there is plenty of historical data of terrorist groups being legitimized by statehood.
Not the point. Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel and the creation of a fundamentalist islamic state in it's place. How would the creation of a secular Palestinian state appease them in the least?
Bunge claimed they would cease to represent the Palestinian people and lose their support. If the Palestinian goal is simply the creation of a palestinian state, hamas, as an obvious obstacleto this, shouldn't have their support now. Hamas goals wouldn't change if a paletinian state is created, why should one expect their support would?
At a very minimum, he still funds and supports terrorist organisations. He provides haven and shelter for many groups. Fatah still answers to him.
He may not be the man in charge any more, but he is still responsible and much of the crap happening there. As much as Sharon is.
the weight of the world was taken of arafat's shoulders when he was taken out of the loop. he was laughed at (by his own people) every time he suggested he could police palestine. if there is leadership in palestine, (and i don't think there is, i think it's chaos at best) it will be found in hamas.
Bunge claimed they would cease to represent the Palestinian people and lose their support. If the Palestinian goal is simply the creation of a palestinian state, hamas, as an obvious obstacleto this, shouldn't have their support now. Hamas goals wouldn't change if a paletinian state is created, why should one expect their support would?
Your logic doesn't fly.
The Palestinians are almost powerless. If Hamas is the only group that can get support so they can achieve independence, then that's the group they'll have to support. That doesn't mean Palestinians support the goals of Hamas. It means that they'll ride the coattails of Hamas if that's what it takes to achieve their goals.
Congrats on being a blind moron. I started the thread because I believe Israel, while led by Sharon, is a threat to peace in the Mid-East and thus the world. Sharon's actions today, well, the Israeli military, back up my sentiments.
Open ended argument. You will always believe that Israel is a threat to mideast peace. And you are right. As long as Israel exists, they are a threat to mideast peace. I guess it depends on your definition of peace. Since Israel responding to attacks is a threat to peace, then only an Israel that is docile and non-threatening can lead to peace. So, basically, castrate Israel and everythig is good.
Since you believe that Israel, while led by Sharon, is a threat to mideast peace, please explain, what type of Israel, would not be a threat to mideast peace? I honestly would like you take of this.
Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel and the creation of a fundamentalist islamic state in it's place.
Rhetoric.
Once a Palestinian state is established, any cross border activity is an official act of war. A Palestinian state would have to eliminate that potential internal threat or suffer the effects of a legitimate war against them that they could in no way survive. Hamas would suffocate.
Since you believe that Israel, while led by Sharon, is a threat to mideast peace, please explain, what type of Israel, would not be a threat to mideast peace? I honestly would like you take of this.
where were you 4-5 years ago? israel before sharon was on the verge establishing the peace.
The Palestinians are almost powerless. If Hamas is the only group that can get support so they can achieve independence, then that's the group they'll have to support. That doesn't mean Palestinians support the goals of Hamas. It means that they'll ride the coattails of Hamas if that's what it takes to achieve their goals.
So, what about the creation of a Palestian state would end the support of hamas? Sure, support might not be as high, but they would still have support and would still attack Israelis.
Once a Palestinian state is established, any cross border activity is an official act of war. A Palestinian state would have to eliminate that potential internal threat or suffer the effects of a legitimate war against them that they could in no way survive. Hamas would suffocate.
i agree, if there is no solution, then it's in israel's best interests to legitimize palestine asap.
Once a Palestinian state is established, any cross border activity is an official act of war. A Palestinian state would have to eliminate that potential internal threat or suffer the effects of a legitimate war against them that they could in no way survive. Hamas would suffocate.
????
No, then Israel take blame for daring to blame the legitimate government of Palestine for the actions of a small group of extremist orgs. PA could do nothing if they chose to and Israel would be condemned for any actions defying the sovereignty of the state of Palestine.
