Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

But that source doesn't deal with Fatah charter nor with Fatah ability to get themselves shot out of gaza. my argument was that simply giving Fatah free reign would lead to the same result as happened in gaza, mainly, Fatah overthrown by Hamas.

Except another explanation to this would be that israel keep sending funds to hamas as to not totally collapse the economics of gaza, despite those funds mostly going to funding offensive actions against israel.

Yeah, that's a good point. I just read up on the Fatah charter; it appears it was almost changed in the 90's. It's too bad that it wasn't.

As for the second, I will try to look at it that way in the future. It is hard sometimes when people are dieing not to look at one's fellow humanity in a worse light in even distantly related things because of it, and I fear perhaps I fell victim to that and I apologize if in the process of my argument if I argued as the devil's advocate and not even intentionally where it may sometimes be beneficial as a constructive tool.

Except that Fatah has confirmed, multiple goddamn times, that they recognize Israel's right to exist and that the charter is "inoperative and no longer valid." Seriously, anyone bringing up the Fatah charter is intentionally trying to muddy the debate, it's about as relevant as bringing up the fact that the founding Zionists were absolutely horrible terrorists that indiscriminately murdered civilians around the world and were far worse than Hamas is now. Because it's irrelevant history. It might provide some historical context for why things are the way they are, but thats all.

Yasser Arafat, the late PLO Chairman and leader of Fatah, wrote in a Sep. 9, 1993 letter to former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin prior to the signing of the 1993 Oslo Declaration of Principles:

    "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

    The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

    The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

    The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators

    In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant."

It's good to remember that burningpet basically works directly from the propaganda playbook, and his sole goal in this thread as near I could tell is to defend Israel's actions at all costs, not to educate or clarify. I'm sure he's continuing his tirades about how terrible I am to talk about things I've heard that haven't yet been proven, but he's shown time and again a willingness to repeatedly state things that have been proven false, spin things as hard as possible, and double down on anything that's obviously not true. Basically everything he claims should be taken with a grain of salt - it might contain a seed of truth, but the conclusions he draws are drawn to serve a purpose, not because they reflect reality.

Everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt as well, admittedly. I'm no expert on the conflict, and I often pull from sources that might not yet have the full story.

Yeah, I can't argue with that. My opinion as quoted was wrong. I will leave it upon the internet in shame.
Thanks martinuzz.

I'm not sure how his quote made your opinion wrong, but... Just a reminder that Chomsky is pretty much hated by Israel, and Israel's propaganda department has dedicated a large amount of resources to undermining him and attempting to destroy his credibility, because he's a Jew who is public about his opposition to many of Israel's worst policies. He has, in fact, written several books about the conflict, and they are worth reading.

[Wolfhunter107]

English translation:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/hamas-al-qassam-offices-are-next-to.html#.U9JLvPmSy2X

There are many journalists that have been hanging around Al Shifa hospital. Very few have mentioned that the terrorist wing of Hamas is even present, let alone set up next to the emergency room.

Is it because they are pro-Hamas? Is it Stockholm syndrome? Or is their hate of Israel so deep that anything that supports the IDF's assertions of Hamas war crimes is considered off limits?

Or, rather than those incredibly implausible explanations, perhaps this article was total bollocks and was taken down for that reason

How about no, scott?


http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=6098
This, this is fatah.

Three, non israeli experts talk about this situation in a larger context. sorry, its in hebrew.
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3636739,00.html

You're delusional.

[Dutchling]

What's with the non-Israeli experts talking in Hebrew?

[palsch]

What's with the non-Israeli experts talking in Hebrew?

It's an Israeli site, so I'm assuming they translated the interviews?

Anyway, ten seconds with google translate identifies the experts as Matthew Levitt (twitter), Hussein Ibish (twitter, blog) and Richard Haass (twitter, Daily Show interview). Wouldn't want to risk detailed analysis from the translation (although it isn't tooooooo bad), but all of them have writings elsewhere people can easily access.

[Zangi]

*Stuff about collective punishment*

Yea... what you really need to make this work is to reward people/groups for reporting punishable acts.

*Actually, is there anyone in the local area that Israel hasn't managed to piss off? I've forgotten at this point.

Israelis tend to have that annoying trait of being jewish. so yeah, there is no one israel hasn't managed to piss off in the local area, primarily thanks to that quality.

It is pretty dishonest to argue that this is the only motivation for why most of Israel's neighbors don't like Israel.  It paints its enemies in the worst light, while not addressing any of the valid motivators behind the hate.
It is a 'good' excuse.  Just yell "Discrimination!" and continue being a jackass, because why else are they questioning/hate you?  Because discrimination.

[burningpet]

What's with the non-Israeli experts talking in Hebrew?

I'll try my best to communicate the meat of their arguments:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Dr. Richard haass:

In essence, this local conflict is a manifestation of a larger issue surrounding the middle east, mainly, a political-religious strife like we see in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, baharein to some extent and the palestine territories.

