has every right--and the RESPONSIBILITY--to demand recognition before engaging in negotiations with that organisation

Otherwise they could just as well refuse to negotieate, because there is no one with whom to sit down in good faith. And this is what is happening. Perhaps matters might improve is Hamas departed from its rejectionist, homicidal doctrine.
 

Aeryanna

TRIBE Member
sellycat said:
You say with great confidence that Montevideo's reductionist over-simplification of statehood is the most internationally accepted definition. I reject your premise. It is not the most widely accepted definition. Maybe in university textbooks it is, but in the feild of development, for example, a government's ability to actually govern and secure its population is far more important.
The four criteria I listed are generally accepted as the core focal point for statehood and while variations of the definition clearly exist, I did stress the word main. If the Montevideo definition is found in University textbooks, I suspect that it's there for a good reason: It provides the groundwork for a more elaborate definition to spring forth from. What I hoped for, wasn't to get into a deep discussion regarding statehood and its complexities and therefore listed the four main points that most people can agree on. If however, you can't conceed that some reference to territory is made in every single definition of statehood, regardless of which one you turn to, then fair enough.

sellycat said:
And I don't know if you did this on purpose, but you TOTALLY confused the international community's recognition of Palestinians' right to a state, with its recognition that Palestinians ARE a state. These are mutually exclusive. The state doesn't exist yet, however it enjoys basically universal recognition of its right to exist...including by Israel. If Israel recnognises the Palestinian state's right to exist--despite the fact that it does not YET exist--then the Palestinian must do the same for a state that already DOES exist.
I think you're confusing what I said or unintentionally read it the wrong way. The Palestinian state and the Palestinians right to a state are two very different concepts, as there is no Palestinian state to speak of. I mentioned that in my third post.

sellycat said:
Therefore, the precedent exists and is not nearly as etherial as you are trying to make it seem.
I didn't realize I was making it sound ethereal :)

sellycat said:
If Israel recnognises the Palestinian state's right to exist--
Can you point me to a document where Israel states in no uncertain terms that Palestine has the "right to exist". As far as I know, about 91 countries recognize the current status of Palestine and Israel isn't one of them. The Israeli leadership has recognized the governing authority of the Palestinians on various occasions but we can both agree that certainly that this is not the same thing as recognizing a country's existence
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
My mouse isn't working.

Ariel Sharon--the apparantly iconic criminal--has stated explicitly that there can only be a two-state solution, with two independent states living side by side. Israeli diplomats have given countless speeches where they repeat this.

Seriously, this has been a theme in Israeli diplomacy over the last several years. Ariel Sharon explicitly stated that the notion of a greater Israel is over, that for the sake of the national interest, Israel must work to support the establishment of a Palestinian state.

There is much to suggest that these statements are in vein, however they represent POWERFUL departures from previous Israeli lines, especially those uttered and espoused by Mr. Sharon in the past.

This is apart from the plethora of human rights organisations within Israel, including B'Tselem and Peace Now, that aggressively lobby the state, promoting Palestinian interests.

Regardless of one's contemptuous veiws toward Ariel Sharon for his less-than-stellar human rights record, it DOES matter that he is the architect behind changing Israeli consciousness vis-a-vis the Palestinian question. He, and the State of Israel more generally, have been very direct over the last few years about aknowledging that a Palestinian state is in Israel's national interest.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
Unfortunately, the topic in question is actually semantic and subjective. We are not discussing positive ways to move forward. We are not proposing new and unique ideas that will broaden the scope of diplomatic efforts. We are not coming together to objectively assess the process that are shaping the conflict RIGHT NOW.

What we ARE doing, however, is debating about mmatters that can only be subjective: what does 'right to exist' mean?; Does "Israel" really recognise the Palestinians' right to have a state?; Does Hamas *really* intend to make peace with Israel? Who the fuck knows! These are questions about the branches and leaves on the trees that have usurped the forest.

I'll go ahead and propose a different angle. It may not necessarily matter whether or not Hamas publically accepts israel's "right to exist" as long as they fucking keep their word, engage in honest negotiations,, and focus on building a viable state infrastructure and healthy civil society. The same applies for Israel. So much of what goes on in public is merely for show--now "show" is very important for a group like Hamas, who would suffer a great PR injury for signing on that particular dotted line.

