Why shouldn't the Palestinians be punished for their democratic choice?

[dogbone]

I am puzzled by the constant complaints from various Palestinian government members, ordinary Palestinians and Palestinian and other Arab commenatators that it is somehow wrong to punish the Palestinians for their "democratic choices". Or complaints that the West does not respect their "democratically elected government".

Surely it is obvious that Palestinians can only be punished *because* the government they chose was fairly and democratically elected.

For example if Hamas got to be in government by terrorising the opposition and vote rigging against the will of the people then it would of course be wrong to punish the Palestinians for this. But if the Palestinians have overwhelmingly chosen to elect a government whose policy is unambiguous in it's desire to eradicate the neighboring state that it really should be attempting to make peace with then it seems obvious that it is the Palestinian people who must be held accountable for the choice that they have made.

Further, the current Palestinian hardships could be ended in a moment by Hamas renouncing terrorism as a means to their end and also to recognise the state of Israel. It was clear that Hamas were not going to do this when the were elected but they could still go down this path at any time. They may of course be thrown out of government next elections if they renounce terror and also their desire to eradicate Israel. But a strong government must sometimes make tough decisions for the good of it's people.

Or am I missing something here?

[skunk]

But if the Palestinians have overwhelmingly chosen to elect a government whose policy is unambiguous in it's desire to eradicate the neighboring state that it really should be attempting to make peace with then it seems obvious that it is the Palestinian people who must be held accountable for the choice that they have made.

Further, the current Palestinian hardships could be ended in a moment by Hamas renouncing terrorism as a means to their end and also to recognise the state of Israel. It was clear that Hamas were not going to do this when the were elected but they could still go down this path at any time. They may of course be thrown out of government next elections if they renounce terror and also their desire to eradicate Israel. But a strong government must sometimes make tough decisions for the good of it's people.

Or am I missing something here?In a word, yes. Why should the Palestinians recognise the occupiers of their ancestral lands? Why should they renounce resistance by any means available? Would you?

[zimv20]

what you're missing is that al queda feels perfectly justified in killing US civilians for the same reason.

[dogbone]

In a word, yes. Why should the Palestinians recognise the occupiers of their ancestral lands? Why should they renounce resistance by any means available? Would you?

You have entirely missed the thread topic, (and instead chosen to argue a furphy) which was why shouldn't the Palestinians be punished for a democratic choice if the consequences of that choice were clear from the outset?

[miloblithe]

Do you have any interest whatsoever in why they elected who they elected?

[skunk]

You have entirely missed the thread topic, (and instead chosen to argue a furphy) which was why shouldn't the Palestinians be punished for a democratic choice if the consequences of that choice were clear from the outset?The Palestinians should be listened to, and the suffering and desperation which has led them to choose to stand with Hamas rather than kneel with Fatah should indicate that the world has let them down, and needs to redress the injustice.

[miloblithe]

Provision of social welfare
The organization is particularly popular among Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, though it also has a following in the West Bank, and to a lesser extent in other Middle Eastern countries. Since its formation in 1987, Hamas has conducted numerous social, political, and military actions. Its popularity stems in part from its welfare and social services to Palestinians in the occupied territories, including school and hospital construction. The group devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and education programs, and funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. According to the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz "approximately 90 percent of the organization's work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities". These programs are viewed variously as part of a sincere social development agenda, an integrated para-state policy, as propaganda and recruitment exercises, or both. In any case, Hamas has significantly increased literacy in areas where it is active. Hamas also funds a number of other charitable activities, primarily in the Gaza Strip. These include religious institutions, medical facilities, and social needs of the area's residents. The work of Hamas in these fields supplements that provided by the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

[dogbone]

Am I to understand from the responses so far that it was indeed correct for the Palestinians to reject Abbas' party that was making real progress and instead elect an internationally recognised terrorist organisation to represent their aspirations to self determination?

Do you also think that Hamas' policy of the total eradication of Israel (which they still refuse to relinquish) is a policy that will help the plight of the Palestinians?

[skunk]

Am I to understand from the responses so far that it was indeed correct for the Palestinians to reject Abbas' party that was making real progress and instead elect an internationally recognised terrorist organisation to represent their aspirations to self determination?Abbas' party is corrupt as hell and making no progress at all.

Do you also think that Hamas' policy of the total eradication of Israel (which they still refuse to relinquish) is a policy that will help the plight of the Palestinians?Do you think that the Palestinian people's acceptance of the military occupation of their lands and the appalling conditions under which they live will help them?

[miloblithe]

Am I to understand from the responses so far that it was indeed correct for the Palestinians to reject Abbas' party that was making real progress and instead elect an internationally recognised terrorist organisation to represent their aspirations to self determination?

Do you also think that Hamas' policy of the total eradication of Israel (which they still refuse to relinquish) is a policy that will help the plight of the Palestinians?

I think that the Palestinian people have a better idea of what they want than you or I do.

And just for fun, what "international" organizations recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization?

[dogbone]

I think that the Palestinian people have a better idea of what they want than you or I do.


I've no doubt that they do. I'm not suggesting for a moment that they didn't wilfully and knowingly elect a terrorist organisation to lead them. The consequences of their actions were clear before the election. What I'm saying is why are they complaining about the responses to their decision to elect Hamas when they knew what they were getting.

[pseudobrit]

I've no doubt that they do. I'm not suggesting for a moment that they didn't wilfully and knowingly elect a terrorist organisation to lead them. The consequences of their actions were clear before the election. What I'm saying is why are they complaining about the responses to their decision to elect Hamas when they knew what they were getting.

Wasn't it more about what they knew they weren't getting with Fatah?

