Where will the jews go if Hamas wins?

Hamsey

Is the Hamas policy to drive the Jews in Palestine into the sea? If Hamas wins the next Gaza-Israel war who will give the Jews refuge?

Or are Hamas going to allow Jews full citizenship in a united Palestine?

jank

Probably same place as the palestines are now.

A Primal Nut

As far as I know; they don't want to reclaim everything Isreal took in 1948, just everything granted since then, in particular what are currently known as the settlements, (West Bank and Gaza Strip in particular; this land has being owned by Isreal since 1967) and also for Isreal to stop expanding their settlements. East Jerusalem is particularly important to Palestinians. So the city may well be split in two.

Once there is enough room for Palestinians to live happily (if thats possible) the situation should be resolved in theory, although in practice it will be more compicated, mainly by religion and what will happen to shared holy sites.

Really can't see power sharing ever working there - there is not enough co-operation between ordinary Jews and Muslims to lay the groundwork.

tolosenc

Hamsey wrote: »

If Hamas wins the next Gaza-Israel war

That's a rather large 'if'.

Hamsey

As the title says Hamas only has to win once. I'm thinking of a Zimbabwe or South Africa scenario.

Jews have been driven out of large part of the Middle East. Those driven out have gone to Israel. But what will happen when Hamas wins? Will Jews have full citizenship rights? In which case they will outvote the rest of the population of a united Palestine.

Or will they, at best, be reduced to second class status or, at worst, be driven out - if they can find somewhere to go?

Will The USA take in 5 million Jews?

How many would Ireland be willing to take?

Or will it be the 1930s all over again with every nation saying not us!

jhegarty

Hamsey wrote: »

Or will it be the 1930s all over again with every nation saying not us!

I am 100% sure it would be the 30's all over again. We would all ring our hands say something needs to be done.

Hamsey

Hamsey wrote: »

As the title says Hamas only has to win once. I'm thinking of a Zimbabwe or South Africa scenario.

Jews have been driven out of large part of the Middle East. Those driven out have gone to Israel. But what will happen when Hamas wins? Will Jews have full citizenship rights? In which case they will outvote the rest of the population of a united Palestine.

Or will they, at best, be reduced to second class status or, at worst, be driven out - if they can find somewhere to go?

Just like the original residents they kicked out of a country because they felt like it?

Or will it be the 1930s all over again with every nation saying not us!

Well I'd certainly say not us if they think it's all cool to expand, try to take over the entire landmass and throw white phosphorus at anyone they don't like who was originally living there.

ynotdu

If three Arab nations had not invaded the State of Israel in the six day war,Israel would be a much smaller country, guess those who think Jewish people should have no homeland would like that!

I am an Irish born catholic(non practising)

Study the history before condemning Israels right to exist.

ex Israeli pm menachaun Begin was a wanted man on posters in palestine.
guess who wanted him? England!

The oppressed become the oppressors anybody whoever cheered the death of an English soldier in Ireland should remember that.

Israel will exist as long as it suits the west!

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Probably same place as the palestines are now.

I say Miami would be more likely though....

Sand

Im surprised - you guys are assuming that if Hamas wins there will be a significant population of survivors.

Hagar

I love the way the oppressor always assumes that oppressed will treat them the same if they could. Fear of retribution must be a terrible thing.

Just because the Palestinians have been treated as vermin who can say that Hamas are not above treating the Jews as equals?

anonymous_joe

Hagar wrote: »

I love the way the oppressor always assumes that oppressed will treat them the same if they could. Fear of retribution must be a terrible thing.

Just because the Palestinians have been treated as vermin who can say that Hamas are not above treating the Jews as equals?

The whole 'drive them into the sea' ethos is a clue.

I'd assume if Hamas won, the Holocaust II would ensue. Only it wouldn't, because Israel would nuke the fcuk out of Palestine if they were losing.

Sand

I love the way the oppressor always assumes that oppressed will treat them the same if they could. Fear of retribution must be a terrible thing.

Just because the Palestinians have been treated as vermin who can say that Hamas are not above treating the Jews as equals?

Well:

A) the Israeli Jewish population has good reason to never allow themselves to become oppressed again.

Hamas are a terrorist organisation, carrying out completely indiscriminate attacks on civillian targets. They breed hatred of Jewish people to levels unheard of since the 1930s.

C) Speaking of the 1930s, many people, including Jews themselves, assumed the fears of a Nazi Germany were overstated - he was just playing for the crowd. It couldnt get that bad. It did though.

So its not so unreasonable to assume theyre wont be too many Jewish survivors of a Hamas victory. Oh I wouldnt assume Hamas would treat Israeli Jews much the same as Israel treats Palestinians. Id assume they would treat them much worse. Mass murder on an industrial scale as opposed to stealing their property and dumping them in refugee camps.

What reason do you have, apart from naive hope itself, that Hamas wouldnt massacre the Jewish population of Israel given that they already unleash every means to hand to kill any and every Israeli Jew they can?

Hagar

Sand wrote: »

C) Speaking of the 1930s...

Where did the Palestinians live then and were they "terrorising" the Jews before they were thrown out of the homes and lands ?

Sand

I like your style Hagar. Try to ignore your point has been shown to be totally naive. Instead sieze on 4 words in the entire post, not even a full sentence and try make some killer point with that.

Except its still a terrible point. To the historymobile!

There was actually a consistent and continual series of violence between the Arabs and Jewish population. 1921, 1929 and 1936-39 are just the highlights of when the violence went beyond routine intimidation and minor attacks and ramped up into pogroms and out and out blood on the streets - on all sides. I would argue that Palestinian Arabs being the majority tended to rely on amateur hour mobs descending on Jewish communities or holy sites for murder/beatings/descration and the Jewish population tending to be smaller tended to go for paramilitary/terrorist groups. Which was more moral? I'll leave that to someone who cares.