Just like in inter-personal conflicts, it is important for both sides to save face. Unfortunately, the Israeli leadership is understandably concerned about creating the impression that it is rewarding terrorism by compromising and making territorial concessions. If Hamas goes around, beating its chest, saying that its blood-thirsty campaign of suicide bombings has "brought Israel to its knees," then that really would represent an extremely dangerous precedent.

So then, what? Well, Hamas can offer to visibly lower its militant profile by doing things like NOT condoning suicide bombings,, burning Israeli flags, marching suicide bombers and missile trucks through the streets, and ccontinuing to participate in the Kassam missile offensive. The Israelis can engage Hamas in secret--the way that Israel has secret diplomatic relations with all the Arab countries via Mossad--and work towards a subtle reconfiguration of the way in which its unilateral steps will unfold.

I think that Israeli unilateralism in this regard is far more preferable--objectively--than having Palestinian militants claim that sending young boys and girls to mass murder civillians had succeeded in making Israel change its ways. Imagine if Israel--after killing those civillians on the Gaza beach with an artillery shell--said: "Yeah well good! That'll teach 'em! Next time we'll kill even more civillians to make an even bigger point!"
 

Aeryanna

TRIBE Member
Much was made at the start of this thread regarding the term "right to exist", so it was only normal to explore the topic further. Although its somewhat correct to say it's just a matter of semantics, other factors need to be taken into account. When speaking of international agreements or charters, the importance of language and terminology and their subsequent global interpretation cannot be overstated. If there was ever a time to delve into such an area, surely it's when you're forced to consider the potential consequences that such binding statements may have in the future.

The last comment I will make about this though, is that if the term "right to exist" carries with it no political weight and no implicit significance, would Kadima -if approached today, have no qualms issuing a brief statement, accompanied by no clarification simply stating: "Palestine has the right to exist". Would they then alter their charter to reflect that sentiment?

If such a term makes no claims regarding any important issues that govern the Palestinian/Israeli debate, then perhaps as a gesture of good faith Kadima should consider such a move before asking Hamas to reciprocate. If it's an empty phrase, (then at no costs to themselves) let them be the first to prove its insignificance.

sellycat said:
It may not necessarily matter whether or not Hamas publically accepts israel's "right to exist" as long as they fucking keep their word, engage in honest negotiations,, and focus on building a viable state infrastructure and healthy civil society. The same applies for Israel.
Agreed.
 
Last edited:

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
OTIS said:
Typical of the glib to think it only takes some utterance and signing of a term to bring real peace and security. A responsible state will consider all chess pieces when going for the king. 1993 the cold war was over, the US didn't have its boot directly in the middle east and the climate internationally was of cautious optimism. Considering today in an approach that involves much more than thinking the fix simply involves a need to 'say uncle', one would see two things come a "right to exist" given to Israel. 1: a further watering down of the term with the subsequent hostilities that would undoubtedly still take place. 2: a set up for the removal of whoever signs it and a crisis of authority in government elected who no longer represents the people it has a responsibility to with the ostensible bend to international dictates.

Anyhow, this IS splitting hairs.

Nope your just saying its splitting hairs and back peddling because I have easily and trivially contradicted what you were saying with a quote from Arafat himself. Rather than contend that you may have had a point that doesn't entirely work you have to spin it in a metaphoric stew.

Again if Arafat can say the following...



Yasser Arafat said:
The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
So can Hamas there is no excuse. I've watched three people spin this issue to death who aren't willing to conceed even the slightest point. When painted against a quote that makes the argument clearly a load of shit all we get is more heaped on top of it.



Can none of you conceed even a single point?

- I can agree not to call Hamas a terrorist organization (even though they are called one by the EU, USA and Canada)

- I can agree to not consider the Hamas charter to be genocidal in nature (even though it clearly calls for the death of all jews)

- I can agree that Hamas is involved in social programs and that these need to be funded (even though Hamas is clearly smuggling in millions each day from Egypt and has accounts valued at over 500 million of there own)


Why can't we get a single conceeded point from

OTIS? ~atp~? Aeryanna? praktik? why can't any of you even back down a single notch? I honestly don't understand this I have read each and every post 3 times now in this thread and I simply don't get why you guys can't conceed a single point.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
Aeryanna said:
The last comment I will make about this though, is that if the term "right to exist" carries with it no political weight and no implicit significance, would Kadima -if approached today, have no qualms issuing a brief statement, accompanied by no clarification simply stating: "Palestine has the right to exist". Would they then alter their charter to reflect that sentiment?

