This (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-01-26T165750Z_01_L20602990_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&rpc=22) is definitely bad news for Israel, and I believe, for the entire Middle East. Whether they know it or not, the Palestinians have, through this election, pretty much said that they don't want peace - rather, they agree with http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361080268&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull]Iranian) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Israel should be 'wiped off the map', by electing representatives from an organization that has actively sought the destruction of Israel, primarily through the use of terrorism.

At a press conference this morning, President Bush stated (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/26/D8FCEOVOB.html) that the US will not deal with HAMAS, which is officially recognized by the US government as a terrorist organization. Makes perfect sense to me.

It'll be very interesting to see how all of this plays out, but I believe that this is a huge step backward in terms of the 'road map to peace.'

Well it's not like Israel ever did anything to help the so called "Road map to peace".

I still hate the **** out of HAMAS though.

While I dislike HAMAS and their being elected, I can understand why it happened.

This is definitely bad news for Israel, and I believe, for the entire Middle East. And for the US. It's an interesting policy dilemma: the US wants to foster democracy by recognizing legitimate elections, but at the same time does not want to work with organizations that use terror.

One question is, are the Palestinians prepared for the consequences of their decision?

So this is the result of democracy, eh?

I'm not so sure. As an israeli general said: "you don't negotiate with your allies, you negotiate with your enemies".

As long as the feeling that Hamas represents was widespread among the palestinian population it woudln't matter who was in power, as negotiations with them wouldn't address that feeling. Having Hamas in power at least puts them in a more central role where their issues have to be addressed head on, rather than ignored while you hope they go away.

Its like the northern ireland peace process... much as everyone on the british side would have liked to ignore sin fein and negotiate only with the moderate republicans, this would have been pointless. Any agreement would have been worthless is the people still supported sin fein and their viewpoint. The UK government realised this and decided they had to include sin fein in the process, no matter how unpalletable, and hoped that being in the process would cause sin fein to slowly moderate its attitude.

Its all very well exporting democracy, but you can't complain when people in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Palestine decide to vote for parties you don't like. That is democracy for you.

Its worth pointing out that in palestine Hamas is seen as a benevolent defender, not an eveil terrorist organisation. So this isn't really the palestinians saying "they don't want peace".

2/3rd of palestinians live on under $2 a day.. and hamas provides much of the schooling, orphanages, hospitals and other facilities that these people need. It is also very disciplined and has almost no corruption, which might cause a lot of palestinians to put it above fata when voting (as fata is seen as widely corrupt).

Hopefully the realities of government will in time cause Hamas to realise that negotiation is inevitable.

Since most aid to palestine comes from europe, the EU will be able to exert a reasonable amount of presure on Hamas to moderate it's langage. Though whether the EU will be willing to entirely withdraw all aid from such poor people is another matter.

Not wanting to sound even more anti US than i have been accused of being, but the real problem is for the US. They have stated they won't negotiate with Hamas... which leaves them very little pressure or influence to bring to bear.

The real danger is that Israel overreacts and elects a hardline government too... then the rhetoric will ramp up and the peace process really will be in trouble. However a recent poll shows that most israelis believe negotiation with Hamas will have to happen eventually.. so hopefully that won't happen.
As long as that doesn't happen, and people keep talking, i think this is good for the peace process in the long run... but the short term might be rocky.

A few points of information:
1. The US officially designates Hamas as a terrorist organization because their members kill civillians to affect political change.
2. Hamas has as one of its core platform values the destruction of Israel.
3. The US has plenty of leverage in the form of aid to the Palestinians which can be turned on and off as needed.

The conventional (and I believe naively hopeful) interpretation of the election is that this is not a vote for terror, but a vote against the existing Palestinian leadership, an attempt to try something else. And why not?

But it's naive to believe that the vote for Hamas was made in ignorance of point 2 above. Perhaps one can hope the Palestinians really didn't 'mean it' when they voted for a party that wishes to exterminate another country.

The real problem is not the US. The US is sovereign to determine wether or not to negotiate with terrorists. All countries have that right by law. A Hamas government is going to have to decide wether or not to reounce terror. I doubt it will. Reouncing their platform is the last thing they need to do. Why should they when they just got a strong vote from the Palestinians that they love their platform?

The very real problem will be : what will the Palestinians do if the aid runs dry?

I didn't say the problem WAS the US. Merely that it was a problem FOR the US. The EU gives much more in aid, and has many more contacts with Hamas than the US. By making blanket statements the US has effectlvely ruled itself out of any influence for a while... though personally i wouldn't be surprised if talks DO go on in secret.