It would be very wrong to believe that any cross boarder activity would be viewed internationally as an act of war, unless those acts were specifically the acts of the nations involved. Israel would face even more critizisms if the responded to attacks by terrorist groups, by crossing international borders. Look at the reaction to Lebanon.
You mean when Arafat unilaterally nixed the peace accord? Where were you? But that was Sharons fault too, right?
i was there. or shortly before.
sharon's visit to the temple inflamed palestinians to no end.
and yes i believe arafat realized if he'd gone through with the accord's he'd have been doomed. i feel this is when arafat realized he was a paper tiger.
and yes i believe sharon's walk to the temple mount that day was designed to derail the peace accords.
I not sure where I heard but I thought that there is a great deal of truth in that.
What about when Hamas puts down their weapons? Why should Israel attack then? And if/since they did attack when Hamas was in the midst of a cease-fire negotiation, why should the world take Sharon any more seriously than Arafat?
No, then Israel take blame for daring to blame the legitimate government of Palestine for the actions of a small group of extremist orgs. PA could do nothing if they chose to and Israel would be condemned for any actions defying the sovereignty of the state of Palestine.
israel was created by extremists! america was created by extremists!
all the groovy places were created by extremists baby!
Sure, support might not be as high, but they would still have support and would still attack Israelis.
This is the greatest of all straw-men arguments. There will always, at least for years and probably decades, be extremists on both sides that attack each other.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Hamas is the major obstacle to peace.
No. Hamas was committing to a cease-fire. Israel interjected and became, yet again, the obstacle to peace.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
there is plenty of historical data of terrorist groups being legitimized by statehood.
Not the point. Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel and the creation of a fundamentalist islamic state in it's place. How would the creation of a secular Palestinian state appease them in the least?
Bunge claimed they would cease to represent the Palestinian people and lose their support. If the Palestinian goal is simply the creation of a palestinian state, hamas, as an obvious obstacleto this, shouldn't have their support now. Hamas goals wouldn't change if a paletinian state is created, why should one expect their support would?
Originally posted by Tulkas
At a very minimum, he still funds and supports terrorist organisations. He provides haven and shelter for many groups. Fatah still answers to him.
He may not be the man in charge any more, but he is still responsible and much of the crap happening there. As much as Sharon is.
the weight of the world was taken of arafat's shoulders when he was taken out of the loop. he was laughed at (by his own people) every time he suggested he could police palestine. if there is leadership in palestine, (and i don't think there is, i think it's chaos at best) it will be found in hamas.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Bunge claimed they would cease to represent the Palestinian people and lose their support. If the Palestinian goal is simply the creation of a palestinian state, hamas, as an obvious obstacleto this, shouldn't have their support now. Hamas goals wouldn't change if a paletinian state is created, why should one expect their support would?
Your logic doesn't fly.
The Palestinians are almost powerless. If Hamas is the only group that can get support so they can achieve independence, then that's the group they'll have to support. That doesn't mean Palestinians support the goals of Hamas. It means that they'll ride the coattails of Hamas if that's what it takes to achieve their goals.
Originally posted by bunge
Congrats on being a blind moron. I started the thread because I believe Israel, while led by Sharon, is a threat to peace in the Mid-East and thus the world. Sharon's actions today, well, the Israeli military, back up my sentiments.
Open ended argument. You will always believe that Israel is a threat to mideast peace. And you are right. As long as Israel exists, they are a threat to mideast peace. I guess it depends on your definition of peace. Since Israel responding to attacks is a threat to peace, then only an Israel that is docile and non-threatening can lead to peace. So, basically, castrate Israel and everythig is good.
Since you believe that Israel, while led by Sharon, is a threat to mideast peace, please explain, what type of Israel, would not be a threat to mideast peace? I honestly would like you take of this.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel and the creation of a fundamentalist islamic state in it's place.
Rhetoric.