While resolving this conflict is extremely important for maintaining peace for both sides, it will have very little implications on the other arab countries, so the notion that the israeli-palestinian conflict is key to peace in the entire region must be forgotten. this does not mean its not extremely important for israel to try and reach an agreement and resolve this conflict politically.

Q: Is it even possible?

A: I am skeptic. the palestines are not mature enough for an agreement. on one hand, you got Fatah who might want to resolve it politically but can't and on the other hand, you got Hamas that can resolve it politically but don't want to.
In the israeli side, the situation is not entirely different. there are governments that were voted to make peace and there are governments that were formed to make war. this one is neither, because it was elected for internal affairs resolutions (He is entirely correct) so it doesn't have a consensus whether to go to war or not.

About the operation itself:
I don't understand israel exit strategy. israel has 3 options: Try and completely eradicate hamas through military operations, which is highly unlikely. Try and reach an agreement with it, which might be possible, but it will be long time before that ever happen or Try and strengthen Fatah by pushing hamas to the sidelines and reach a resolution through assuring the palestines that supporting fatah will be better for them through economic means, i can't see any of this currently happening. (This is where i believe he is mistaken. the blockade is a prime example of an attempt to show palestines that lives under fatah were and still are far better, the economic situation in the west bank is far better. but as we seen in the intifada 2 strong economy didn't make them peaceful)

--------------------------------------------

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Dr, Matthew levitt:

Hamas is at its all time financial and political low and this current round of violence is the result.

It got distanced itself from iran, egypt and syria. can't pay salaries. his recent attempts to join a union with fatah was a way for it to keep being a major player, yet don't worry about paying salaries that would have been paid by fatah. this is why it grew stronger before taking over the strip. anytime it provided the citizens with something, it got gratitude back and when it couldn't, the people didn't see it as its fault.

Hamas must show the palestinian people that after he dragged them through hell, it must show that they achieved something. another reason is that they aspire signaling iran they are willing to actively oppose israel and iran is a very goasl and results oriented state.

Currently, i can't see a way to eradicate hamas military, but through diplomacy. although, the current consensus is that around 80% of the gazan people do not want to see hamas in the strip anymore, so its possible to go that way (Through overthrowing it from below)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Dr. Hussein ibish:
This current conflict is against israel, but is directed at egypt. the context to understanding this conflict is by looking at hamas desperate situation. egypt closed down the egyptian border, their access to funds got limited and removing their smuggling tunnels. they hoped to rescue themselves from this situation by joining fatah, strengthening themselves in the west bank and neglect gaza which is a burden on them. israel wasn't happy from these actions but couldn't do much.

By searching for the three abducted boys, israel has inflicted severe and almost fatal blow to hamas west bank operation branches. hamas, seeing it, turned desperate and decided to escalate assuming that israel would not want to completely eradicate them. israel has 3 options: Keep hamas in the strip while he is bleeding. Conquer gaza and police its streets by itself or Eradicate hamas and hope Al qaeda, the islamic jihad or ISIS wont take over. hamas safely assumed israel would always pick option number 1.

hamas has raised quite a few eyebrows, including in places that once supported it, by rejecting three truce offers right now, with the formula of Peace for Peace.

Egypt is the only entity that can "give" anything to hamas. israel wont lift the blockade, turkey can only give them angry rethoric and qatar can only give them cheques that saudi arabia and usa prevent from being cashed in. so only egypt can give them anything and thats why, aside from releasing their prisoners, which israel wont do and they know it, all their requests are from egypt.

This war is against israel, but its target is egypt.

Yet, its important to understand that egypt see it not politically, but as a question of national security. since overthrowing morsi, they came to sinai and witenessed hamas cooperating with countless terror organizations such as Answar beit al maqdas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_Bait_al-Maqdis). so now the key is finding out what egypt can give that hamas is willing to accept that will allow egypt to live peacefully with.

Gaza only option to continue its existence is to join most of the west bank and part of east jerusalem. the west bank can sustain itself, but gaza can't (I think he is wrong, the settlers in gush katif managed to make 15% of israel agricultural products from within a far smaller cultivating area. the technology and some of the physical abilities, were given to the palestines by american jewish funds that bought it from the settlers.)

I am not familiar with any israeli that thinks a status quo is a good thing aside from few religious people. there is no other answer to resolve this situation but through peace.

Except that Fatah has confirmed, multiple goddamn times, that they recognize Israel's right to exist and that the charter is "inoperative and no longer valid." Seriously, anyone bringing up the Fatah charter is intentionally trying to muddy the debate, it's about as relevant...

First, why keep it then? second, why is their mufti, along with many other of their more religious branches keep making the same statements repeatedly?

Now, let me explain something that might clear things up. the subtle difference is that fatah never, under any circumstances, nor arafat, nor anyone else bar perhaps jordan and egypt (not even sure they had), recognized israel as a jewish state. what fatah recognized, is that there's a state called israel, and that they think, should allow more than 5 million palestines and its descendants return to it, making palestines the majority of the state population, and defacto annexing it as a palestinian state. this is a subtle (i think its not, its a very clear cut distinction between the two recognitions) difference that in the heart of the recent negotiations. obviously, israel was set and recognized by the UN as a jewish state, and that's the way it should remain.