Re 2: Apparently they didn't really mention the destruction of Israel as part of their election platform, and concentrated much more on cleaning out corruption etc.. I heard they even referenced getting a deal based on the 67 lines.. which implicitly imples the existance of an israel.
Though of course all those omissions and implicit implications don't actually add up to anything remotely concrete.

But its quite likely that a lot of palestinians voted on issues of corruption and their daily lives... rather than the destruction of israel. Though of course being anti Israel can't exactly hurt you in that kind of election.
But if I was a poor guy living in palestine i'd be voting for the party i thought was going to get me food and a job and that ran the local hospital and school and that wasn't as corrupt as the current lot.. rather than voting on the issue of attacking israel.

But the basic point remains... whether Hamas was in power or not their views (and the views of all the people who support them) would have to be included in the peace process. Having them in power probably makes that easier in the long run.

In the short term Hamas will probably have its hands full trying to get the economy and government running.. and the practicalities of that have a tendancy to remove a few of the sharp extremities from people's views. Bear in mind that Sin Fein and the PLO were both on terrorist lists at one point.

If the West totally shuts out the Palestinian Authority out of any communication at this point over this, it certainly isn't going to help maintain stability in the region.

If Hamas feels totally isolated and shut out they could react explosively, seeing nothing to lose.

...the practicalities of that have a tendancy to remove a few of the sharp extremities from people's views.

One can only hope. Although there are other parties who came to power through election and never abandonded their fascistic ideologies: NAZIs in Germany. Both Hamas and NAZIs used clinics and services to demonstrate governmental competence to the people as an election strategy (pretty standard stuff). Both parties claim to be able to restore a downtrodden nation to greatness. Both claimed that foreign influence undermined their countries. Both advocated the violent distruction of Jews. There are probably more differences than similarties between the organizations and the times, places and situations, but it gives me pause.

If Hamas feels totally isolated and shut out they could react explosively, seeing nothing to lose.

That's really no worse than the historic pattern of Hamas behavior. They already kill civillian innocents for political gain.

True,.. but why give them an additional reason to do so by a sudden cessation of all political and diplomatic communications, which will surely be viewed as an insult to a group that can rightfully claim to be elected by the people.

One can only hope. Although there are other parties who came to power through election and never abandonded their fascistic ideologies: NAZIs in Germany. Both Hamas and NAZIs used clinics and services to demonstrate governmental competence to the people as an election strategy (pretty standard stuff). Both parties claim to be able to restore a downtrodden nation to greatness. Both claimed that foreign influence undermined their countries. Both advocated the violent distruction of Jews. There are probably more differences than similarties between the organizations and the times, places and situations, but it gives me pause.

Of course, pulling out the nazi card...

The situations in the middle-east and in Germany during the 30's are very different as you've said.
So yeah...

It may be a terrorist organization, but the simple fact that they've accepted to participate in a democratic process is a really big step.
In fact, I'm going to say it's a big step towards peace, if everyone is willing to negotiate and talk with each other.

Oh, and I'd like to note that it's a democratically elected government. Nobody can do anything about it.
When Bush said that he won't negotiate with the Hamas, I told myself:"So he wants to bring democracy to the world, but once a government he doesn't like is elected, then he refuses to deal with them. Hmmm..."

Yeah, they all love democracy...when the people elect a government they like...

Well, until Hamas decides to stop supporting/participating in terrorism, there is no reason President Bush should negotiate with them.

Of course, things are a bit different now for Hamas: if they keep up their suicide bombings, it'll technically be government-sponsored, which makes it an entirely different ball game.

They've even said that they want to turn their armed wing into a part of the official Palestinian military. :/

They'll have to do better than that if they're trying to outshine the United States in having terrorists elected to public office.

Since Fatah have been storming government buildings with automatic weapons I'm not sure there is as big a difference between Hamas and Fatah/PLO as some people like to think. It should be remembered that pretty much all the major political factions in that area have extremist links/past and blood on their hands in some form or other.

As i understand it the president may actually havehis hands tied.. it would be illegal for the US to give money to Hamas while they are on the Terrorist organisations list. So the 40 million a year that the US gives may have to stop no matter what.

Thats going to be a blow to hamas... but if it causes the palestinians to suffer even more then it might be along term problem.. as the more downtrodden a people the more desperate and extreme they get. Maybe the arab countries will kick in to support them.. but that could lead to a whole load of other problems.

I'm not sure that hitler/hamas comparisons are in order... simply due to the fact that hamas has no goals outside it's own lands.

I gotta say i think everyone is overreacting and should give hamas at least a short amount of time to reveal their intentions before predicting doom.