If you want to note just how ****ing stupid the whole "We were here first!!!!" argument is look at the 1929 Hebron Massacre. 67 innocent people murdered by a mob, the property of an entire historical community siezed and they were driven into exile as refugees. They were the oppressed, right Hagar? After the 1967 war, they recovered their property in Hebron from those who had stolen it. Are they still the oppressed, now restored? Or are they the evil oppressors now? Cos Im curious. This whole evil oppressor/virtuous oppressed view of the world must be fascinating given the convolutions required to keep it consistent.

So yeah, it was a real era of enlightenment prior to the establishment of Israel. Why oh why would Jewish Israelis even dream they would be mistreated under Hamas? Why wouldnt they want to go back to that golden age when Jew and Muslim lived together in peace and harmony?

'On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sheriff from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him.'[21]

Oh....right.

TL;DR - The Palestinians lived in Transjordan/British Mandate of Palestine. Yes, they did "terrorise" their Jewish neighbours. Yes, Jewish plans for a return to their ancestral home undoubtedly created conflict with those currently living in that home. No, it was not a utopia where every man was free and equal regardless of race, creed or colour. There was no golden age. Stop pretending.

meditraitor

Hamsey wrote: »

Is the Hamas policy to drive the Jews in Palestine into the sea? If Hamas wins the next Gaza-Israel war who will give the Jews refuge?

Or are Hamas going to allow Jews full citizenship in a united Palestine?

Hamas will never defeat Isreal so this question is moot although I suspect the reason for starting this thread was to use hypothesis to demonise an already tortured people.

Rubbish post

Hagar

Maybe I am a bit naive. Quite probably you know 20 times more than I do about the Palestinian situation. I'll concede that in an instant if it makes you happy.

I do know the current conflict predates the artificial founding of the current State of Israel by the occupying colonial powers of the time. How much of that conflict was as a result of the colonisation and how much was deep rooted animosity between arabs and jews I don't know. I don't think anyone does.

I know the handing over, by a UK/US agreement, of the country to the jews was a disaster . Guilt over not doing anything about the Holocaust is what the state of Isreal is founded upon. Not that WASP US was ever over fond of the jews anyway. There is a possibility that the oh so holy US wanted the jews out of the US just as much as Hitler wanted them gone from Germany. They just found a cleverer way to get rid of them. "Look we just made you a country called Isreal, why don't you all go there, here's a free ticket."

The founding of a totally jewish state in a mixed arabic /jewish land was a political disaster. The subsequent atrocities visited upon the Plaestinians by their new masters are the price being paid for that disaster. If Isreal wasn't being bolstered by the US who use Isreal as a jump off point for its military in the Middle East they would not last 12 months either economically or politically.

My naive 2c.

anonymous_joe

Hagar wrote: »

Maybe I am a bit naive. Quite probably you know 20 times more than I do about the Palestinian situation. I'll concede that in an instant if it makes you happy.

I do know the current conflict predates the artificial founding of the current State of Israel by the occupying colonial powers of the time. How much of that conflict was as a result of the colonisation and how much was deep rooted animosity between arabs and jews I don't know. I don't think anyone does.

I know the handing over, by a UK/US agreement, of the country to the jews was a disaster . Guilt over not doing anything about the Holocaust is what the state of Isreal is founded upon. Not that WASP US was ever over fond of the jews anyway. There is a possibility that the oh so holy US wanted the jews out of the US just as much as Hitler wanted them gone from Germany. They just found a cleverer way to get rid of them. "Look we just made you a country called Isreal, why don't you all go there, here's a free ticket."

The founding of a totally jewish state in a mixed arabic /jewish land was a political disaster. The subsequent atrocities visited upon the Plaestinians by their new masters are the price being paid for that disaster. If Isreal wasn't being bolstered by the US who use Isreal as a jump off point for its military in the Middle East they would not last 12 months either economically or politically.

My naive 2c.

In fairness the Israelis managed to hold off the Arabs in 46 (or was it 47 or whatever), 67 and the Yom Kippur War.

That in itself is part of the problem - why would you set up a nation in the midst of their enemies? Of course it was going to cause trouble.

Both sides hate each other to a degree, and I'd surmise (sadly) that Hamas would do awful things if they won.

jank

Just to put it out there. Why would one not assume that if Isreal was not held back by the US that they would go on a "cleaning up job" in the west bank and Gaza. There job done!

Mahatma coat

on the topic of Naievity

Israel instigated the 6 day war, both sides were blustering and building up to the offensive, but the first shots were fired by Israel at an Egyptian air base, practicaly wiping out Egyptian air power for the first battles.

course you probably knew that

DTrotter

It won't matter as we will the enter the end times, I welcome my beast overlord.

Black Swan

Hamsey wrote: »

Where will the jews go if Hamas wins?

Er... you mean the Israelis?

Joycey

Sand wrote: »

Well:

A) the Israeli Jewish population has good reason to never allow themselves to become oppressed again.

Well if that logic holds then the Palestinians have good reason to no longer allow themselves to be oppressed -> popular support for an "extremist" organisation -> Hamas.

Hamas are a terrorist organisation, carrying out completely indiscriminate attacks on civillian targets.

As are the Isreali state, except on a larger scale and (perhaps) slightly less indiscriminately.

They breed hatred of Jewish people to levels unheard of since the 1930s.

I dont condone or defend racist/anti-semiticism, however I can understand and identify with the influences which have brought about indefencible hatred, not the hatred itself.

So its not so unreasonable to assume theyre wont be too many Jewish survivors of a Hamas victory.

Hamas cant "win", any more then can Isreal, as both parties' "winning" terms exist at the moment. The original question is patently rediculous, hence my not having looked twice at the thread until now.

Oh I wouldnt assume Hamas would treat Israeli Jews much the same as Israel treats Palestinians. Id assume they would treat them much worse.