If such a term makes no claims regarding any important issues that govern the Palestinian/Israeli debate, then perhaps as a gesture of good faith Kadima should consider such a move before asking Hamas to reciprocate. If it's an empty phrase, (then at no costs to themselves) let them be the first to prove its insignificance.
What? So, you think that Kadima''s "charter" is against a Palestinian state despite the fact that its leaders have all publically voiced support for the NECESSITY of a Palestinian state?

I'm sorry, but that makes absolute no sense. The Israeli government and its leaders have repeatedly stated--explicitly and literally--that there MUST be a Palestinians state.

If your premise is that Israel does not recognise the right for the Palestinians to have their own state, then you are simply incorrect.

What do you think is meant TWO STATE solution!?
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
So can Hamas there is no excuse.
There is plenty excuse.

Do you realize you just check-mated yourself? If the statement to recognize Israel’s “right to exist” carried with it the same weight as it did in 1993 when it came out of the PLO during the Oslo accord (which you imply with your “if PLO can do it Hamas can”), then there would be no need to say it again would there? It’s worth asking why the statement is uniquely valued today by parties on both sides, and with that question lies the answer to your “why not?”

While I recognize Hamas is more innately hard-lined than the PLO, I think it has more do with the above consideration than Hamas’ propensity to not co-operate/negotiate on the nature of that line.
 

Aeryanna

TRIBE Member
sellycat said:
What? So, you think that Kadima''s "charter" is against a Palestinian state despite the fact that its leaders have all publically voiced support for the NECESSITY of a Palestinian state? If your premise is that Israel does not recognise the right for the Palestinians to have their own state, then you are simply incorrect.
I never made mention of Kadima's charter being against a Palestinian state nor did I say that Israel has failed to talk about a two-state solution. Please don't misquote me or make inferences that simply aren't there.

sellycat said:
I'm sorry, but that makes absolute no sense. The Israeli government and its leaders have repeatedly stated--explicitly and literally--that there MUST be a Palestinians state.
It's important to differentiate between what the Israeli leadership has said and what the Israeli leadership has done and will commit to in writing (re: the term "right to exist").
 

Genesius

TRIBE Member
Aeryanna said:
As praktik explained earlier, under international law there exists no terminology that gives states the "right to exist".
If Hamas is being asked to recognize Israel in the diplomatic sense, then such recognition is routinely accompanied by the defined borders of said country.
The four main criteria for statehood (using the Montevideo definition) are effective and Independent Governmental control, the capacity to engage in foreign relations, control over a permanent population and the possession of defined territory. It's not possible to acknowledge the existence of a nation while excluding all mention of its borders, as the two go hand-in-hand.
Fine. Prove it. Prove that that's Hamas' intention when they are stating that they do not agree with Israel's right to exist. Because, unless I'm mistaken here, Hamas does not want any Israel at all... zero. zilch. none. especially in the middle east. If Hamas was interested in ADOPTING DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, they could surely state in some meaningful way that they recoginze that Israel has the fundemental right to be a nation. Does that finally kill this ridiculously semantic argument? Instead of using the words "right to exist"... because you and I both know that, whether your right or wrong, the general public views this as Hamas does not Israel to be... to exist..... whatever you want to call it.

However, it should also be incumbent upon the international community (one that continues to bring up this point) to confirm where those borders will be before insisting that Hamas recognizes Israels 'right' to them. If not, recognizing Israel's "right to exist" could be viewed from a diplomatic perspective as meaning that Israel has the right to exist within whatever borders it may draw for itself in coming years.
Are you saying that people are sitting around and saying "Gee, we would really like Israel to exist as a nation, but if we say the words 'right to exist' then Israel gets whatever it wants...hrrmmm, what do we do?"

There must be a discussion of borders, otherwise what is Hamas agreeing to? Israel's moral right to exist? Israel's philosophical right to exist?
Yes on both accounts. At least that is a starting point no? Therein lies the crux, Hamas will not recognize either one of those things...

Comon, please some one help me here, am I losing my mind? Are we this unreasonable?
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
Aeryanna said:
I never made mention of Kadima's charter being against a Palestinian state nor did I say that Israel has failed to talk about a two-state solution. Please don't misquote me or make inferences that simply aren't there.
Look who's talking. By asking if Kadima would be willing to insert that into its charter, you imply that they currently don't recognise the right to exist for a Palestinian state when they very obviously do.