I'd like to know where you get the perspective that the average Palestinian Hamas voter views Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

[skunk]

I've no doubt that they do. I'm not suggesting for a moment that they didn't wilfully and knowingly elect a terrorist organisation to lead them. The consequences of their actions were clear before the election. What I'm saying is why are they complaining about the responses to their decision to elect Hamas when they knew what they were getting.Our countries connive in the definition of Hamas as a terrorist organisation just as they connive in asserting the legitimacy of Israeli occupation. Your electorate - and ours - knowingly chose warmongering, lying and corrupt administrations to continue to lead us: should we be punished?

[XNine]

Why shouldn't the United States be punished for electing who we (kinda-sorta, not really) elected?

Oh, wait... we are.

[takao]

well ok

the EU and US both rate the Hamas as a terroristic organisation

so wouldn't it be hypocritical to fund such organizations with western taxpayer money

i mean just around the comic incident they were shooting in the air with the AKs and cryed "those pesky western" and then they turn around and hold up the hand for money from the US and EU ? ... it doesn't work that way

sure it's a pity that a lot of innocent are getting problems but i think cutting the money was not only justified by hamas actions/attitude but also a way to get more movement into peace process ... palestinians and isrialians need to get their stuff together .. paying both sides money is hardly leading anywhere (that's why i'm the first to demand cutting of any money support for isreal as well ... yes US ... i'm looking at you)

[skunk]

well ok

the EU and US both rate the Hamas as a terroristic organisation

so wouldn't it be hypocritical to fund such organizations with western taxpayer moneyWhat's hypocritical is branding Hamas as a terrorist organization when they have been created in response to Israel's state-sponsored terrorism in Palestine.

[dogbone]

Abbas' party is corrupt as hell and making no progress at all.

Do you think that the Palestinian people acceptance of the military occupation of their lands and the appalling conditions under which they live will help them?

There are many things that don't help the Palestinians. One of which is voting in a government who has vowed to destroy the people they need to make peace with. It's not rocket science. Apparently the first concrete thing their government did was to set up yet another 'security force' headed by one of their top terrorists. How will that improve the lot of the Palestinians?

Wasn't it more about what they knew they weren't getting with Fatah?

I'd like to know where you get the perspective that the average Palestinian Hamas voter views Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

Sure Fatah weren't the best but they were better for the long term plight of the Palestinians than the current government. Regarding your second point you will find that 60-72% of Palestinians support suicide bombing of Israeli civillians. You can probably find these results on the web if you are interested enough. It's not secret information. But again we are drifting from the thread topic. Which is that the Palestinians are whinging about the hardships that are now being caused by the intransigent and belligerently uncompromising hostility of their elected government. It was obvious that once elected Hamas would have to make some modifications to their terrorist stance if they wanted to deal with the International community who are trying to help the Palestinians. Instead they have hardened their policies (if that's at all possible). They are being true to form. In other words the Palestinians knew what they were voting for. So my point is why whinge about the consequences of their actions.

Our countries connive in the definition of Hamas as a terrorist organisation...

There's no 'conniving' or semantics involved here. Hamas have been responsible for blowing up more civillians than any other Palestinian group. Let's be clear that the women and children that they have blown up an maimed are not bystanders, they are the intended targets. The result is not to eliminate Palestinian suffering or hardship. It is not to fight the occupiers, it's sole purpose is to terrorise. Nothing more. Unless you agree with Hamas that blowing up a bunch of children outside a disco is some form of heroic martydom.

Why shouldn't the United States be punished for electing who we (kinda-sorta, not really) elected?

Oh, wait... we are.

You misunderstand the thread topic. I'm not saying that the Palestinians should be punished for electing Hamas. I'm saying that the electing of Hamas will inevitably have the consequences that it is now having. The European Union are simply not allowed to fund what is by their own definition a terrrorist organisation. They weren't able to fund Hamas before they were elected and nothing has changed after they were elected. The consequences of electing Hamas were plain before the election. So how can the Palestinians legitimately complain about their choice. They were free to choose Hamas. They should be adults about accepting the consequences of their actions.

[takao]

What's hypocritical is branding Hamas as a terrorist organization when they have been created in response to Israel's state-sponsored terrorism in Palestine.

so ? 2 evil don't make it good .. it's not math after all ;)

i'm not a fan of the israeli politics either ... personally i'm for "no money for both untill they solv their issues ... sadly the US (who is the biggest sponsor on the israel side by far ... afaik it's around 3 billions per year ...) wont stop that money flow anytime soon

edit: i as a european am much more content with the 350 millions flowing to Romania or Bulgaria in 2007 and beyond ... i guess they will be much more thankful for the money ... compared to the middle east conflict stale money sink the money will be actually bringing in results

[Queso]

Imposing logical arguments on the Middle-East never works. Not only is there so much bigotry on all sides, but everybody who reports on it is tainted by the propaganda of one side or the other, so you never get the full truth on the situation.

Not saying you shouldn't try and make sense, more that you'll drive yourself mad attempting it.

[Qoxiivi]

Ideally, and in a very general and simplistic sense, citizens of a democracy should, in principle, bear some responsibility (although I do not believe this includes suffering punishment) for the actions of their elected leaders. However, and this is especially true in the case of the Palestinians, one thing they are not responsible for is the historical context and prevailing circumstances around which their decision is framed. Regardless of how ‘unwise’ they may seem in the cold, objective light day, there are always reasons for people’s decisions (especially collective ones) and it is these that should be very seriously looked at and taken into consideration before ‘blame’ is, if at all, to be apportioned.