I'm torn as far as monetary support to the Palestinians - on the one hand, I'm against supporting Hamas in any way, but on the other hand, withdrawing all support may drive even more Palestinians into the Hamas camp...but on the other hand, giving support to the Palestinians would now essentially constitute giving support to Hamas...
Like I said, I'm torn.

And as far as Hitler/Hamas comparisons, they don't really hold up in the Hitlerian 'take over the world' sense, but when it comes to the extermination of the Jews, they definitely stand up to scrutiny (though Hamas has never been as systematic about it as Hitler was).

I say don't give aid to HAMAS, because it supports terrorism. During this so-called "War on Terror" we shouldn't be giving aid to terrorists.

But if you are giving aid to Hamas, that they spend on hospitals or schools... are you supporting terrorism? Tricky question.

Even the extermination of the jews comparisson is flakey.. they want the extermination of Israel (as a state) and even that is mainly an issue of war and land. Hitler wanted to exterminate the jews as a race, no matter where they are. Hamas wnats to drive them from israel. From where i stand there is a marked differnce between hating someone you are at war with and wanting to wipe out an entire race of people who have done nothing to you.
Give them tanks and bombers and i'm sure they'd attack israel.. but i doubt they'd start putting people in gas chambers.

But if you are giving aid to Hamas and they spend most of the money on hospitals or schools, and spend some of the money for dynamite that is then strapped to someone and used to blow up a bus or a cafe, is it still okay because most of the money went to a good cause?

This really is the crux of the problem - with all of the aid that the US gives to the Palistinians (I think I heard that it's around $40 million per year), Hamas could buy an arsenal of weapons and bring its hopes of eradicating Israel that much closer...of course, if they did, the aid would be gone faster than you could say "suicide bomber", but I don't know what kind of oversight the US government has on how aid money is spent, and whether Hamas could use that aid to slowly build up such an arsenal...of course, I could just be coming up with conspiracy theories, but I don't think it's all that far-fetched.

The leader of Hamas came out the other day and said that they want to create a new Palestinian army (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17975228%255E663,00.html) , to "defend our people against aggression." My question is, how long is it going to take before some Hamas suicide bomber blows up another bus or cafe, and then the Palestinian government reads the resulting retaliatory strike by Israel as an act of war?

I guess I'm just not as optimistic as some about the restraint of a known terrorist group.

But if you are giving aid to Hamas and they spend most of the money on hospitals or schools, and spend some of the money for dynamite that is then strapped to someone and used to blow up a bus or a cafe, is it still okay because most of the money went to a good cause?

No. If any money goes on terrorist activities then it isn't ok at all. I'm with you on that.

But, hypothetically, if there are two bank accounts
1 - Palestinian government bank account
2 - Hamas private bank account
and we pay money into account 1, which is then spent entirely on aid and other good stuff, does it matter that the guys administrating both accounts are terrorists? And might be using account 2 to fund such activities?

If i lend money to a terrorist to buy his mum a birthday present, does that mean i'm supporting terrorism? Assuming i give it on the understanding it will be spent entirely on the present? Hmm... interesting..

I think the $40m may be gone anyway, as it will be illegal for the US to keep giving it (unless they find a legal loophole).

But I very much doubt Hamas would be daft enough to provoke israel into a full scale "war". They'd get slaughtered.. no way any "defence force" could stand up to the might of israel's army. They might support individual suicide bombers, but i can't see them commiting suicide withthe whole country.

Mind you, nest time the israeli army launches a helicopter rocket attack on a crowded appartment building, i'd have no problem with the palestinians shooting it down.

But i think ALL their aid will dry up pretty rapidly if they start spending it on armies rather than food/economy/healthcare that is badly needed.

Perhaps, though, if we don't give them aid and they can't afford to run schools and hospitals, they'll realize that they need to become more moderate so they can get the aid money flowing in.

Perhaps, though, if we don't give them aid and they can't afford to run schools and hospitals, they'll realize that they need to become more moderate so they can get the aid money flowing in.

Or they just get hungry, get easily manipulated by extremists and they'll get more extreme.
It's not as easy as you seem to think.

Or they just get hungry, get easily manipulated by extremists and they'll get more extreme.
It's not as easy as you seem to think.

Yes, I see that as another possibility. I still believe though that we shouldn't be giving aid to a hostile country (like North Korea, for example). And the Palestinians clearly don't appreciate the billions of dollars we've sent to them.

And the Palestinians clearly don't appreciate the billions of dollars we've sent to them.

Says who? The majority of Palestinians who surely do appreciate any help or the few extremists?