Thanks

Edit: Cuz you know, Kadima and Hamas are comparable political organisations. Give me a break.
 
Last edited:

Aeryanna

TRIBE Member
Genesius, I'll just refer you to my other posts, particularly my last one. Hopefully my position was explained clearly, if not then perhaps we'll rehash this some other time.

Sellycat, it's not a revolutionary idea to ask both parties to insert the *same* terminology into comparable documents if the terminology in question is subject to future abuse.

You have a peculiar way of inferring many things from my posts that simply weren't there. Either way, it's been fun.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
Aeryanna said:
Sellycat, it's not a revolutionary idea to ask both parties to insert the *same* terminology into comparable documents if the terminology in question is subject to future abuse.
Except that it is. Hamas and Kadima are not the same thing and shouldn't be considered that way. Hamas explicitly and publicly states that mass-murdering civillians is a perfectly acceptable tactic. This puts them beyond the pale. Kadima and the Israeli government and state do not think this way about the Palestinains. It is Hamas official policy to murder civillians. Therefore they simply CANNOT--on a logical basis--be held as an equal negotiating body.

Unless of course you think that these distinctions are irrelavent. Do you think it matter that one side publicly brags about butchering civillians, while the other one condemns its OWN extremists as terrorists, puts them on trials and punishes them? Sorry, but they're simply not the same.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
Can none of you conceed even a single point?

- I can agree not to call Hamas a terrorist organization (even though they are called one by the EU, USA and Canada)

- I can agree to not consider the Hamas charter to be genocidal in nature (even though it clearly calls for the death of all jews)

- I can agree that Hamas is involved in social programs and that these need to be funded (even though Hamas is clearly smuggling in millions each day from Egypt and has accounts valued at over 500 million of there own)


Why can't we get a single conceeded point from

OTIS? ~atp~? Aeryanna? praktik? why can't any of you even back down a single notch? I honestly don't understand this I have read each and every post 3 times now in this thread and I simply don't get why you guys can't conceed a single point.
Calling me out? DAMMIT. Breaking my rule one last time. Just because - after all my protests - the genocide thing was trotted out again. I will briefly respon to your points and then reprint an excerpt from an excellent article called "The Madness of Crowds" by Glenn Greenwald, from the April 10th issue of Patrick Buchanan's "The American Conservative".

1. I don't disagree that Hamas is a "terrorist" organization by the definition of the powers that have labelled them as such. I do not pretend that Hamas has not been responsible for some appalling acts of murder and evil. On the other hand, I believe the state of Israel has also been responsible for some appalling acts of murder and evil, and see the same inability to confront real peace initiatives in Israel, as you see in Hamas. In essence, my posts were meant not to defend Hamas, inasmuch as they were attempts to demonstrate that both parties have evil in their hearts and blood on their hands. One point I was thinking of recently was the recent headlines: civil way in the territories, rocket attacks, artillery shelling -> death, misery and a dangerous destabilization. While this is a consequence on Hamas not "saying Uncle" (which has ramifications that have yet to be accepted by those waiting to jump on mine, Aeryanna's and Otis' posts), it is equally a consequence of Israel's preconditions for negotiations, which don't exist in a political vacuum -> that is to say, while Israrel has stalled negotiations with these demands, the are actively funneling support and arms to Fatah (fuelling civil war), strangling the economy (or a "weight loss" program if you talk to Sharon's aide) and expanding settlements in the west bank while building a barrier through to-be-negotiated land. If morality and previous actions were necessary variables for a party to be taken seriously in peace negotiations then both of these sides would be disqualified. Hamas is no less legitimate a party than Israel.

2. So they call for the destruction of Israel. Im sure once that's accomplished, they wouldnt come to New York and Toronto - rooting out all jews and exterminate them. Let's even SAY it does call for genocide. I havent read the document, maybe thats printed there and I dont know it. "Hamas calls for the extermination of all jews". Ok. So im sure that's ACTUALLY printed in many right-wing pwhite power charters. They're calling for genocide too. On that point I cant disagree if its in my face. But others in this thread were accusing Hamas of actually PERPETRATING a genocide. This cheapens the word "genocide" since much worse horrors are now equated with the odd suicide bombing here, rocket attack there. Plenty of hateful organizations call for the extermination of a certain group. They may CALL for genocide, but they are not genocidaires. I was hoping to appeal to your sense of decency, that you would recognize how inappropriate it is to use that word so freely, without respect to the preconditions that are necessary for someone to call something a genocide. With the debate over its application in Rwanda, and in the beginning of the Darfur crisis, I would hope that all of us are sensitized to this now. It appears that hope is unfounded.