The thing is, humans are essentially emotional creatures, and after decades of brutal, murderous and humiliating oppression, are likely to react in increasingly desperate and irrational ways. If anyone is to ‘blame’ for the election of Hamas it’s those responsible for the continued repression of the Palestinian people that’s led them to feel that, given the events thus far, there is no interest in a fair diplomatic solution. Treat enough people like **** for a long enough period of time and there will be consequences which, no matter how unjustifiable, can certainly not be described as unpredictable or inexplicable. Suicide bombers and the election of Hamas are a good example of such consequences – as are the atrocities of 9/11. And with regards to Russia’s policy in Chechnya, the Beslan school massacre is another. Examples are not hard to find.

Make no mistake about this, both the Palestinian people and the Israeli suicide bomber targets are victims here. However, if either party want someone more useful than each other to blame for their plight (and I imagine your average Palestinian realises this more than your average Israeli) they needn’t look much further than current and previous American administrations and their respective interests.

So yes, in a sense, the Palestinian people are to blame for the election of Hamas – just as much as Americans are for their administrations which have murdered far far more innocent people than Hamas ever has. But they’re not to blame for the fact that Hamas exist in the first place. No matter how horrible they are, Hamas (just like the IRA were in Ireland) are there for a reason. A reason based in legitimate grievances that, unless addressed, will lead further self-perpetuation of this sick cycle.

I was going to reply to your post in ‘quote’ form but that would take far too much of my time. In basic terms though, yes, you are missing something. A lot of things in fact. It’s good that you’re interested in the topic though. For more information, try reading the following – you’ll find more veracity and insight in them than in the ‘liberal’ media.

The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East by Robert Fisk
The Fateful Triangle: United States, Israel and the Palestinians by Noam Chomsky

Right, my lunch hour is now over but I may post some more later as and if required.

[j26]

I am puzzled by the constant complaints from various Palestinian government members, ordinary Palestinians and Palestinian and other Arab commenatators that it is somehow wrong to punish the Palestinians for their "democratic choices". Or complaints that the West does not respect their "democratically elected government".

Surely it is obvious that Palestinians can only be punished *because* the government they chose was fairly and democratically elected.

For example if Hamas got to be in government by terrorising the opposition and vote rigging against the will of the people then it would of course be wrong to punish the Palestinians for this. But if the Palestinians have overwhelmingly chosen to elect a government whose policy is unambiguous in it's desire to eradicate the neighboring state that it really should be attempting to make peace with then it seems obvious that it is the Palestinian people who must be held accountable for the choice that they have made.

Further, the current Palestinian hardships could be ended in a moment by Hamas renouncing terrorism as a means to their end and also to recognise the state of Israel. It was clear that Hamas were not going to do this when the were elected but they could still go down this path at any time. They may of course be thrown out of government next elections if they renounce terror and also their desire to eradicate Israel. But a strong government must sometimes make tough decisions for the good of it's people.

Or am I missing something here?

You might be mising the basic logical fallacy in your argument
"Should we punish the Palestinians in their quest for self determination because they didn't do what we tell them?"

Basis of democracy - accept others choices, don't undermine it by threatening them. Democracy and self-determination mean the ability to make your own choice, not just the ability to make choices that the West wants.

[takao]

You might be mising the basic logical fallacy in your argument
"Should we punish the Palestinians in their quest for self determination because they didn't do what we tell them?"

Basis of democracy - accept others choices, don't undermine it by threatening them. Democracy and self-determination mean the ability to make your own choice, not just the ability to make choices that the West wants.

well then the Palestinians have to accept the EU choice not to support them anymore ;)
after all democracy brings responsibility as well...

[j26]

well then the Palestinians have to accept the EU choice not to support them anymore ;)
after all democracy brings responsibility as well...

And so begins the neverending logical circle ;):D

[nbs2]

The problem is that Hamas has provided basic social services that Fatah failed to deliver. How many Americans (or others) vote based on foreign policy. I am hard-pressed to procide sources, but, I think it would be a fair assumption to say that H.W. Bush performed admirably in foriegn policy matters, but let the domestic situation slide - which killed him in '92. Voters vote based on what affects them. Do you punish the Palestinians for only wanting potable water?

There are three very effective ways to change a society - terrorism (ask the Spanish socialists), occupation (ask the former Iron curtain), and economic manipulation (ask Gorbie). Since the west is going to try the third, might it be more effective to still fund NGOs and other organizations that are trying to build the infrastructure (along with the government that should be caring for its citizens)? Perhaps cutting off aid will look different in hindsight as poverty increases and the dominoes fall as they will. Would it hurt the West to gain the leverage that "we continued to support the PA under Hamas and they continued to harm civilians, we will now withdraw aid" would give them, compared to "Palestinians elected the wrong government, no aid for you. come back one year"? I say that the leverage would be beneficial in the longer term, but I'm not omnicient. Just practical.

I agree that the citizens are responsible for their democratic decisions - which is why I can understand the the OBL/AQ party line on Western civilians. But, I also think that it is essential to remember that the voters look inward, not outward.

[mactastic]

The result is not to eliminate Palestinian suffering or hardship. It is not to fight the occupiers, it's sole purpose is to terrorise.
Not true. Hamas has built up enormous good will among the Palestinians with it's charity work. The military wing of Hamas is only one part of the organization.

[dogbone]

You might be mising the basic logical fallacy in your argument
"Should we punish the Palestinians in their quest for self determination because they didn't do what we tell them?"

Basis of democracy - accept others choices, don't undermine it by threatening them. Democracy and self-determination mean the ability to make your own choice, not just the ability to make choices that the West wants.

You fail to see the comical fallacy in your above quote. It seems to escape your notice that other there are other democracies besides the Palestinians'. Yes the Palestinians have democratically elected terrorists and the EU also has democratically elected governments that will not supply aid to terrorists. Go figger.