Once a Palestinian state is established, any cross border activity is an official act of war. A Palestinian state would have to eliminate that potential internal threat or suffer the effects of a legitimate war against them that they could in no way survive. Hamas would suffocate.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Since you believe that Israel, while led by Sharon, is a threat to mideast peace, please explain, what type of Israel, would not be a threat to mideast peace? I honestly would like you take of this.
where were you 4-5 years ago? israel before sharon was on the verge establishing the peace.
Originally posted by bunge
Your logic doesn't fly.
The Palestinians are almost powerless. If Hamas is the only group that can get support so they can achieve independence, then that's the group they'll have to support. That doesn't mean Palestinians support the goals of Hamas. It means that they'll ride the coattails of Hamas if that's what it takes to achieve their goals.
So, what about the creation of a Palestian state would end the support of hamas? Sure, support might not be as high, but they would still have support and would still attack Israelis.
If Israel puts down there weapons there will be no Israel.
I not sure where I heard but I thought that there is a great deal of truth in that.
Originally posted by bunge
Rhetoric.
Once a Palestinian state is established, any cross border activity is an official act of war. A Palestinian state would have to eliminate that potential internal threat or suffer the effects of a legitimate war against them that they could in no way survive. Hamas would suffocate.
i agree, if there is no solution, then it's in israel's best interests to legitimize palestine asap.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
where were you 4-5 years ago? israel before sharon was on the verge establishing the peace.
You mean when Arafat unilaterally nixed the peace accord? Where were you? But that was Sharons fault too, right?
Originally posted by alcimedes
so was there a truce or not?
It had yet to be officially announced.
Originally posted by bunge
Rhetoric.
Once a Palestinian state is established, any cross border activity is an official act of war. A Palestinian state would have to eliminate that potential internal threat or suffer the effects of a legitimate war against them that they could in no way survive. Hamas would suffocate.
????
No, then Israel take blame for daring to blame the legitimate government of Palestine for the actions of a small group of extremist orgs. PA could do nothing if they chose to and Israel would be condemned for any actions defying the sovereignty of the state of Palestine.
It would be very wrong to believe that any cross boarder activity would be viewed internationally as an act of war, unless those acts were specifically the acts of the nations involved. Israel would face even more critizisms if the responded to attacks by terrorist groups, by crossing international borders. Look at the reaction to Lebanon.
Originally posted by Tulkas
You mean when Arafat unilaterally nixed the peace accord?
Was that right after Israel increased their expansion of settlements at a greater rate than ever before?
Originally posted by bunge
It had yet to be officially announced.
And Hamas said it didn't exist
Originally posted by Tulkas
You mean when Arafat unilaterally nixed the peace accord? Where were you? But that was Sharons fault too, right?
i was there. or shortly before.
sharon's visit to the temple inflamed palestinians to no end.
and yes i believe arafat realized if he'd gone through with the accord's he'd have been doomed. i feel this is when arafat realized he was a paper tiger.
and yes i believe sharon's walk to the temple mount that day was designed to derail the peace accords.
Originally posted by BostonMJH
I not sure where I heard but I thought that there is a great deal of truth in that.
What about when Hamas puts down their weapons? Why should Israel attack then? And if/since they did attack when Hamas was in the midst of a cease-fire negotiation, why should the world take Sharon any more seriously than Arafat?
Originally posted by Tulkas
????
No, then Israel take blame for daring to blame the legitimate government of Palestine for the actions of a small group of extremist orgs. PA could do nothing if they chose to and Israel would be condemned for any actions defying the sovereignty of the state of Palestine.
israel was created by extremists! america was created by extremists!
all the groovy places were created by extremists baby!
Originally posted by Tulkas
And Hamas said it didn't exist
Wrong. Re-read the article. A formal announcement had yet to be made.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Sure, support might not be as high, but they would still have support and would still attack Israelis.
This is the greatest of all straw-men arguments. There will always, at least for years and probably decades, be extremists on both sides that attack each other.