I don't know. I've just never heard of any Palestinian having a positive attitude about the U.S. All we ever see of Palestinians are them burning the American flag and chanting "down with America." Maybe just no one ever shows the good appreciative Palestinians? *Shrug*

Yes, I see that as another possibility. I still believe though that we shouldn't be giving aid to a hostile country. And the Palestinians clearly don't appreciate the billions of dollars we've sent to them.
...The ****?

Not really a single bit of that made sense.

Well, for starters, I highly doubt that the Arab media is much into reporting much of anything positive about America...

And this really is the problem with the whole question of giving aid - if we continue giving aid, we're now basically supporting terrorism; if we stop giving aid, very likely more will become terrorists; but if we keep giving aid because of that, we likely won't be helping, just choosing the lesser of two evils: anti-American Palestinians, or anti-American Palestinian terrorists.

And Toms, I think you're right about it being illegal now to give aid to the Palestinians, but there are Democrats in Congress who have been pushing for the President to negotiate with the new Palestinian government...and if aid isn't given, I doubt it'll take long for the 'US imposed suffering of the Palestinians' to become a hot political issue.

I'm now definitely in favor of stopping aid, however, in light of the news (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060128/HAMASMAIN28/TPInternational/Africa) that Hamas wants Shari'a law to be part of the Palestinian legal code, and they want to "overhaul the Palestinian education system to separate boys and girls and introduce a more Islamic curriculum."

Aid to terrorism hasn't stopped our support of Israel, however. So I see it as hypocrisy should we cut aid to Palestine.

...The ****?

Not really a single bit of that made sense.

I say don't give money to hostile countries.

Another problem though is that Bush's cronies always come out and say "we don't negotiate with terrorists." Which is extremely problematic, because it gives the U.S. no room to negotiate. After all, you don't negotiate with you allies, you negotiate with your enemies. So in this case it's either give the aid or don't.

Aid to terrorism hasn't stopped our support of Israel, however. So I see it as hypocrisy should we cut aid to Palestine.

I say also stop supporting Israel. Don't help any of them until they both get their acts together.

I don't know. I've just never heard of any Palestinian having a positive attitude about the U.S. All we ever see of Palestinians are them burning the American flag and chanting "down with America." Maybe just no one ever shows the good appreciative Palestinians? *Shrug*

Probably because the US gives 3 billion a year to Israel... plus most of their weapons. If a guy gave $100 and a bat to a guy to hit you, and then paid $5 towards your medical care afterwards I doubt you'd be that chuffed either.

Still, in recent years the US has started to get a bit tougher on israel, which is good.
Though Israel has a lot of well organised allies in the washington lobbying/funding circus, whereas the palestinians aren't as unified or organised.

Probably because the US gives 3 billion a year to Israel... plus most of their weapons. If a guy gave $100 and a bat to a guy to hit you, and then paid $5 towards your medical care afterwards I doubt you'd be that chuffed either.

Which is why we should stop supporting Israel as well.

I don't see how that shows indesputable evidence that Israel should be left alone. We aren't giving money to HAMAS, at least not on purpose. And those are the ones who want to wipe out Israel. I really fail to see your logic.

I don't see how that shows indesputable evidence that Israel should be left alone. We aren't giving money to HAMAS, at least not on purpose. And those are the ones who want to wipe out Israel. I really fail to see your logic.
Mind telling us who you're talking to and which arguement you're addressing.

Well, when I don't specify whom I'm talking to, in general I mean the poster above me... like right now...

Well, when I don't specify whom I'm talking to, in general I mean the poster above me... like right now...
So then how do you fail to see the logic of it's hypocritical to support Israel all the while spouting off the crap we do as to why we may cut funding to Palestine.

Let's see. The PLO is far from happy that Israel has returned to it's Biblical origins. The Arabs (including Palestine) have feuded with Israel. So, it makes sense to support the nation that is not trying to wipe another culture off the face of the Earth. After all, Israel isn't calling for a Jewish "Jihad".

No but they are killing innocent Palestinians in their attacks that they want us to think are killing militants.

The Palestinians had THEIR holy land stolen right out from under them, so the Jews could have THEIR holy land. Now, the Palestinians haven't gone about retaking their land in the proper way, what with their murdering of innocent people and all. But when you haves two sides, both believing they have god on their side, who both want the same land they think is rightfully theirs by god, there is no real end to the violence until either the Israelis wipe out the Palestinians or the Israelis give the Palestinians their land back.

Let's see. The PLO is far from happy that Israel has returned to it's Biblical origins. The Arabs (including Palestine) have feuded with Israel. So, it makes sense to support the nation that is not trying to wipe another culture off the face of the Earth. After all, Israel isn't calling for a Jewish "Jihad".