[pseudobrit]

You fail to see the comical fallacy in your above quote. It seems to escape your notice that other there are other democracies besides the Palestinians'. Yes the Palestinians have democratically elected terrorists and the EU also has democratically elected governments that will not supply aid to terrorists. Go figger.

If only everything in life were so simple as the Middle East.

[dogbone]

If only everything in life were so simple as the Middle East.

Yes there are many interwined complexities, not the least of which is the internecine factional fighting. I feel that real progress can be made in by the Palestininans *only* after they accept some responsibility for the predicament they find themselves in. I understand that the Palestinians have been used as pawns in a larger Arab/Israel conflict, but terrorism will never get them out of the black hole they now find themselves in.

Accepting resonsibility for their actions begins by acknowledging that their electing of terrorists is the cause for their current hardship. And to bear that in mind for their future decisons. The palestinians need real help yet their new government instead builds yet another security force.

[skunk]

Accepting resonsibility for their actions begins by acknowledging that their electing of terrorists is the cause for their current hardship.They elected the people they thought would serve their interests best. Their current hardship is caused by the last 50 years of Israeli occupation and Western connivance.

[dogbone]

They elected the people they thought would serve their interests best.

They were wrong weren't they? Do you think that Hamas' intransigent position on the non recognition and eventual elimination of Israel will serve the Palestinian's best interests?

[pseudobrit]

They were wrong weren't they? Do you think that Hamas' intransigent position on the non recognition and eventual elimination of Israel will serve the Palestinian's best interests?

Maybe it doesn't matter what we think.

[skunk]

They were wrong weren't they? Do you think that Hamas' intransigent position on the non recognition and eventual elimination of Israel will serve the Palestinian's best interests?Possibly.

[dogbone]

Not true. Hamas has built up enormous good will among the Palestinians with it's charity work. The military wing of Hamas is only one part of the organization.



Your answer "Not true" was to my assertion that the purpose of deliberately blowing up civillians in restaurants only has one purpose: to terrorise and none other.

[dogbone]

Possibly.

How?

[skunk]

Because somebody might have to come up with a truly equitable solution.

[dogbone]

Because somebody might have to come up with a truly equitable solution.

que?

[blackfox]

Generally speaking, the only way to placate ethnic and religious animosities is through prosperity and commerce.

So, if the goal was to have peace between Palestine and Israel, and end terrorist actions, you would think that increased funding of Hamas would be in order.

Whether they "deserve" it is irrelevant, if the goals are as stated above.

[dogbone]

Generally speaking, the only way to placate ethnic and religious animosities is through prosperity and commerce.

So, if the goal was to have peace between Palestine and Israel, and end terrorist actions, you would think that increased funding of Hamas would be in order.

Whether they "deserve" it is irrelevant, if the goals are as stated above.

What? increasing the funding to a government whose stated goals are the destruction of their peace partners will bring peace? Shurely shome mishtake.

[blackfox]

What? increasing the funding to a government whose stated goals are the destruction of their peace partners will bring peace? Shurely shome mishtake.
Sorry, I don't take stock of those "stated" goals - who is to say what rhetorical component lies in those statements, and in any case, they are goals amenable to change - especially with regards to my previous post.

[thedude110]

Regarding your second point you will find that 60-72% of Palestinians support suicide bombing of Israeli civillians.


And at the start of the Iraq war, close to 70% of Americans approved of bombing the crap out of Iraqi civilians who had done nothing to them.

Is it really surprising that those who go through this (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4432) on an everyday basis would fancy retalliation, even if it's a gruesome and very personal retalliation?

So how can the Palestinians legitimately complain about their choice. They were free to choose Hamas. They should be adults about accepting the consequences of their actions.

Am I hearing you right? That those who legitimately elect a democratic government shouldn't complain about how that government is received internationally?

To which you'll reply "If they elect terrorists."

Which seems contextual, myopic and overtly reliant on a binary rhetoric.

Speaking of myopic, your insistence on the ideals of Hamas (destruction of Israel) ignores the practical reality of Hamas in the day to day lives of many Palestinians. 90% of Hamas funding is spent on the social welfare of Palestinans. (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/) This should not be mistaken as a defense of the destruction of Israel -- such a rhetoric is self-evidently abhorrent (and you know this because in your rhetoric you repeatedly attempt to reduce Hamas to nothing more than this fact): it intends to claim that Hamas may not emerge principally as "terrorist" in the lives of many Palestinians.

So what are you arguing, really? That Hamas does not act for social justice on behalf of Palestinians? Clearly untrue. That Hamas only acts for social justice for Palestinains through terrorist actions? Clearly untrue.

As far as I can tell, that leaves you with the argument "Hamas may act for the social welfare of the Palestinains, but because Hamas' foreign policy is not suitably diplomatic, its populace shouldn't complain about being shafted."

Which brings us back, full circle, to the prevailing counter-argument:

The problem is that Hamas has provided basic social services that Fatah failed to deliver. How many Americans (or others) vote based on foreign policy. I am hard-pressed to procide sources, but, I think it would be a fair assumption to say that H.W. Bush performed admirably in foriegn policy matters, but let the domestic situation slide - which killed him in '92. Voters vote based on what affects them. Do you punish the Palestinians for only wanting potable water?

[dogbone]

Sorry, I don't take stock of those "stated" goals - who is to say what rhetorical component lies in those statements, and in any case, they are goals amenable to change - especially with regards to my previous post.

Why is "stated" in inverted commas? Now you want to say that Hamas can say anything they like and if what they say is unsuitable to you, you will perceive it however it suits you with the catch all get-out clause of "It's just rhetoric". It's more than rhetoric as Hamas has already said that they will not make any attempt at stopping any militants from any suicide operations. In effect those they allow to operate are acting as a proxy for Hamas. They have not only said this, they have recently acted on it. Hardly "rhetoric".