You are right, they probably would. Thankfully they will never be in a position to make a reality any of the horrific scenarios which you have outlined. Disagreement with the most reactionary and illegitimate concerns within a movement, especially with the influences which give rise to such sentiment being so apparently born out of tremendous suffering, does not constitute a valid reason to denounce the people who take part in the movement.

The only solution, bar outright genocide of one side or the other (which hopefully will never happen, but if it did it seems more likely that Isreal will be wiping out the Palestinians rather then vice versa), is a two-state solution. A more productive debate would be one which concerned itself with possible ways to make this a reality, rather then absurd, sensationalist hypothetical questions regarding a scenario nobody wants to see realised.

Sand

Well if that logic holds then the Palestinians have good reason to no longer allow themselves to be oppressed -> popular support for an "extremist" organisation -> Hamas.

Yes?

As are the Isreali state, except on a larger scale and (perhaps) slightly less indiscriminately.

Grand?

I dont condone or defend racist/anti-semiticism, however I can understand and identify with the influences which have brought about indefencible hatred, not the hatred itself.

So?

Hamas cant "win", any more then can Isreal, as both parties' "winning" terms exist at the moment. The original question is patently rediculous, hence my not having looked twice at the thread until now.

There was a "Joycey's posts" shaped hole in my life until you relented and consented to make some fairly banal comments. My thanks.

You are right, they probably would. Thankfully they will never be in a position to make a reality any of the horrific scenarios which you have outlined.

So long as the IDF remains capable of defending Israel, yes Hamas can never win. Perhaps this explains why Israel is such a shower of bastards to Hamas and the Palestinians in general.

The Saint

Jesus, what a stupid thread. It's like hypothisizing about what would happen if Antarctic penguins defeated the US in a war. :rolleyes:

Joycey

The Saint wrote: »

Jesus, what a stupid thread. It's like hypothisizing about what would happen if Antarctic penguins defeated the US in a war. :rolleyes:

But as Sand has just pointed out for us, it is only through the vigilence of the US army and their heroic efforts in defending their populace that the penguins are not mercilessly rampaging all over the States right now.

Joycey

Sand wrote: »

Yes?

Then are we in agreement that the Palestinians' efforts towards an end to their opression are legitimate, and any attempts to maintain that opression (by Isreal) are illegitimate?

Grand?

No, not grand, I dont support "terrorism" (whatever that means). Violence needs to be justified, and I dont believe the Isreali state has exhausted their alternatives in preventing violence being done to them through non-violent means. Hence my opposition to Isreali state violence.

So?

So I can understand Hamas' popularity and the Palestinian popular support for a party which wants to wipe Isreal off the map. I dont agree with that desire, but dont believe that the Palestinian people should be persecuted for a desire to hurt their oppressors, a completely understandable and arguably legitimate desire.

There was a "Joycey's posts" shaped hole in my life until you relented and consented to make some fairly banal comments. My thanks.

Apologies for the pretentious tone. Just airing my opinion of the original question.

So long as the IDF remains capable of defending Israel, yes Hamas can never win.

Until both sides agree to negociate and make concessions, neither can "win". So what I take to be your support for Isreal hardline retaliation to Hamas' violence I see as being completely misdirected, unless of course you wish to see more suffering and death on both sides.

Perhaps this explains why Israel is such a shower of bastards to Hamas and the Palestinians in general.

I think this more serves as an attempt at justifying Isreali violence, I dont believe it explains it at any more then at a surface level. And it most definitely doesnt make it OK.

bobbyjoe

Israel have Nukes its not going anywhere unless it takes half the middle east with it.

Sand

Then are we in agreement that the Palestinians' efforts towards an end to their opression are legitimate, and any attempts to maintain that opression (by Isreal) are illegitimate?

No, I just dont see whats extraordinary about your statement on Hamas support. The Palestinians support Hamas because theyre filled with hatred and bitterness and want to murder all Jews they can. This isnt news.

No, not grand, I dont support "terrorism" (whatever that means). Violence needs to be justified, and I dont believe the Isreali state has exhausted their alternatives in preventing violence being done to them through non-violent means. Hence my opposition to Isreali state violence.

I am disinterested in this tangent.

So I can understand Hamas' popularity and the Palestinian popular support for a party which wants to wipe Isreal off the map. I dont agree with that desire, but dont believe that the Palestinian people should be persecuted for a desire to hurt their oppressors, a completely understandable and arguably legitimate desire.

So what? Great, the Palestinians dont have much reason to love the Israelis. The Israelis dont have much reason to love the Palestinians. See below:

'On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sheriff from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him.'

So what I take to be your support for Isreal hardline retaliation to Hamas' violence I see as being completely misdirected, unless of course you wish to see more suffering and death on both sides.

Its a virtuous circle. Well, it is to an objective viewer. But youre not objective.

I think this more serves as an attempt at justifying Isreali violence, I dont believe it explains it at any more then at a surface level. And it most definitely doesnt make it OK.

Hmm, you can "understand" Hamas without supporting it. Surely you ought to be able to do the same for Israeli motivations and reasoning...I mean, you only "understand" Hamas, right?

ynotdu

It is only a matter of of when and how.
depressing reading this thread overall.
as each atrocity got worse by both sides,so too did their political leadership.how far back in history should We go?People of the Jewish faith been cast out in biblical times?

Palestions killing Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics or Golda Mayers targeted response to kill only those who organised Munich?(before She died she regretted what she ordered because of the innocent one killed during that operation,Oh and lets not forget the (almost)bloodless raid on Entebbee,as a purely military operation it was Spectaculor sucess.

Was it idiotic of the Palestinions to elect Hamas when they had the alternative of electing a govt more acceptable to their *enemies*

Was it idiotic of the Israelies to elect a man Who turned the blind eye to the slaughter in an Israeli *protected*camp leaving every woman and child disembowelled?