Zionists?

No but they are killing innocent Palestinians in their attacks that they want us to think are killing militants.

And what proof do you have that they aren't militants? When last I looked, they are killing Israeli civilians.

The Palestinians had THEIR holy land stolen right out from under them, so the Jews could have THEIR holy land.

I am aware of the conflict over Jerusalem.

Now, the Palestinians haven't gone about retaking their land in the proper way, what with their murdering of innocent people and all. But when you haves two sides, both believing they have god on their side, who both want the same land they think is rightfully theirs by god, there is no real end to the violence until either the Israelis wipe out the Palestinians or the Israelis give the Palestinians their land back.

Indeed, there will be struggle. But until they stop their rampage on innocent civilians, I would rather help the people who aren't calling for, oh, say... the sack of Mecca? These rampaging Palestinians are terrorists. Not to us, and they haven't flown planes into buildings, but they are terrorizing the Israeli people, and for what? So they can have half of Jerusalem, seperated by a wall. This has cost many innocent lives. Many more are at risk. And it would be much less if the Palestinians acted like human beings. And THAT is why we shouldn't fund the PLO. THAT is why we should support Israel in its quest for peace. Because as far as I've seen, the PLO's quest is bloodshed.

EDIT:

Zionists?

So there's a group of pro-Israelis. Your point is...?

And what proof do you have that they aren't militants? When last I looked, they are killing Israeli civilians.

Do I have proof? How about you go ask all the Palestinian mothers who lost their children to an Israeli missile for proof that innocent Palestinians get killed as well as Israelis?

Indeed, there will be struggle. But until they stop their rampage on innocent civilians, I would rather help the people who aren't calling for, oh, say... the sack of Mecca? These rampaging Palestinians are terrorists. Not to us, and they haven't flown planes into buildings, but they are terrorizing the Israeli people, and for what? So they can have half of Jerusalem, seperated by a wall. This has cost many innocent lives. Many more are at risk. And it would be much less if the Palestinians acted like human beings. And THAT is why we shouldn't fund the PLO. THAT is why we should support Israel in its quest for peace. Because as far as I've seen, the PLO's quest is bloodshed.

And perhaps the Israelis should stop their rampaging. They have cost many innocent lives as well.


Now, this is going to sound silly but just for argument's sake, how would you, as a christian (I don't know if you're catholic but this analogy should still work), feel if an athiest group marched into Vatican City and took it over, holding the Pope hostage, claiming that the Vatican has been deceiving the masses for centuries and must be stopped? They rename the territory "Darwinia" and establish it as an officially athiest state.

Surely you wouldn't approve of this, and yet it's essentially what the zionist movement did to Palestine.

And what proof do you have that they aren't militants?

The fact that I saw some people I knew innocently gunned down by Israeli forces simply for being Palestini. Children coming home from a day of schooling only to be shot once they reach the streets simply out of reaction for a Palestini bombing an empty military establishment.

These rampaging Palestinians are terrorists. Not to us, and they haven't flown planes into buildings, but they are terrorizing the Israeli people
You really are an ignorant child, aren't you?

First, not every Palestinian is a terrorist. Second, they are not if they are attacking legitimate targets. Third, not everyone is a militant extremist hell bent on seeing every Israeli irradicated.

Many just want their homes back.

And it would be much less if the Palestinians acted like human beings.

Get an education. Most Palestini's don't have weaponry capable of rivaling tanks and highly armored aircraft. Guerrilla tactics are kind of the only option.

Once again, your ignorance blinds you.

THAT is why we should support Israel in its quest for peace.


I suggest you go to the area in question. It's easy to support Israel when you view them as some innocent party. Truth is they are infact, very much, the bad guy.


So there's a group of pro-Israelis. Your point is...?

What's your point about a pro-Palestini group?

First off:
Since the beginning of the Intifada (2000) to April 9th, 2005:
* 3,225 Palestinians killed by Israelis (3,135 by military in the territories, 54 by military inside Israel, 34 by settlers in the territories)
* 950 Israelis killed by Palestinians (431 inside Israel, 218 settlers, 218 soldiers on duty)
Source: B'tselem, BBC [1]
(figures vary over the years, but are roughly similar to this in proportion
more detail: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4294502.stm) )

Of course, all sides dispute the other's figures, but on the whole if you look at most sets of figures then the number of deaths is always either roughly equal or weighted towards more palestinians. Of course, many palestinians killed are defined as "militants". But many israelis killed are army or armed settlers.

All i'm trying to point out here is that this isn't simply a case of a one sided slaughter of israelis.

-----

My opinion on the palestinian's tactics is that attacking purely civilian targets is wrong.