And at the start of the Iraq war, close to 70% of Americans approved of bombing the crap out of Iraqi civilians who had done nothing to them.

That is not true. The US does not deliberately seek to bomb and maim non combatants. You are equating collateral damage or error to an organisation that will send a brainwashed youth on a mission to seek out a cafe full of women with babies in their prams and attempt to blow them all to bits using bombs especially designed to cause horrific injuries to the survivors. There is no question of collateral damage or accident. This is deliberate. Yet you appear to apologise and excuse it by a false comparison. What does that say about your agenda? You try to excuse the fact (yes fact) that a majority of Palestinians applaude the deliberate blowing up of children outside a disco.


Am I hearing you right? That those who legitimately elect a democratic government shouldn't complain about how that government is received internationally?

Yes you are hearing me correctly. Those who legitimately elect a government who were once operating as terrorists and once elected refuse to drop their terrorist agenda and come into the fold of normally behaving democratic governments in the international community, should not complain how this international community receives them.

Especially as the International community has bent over backwards to give them every opportunity to renounce terrorism as a means to their end. Hamas is holding the Palestinians hostage to their own agenda. Nothing new here, the Palestinians have long been used as pawns in a greater Islamic dream of the eradication of Israel by one way or another.

In fact they are in the mess they are now due to choices that they've been making for the last 50 or so years, beginning with the decision to reject their own state and participate in war. They have rejected every initiative so far and chosen the path of Jihad. Hamas do not appear to be interested in the lessons of history. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be comical.

What did the Palestinians expect from Hamas? All the international community is asking is that in order to deal with them Hamas needs to play by the same rules as the governments they hope to deal with. Namely recognise the very country that they are supposed to make peace with, and renounce violence and work with the International community to resolve their problems.

[FFTT]

I'm not supporting violence for any reason, but just for the sake of argument, imagine if our noble leaders had decided that Israel has a right to exist and then gave them West Virginia.

Then they tell the locals, sorry you have to move or else.

How do you think them good 'ole boys would react?

[dogbone]

I'm not supporting violence for any reason, but just for the sake of argument, imagine if our noble leaders had decided that Israel has a right to exist and then gave them West Virginia.

Then they tell the locals, sorry you have to move or else.

How do you think them good 'ole boys would react?

Not this old chestnut. Israel and the Palestinians really need to deal in the present. If you want to go back into history and the who was there first and who conquored whom, how far back do you want to go?

Do you wish to start with the Neanderthals? Or would you be happy to start around the 3rd Millenium BC with the Canaanites or perhaps the Hebrew invasions of the 14Century BC, or do you want to move right along to the Muslim invasions of 638AD? The Ottoman Turks? The Marmalukes?

No this is really a dead end argument.

[Dont Hurt Me]

58 yrs ago, under that argument it could be applied all over the planet. We have to deal with today and today Hamas is in charge. Hamas doesnt recognize Israel, here we go again. Hamas, PLO whats the difference. Its just a name but its the same old story.

[skunk]

The US does not deliberately seek to bomb and maim non combatants. You are equating collateral damage or error to an organisation that will send a brainwashed youth on a mission to seek out a cafe full of women with babies in their prams and attempt to blow them all to bits using bombs especially designed to cause horrific injuries to the survivors. There is no question of collateral damage or accident. This is deliberate. Yet you appear to apologise and excuse it by a false comparison. What does that say about your agenda? You try to excuse the fact (yes fact) that a majority of Palestinians applaude the deliberate blowing up of children outside a disco.Right. The US is totally different. When your airforce sends a brainwashed youth on a mission to drop 1000-pound bombs on a target within a residential area, that's cool. If people are killed by collateral damage, they're not nearly as dead as if they'd been targeted. I'm glad you pointed that out.

In fact they are in the mess they are now due to choices that they've been making for the last 50 or so years, beginning with the decision to reject their own state and participate in war. They have rejected every initiative so far and chosen the path of Jihad. Hamas do not appear to be interested in the lessons of history. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be comical.There's nothing remotely comical about it. They were promised their own state back in 1948, and it didn't happen. Truman jumped the gun in recognizing Israel without making any provision for the Palestinians. The entire US UN delegation almost resigned in protest.
What did the Palestinians expect from Hamas? All the international community is asking is that in order to deal with them Hamas needs to play by the same rules as the governments they hope to deal with. Namely recognise the very country that they are supposed to make peace with, and renounce violence and work with the International community to resolve their problems.Right again. They need to recognise the very country which is currently sitting on their land and penning the refugees into an inhospitable strip of massively overpopulated desert. Sounds fair to me.

[blackfox]

Dogbone, I understand that you are anti-terrorism - I think most people are. If you are interested in real solutions, however, you have to deal realistically.

You can't change the world (for the better) by moral fiat.

You can't put a gun to the heads of developing countries and say "behave like you experienced the Enlightenment" or " behave as if you were 95% literate" or "behave as if you are not riven with religious and ethnic disputes" or "behave as though you don't have an unemployment rate of 40+%". It just doesn't work that way.

The trouble with moral arguments, however correct, is that they often reflect that the historical and social arguments are just not there.

[thedude110]

That is not true. The US does not deliberately seek to bomb and maim non combatants. You are equating collateral damage or error to an organisation that will send a brainwashed youth on a mission to seek out a cafe full of women with babies in their prams and attempt to blow them all to bits using bombs especially designed to cause horrific injuries to the survivors. There is no question of collateral damage or accident. This is deliberate. Yet you appear to apologise and excuse it by a false comparison. What does that say about your agenda? You try to excuse the fact (yes fact) that a majority of Palestinians applaude the deliberate blowing up of children outside a disco.