Sample Questions,thousands could be asked,very few ever get answered.

It is sad to see so many spouting hatred on a site ending in .ie when it comes to what looks like an impossible divide.

800 Years still seems to have left many thinking a *winner* can emerge from this type of conflict.

Jaw jaw not war war.

Joycey

Sand wrote: »

No, I just dont see whats extraordinary about your statement on Hamas support. The Palestinians support Hamas because theyre filled with hatred and bitterness and want to murder all Jews they can. This isnt news.

No, they support them for several reasons, the following are almost definitely not a comprehensive list:
1. Hamas operate a massive propaganda/recruitment campaign
2. Hamas represent a mainstream force who are willing to give voice to the extreme anti-Isreali sentiment in Palestine
3. In times of hardship people tend towards more extreme groups. Hence the move away towards the IRA when things started to get better in the North.
4. I believe most Palestinians want peace rather then the slaughter of Isreali's, perhaps this makes me gullible but if Hamas are democratically elected leaders then no one has any right to usurp them.

I am disinterested in this tangent.

Its extremely relevant. I see support for Hamas as emerging directly from the oppression carried out by the Isreali state. Any action taken in reprisal against ones opressor is argueably legitimate; if you conceed that the Isreali state are the opressors of the Palestinian people then you also conceed that Hamas are justified in responding in like terms to, and attempting to alleviate the opression.

So what? Great, the Palestinians dont have much reason to love the Israelis. The Israelis dont have much reason to love the Palestinians. See below:
'On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sheriff from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him.'

Whats your point? I never said that Hamas didnt commit atrosities, nor that I defend their violent actions against civilians. Even were it the case that Hamas were actually the ones who perpetrated the first attacks which led up to the invasion at the start of the year, I see Isreali retaliation as completely unjustified on two counts:
1. The vastly disproportional level of "retaliation" which took place. Casualties were something like 15-1 the last time I checked (months ago). Even if the motto "an eye for an eye" were an acceptable way to behave the Isrealis far overstepped what might have been legitimate.
2. The more significant point in my view: unless Isreal had demonstrated to the international community that they had exhausted every possible non-violent response to Hamas rocket attacks, and that violent reprisals were the only method of alleviating those attacks, they were not justified in entering Palestinian land and causing civilian deaths.

Its a virtuous circle. Well, it is to an objective viewer. But youre not objective.

A vicious circle?

And nor are you. Being "objective" implies being detatched, disinterested. A responsibility accords to me for an event if that event was preventable by me. To the extent that I could have done something to prevent civilian death to Palestinians by the IDF, I am responsible. To say that I am not would be an abnegation of the responsibility which accords to me by virtue of my relatively powerful position in society (a white middle class male in a Western Democracy). To maintain that one can be "nuetral" or "objective" when one has this power is a fallacy.

Hmm, you can "understand" Hamas without supporting it. Surely you ought to be able to do the same for Israeli motivations and reasoning...I mean, you only "understand" Hamas, right?

Perhaps "understand" was the wrong word. Perhaps to say that from my interpretation of events in Isreal/Palestine, I sympathise with the plight of the Palestinian people, and also with Isreali civilians who are hurt or suffer loss as a result of the conflict. The fact that the violence done to civilian populations is so vastly disproportional results in my sympathising far more with the Palestinians then the Isrealis, your absolutely right.

I sympathise with the civilians on either side, I do not sympathise with either government. Even were I to grant that Isreali hard-line actions were a result of a genuine belief that that was the only reason to protect the people of Isreal, my recognition that such a belief is absolutely ludicrous means that I fail to recognise the legitimacy of those actions.

wes

I always find it interesting that Hamas, is way more evil, due to the things they may do, if they had the ability to do so. Basically, one giant what if, where ones wildest fantasies can run wild, and seeing as its a what if, there is no need to actually back anything up.

Strangely, Israel is never judged on the things it does do. They happily used terrorism and ethnic cleansing to create there state and hate Palestinians for no other reason than a accident of birth, which meant they were born the wrong race.

While its true the Palestinian hate the Israeli's, but if the Israeli's were Ferengi from the planet Ferenginar, they would hate them just the same. So I would say they aren't the same as European Anti-semites, as some would like to suggest.

Sand

:rolleyes:

No, they support them for several reasons,...

Yeah, great. They support them. End of.

I was going to ignore the rest of your "points" ( see the way I took your "extremist" thing...) but **** it, Ive had a few pints and I like a chuckle...

1. Hamas operate a massive propaganda/recruitment campaign

Yeah, its called Pallywood. You are probably a victim of it. Google it.

2. Hamas represent a mainstream force who are willing to give voice to the extreme anti-Isreali sentiment in Palestine

Mainstream....extreme? Like the KKK on the civil rights movment? They are the extreme.

In times of hardship people tend towards more extreme groups. Hence the move away towards the IRA when things started to get better in the North.

LOL OH LOL...Do you follow politics in Northern Ireland at all?

I believe most Palestinians want peace rather then the slaughter of Isreali's, perhaps this makes me gullible but if Hamas are democratically elected leaders then no one has any right to usurp them.

I am sure Israel respects the democratic will of the Palestinian people to support an extemist, mass murdering terrorist organisation. I dont see how any of the IDF's actions are inconsistent with respecting the right of the Palestinians to support and identify with terrrorists.

Its extremely relevant. I see support for Hamas as emerging directly from the oppression carried out by the Isreali state. Any action taken in reprisal against ones opressor is argueably legitimate; if you conceed that the Isreali state are the opressors of the Palestinian people then you also conceed that Hamas are justified in responding in like terms to, and attempting to alleviate the opression.

Thats why its not relevant.

First, youve picked a year zero and decided to ignore all events prior to that. Your year zero is 1948, or maybe 1967. I dont really care.

I quote again, because it doesnt seem to sink in to the psychosis:

'On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sheriff from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him.'