However using suicide bombers and "terrorist" tactics when you are essentially in a war, against a much superior enemy, is a valid appoach. But only against military/armed targets.

I remember a crappy hollywood movie starring patrick swayze in which the russians invaded the US and a group of kids "heroically" fought a gurilla war against the occupying forces by ambushing their patrols and bombing their depots.
In that they were the heroic freedom fighters standing up against the occupying forces. But then of course they were white skinned, blonde and clean cut. ;)

However one can see, if not condone, why after 20 years of attmpting to fight back against an overwhealming military occupying force the palestinians might get desperate enough to start hitting civilian targets. And it did bring attention to their plight from a world that wouldn't otherwise have cared.

--

It isn't merely jerusalem that is in dispute. The whole israeli nation was essentially created out of "nothing" after WW2. Unfortunately that "nothing" happened to belong to other people at the time. Which is why the palestinians want the whole nation back, not just half of jerusalem.

Now obviously that is very unlikely to every happen... so a lot of moderates on both sides (and most independent nations) have settled on a half-and-half share.
Getting the extremists on either side to agree to that is tricky though, as they are now set in their ways, and sure of their own righteousness. And gettng the fighting to stop long enough for everyone to calm down is a job in itself when any little action can trigger a restart.

Frankly though, if the US would stop funding israel (both sides infact), then they would have much more of an incentive to reach a deal.

---

IMHO the UN should make jerusalem some form of internationally policed "neutral zone". If the people of the middle ages could (at least for a hundred years or so) manage to make jerusalem an open city to both religions, you would think that "more civilised" people of our generation should be able to manage something similar.

I remember a crappy hollywood movie starring patrick swayze in which the russians invaded the US and a group of kids "heroically" fought a gurilla war against the occupying forces by ambushing their patrols and bombing their depots.
In that they were the heroic freedom fighters standing up against the occupying forces. But then of course they were white skinned, blonde and clean cut. ;)

Not to mention that our revolutionists (like the minute men) fought a guerilla war against the British to gain our independence.

The fact that I saw some people I knew innocently gunned down by Israeli forces simply for being Palestini. Children coming home from a day of schooling only to be shot once they reach the streets simply out of reaction for a Palestini bombing an empty military establishment.

You have quite effectively proven there are injustices on both sides. But what you said says nothing of Palestini acts.

You really are an ignorant child, aren't you?

I'm not going to waste my intellect refuting such a poor attempt to reduce my credibility. I'm simply going to say you are wrong, and that perhaps you're getting angry for reasons other than my "ignorance".

First, not every Palestinian is a terrorist.

Was there a crucial typo in my post? Did I accidentally insinuate that all Palestinians are rampaging terrorists? NO! I said the rampaging Palestinians are terrorists. NOWHERE did I say that all of them rampage.

Second, they are not if they are attacking legitimate targets.

There is no problem with them attacking legitimate targets. Children are not legitimate targets. That's all I meant to say in that part of my post.

Third, not everyone is a militant extremist hell bent on seeing every Israeli irradicated.

Again, I already know that. You baically repeated yourself to make three points instead of two.

Many just want their homes back.

Fine. Let them do that the right way.

Get an education.

I am in the process of doing so. However, I do not go to school at Brainwashing Academy for Future Liberals, so I'm afraid the results of my education will not be a sudden agreement with you. Calling me stupid because I disagree with you will get you nowhere.

Most Palestini's don't have weaponry capable of rivaling tanks and highly armored aircraft. Guerrilla tactics are kind of the only option.

if the "only" tactic is to act like animals (again, not all of them, but a sizable chunk of them!) then I can't say I'm impressed. And if they are making suicide bombs... well, what if they bided their time, using temporary peace to build up anti-tank rockets, anti-aircraft guns, and the like? It would be more efficient than what they're doing now. Maybe it just galls them to stop fighting for a minute or two to consider basic tactics.

Once again, your ignorance blinds you.

Once again, your mouth deafens you.

I suggest you go to the area in question. It's easy to support Israel when you view them as some innocent party. Truth is they are infact, very much, the bad guy.

The Israelis have commited far fewer atrocities than we have. And why should I call them the bad guy? Because you say so? Israel is a good nation, but it is populated by fallible humans. Noone is perfect on this Earth. I'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't commit some sort of act that was unlawful. However, the violence the PLO has caused FAR outweighs the Israeli violence. Sharon has even allowed half of Jerusalem to go to Palestine, in an effort to quell violence. Instead, the war is intensifying! Makes it crystal clear which nation is rational and which one is not.

What's your point about a pro-Palestini group?