*picks up red herring, quixotically*

Do you mean to argue that you believe if the Palestinians had precision guided weapons that could control "collateral damage", they would still prefer to use nail bombs to blow up "women with babies"? I hear a subtext of "all Palestinians are morally deprived" that I'm certain you don't intend.

Remarkable that you would say I "appear to excuse" suicide bombings for "my own agenda" (which, implicitly, I suppose, is the destruction of "women and babies" everywhere by nail bombs). I guess your last three sentences are ad hom., but they at best reflect a shallow reading of my post (and at worst represent a public ploy to undermine my point without dealing with it).

Perhaps you believe that it's impossible for one to understand -- or at least see the reasons behind -- the motivations of those they find morally reprehensible? If so, then there's a gulf between us.

*puts down red herring*

What did the Palestinians expect from Hamas?

Several good answers to that question have been given in this thread.

[mactastic]

Your answer "Not true" was to my assertion that the purpose of deliberately blowing up civillians in restaurants only has one purpose: to terrorise and none other.
My mistake. With so many "they"s and "it"s in there I got confused.

[mactastic]

That is not true. The US does not deliberately seek to bomb and maim non combatants. You are equating collateral damage or error to an organisation that will send a brainwashed youth on a mission to seek out a cafe full of women with babies in their prams and attempt to blow them all to bits using bombs especially designed to cause horrific injuries to the survivors. There is no question of collateral damage or accident. This is deliberate. Yet you appear to apologise and excuse it by a false comparison. What does that say about your agenda? You try to excuse the fact (yes fact) that a majority of Palestinians applaude the deliberate blowing up of children outside a disco.
Pray tell, what is the difference between blowing up a bus or a restuarant with Israeli soldiers in it that also happens to contain women and childred, and using Willy Pete on a neighborhood full of Iraqi insurgents that also happens to contain women and children?

Plus, I'd like to see your polling evidence that 'a majority of Palestinians applaud the deliberate blowing up of children' please. You say that as if it were a de facto truth, but the skeptic in me would like to see you back up your assertions with proof. Can you do it?

[skunk]

You could hear a pin drop.

[dogbone]

*picks up red herring, quixotically*
Do you mean to argue that you believe if the Palestinians had precision guided weapons that could control "collateral damage", they would still prefer to use nail bombs to blow up "women with babies"?


You haven't thought that one through very well have you? A human being with a bomb strapped to them is the *most* precision guided weapon that there is. And how this weapon has been used is plain to see. That a substantial majority of Palestinians support the use of this weapon is also plain. (Do the google search so you can select for yourself from the many available polls the one that you can accept as valid.)


There's nothing remotely comical about it. They were promised their own state back in 1948, and it didn't happen.

You need to read more Shakespeare. The plight of the Palestinians *is* a tragicomedy that is no better expressed than in your ignorant statement above. They were not promised their own State in 1948 they were *offered* their own state. As were the Jews. The Jews accepted this, the Palestinians rejected having their own state and chose the path of war. The current refugee situation has stemmed from yet two more wars waged by the Arabs on the Jews, both of which they lost. The comedy now is that the Palestinians rejected their reformist government, led by Abbas, who only came to power on the death of Arafat, and have now democratically elected an even more hardline government than Arafat ever was, hell bent on more war. Really if you don't laugh you have to cry.

Pray tell, what is the difference between blowing up a bus or a restuarant with Israeli soldiers in it that also happens to contain women and childred...

Plus, I'd like to see your polling evidence that 'a majority of Palestinians applaud the deliberate blowing up of children' please...

First point: The Pizza Shops and restaurants were targetting women and children not soldiers. Hamas and Fatah have said as much themselves. There were no soldiers standing in the queue outside the disco when 20 youngsters were blown to bits. Second point: As I've mentioned there have been many polls about the Palestinian attitude to suicide bombing civillians, among other things, and I invite you to select the poll (from the many available with a quick google search) whose results you can accept as not being tainted by partisan considerations.

[pseudobrit]

Do the google search so you can select for yourself from the many available polls the one that you can accept as valid... I invite you to select the poll (from the many available with a quick google search) whose results you can accept as not being tainted by partisan considerations.

Why won't you provide the proof of your assertions?

[thedude110]

You haven't thought that one through very well have you? A human being with a bomb strapped to them is the *most* precision guided weapon that there is. And how this weapon has been used is plain to see. That a substantial majority of Palestinians support the use of this weapon is also plain. (Do the google search so you can select for yourself from the many available polls the one that you can accept as valid.)


Semantics. Unless you seriously think a suicide bomber can target an Israeli military site as easily as a cruise missile can.

Frustrated that you still haven't addressed the fundamental response to your argument (brought up by several in this thread): that Palestinians elected Hamas because Hamas has fundamentally worked for the social welfare of Palestinians (i.e. that the average Palestinian may not principally see Hamas as a terrorist organization nor have their vote swayed on the issue of terrorism alone).

[dogbone]

Semantics. Unless you seriously think a suicide bomber can target an Israeli military site as easily as a cruise missile can.



"Semantics" is your catch-all answer to anything. That you find it impossible to call a spade a spade, is exacatagically the same reasons why the Palestinians are getting themselves deeper into the poo. It has been said that when the Palestinians love their own children more than they hate the Israelis, there will be peace in the ME. I don't necessarily subscribe to that sweeping statement but there does appear to be a kernel of truth there.

Whatever social programs Hamas has instituted there is no getting away from their fundamental raison d'étre which is spelled out in their charter. There charter also spells out why they build schools, it's not for the intellectual prosperity of its people (especially women) but to further it's own agenda of religious indoctrination. However in spite of all this Hamas is unequivicolly stands for the destruction of Israel and they have pointedly re-emphasised this very fact by refusing to renounce this goal. Hamas is being true to form.