That happened in 19 ****ing 29. Long before the state of Israel or Hamas existed. Who the oppressed and who the oppressor is not ****ing relevant. Back in 1929, the Jews were the oppressed and the Arabs were the oppressor. By your logic, *any* action taken by the oppressed was legitimate....including founding the state of Israel, and casting out the oppressors/Arabs.

Except, oh no wait.. thats not what you meant. And I know its not what you meant, but its what you get when you make stupid generalisations like "Any action taken in reprisal against ones opressor is argueably legitimate; if you conceed that the Isreali state are the opressors of the Palestinian people then you also conceed that Hamas are justified in responding in like terms to, and attempting to alleviate the opression."

Given that the Arabs oppressed the Jews way before the state of Israel even existed in modern times, what does your rather stupid logic have to say about the actions taken *in reprisal* to that oppression?

What it says is that the Palestinians got what was coming to them.

Thats your dumb stupid logic.

Oh you dont like that...Morality doesnt work that way. You cant give some sob story and then say, because I have been wronged I can do whatever the **** I like. The holocaust doesnt give the Jews justification to found Israel. The founding of Israel doesnt give Hamas the right to murder every Jewish person they can. There is no white and black morality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Bloody retarded oppressed/oppressor morality....:rolleyes:

Even were it the case that Hamas were actually the ones who perpetrated the first attacks which led up to the invasion at the start of the year, I see Isreali retaliation as completely unjustified on two counts:

Yeah, lets whip out the history books and figure out who carried out the first attacks to determine blame. Just a question, can we use the Old Testement as a resource?

1. The vastly disproportional level of "retaliation" which took place. Casualties were something like 15-1 the last time I checked (months ago). Even if the motto "an eye for an eye" were an acceptable way to behave the Isrealis far overstepped what might have been legitimate.

Oh...disproportionality...

Okay, how many Palestinians are the Israelis allowed to kill in reprisal for one Israeli death...1? 2? 3? Whats the ratio you consider to be proportional? Whats the blood price? Come on..tell me, whats the proportional exchange ratio?

Proportionality...jesus christ...:rolleyes:

This is what people are reduced to...proportionality...

2. The more significant point in my view: unless Isreal had demonstrated to the international community that they had exhausted every possible non-violent response to Hamas rocket attacks, and that violent reprisals were the only method of alleviating those attacks, they were not justified in entering Palestinian land and causing civilian deaths.

This is just so Orwellian....seriously, why do you bother with the pretence of thinking about principles. Surely the shorthand for you is Israeli=Oppressor=Bad and Hamas=Oppressed=Good. Lets not waste time going into any more detail than that for your views.

I mean jesus...:rolleyes:

A vicious circle?

Virtuous circle, vicious circle...a new freedom fighter/terrorist profound insight I am sure.

To the extent that I could have done something to prevent civilian death to Palestinians by the IDF, I am responsible. To say that I am not would be an abnegation of the responsibility which accords to me by virtue of my relatively powerful position in society (a white middle class male in a Western Democracy).

White man's burden....:rolleyes:

And nor are you. Being "objective" implies being detatched, disinterested.

We all think were moderate, objective and so on. But I "understand" Hamas about as much as I "understand" the IDF. You go on later on in your post to qualify your "understanding" of Hamas to actually mean "sympathy" with Hamas. Of course, I already knew that. Plenty of people like you and before you have told me they "understand" some terrorist group. What they really mean is they sympathise with them, but they dare not admit that so kudos to you.

Perhaps "understand" was the wrong word.

I know, thats why I put " " around it.

Hi Wes, have you got round to thanking posts yet?

I always find it interesting that Hamas, is way more evil, due to the things they may do, if they had the ability to do so.

Well, we know that the IDF has the ability to wipe out the Palestinians in a mass genocide. Any yet, they havent done it. Nor do they claim it as a matter of policy to be an objective. So given they dont claim it to be an objective, and havent done it we have to assume they dont want to do it.

On the other hand we have an organisation boasts proudly how its going to wipe out the Jews. An organisation that is so filled with hate that it suicide bombs pizza parlors. Just because it might have Jews in it. Now this organisation hasnt got the power to wipe out the Jews, but to be honest, Im not going to trust them with it either. Between yourself and myself.

Strangely, Israel is never judged on the things it does do. They happily used terrorism and ethnic cleansing to create there state and hate Palestinians for no other reason than a accident of birth, which meant they were born the wrong race.

Hebron 1929: terrorism, ethnic cleansing, hate for no other reason than an accident of birth....all before the existence of Israel. Back in the golden age of the British Mandate of Palestine...

'On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sheriff from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him.'

While its true the Palestinian hate the Israeli's, but if the Israeli's were Ferengi from the planet Ferenginar, they would hate them just the same. So I would say they aren't the same as European Anti-semites, as some would like to suggest.

Really? There was no Israel in 1929 but the Arabs of the time still seemed to share the objectives of Hamas - murder the Jews where ever the could.

ynotdu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC9pc4U40sI

wes

Sand wrote: »

Hi Wes, have you got round to thanking posts yet?

**EDIT**
Odd that your posting in Israel/Palestine thread and defending your side to the hilt. If I remember correctly, you complained about people doing exactly that in several other Israel/Palestine threads. So I am very surprised to see you doing exactly that in this one.
**END EDIT**

Sand wrote: »

Well, we know that the IDF has the ability to wipe out the Palestinians in a mass genocide. Any yet, they havent done it. Nor do they claim it as a matter of policy to be an objective. So given they dont claim it to be an objective, and havent done it we have to assume they dont want to do it.

So the IDF haven't tried to wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth. How kind of them. The Taliban didn't wipe out every ethnic minority in Afghanistan, when they were in power and they were well capable of doing so as well. So using your logic, they must be lovely guys, as they didn't engage in genocide, even when they could.