3. On that last point Im not sure what you're trying to say. Others have mentioned Hamas' social side, and when it comes to feeding a desperate population Im glad somebody's doing it. Im not sure what that has to do with what we've been discussing. You go on to mention monies that Hamas has. Are the opponents of Israel not allowed to seek funding and weapons? Are they supposed to just give up all such attempts while Israel grows more and more sophisticated technologically with billions upon billions of military spending each and every year? Can you not see, that in pure power terms, groups seeking monies and weapons are a natural consequence of conflict? The urge to defend oneself is primordial. The only way to stop the enemies of Israel from "stocking up" is to end the conflict and thus the impetus to do so. To castigate one party for doing as such while the other continues to do so is evidence of willful blindness... and brings me to that excerpt I will post as mentioned above:
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
I'm surprised that "moral relativism" is still so popular among certain individuals. "Israelis and Palestinians have both died, so the manner in which those things happened, and the intention behind the acts is totally irrelavent. SO what if one side does it on purpose as the cornerstone of their strategy and the other side does it not on purpose. Hamas = Israel." Fuck off.

Praktik: As if aknowledging that SOME people see Hamas as a terrorist organisation is some how AT ALL the same thing as YOU recognising that they deliberatley and exclusively engage in mass murder of civillians!

Totally amaizng.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
From "The Madness of Crowds", by Glenn Greenwald
The American Conservative, April 10th 2006

...Facts that reflect poorly on one's party are distorted until they become more useful. Not only is one not bound to adhere to a previously articulated position if it subsequently becomes inconsistent with one's partisan interest, one can actually discard that position entirely and advocate the opposite view. Party interest overwhelms everything, including facts, intellectual consistency and principles.
At least part of the explanation for this irrational behaviour may be phyisiological. A team of clinical psychologists from emory University conducted a study prior to the 2004 election analyzing the type of brain activity that dominates political thinking in individuals who strongly identify with either the Democratic or Republican party. The subjects were provided facts that reflected well on their candidate and bolsteredd their candidates views and then were given facts that reflected poorly on their candidate and his views.
Through the use of MRI's, neurologists are able to distinguish the brain activities that govern rational faculties from those that generate and fuel emotional responses. The study found that the brains of highly partisan people contain a great deal of emotional activity and very little rational functioning when they porocess political facts relating to their party's candidate. The dorsolateral prefontal cortex, which governs human reasoning as well as active attempts to suppress emotional responses, was also entirely dormant. The study also demonstrated that once a partisan embraces a conclusion that is aligned with his party's interest, the rational faculties are essentially shut down, rendering the brain closed to contrary information.
Worse still, partisans actually develop a phyisiologically driven emotional dependency on reaching conclusions that are favorable to their partisan allegiances. In essence, the reward center of the brain is triggered when conclusions are embraced that validate the partisans tribal allegiance, giving the partisan emotionally satisfying bursts of pleasure.
These phyisiological explanations empirically confirm easily observable elements of the American political landscape. Fervent partisans view every political event through a prism of tribalism rather than rationality and have a virtually impenetrable refusal to each conclusions that conflict with their party's views or interests...

----

Earlier in this thread there was mention of people posting to "impose their ideological world view" on others. And that struck me as a pretty odd statement. Weren't we talking about the "right to exist" and very specific issues related to the Israel/Palestine conflict? How much room in the posts was there to even glean a conclusion like that?

Subsequent posts, including the swearing, the rather vindictive one liner posts and almost -anger - that one could feel in them, seems to confirm for me that there's a lot of emotion in this debate. I too fell victim to emotional responses, but in my point of view - and maybe this is simply my "prism of tribalism" colouring my perspective - some posters are more emotional than others and really seem to get carried away.

If we change the words Democrat and Republican above for the names of opposing sides in other conflicts, I think we'd see evidence of certain people fitting the profile of the partisans in the above excerpt. Of course, Ditto might say that my "inability to concede a single point" is evidence of me being one of them. I'd just say that's his tribal prism lotting all those who he perceives as "against him" and his loyalties into his little "adversary" category.