I don't see why you seem to think that democratically elected European governments should be compelled to work with people who seek the destruction of their neighbors?

[thedude110]

"Semantics" is your catch-all answer to anything.

I believe you appropriated the phrase in question to your own rhetoric (as in "the meanings of words as they are used to achieve an effect;" (http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=semantics)). Why the insistence on smearing my character?

Whatever social programs Hamas has instituted there is no getting away from their fundamental raison d'étre which is spelled out in their charter.

And here the bone of contention -- according to whom? I think that you make a reasonable claim, but I also believe that I'm in a privileged context. If I were Palestinian, I'm not sure that argument would persuade me not to vote for Hamas.

I don't see why you seem to think that democratically elected European governments should be compelled to work with people who seek the destruction of their neighbors?

I don't recall making this argument.

[dogbone]

And here the bone of contention -- according to whom?

I didn't think this was a "bone of contention" The Hamas Charter is er...according to Hamas.

Check out the version translated by the Yale Law School (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm)

Article 18 may give you some insight as to why Hamas funds schools.

Article Eighteen:

Woman in the home of the fighting family, whether she is a mother or a sister, plays the most important role in looking after the family, rearing the children and embuing them with moral values and thoughts derived from Islam. She has to teach them to perform the religious duties in preparation for the role of fighting awaiting them. That is why it is necessary to pay great attention to schools and the curriculum followed in educating Moslem girls, so that they would grow up to be good mothers, aware of their role in the battle of liberation.

But then this is just "semantics" isn't it. heh heh.

[mactastic]

First point: The Pizza Shops and restaurants were targetting women and children not soldiers. Hamas and Fatah have said as much themselves. There were no soldiers standing in the queue outside the disco when 20 youngsters were blown to bits. Second point: As I've mentioned there have been many polls about the Palestinian attitude to suicide bombing civillians, among other things, and I invite you to select the poll (from the many available with a quick google search) whose results you can accept as not being tainted by partisan considerations.
Since you are relatively new around here, I'll cut you some slack and assume you don't know the informal agreement that exists here to source your claims if you want to be taken seriously. In that spirit, I'll give you another chance to produce some proof (and not from World Nut Daily type sources) that:
A) Hamas and Fatah have said that they are targeting women and children, and not soldiers; and
B) That Palestinians "overwhelmingly support" the killing of innocent civilians.

Telling me to go Google your proof for you doesn't fly around here. Otherwise I'd just turn around and argue that Palestinians overwhelmingly support the peace process and tell you to Google it as proof. Please try again.

[dogbone]

Since you are relatively new around here, I'll cut you some slack and assume you don't know the informal agreement that exists here to source your claims if you want to be taken seriously. In that spirit, I'll give you another chance to produce some proof (and not from World Nut Daily type sources) that:
A) Hamas and Fatah have said that they are targeting women and children, and not soldiers; and
B) That Palestinians "overwhelmingly support" the killing of innocent civilians.

Telling me to go Google your proof for you doesn't fly around here. Otherwise I'd just turn around and argue that Palestinians overwhelmingly support the peace process and tell you to Google it as proof. Please try again.

How risibly patronising. You can check out the relevent polls yourself from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) here (http://www.pcpsr.org/about/about.html) You will find that one of the polls indicate a sharp drop from 77% to 29% in support for suicide attacks on civillians though 'not more than' 40% support the arrest of the purpetrators.

This is a telling statistic from an August 2002 PSR Poll...


August 2002

53% oppose, internal Palestinian efforts aiming at ending bombing attacks against civilians inside Israel

52% support, and 46% oppose, bombing attacks against civilians inside Israel, but more that 90% support armed attacks against soldiers and settlers


Here the Palestinians themselves clearly make a distinction between attacks on civillians and soldiers and settlers. So when they talk about deliberate attacks on civillians, that's precisely what they mean.

You must be bitterly disappointed that these statistics are not from the World Nut Daily but from the most respected Palestinian polling research group.

[zimv20]

How risibly patronising.
he's not being patronising, only explaining how we operate.

[mactastic]

How risibly patronising. You can check out the relevent polls yourself from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) here (http://www.pcpsr.org/about/about.html) You will find that one of the polls indicate a sharp drop from 77% to 29% in support for suicide attacks on civillians though 'not more than' 40% support the arrest of the purpetrators.

This is a telling statistic from an August 2002 PSR Poll...



Here the Palestinians themselves clearly make a distinction between attacks on civillians and soldiers and settlers. So when they talk about deliberate attacks on civillians, that's precisely what they mean.
Thank you, that's much better.

You must be bitterly disappointed that these statistics are not from the World Nut Daily but from the most respected Palestinian polling research group.Um... now who's being patronizing?

[Qoxiivi]

Hmmm, I had some pertinent stuff to say about this topic (well, I thought so anyway) but then I went out after work and got pissed. And now it's too late and I need to go to sleep so I can actually function properly tomorrow. Probably best to leave it then. I still think my old post (on the first page, and I'm not sure if anyone read it) covered most of what I had to say off but I was going to add in religion and some other factors too.

Don't know why I'm saying all this - I'll just go to sleep now. Interesting to read everyone's thoughts on the matter though - both poorly and well informed opinions alike (both of which camps I'm sure my comments fall into in some regard).

[dogbone]

Um... now who's being patronizing?

Hang on, I'm mocking your suggestion about the "World Nut Daily". The reason I didn't post any statistics that are easily and widely obtained is that it leaves open the possibilty of me picking the wrong source and therefore the thread becomes an "attack the messenger" thread. I was trying to avoid that sort of messiness.