Of course, if Israel tried to wipe them out they would use US support right off the bat and they may even have to stop Israel. So lets not pretend Israel hands are completely untied here.

What we do have is massive murderous rampages. Sure they haven't killed all the Palestinians, which apparently excuses there murderous violence for some odd reason.

Also, the Israeli's have made all kinds of threat towards the Palestinians. Hell, the deputy defense Minister even threatened them with a Holocaust at one point. Israel has made plenty of threats concerning there murderous intention towards the Palestinians are presently starving 1.5 million people in a disgusting act of state terror, which is of course excused by Israel's apologists. Strange how Hamas's violence is only ever wrong.

Sand wrote: »

On the other hand we have an organisation boasts proudly how its going to wipe out the Jews. An organisation that is so filled with hate that it suicide bombs pizza parlors. Just because it might have Jews in it. Now this organisation hasnt got the power to wipe out the Jews, but to be honest, Im not going to trust them with it either. Between yourself and myself.

Yet, you trust a pack of racists who are so filled with hate that they starve 1.5 million people in a act of state terrorism (and drop white phosphorus on there heads, but I guess that ok, as they didn't use a nuclear bomb or something)? Go figure, starving 1.5 million people and people will still continue to think your trust worthy. How very odd.

You really have to be kidding me. Hamas are scum, but then so are the Israeli government, who quite frankly shown themselves to be a murderous shower of racists, with plenty of apologists who will excuse there mindless murderous mayhem for some bizarre reason, all the while claiming some obscene moral high ground, when no such high ground exists in this conflict. The lunatics are running the asylum here.

**EDIT**
Also, I just checked my history book and apparently Hamas didn't even exist until 1987, and didn't gain any power until pretty recently. Which came after decades of Israeli murderous violence against the Palestinians.

So back in the late 1800's, when Zionist decided they need to kick out Palestinians, was that Hamas's fault?!?
**END EDIT**

Sand wrote: »

Hebron 1929: terrorism, ethnic cleansing, hate for no other reason than an accident of birth....all before the existence of Israel. Back in the golden age of the British Mandate of Palestine...

Ha, ha, ha Sand. You know damn well that Zionists intended to drive the Palestinians out of there homes back as early as the late 1800's. So please explain to me, are the Palestinian suppose to roll over and die for a group of invaders?

Ever heard of the Iron Wall? Its something that Zionists came up with in the 1920's, where basically they would use violence to sort out all there problems. Avi Shalaims book "The Iron Wall", will give you a lot more detail.

Sand wrote: »

Really? There was no Israel in 1929 but the Arabs of the time still seemed to share the objectives of Hamas - murder the Jews where ever the could.

You see, Zionism existed. Zionism, is what caused the conflict. A racist ideology, which wanted to created a Jewish state in Palestine, and involved ethnically cleansing the Palestinians. Oddly, the indigenous Palestinian, were against this and defended themselves, which apparently make them evil or something for some reason.

Here a wonderful quote from a article by Benny Morris (a hard core Zionists btw) in the Guardian:

From the Guardian.co.uk:
A new exodus for the Middle East?

---

As early as 1895, Theodor Herzl, the prophet and founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary in anticipation of the establishment of the Jewish state: "We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country ... The removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

---

So, lets no pretend that the Zionists were some peace loving hippies. They were colonial aggressor's pure and simple. To pretend otherwise is absurd nonsense.

Why you do pretend Zionism didn't exist at this point in time? It is well known what Zionists intended to do to the Palestinians and they achieved there racists aim in 1948, but back in 1929, they were very much engaged in the colonial Zionist project at this point. So again, the Palestinians are apparently expected to roll over and die to make way for Zionist invaders?

ynotdu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCwnWO4DQGg

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCwnWO4DQGg

I recently read his book on the conflict and mostly agree with him. The suggestions he make to ending the conflict, should be heeded by all sides and the Geneva Initiative that he supports is very much a model for a fair solution for all involved.

ynotdu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCo8gQLcDvY

ynotdu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlJm8Rfi7F4

meditraitor

I was watching TV last night and a question that went into room 101 (that boyzone guy keating)was

If you were a biscut what biscut would you be?

Much more valid question than the one posed by the OP

Sand

Wes, quick question:

How were Zionist objectives in the late 1800s and early 20th century different from Palestinian objectives today?

wes

Sand wrote: »

Wes, quick question:

How were Zionist objectives in the late 1800s and early 20th century different from Palestinian objectives today?

You think that what the Zionists have been doing since the late 1800's has stopped? Its still ongoing. They haven't quite let go of the whole "Greater Israel" thing just yet.

Having said that, Hamas are a fractured mirror image of Zionism. The only difference is that Hamas only exist, because of Zionism (they are basically the Nation of Islam to Israel's KKK for example, both have similar goals) and that they aren't foreign colonists, but rather the indigenous population. Regardless, they are no better than one another, which is something I have said above.

Sand

Having said that, Hamas are a fractured mirror image of Zionism. The only difference is that Hamas only exist, because of Zionism (they are basically the Nation of Islam to Israel's KKK for example, both have similar goals) and that they aren't foreign colonists, but rather the indigenous population. Regardless, they are no better than one another, which is something I have said above.

So why do you support Hamas Zionism over Israeli Zionism given they are no better than each other?

wes

Sand wrote: »

So why do you support Hamas Zionism over Israeli Zionism given they are no better than each other?

I don't support either and I have in fact condemned Hamas numerous times.

I, also echoed my support for the Geneva Initiative in this thread. So to be frank, in light of that, I find your question to be rather odd. Are you purposefully ignoring posts or something?!?

Again, as I stated before the problem starts with Zionism and not Hamas. Hamas only came into existence in 1987 and exist very much due to Israel. They are a reaction to what Zionists have done to the Palestinians. They are a sympton of the problem and not the actual problem.

