24 thoughts on “Hamas doesn’t really mean what they say, so we should negotiate with them

  1. SLM says:

    Fortunately no. Instead they have a coalition with a guy who wants to make Israeli Arabs take loyalty oaths. That would be the “moderate” candidate.
    Incidentally, is anyone here opposed to the coalition government in Israel? After all, Kadima has the most seats. How can a guy from Likud be PM? It’s undemocratic. I mean, he was appointed by the President, just like that.

  2. SLM says:

    Well it’s quite simple really: you post these links to quotes from Hamas to prove they are irrational and cannot be negotiated with (though, atypical of the Muslims-are-evil crowd, you seem unable to follow that thought to it’s logical conclusion).
    So, if Hamas guys saying some bad things justify Israel’s policies, what Palestinian policies are justified by an illegal military occupation and numerous violations of international law, not to mention the crack pots fundamentalists on the Israeli side who believe that Gaza is free-fire zone?

  3. Hal says:

    “Incidentally, is anyone here opposed to the coalition government in Israel? After all, Kadima has the most seats. How can a guy from Likud be PM? It’s undemocratic. I mean, he was appointed by the President, just like that.”
    SLM,
    (After a quick study in Israeli politics…)
    1. The Israeli government is (still currently) led by Kadima (Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, etc.)
    2. The recent elections left Kadima with a one-seat plurality but with no hope of cobbling together a coalition (virtually ALL governments in Israel are coalitions because of the proportional lists system) to form the next government.
    3. So the President, after consulting with both Kadima and Likud, called on the latter to attempt a coaltion — rather as if our Governor General had called on Dion or Ignatieff to form a government had the Tories been defeated in Parliament on the budget and the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois had indicated that they were prepared to form a coalition. “Undemocratic”?
    4. “Hamas guys saying some bad things”?
    The Hamas charter (i.e. their “constitution”), which cites the “bible” of antisemitism, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, commits them to the goal of outright elimination of Israel and its (Jewish) inhabitants. Should we trust them on this commitment?

  4. SLM says:

    Your coalition comments are unworthy of a response.
    “The Hamas charter (i.e. their “constitution”), which cites the “bible” of antisemitism, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, commits them to the goal of outright elimination of Israel and its (Jewish) inhabitants. Should we trust them on this commitment?”
    Hamas has about as much a chance of destroying Israel as I do of destroying Canada. And for what it’s worth, in 2008, they offered a truce based on the assumption of a Palestinian state in the pre-June 1967 borders.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html
    “Our conflict is not with the Jews, our problem is with the occupation”

  5. Hal says:

    “Your coalition comments are unworthy of a response.”
    “Unworthy” is a tricky word. I hope you mean that I was correct. Would “incapable” have been a better word?

  6. greenmamba says:

    SLM: Hamas (and their ilk) say different things at different times. There are pleasant quotes that Jimmy Carter chooses to hear and nasty ones for the locals.
    You are correct that Hamas offered a TRUCE. Look it up. It’s temporary. Giving up land is permanent. Suspicious?

  7. SLM says:

    If you’re serious about analyzing foreign policy, then you look at what the groups say, when, to whom, and what their capabilities for achieving said objectives are.
    Did it ever occur to you, for example, that they say what they do in Arabic in order to keep their “base”, so to speak, happy? I’m not saying that they are heroic resistance fighters, or even people I would want to be led by. However, if they really were as suicidal and insane as you say they are, they would have destroyed themselves a long time ago (or rather, Israel would have).
    The temporary truce was in 2004. This one was for 2008. The state they would have would still be surrounded by a US proxy state. I mean, honestly, if you actually believe that the Israelies and Hamas are even close to being equally matches militarily, then you are out of your mind.

  8. SLM says:

    “So are you saying that we can’t trust them on their fundamental (i.e. charter) committments?”
    Do you trust everything a political leader says?

  9. SLM says:

    “”Unworthy” is a tricky word. I hope you mean that I was correct. Would “incapable” have been a better word?”
    Correct? What you wrote made no sense.
    “3. So the President, after consulting with both Kadima and Likud, called on the latter to attempt a coaltion — rather as if our Governor General had called on Dion or Ignatieff to form a government had the Tories been defeated in Parliament on the budget and the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois had indicated that they were prepared to form a coalition. “Undemocratic”? ”
    On second, third reading, it actually sounds like you are agreeing with me. Maybe, I can’t tell.

  10. greenmamba says:

    SLM:
    Israel’s leaving of Gaza served as a test for the Palestinians and for the world politic. Both failed. The rockets began again the day after the pullout and have not ceased. The world paid lip service to the sacrifice made but then criticized Israel again for all attempts to stop the rockets.
    This tells the Pals they can get away with anything. It also tells Israel that if it leaves the West Bank, the whole country will be rocketable and any punitive actions it takes will be panned.
    (There’s a half way house to be built for cured homicidal maniacs in between the asylum and freedom. I’ve decided it’ll be next door to you. You’ll be OK with that I’m sure.)
    Also, if Hamas (and Abbas) have to pander to the murderous instincts of their people, that says those people are not ready for democracy. Perhaps the donors should finally insist that the propaganda stops.