It is pretty dishonest to argue that this is the only motivation for why most of Israel's neighbors don't like Israel.  It paints its enemies in the worst light, while not addressing any of the valid motivators behind the hate.
It is a 'good' excuse.  Just yell "Discrimination!" and continue being a jackass, because why else are they questioning/hate you?  Because discrimination.

Remind me again, please, what did israel do that made all the arabs countries invade it in 1948? thank you.

In other news, israel just agreed to a 12 hour humanitarian truce. during which israel will not shoot nor shell, but will continue to unearth the offensive tunnels. this truce go into effect from tomorrow at 07:00 israel/gaza time.

[GavJ]

making palestines the majority of the state population, and defacto annexing it as a palestinian state.

Sure, but if and only if:
1) All of them actually go there...
2) You use a stupid (for this situation in particular) pure majority government structure, versus any of the wide variety of other systems designed specifically to protect conflicting minority interests. For example, America's bicameral system -- two houses, must agree, one doe majority of states and one does majority of population. This could require bipartisanism and not simple majority trouncing in a Israel/Palestinian state by the same mechanisms.

[Mr. Strange]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Mr. Strange]

...did you just Godwin Bomb this thread?

Godwin Nuke. When you need to be absolutely sure.

[10ebbor10]

making palestines the majority of the state population, and defacto annexing it as a palestinian state.

Sure, but if and only if:
1) All of them actually go there...
2) You use a stupid (for this situation in particular) pure majority government structure, versus any of the wide variety of other systems designed specifically to protect conflicting minority interests. For example, America's bicameral system -- two houses, must agree, one doe majority of states and one does majority of population. This could require bipartisanism and not simple majority trouncing in a Israel/Palestinian state by the same mechanisms.

I wouldn't use the US as an example of a functioning democratic system. I mean, it's FPTP system and bipartisan system ensure that minority parties are igored.

[burningpet]

...did you just Godwin Bomb this thread?

EDIT: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28494081

Probably been linked. Israel rejected a seven-day peace treaty that the US drew up.

Israel AND hamas. and yes, israel will not accept a truce up until it can make sure it destroyed every last one of the offensive tunnels. estimations is that we are currently at around half.

[Leafsnail]

Now, let me explain something that might clear things up. the subtle difference is that fatah never, under any circumstances, nor arafat, nor anyone else bar perhaps jordan and egypt (not even sure they had), recognized israel as a jewish state. what fatah recognized, is that there's a state called israel, and that they think, should allow more than 5 million palestines and its descendants return to it, making palestines the majority of the state population, and defacto annexing it as a palestinian state. this is a subtle (i think its not, its a very clear cut distinction between the two recognitions) difference that in the heart of the recent negotiations. obviously, israel was set and recognized by the UN as a jewish state, and that's the way it should remain.

Conceding that would force them to accept an apartheid regime (where they are not recognized fully as Israelis) for as long as there is no independent state of Palestine.  I can see why they do not.

Remind me again, please, what did israel do that made all the arabs countries invade it in 1948? thank you.

Being a newly formed state that threatened to push Palestinian-Arabs off their native lands?  I don't think it's easy to frame that conflict in terms of right and wrong but saying it was purely due to anti-semitism is ridiculous.

In other news, israel just agreed to a 12 hour humanitarian truce. during which israel will not shoot nor shell, but will continue to unearth the offensive tunnels. this truce go into effect from tomorrow at 07:00 israel/gaza time.

Have you got an article on this?  All I've heard is that Israel rejected a similar week-long offer from the US.

http://www.jspacenews.com/breaking-israel-rejected-ceasefire-israeli-media-reporting/
(this is the most absurdly pro-Israel source I could find, still agrees they rejected it)

Also I'd like to ask in what possible way is "We'll keep breaking your stuff/killing people and keep our guys in your territory, you will stop fighting back" a truce?  Especially since we all now know that the process of destroying a tunnel involves levelling all the buildings around it and killing a bunch of nearby civilians.  I'm really struggling to see why anyone, yet alone an extremist group like Hamas, would accept a deal like that.

[burningpet]

...did you just Godwin Bomb this thread?

Godwin Nuke. When you need to be absolutely sure.

I'd say this is more characteristic of modern Japanese immigration policies that maintain there shouldn't be certain religious immigration, than nazi ones, that, you know tried to systematically kill us all.

[Leafsnail]

Firstly other countries being racist doesn't mean you can be too, secondly there was no mass displacement of Muslims from Japan during living memory so it's not comparable

[burningpet]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/25/us-mideast-gaza-pause-idUSKBN0FU27420140725

Good news. Hamas also accepted the suggested 12 hours humanitarian truce. (Said so on an affiliated channel. can't find source for that)