I was hoping that while dancing around the topic a bit we could keep to the point of the thread which was that the Palestinians are complaining about the hardship caused by their government's stance, when the consequences of electing Hamas were clear from the start. They were not declared a terrorist entity by the EU only after their election. What's even more funny is that Hamas themselves are complaining how they are received. No one gave them any indication before the election that they would be treated any differently after they were elected. Indeed they were pointedly told that now they are an elected government they will need to behave differently to come into the fold of normal government diplomatic protocals.

It is pointless to try to claim that the Palestinians only elected Hamas because Fatah were corrupt, most if not all Arabic governments are corrupt. The only difference is that Hamas is possibly corrupt in a different way than Fatah. At least Fatah had Abbas, who was the first genuine hope for a negotiated peace for a generation. Now he has been emasculated by Hamas although Israel is going back on its word to not deal with Abbas because of the Hamas power of veto.

The problem facing Hamas is that their whole point is one of fighting for the obliteration of Israel. That in a nutshell is what makes Hamas, Hamas. To drop this constitutional goal would be tantamount to disbanding Hamas. Obliteration of Israel and Hamas are two intertwined concepts. They really had no business running for office if they had no intention of adapting to political realities. Terrorist organisations *can* doff their extreme agendas and emerge from the wilderness and into mainstream politics. The precedent has been set by the IRA.

Therefore it would have been incumbent upon them to announce a shift in their tactics and policy during the pre election campaigning. But they didn't, they were warned by Europe of the consequences of maintaining their stand once elected and both Hamas and the voters thought they'd give it a shot anyway and hope the EU would cave in. They gambled and lost. No cause for complaint here.

Since the election the EU has twisted and turned and contorted themselves into every possible shape in a hope of some reasonableness from Hamas so they could resume funding. Even after the deadline they have been given another 3 months. Yet Hamas still show no signs at all that they want to act as a responsible goverment entity.

Once again the Palestinians find themselves with rulers who are prepared to gamble with the long term security of the people they represent, in order to further their own extreme Islamist agenda. It's been a pattern of behaviour for the last 50 years and has seen the Palestinians lives and livlihoods ruined. Yet here we go again. The Palestinians find themselves at the Last Chance Saloon. Olmert has unequivicolly announced that he will unilaterally declare Isreal's borders. In the face of this disasterous move the Palestinians find themselves with the most hardline of intractable governments.

Hamas mistakenly thought that the EU would recognise them once they were in government no matter what. They were wrong. Hamas believes that if they maintain their terrorist agenda and allow Israel to set its borders unilaterally that the EU will not recognise it. The Palestinians are deluded if they think that betting the ranch on this feeble hope is going to help them. The future of the Palestinians is in the hands of Hamas, and they are being led down a very dark path. 50 years of war and what have the Palestinians learned. Nothing. They elected terrorists at the most crucial time in their history. If Israel ends up setting it borders unilaterally, it will ultimately be because they thought the path to prosperity lay in electing extreme fundamental terrorists to govern them.

[mactastic]

Hang on, I'm mocking your suggestion about the "World Nut Daily".
Believe me, we've had people try to use them as a reputable, unbiased source.

[dogbone]

Believe me, we've had people try to use them as a reputable, unbiased source.

OK fair enough. PS I've added to my above post.

[dogbone]

So to reduce my above lengthy post to a simple conclusion...

Hamas, by insisting that the EU must deal with them on their terms, (these terms being that Hamas will not drop their agenda of Israel obliteration nor will they even dein to recognise Israel) are in effect holding the Palestinian people hostage. They are using the suffering of the Palestinian people as a lever to force the EU to deal with a terrorist organisation. This is no different to normal terrorist hostage taking. Except in this case the terrorists are using their own people as hostages.

Hamas are in effect saying to the EU, "deal with us as we are, with our terrorist agenda, or else we will allow the Palestinian population to bear the brunt of our intransigence"

[blackfox]

So to reduce my above lengthy post to a simple conclusion...

Hamas, by insisting that the EU must deal with them on their terms, (these terms being that Hamas will not drop their agenda of Israel obliteration nor will they even dein to recognise Israel) are in effect holding the Palestinian people hostage. They are using the suffering of the Palestinian people as a lever to force the EU to deal with a terrorist organisation. This is no different to normal terrorist hostage taking. Except in this case the terrorists are using their own people as hostages.

Hamas are in effect saying to the EU, "deal with us as we are, with our terrorist agenda, or else we will allow the Palestinian population to bear the brunt of our intransigence"
Well, you have got to look at the West's culpability here too.

The US (or other western powers) have had no problem dealing with onerous regimes when in suited their interests - The examples are numerous, especially in the Cold War era. The West's moral stance on Hamas could very well show the lack of strategic importance of the issue - or a motive not primarily concerned with Palestinian statehood or even Peace in general.

From the Palestinian POV, some have got to look at these Western attitudes as being both hypocritical and indicative of their true motives. Coupled with a historical perception of being screwed over by the West, it seems rational that the Hamas govt would hold fast. They have little reason to trust the west enough to amend their actions accordingly, and they have seen that the West has often overlooked similar or more onerous behavior by other govts, thereby casting doubts on the Wests motives and their moral high ground.

Like it oe not, the west also has the power to punish or aid the Palestinians, and in some ways should also be held accountable.

I am not in support of Hamas's stated support of terrorists, but I am in support to all solutions that would actually acheive progress - and has history has shown, that involves moral compromise by everybody - think of the concept of "proportionalism", which the Church has used on some vexing moral issues. Simply stated, it is about doing or accepting a certain amount of evil, in order to do a proportionately greater amount of good. It can also be stated as beating a retreat in order to preserve what is most important. It tempers principle with common sense.