  11. Hal says:

    “Maybe, I can’t tell.”
    You have a bit of difficulty with the notion of parliamentary democracy, so I’ll try to clarify:
    The position of the President in Israel is similar to that of our Governor General. So, given that (virtually) all governments in Israel are coalitions, when the party winning the most seats indicates that it cannot form a (majority) coalition, the President (who happens to be a member of the Labour party) asks the second place party (which happens to be Likud) whether it is willing to try. They are currently doing just that: assembling a governing (i.e. majority) coalition. This would have been analogous to the Governor General — after the Dec. 1 coalition agreement between the Liberal, NPD and Bloc, and the presumed defeat of the Tories — calling on Dion to form a new government.
    http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/546315&ei=O_W3SfnoJJOwMfbKmNUK&sa=X&oi=spellmeleon_result&resnum=2&ct=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNEqBrukDHfxgGYKIs_V9ww6rwFMaw
    Are you saying our parliamentary system is “undemocratic”?
    Yes, yes, I know; Hamas’s methods are more efficient; they simply shoot their opponents or throw them off tall buildings. So maybe Canada and Israel have a few lessons to learn.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gvarkJqJ947GlMC9eDHBYHHwxPBA

  12. SLM says:

    “Israel’s leaving of Gaza served as a test for the Palestinians and for the world politic. Both failed.”
    Ah, so the “test” was to see if they could run a government while be blockaded and surrounded by a major military power.
    “The rockets began again the day after the pullout and have not ceased.”
    This is a lie. Pure unadulterated bullshit.
    http://www.themediaoasis.com/Hamasrockets.htm

  13. SLM says:

    “Are you saying our parliamentary system is “undemocratic”? ”
    No, I was comparing right-wingers reactions to the Canadian coalition, to the lack of response to an Israeli coalition.

  14. greenmamba says:

    SLM: Rockets recommenced the day after Israel left Gaza in 2005. Your link seems to deal with 2008 only. It also fails to mention that Israel claimed it had attacked tunnels intended for kidnapping. (Jimmy Carter later referred to them as “defensive tunnels.”) That’s the point of a truce; Hamas boasts that it will rearm during it and it does. The threat never goes away and I can’t blame Israel for taking whatever actions it deems necessary, truce or not.
    Israel made arrangements for the transfer of goods into Gaza but the crossings were frequently closed because of attacks ON THE CROSSINGS! After Hamas was elected there was something of a blockade because of the intransigent Hamas position. (Can you tell me why Israel is at all obliged to maintain supplies to a region whose government declares itself at war with her?)

  15. SLM says:

    “Can you tell me why Israel is at all obliged to maintain supplies to a region whose government declares itself at war with her?”
    I will. Just as soon as some one explains to me why the Palestinians aren’t allowed to resist some one that is occupying them illegally.
    Let’s get something straight of the mark here: without condoning attacks on civilians, the Palestinians have a right to fight back against the Israelies within the West Bank and Gaza strip. The Israelies do not have the right to build settlements on said land. Until Israel does these things, any discussion of whether or not Hamas will live up to their charter commitments, is entirely academic. Israel is the military occupier. They do not have rights, they have responsibilities.

  16. Kyle says:

    ‘occupying them illegally’
    Not so quick.
    ‘Palestinian spokespersons not only claim that the territory is occupied, they also allege that occupation is – by definition – illegal. However, international law does not prohibit situations of occupation. Rather, it attempts to regulate such situations with international agreements and conventions. Therefore, claims that the so-called Israeli “occupation” is illegal – without regard either to its cause or the factors that have led to its continuation – are baseless allegations without foundation in international law.’
    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/11/Israel-%20the%20Conflict%20and%20Peace-%20Answers%20to%20Frequen#territories

  17. SLM says:

    “However, international law does not prohibit situations of occupation. Rather, it attempts to regulate such situations with international agreements and conventions.”
    So if the Taliban invaded and occupied Calgary, but obeyed international law in doing so, that would be okay with you?
    Even if you’re crazy enough to answer “yes” to the above question, you’re still missing the point: Israel is violating international law by building settlements, exporpriating property, demolishing homes, etc.

  18. Kyle says:

    I (and if polls in Israel are right, most Israelis) would like Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. (It already withdrew from the Sinai after a 1979 treaty with Egypt; it pulled its troops out of Lebanon and its settlers out of Gaza… and we know how the latter two withdrawals were rewarded.)
    But you’re forgetting how exactly Israel came to “occupy” these territories?
    From the above source:
    ‘Israel’s presence in the territory is often incorrectly referred to as an “occupation.” However, under international law, occupation occurs in territories that have been taken from a recognized sovereign. The Jordanian rule over the West Bank and the Egyptian rule over the Gaza Strip following 1948 resulted from a war of aggression aimed at destroying the newly established Jewish State. Their attacks plainly violated UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from 1947 (also known as the Partition Plan). Accordingly, the Egyptian and Jordanian seizures of the territories were never recognized by the international community. As neither territory had a prior legitimate sovereign, under international law these areas could not be considered as occupied and their most accurate description would be that of disputed territories.’
    Furthermore…
    ‘It has been asserted that Israel’s presence in the territories violated UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, one of the cornerstones of the peace process. This allegation ignores both the language and the original intent of 242. The framers of this resolution realized that the pre-1967 borders were indefensible, and deliberately chose to use the term withdrawal “from territories” (and not “from all the territories” as the Palestinians claim) in order to indicate the need to change any future borders.’
    ‘Moreover, Resolution 242 (and Resolution 338 of 1973) places obligations on both sides. The Arab regimes cannot demand that Israel withdraw while they ignore their own responsibilities and the need for negotiations. They deliberately overlook the fact that 242 calls for the “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.’
    Hmm, all “claims or states of belligerency”?
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

  19. SLM says:

    “Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. ”
    “Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”
    ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’
    Menahem Begin
    – Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s