I wasn't speaking to you. I want to hear what Tyrion has to say.

First off:
Since the beginning of the Intifada (2000) to April 9th, 2005:
* 3,225 Palestinians killed by Israelis (3,135 by military in the territories, 54 by military inside Israel, 34 by settlers in the territories)
* 950 Israelis killed by Palestinians (431 inside Israel, 218 settlers, 218 soldiers on duty)

I have not before seen these numbers, but I have no real reason to dispute them. However, this doesn't prove that Israel has commited atrocities. The USA has killed a significantly large portion of terrorists in the middle east. If you think that makes us the bad guy, simply because we are doing better in the war, then you need some schooling. *Looks pointedly at ShadowTemplar*

My point was not that the PLO has killed more, it was that they PLO is less than humane overall in it's methods.

All i'm trying to point out here is that this isn't simply a case of a one sided slaughter of israelis.

OK. Point well taken. :)


My opinion on the palestinian's tactics is that attacking purely civilian targets is wrong.

This sounds perfectly rational. I see no way that anyone can dispute that. If someone does try to say that it's OK to attack civilians, I'm done replying to them.

However using suicide bombers and "terrorist" tactics when you are essentially in a war, against a much superior enemy, is a valid appoach. But only against military/armed targets.

Saying nothing of the wasted men when they blow themselves up, I don't overall approve of terrorist tactics, but bombs are used by the US, and it's fair that they can use them as well. But using them against civilians, as you said, is wrong.

It isn't merely jerusalem that is in dispute. The whole israeli nation was essentially created out of "nothing" after WW2. Unfortunately that "nothing" happened to belong to other people at the time. Which is why the palestinians want the whole nation back, not just half of jerusalem.

Not in dispute. But Jerusalem is a holy city to two religions, and therefore it tends to become the center of the conflict. But let's look at it from a survival perspective: If Israel loses, the entire civilization is gone. Ka-put. Wiped off. If the PLO is defeated, they don't stand to lose further territory. And they do have another holy city (Mecca) and now they have half of another one, while the Jews are now only in control of half of one. And I don't know about you, but I don't think Israel would be too happy about being wiped off the face of the Earth.

Frankly though, if the US would stop funding israel (both sides infact), then they would have much more of an incentive to reach a deal.

Sorry, but I disagree. It is entirely possible that you're right, but it is just as likely that they will be spurred on to finish it while they are cut off from our support. By the time the US restores funding to stop the PLO's destruction, it will be too late.

IMHO the UN should make jerusalem some form of internationally policed "neutral zone". If the people of the middle ages could (at least for a hundred years or so) manage to make jerusalem an open city to both religions, you would think that "more civilised" people of our generation should be able to manage something similar.

People change. I don't think it'll work, but there's no harm in letting them try.

Not to mention that our revolutionists (like the minute men) fought a guerilla war against the British to gain our independence.

Ah, but we didn't go to England and go killing British civilians, now did we?

Before World War II, Germany needed more of it's "traditional lands" returned to them. For their people. Ask the people of Poland, France and most of the rest of Europe what happened because we continued to give into Hitler's terrorist threats.

What is the difference between Hamas and Fatah? Sound like the start of a good joke. Unfortunately, the punch line is the Palenstinian civilians along with the Israeli civilians. At least Fatah gave lip service to the "road map to peace". I heard a news blurb this morning in which the leaders of Hamas said they are willing to discuss a cease fire that could, perhaps, last as long as ten years.

Question: They are now the elected government. They are willing to discuss a "cease-fire". Does this mean that the Palenstinian government has now officially declare WAR on Israel?

Question 2: Ten years? Not a peace treaty? What kind of build up will they be able to accomplish in those ten years? This is anything but comfortable for the rest of the world.

Question 3: Does anyone remember Oil for Food? How much money actually got the the people of Iraq? Does anyone think that Hamas would use monies it got for the people....or for more guns. Surely, paying families of homocide bombers does not count as money to the people.

As for the Palestinian people. They picked 'em, they've got to deal with the circumstances.

My point was not that the PLO has killed more, it was that they PLO is less than humane overall in it's methods.

I think that if it results in the deaths, especially of civilians, then no method can be called humane. I think a lot of it is down to perception.. people see someone strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing themselves up as "uncivilised" but sending in apache gunships with rockets, or tanks seems much more "civilised".

If both result in the deaths of an equal number of civilians then as far as i am concerned they are both as inhumane as each other.

The only difference, and the one that israelis cling to, is that they "target" their bombs against specific militants, and the palestinians don't.