And hey, I think I'd be right. (oh! just got some dopamine there!!)

and last post starrrrrrrting NOW!
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
I'm surprised that "moral relativism" is still so popular among certain individuals. "Israelis and Palestinians have both died, so the manner in which those things happened, and the intention behind the acts is totally irrelavent. SO what if one side does it on purpose as the cornerstone of their strategy and the other side does it not on purpose. Hamas = Israel." Fuck off.

Praktik: As if aknowledging that SOME people see Hamas as a terrorist organisation is some how AT ALL the same thing as YOU recognising that they deliberatley and exclusively engage in mass murder of civillians!

Totally amaizng.
What part of "I do not pretend that Hamas has not been responsible for some appalling acts of murder and evil" don't you understand?? I didnt actually use the word "terror"?? Ok. They're terrorists. Is that clear enough for you? Its like you're not even reading what I wrote. Or maybe your tribal prism needs realignment.

Sellycat: "SO what if one side does it on purpose as the cornerstone of their strategy and the other side does it not on purpose. Hamas = Israel." Fuck off."

Not only does this display a very clear bias towards one party over the other in this conflict - its rude! I think I hit that emotional center somewhere and you can't keep it cool! Sellycat - take a deep breath. Breathe in... breathe out. At least for the sake of your own arguments, leave out the swearing - it does you no favours!

I'm not commiting moral relativism - Im committing moral consistency - applying the same moral standards to both parties and not blinding myself to true evil committed by one party and claiming all their motives to be benign.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
"The American Conservative." That about says it all, right there.

You just proved what an over-emotional douchebag you are by trying to suggest that people who speak in a way that offends your fragile little ego are some how "physiologically" predisposed to irrationality. Good for you. At least that was your last poist...or maybe you'll be driven--like the other dozen times--by your uncontrollable and totally irrational, emotionally-guided impulses to continue posting about things that are not within the scope of debate.

If you can't handle a little foul language, then you're in the wrong place.

Praktik: Do you realise that it's abusive to tell someone that they should "breathe in and breathe out" just because you don't like how they speak. If you don't like it, don't read it. Period.

I'm not going to modify my style just because you sit too high atop your ivory tower to understand that foul language has nothing to do with anything. It's not like I told you to suck my dick, or anything.

You're getting caught up in this sycophantic garbage cuz you've got nothing else to contribute.

You're the one who needs to take a deep breath and keep your promise to stop posting.
 
Last edited:

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
And yes...I'm basied towards Hamas...and I think people that aren't, are subject to hyper-emotional irrationality.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
OTIS said:
There is plenty excuse.

Do you realize you just check-mated yourself? If the statement to recognize Israel’s “right to exist” carried with it the same weight as it did in 1993 when it came out of the PLO during the Oslo accord (which you imply with your “if PLO can do it Hamas can”), then there would be no need to say it again would there? It’s worth asking why the statement is uniquely valued today by parties on both sides, and with that question lies the answer to your “why not?”

While I recognize Hamas is more innately hard-lined than the PLO, I think it has more do with the above consideration than Hamas’ propensity to not co-operate/negotiate on the nature of that line.


Or maybe its because Hamas has no intent of allowing for a two state solution and believes as their charter says that the struggle must be the destruction of Israel. If this is the case (and everything points to it) then there is absolutely no sense in negotiating a single thing with them. If they are unwilling to set an expectation beyond what they have clearly stated in there charter then there is no possibility of compromise, disengagement is the only alternative left.

The PLO and PA have never in anyway removed the words spoken by Arafat. It is there official policy to negotiate a two party solution. Under this agreement the Palestinians have gained self government, Gaza, and partial control over their borders. They held elections under the charter of the PA as created by the PLO and were elected to the offices of the PA as per agreements reached under the 93 Oslo accords. They now occupy a government that has a charter that contradicts their own charter.

If Israel and the peace process must start at step one each time the government changes hand in Palestine there is no reason to negotiate anything. Hamas is being asked to recreate the exact same steps that have already been made rather than starting over at stage 1.

Hamas like the IRA has to transform itself if it wishes to be treated as a legitimate government.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
Correction: Praktic wasn't saying that the way Ispeak relates to the "physiological" predisposition to irrationality. He was saying that my ability to differentiate between Hamas and Kadima is somehow irrational...then he made it into a ugenics argument by referencing an ultra-conservative propaganda rag to suggest that people who don't see it his way are physiologically inferior.

The way I express myself merely offends his gentle nature.
 
Top