It was Zionism that caused this bloody conflict, and they are still trying to achieve there dream of a "Greater Israel" to this day. This isn't something that stopped in 1948, it is ongoing. It was only a matter time before the people they were oppressing would start to hate them. What else do you expect, when they take people homes from them and treat them like sub humans? Do you think this kind of crap will engender feelings of brotherhood or something? The Palestinian are reacted the exact same way as any other Humans would. They are not uniquely evil sub-humans as Zionists would like the world to believe, just Human like the rest of us.

Sand

I don't support either and I have in fact condemned Hamas numerous times.

Support might be the wrong word. "Understand" or sympathise might be better. Im just curious.

Theres a high degree of "what do you expect would happen?!?!?" in peoples posts when it comes the Palestinian reaction to losing the wars of 1948 and 1967 which led to the current situation. Admirable realpolitick. Theres talk about oppression and oppressors, about reclaiming old homelands and yet these just seem to be smokescreens.

The cyclical nature of oppression is highlighted, but ignored despite people establishing morality based on sob stories. Theres no appreciation of "What do you expect would happen?!?!?!" when it comes to the several disastrous rejections of compromise by the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours and the preference for war in 1948, and the showboating in 1967. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians talk about reclaiming homelands from people already living there, but one is seen as a imperialist evil and the other as righting some ancient wrong.

And then Im told that the people espousing the above are objective and moderate and dont support either side...

Very confusing.

Again, as I stated before the problem starts with Zionism and not Hamas. Hamas only came into existence in 1987 and exist very much due to Israel. They are a reaction to what Zionists have done to the Palestinians. They are a sympton of the problem and not the actual problem.

Yes, yes. And Zionism, the mission to reclaim the Israelis homeland, was founded in reaction to? The loss of that homeland and being cast into refugee status in the diaspora.

You cant just pick a year zero and go...right, this is the original wrong. They ****ing started it!

It was Zionism that caused this bloody conflict, and they are still trying to achieve there dream of a "Greater Israel" to this day. This isn't something that stopped in 1948, it is ongoing. It was only a matter time before the people they were oppressing would start to hate them. What else do you expect, when they take people homes from them and treat them like sub humans? Do you think this kind of crap will engender feelings of brotherhood or something? The Palestinian are reacted the exact same way as any other Humans would. They are not uniquely evil sub-humans as Zionists would like the world to believe, just Human like the rest of us.

Thats a great paragraph. Change a few names and you could have a "Well the Arabs massacred the peaceful Jewish immigrants, what did they expect would happen? That theyd lie down and take it? They reacted the same as any humans would. They are not uniquely evil sub-humans as Palestinians would like the world to believe, just Human like the rest of us"

But you already know that.

You know the evil IDF? Where did they come from? Who or what organisation fought the 1948 war for Israel? What organisation did the Israelis found in reaction to the Arab massacres of Jewish people and the failure of the British to protect them?

Youre admirably cynical about the formation of Hamas being a reaction to the IDF. Just take that cyncism and apply it more evenly.

Mike...

<edit> some fool messing with my account <edit>

wes

Sand wrote: »

Support might be the wrong word. "Understand" or sympathise might be better. Im just curious.

Nothing wrong with understanding why people do what they do.

Sand wrote: »

Theres a high degree of "what do you expect would happen?!?!?" in peoples posts when it comes the Palestinian reaction to losing the wars of 1948 and 1967 which led to the current situation. Admirable realpolitick. Theres talk about oppression and oppressors, about reclaiming old homelands and yet these just seem to be smokescreens.

What smoke screen? You have one group crying about people hating them, after they decided to pick a fight with them. If you go around punching people, you will piss them off. Its common sense. It doesn't make that hatred right in anyway regardless.

Sand wrote: »

The cyclical nature of oppression is highlighted, but ignored despite people establishing morality based on sob stories. Theres no appreciation of "What do you expect would happen?!?!?!" when it comes to the several disastrous rejections of compromise by the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours and the preference for war in 1948, and the showboating in 1967. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians talk about reclaiming homelands from people already living there, but one is seen as a imperialist evil and the other as righting some ancient wrong.

**EDIT**
I fail to see how 55% of there country being given away to foreign colonists is a "compromise". Seems like capitualation/appeasement of an invader. Regardless, as we have seen with Zionist colonies in Occupied Palestine and the pre-planned ethnic cleansing, nothing short of a Greater Israel (with as few non-Jews as possible present) is enough for Zionists.
**END EDIT**

Both see themselves in the same light. In fact Zionists and there various apologists make the same argument, including yourself.

Still, its fairly simple, who's narrative is factually correct? The Zionist one is easily disprovable. The Palestinian one of people coming from Europe to take over is pretty easy to verify.

Sand wrote: »

And then Im told that the people espousing the above are objective and moderate and dont support either side...

Very confusing.

Well, considering some of your own comments on this topic in the past, I would think your not position to judge anyone.

Sand wrote: »

Yes, yes. And Zionism, the mission to reclaim the Israelis homeland, was founded in reaction to? The loss of that homeland and being cast into refugee status in the diaspora.

You mean something that may or may not have happened 2000 years ago?!? A quasi religious myth, that has quite a few holes in it. Like for instance, the lack of the Roman's doing it to anyone else, the lack of the basic infrastructure to remove so many people? Your talking about that? Also, add to the fact that Berber Jews are from North Africa and Khazar Jews are from some part of Russia, and were never from the Middle East and were descendants of converts. Again, the Zionist narrative was created in the 19th century to justify what Zionists wanted to do the Palestinians.

We know that Zionists drove Palestinian out of there homes, it is a indisputable fact.

Just, because there are 2 narrative doesn't make them both equally valid.

Sand wrote: »

You cant just pick a year zero and go...right, this is the original wrong. They ****ing started it!

Yeah, I can very easily do so. As one groups narrative is basically nonsense used to justify colonialism.