Which would be a fair point IF the israelis didn't keep targetting those militant individuals with rockets in the middle of tennament blocks... knowing full well that there would be a lot of collateral damage. Once they do that they loose any moral highground as far as i am concerned. Killing random civilians, and killing knowing you will also kill random civilians is morally equivilent in my book.

I'd reckon that even if 75% of those killed by israel WERE millitants (which seems a highly unlikely figure to me - i'd suspect more like 25%) thats still 800 civillians killed vs only 400-600 by the palestinians. Add to that the fact that each death probably cause 20 or so injuries (almost certainly civilians) and you have 60,000 palestinian civies injured, vs 18,000 israeli civies.

Saying nothing of the wasted men when they blow themselves up, I don't overall approve of terrorist tactics, but bombs are used by the US, and it's fair that they can use them as well. But using them against civilians, as you said, is wrong.

Indeed. And I don't support that at all. However I suspect it is hardly THEIR first choice either.

When you have no jobs, are caged in a small gheto of your homeland, and are fighting an opposing force that has Nukes, Apaches, Jets, Rockets, Tanks & one of the largest armies in the world... and all you have is a few rocks, a few ak47s and a bit of semtex its not surprising that you might get desperate and resort to desperate measures.

I don't condone it, but i understand why you might do it. It is't to do with rampaging, or being animals. Its to do with being desperate and having to use any dirty trick you can to stay afloat.

If Israel loses, the entire civilization is gone. Ka-put. Wiped off. If the PLO is defeated, they don't stand to lose further territory.

Not really.

1 - It is an artificially created nation anyway... judaism was fine without a nation of israel, and it would be fine if it went again. Indeed they are a large part of the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth, aren't they?

(but as i said, i don't think its at all practical to remove israel any more. Not creating it in the first place would have been a good idea... but its too late for that. )

2 - As I understand it the creation of israel DID remove all the palestinian territory.. it was only through the uprisings that they got what they have now. But i'll admit I'm not on expert on that and I could be wrong.
I think the borders currently recognised by international law (and violated by israel) were only defined AFTER the palestinians had risen up and reclained the west bank and gaza... maybe.

To think either side is going to be defeated entirely is foolish, and only the hard liners on either side believe that. (and even they recently show signs of weariness). So a compromise will eventually have to be reached.

Ah, but we didn't go to England and go killing British civilians, now did we?
No, but technically you already were in England... ;)
..and i suspect you killed civillians... as dirty things happen in most wars.

But at the time the tactics of the minutemen were seen as just as shocking, "uncivilised" and "animalistic" as the tactics of suicide bombers are seen today.

And technically the palestinians aren't "going to israel".. they are already in Israel/Palestine as they both are the same place. :(

In the US you are allowed to use any means necessary to protect your home from invasion... but the palestinians aren't allowed to use any means necessary against the intruders in their country?

Not to mention that our revolutionists (like the minute men) fought a guerilla war against the British to gain our independence.
But the last I checked, no minutemen strapped dynamite to themselves and blew themselves up inside a pub full of Torries.


As for the numbers on who killed how many of whom, I think it's important to note just who was being killed. It's one thing for the Israeli military to take out Hamas leaders...things like this are something else entirely:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/40/Buss_Suicide_Bombing_West_Jerusalem3.jpg)
http://www.september11news.com/April12_SuicideBombingJerMrkt.jpg)

Something else: one of the Hamas members elected to the Palestinian parliament was Miriam Farhat (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/world/13746886.htm) , also known as "the mother of martyrs," because she has sent three of her six sons out to die in attacks on Israel (one was killed during an attack on a Jewish settlement - a video was taken showing her instructing him on how to kill more efficiently. Another was killed as he was preparing for an attack, according to AlJazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F46B813A-8F7B-4DB6-9F9D-9D0E5197F8B2.htm) , and the third was killed by Israeli forces while transporting weapons (rockets) in his car).

If this is the kind of people the Palestinians are going to elect into their government, I don't see why anyone should support them.

But the last I checked, no minutemen strapped dynamite to themselves and blew themselves up inside a pub full of Torries.
No... but the forces were a lot closer to being balanced. The both had roughly the same armnaments.
The Torries didn't have attack helicopter gunships for instance...

No... but the forces were a lot closer to being balanced. The both had roughly the same armnaments.
The Torries didn't have attack helicopter gunships for instance...
But that still doesn't justify their tactics. There's a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, and suicide bombings are not guerilla warfare.

My point wasn't to say that our revolutionists were as bad as suicide bombers. It was just to point out that at one time, we were the insurgents. We were the ones running out in our civilian clothes ambushing British soldiers. We were the ones who defeated a superior force through determination rather than through superiority.

All because of taxes.