Sand wrote: »

Thats a great paragraph. Change a few names and you could have a "Well the Arabs massacred the peaceful Jewish immigrants, what did they expect would happen? That theyd lie down and take it? They reacted the same as any humans would. They are not uniquely evil sub-humans as Palestinians would like the world to believe, just Human like the rest of us"

But you already know that.

Once again you ignore one simple fact. Zionist colonists weren't peaceful and had every intention of taking the land by force.

Of course, this is something you know very well, but choose to ignore, as it invalidates your counter argument.

Sand wrote: »

You know the evil IDF? Where did they come from? Who or what organisation fought the 1948 war for Israel? What organisation did the Israelis found in reaction to the Arab massacres of Jewish people and the failure of the British to protect them?

Again, Zionists arrived in Palestine with the intention to take it over. This was aggression and not self defense. Again, you ignore facts that prove you to be wrong.

Sand wrote: »

Youre admirably cynical about the formation of Hamas being a reaction to the IDF. Just take that cyncism and apply it more evenly.

Sand, the only way for me to do what you ask, is if I ignore the facts. You have consistently ignored the fact that Zionists were aggressors, who wanted to take over someone else's country, based on some nationalist myth invented in the 19th century. The IDF was formed from several terrorists groups, who wanted to take over Palestine and intended to drive out the indigenous population. They were not formed to to defend themselves, but rather to take away something that wasn't theres.

I reject the Zionist narrative as being largely false and being expressly being created to justify colonialism. You may disagree with my conclusion. However, due to my conclusion, I am actually being equally cynical.

You have yet to address, the basic point that Zionist were aggressors, who's ideology was invented in the 19th century in imitation of other European nationalist myths.

The 2 narratives presented are simply not equally valid and the Zionists one is very easily undermined, due to it relying on ancient events that may or may not have happened.

The Palestinian narrative, is based on stuff that happened in the last 100 years and is far easier to verify. We, also already know they are the indigenous population, and as such are no different than any other indigenous group who were invaded and this makes the situation a classic colonial one.

Now the Zionist narrative exists to confuse things and make it out to be something else and its something which you are trying to do, but I have actually made a effort to look at both sides narratives and the Zionist one is largely nonsense. So, I simply disagree with you, due to what I know about both side's narratives.

Joycey

wes wrote: »

The Palestinian narrative, is based on stuff that happened in the last 100 years and is far easier to verify. We, also already know they are the indigenous population, and as such are no different than any other indigenous group who were invaded and this makes the situation a classic colonial one.

No, building a gigantic wall around someone's living space, preventing them from getting to work without an extremely difficult to obtain access card, disallowing access to food, water and medical care, and the abolishion of services such as education (or at least not allowing access) and rubbish collection, is an act of violence, just as much as is shooting rockets. One doesnt need to look far back into history to find sufficient justification for Palestinian violence.

If you are a teacher in a school and this big massive 6th year is constantly harrassing a 1st year, taking his lunch money, not allowing him into the yard every day, making him walk a way home which is twice as long etc etc, as well as hammering the sh1te out of him if he reacts in any way to the harrasment, do you really need to know why it is that the older kid is acting the way he is to punish him for it? Or to recognise, at least, that he is the one in the wrong, even if you find the 1st year actively trying to do sneaky sh1t to him behind his back?

Recognising wrong which has been done in the last decade sidesteps what is a very long and complicated history, while it is necessary for the history to come into play in negotiation between Isreal and Palestine (how could it not?), from the perspective of the international community, or at least a party distanced to some degree from the violence, it is very easy to see who is the perpetrator of the worst actions, and if you take away the horrific living conditions which cause people to turn to violence in an attempt to alleviate them, then you have solved the larger part of the problem.

Sand

We know that Zionists drove Palestinian out of there homes, it is a indisputable fact.

And we know that the Arabs launched several pogroms against the Jews long before any Arabs were forced from their homes. Another indisputable fact.

Do you not *get* it?

Oppression is cyclical. The Arabs oppressed the Jews. Now the Jews oppress the Arabs. Attempting to justify actions based on the "Oh well, they're the oppressed so they're desperate!" line of thought is foolish.

You talk the talk when it comes to Palestinian terrorism ( What did the Israelis expect would happen after oppressing the Palestinians?), but thats just a smokescreen. You dont really believe in that logic or you would equally think..."Well, the Arabs launched pogroms against the Jews for decades and rejected a reasonable UN peace plan - What did they expect would happen?"

Once again you ignore one simple fact. Zionist colonists weren't peaceful and had every intention of taking the land by force.

The land was only taken by force after decades of pogroms and the rejection of a UN peace plan by the Arabs...What did they expect would happen exactly?

Prior to that Zionist "colonists" bought their houses lawfully, or built new ones lawfully. If you believe this justifies pogroms, fair enough. Were you in South Belfast during the last week?

And out of curiosity, how did the Arabs come to own Palestine? They cant have done so violently surely? Maybe they collected enough tokens from packets of crisps?

All territory is taken by force. All nations have been formed by violence, and maintained through violence. You just arent cynical enough. Hamas claims to be fighting to reclaim their homelands. Israel claims to be fighting to reclaim their homelands. For you, one is some shining beacon of justice and the other some unique evil in the history of the world.

You have consistently ignored the fact that Zionists were aggressors,

'On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sheriff from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him.'

Wes, can you point out the aggressor to me here? Was it the child? Or the Jewish woman?

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Wes, can you point out the aggressor to me here? Was it the child? Or the Jewish woman?

I was under the impression the problem was the current violence and current attempts at colonisation. Why are you dragging this out? Are we playing the atrocity version of Top Trumps?

Sand

I was under the impression the problem was the current violence and current attempts at colonisation. Why are you dragging this out? Are we playing the atrocity version of Top Trumps?

Oh, so now we *dont* want to play the history game...