What do you think?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mixed reaction.
From an international viewpoint, it's probably a huge setback. But I think the chances of them setting up a more stable government, bent on creating a safe and secure infrastructure and maybe declaring statehood in a couple years is much more likely now that Fatah is out of power.
The leader of Hamas said he's willing to start productive talks with Israel so long as they go somewhere and aren't just empty talk. Israel refuses to deal with him. He refuses to recognize Israel.
I think everyone just needs to sit back a bit over the next few months to see what happens. I hope Palestine got what it wanted though, in terms of a leadership that actually works to better their society instead of a leadership merely bent on staying in power.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
The Palestinians Unfortunately, it seems that no Palestinian party really gives a damn about the Palestinian people. If any ever-existing Palestinian government would care about the approximately two million people living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they would have long ago stopped using the money given to them (by other Arab countries / private donators / western aid organizations) for weapons and the training of terrorist bombers, but invested it in building a new country and showing that the Palestinian people is willing to compromise on territory in favor of peace and prosperity. It's not that difficult once you think about it, really. Once the Palestinians will want peace and will agree that they can't have all the territories they want, a party whose goal is peace will be elected.
Israel Israel will, eventually, have to give up on some of the territories, because there is no other alternative for peace -and peace is that the main Israeli parties want. However, due to the new circumstances - meaning a blooddthristy terrorist party at the head of a nation living almost inside Israel - any more withdrawals will be dangerous for the security of the Israelis, because there is no guarantee that this will not give a boost for the Hamas to start terror attacks again.
In general Maybe it's for the good that the Hamas got elected. It shows to the world what danger we are actually facing, now that a violent organization is democratically elected. We mustn't forget that the Hamas is responsible to the death of numerous innocent lives. Babies who didn't even know their own name, entire families who just happened to be all together at the wrong time and at the wrong place.
If Ted Bundy would be elected to be the president of the USA, would anyone say "hey, now that he's president he'll be nicer and bring forth world peace?" I think not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's something of a mischaracterization Beanny. While I agree that the military arm of Hamas has long been a terrorist organization that needs to be stopped, the political front of Hamas has done a lot of good for average Palestinian citizens, and with them in charge of the government (Minus President Abbas of course), we could see a lot of great things happen to average citizens in the form of infrastructure improvements.
Also, most of the money you're talking about didn't go to Hamas, sadly, it went to line the pockets of the administrators themselves. Six of one, half dozen of the other, but there it is.
This presents a rather large problem for Bush though. He has made two contradicting vows. One: To stamp out terrorism everywhere. And Two: To support democracy everywhere.
What does he do when democracy elects terrorists?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Does this result contradict the oft-made assertion that most Palestinians do not support terrorism, and that it is only the extremists who do?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Icarus: I'm sure there will be plenty of spin that it does not. Like Lyrhawn's assertion that the political arm of Hamas does a lot of good.
Pix
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Sort of like the lack of crime in certain dictatorships.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Lyrhawn, I would be glad if you could show me an article which describes the improvement in the form of infrastructure improvements thank to the Hamas, as I've never heard of anything of the sort - and I live here.
The only postive thing the Hamas offers to the Palestinians is PRIDE. Their vote shows, without a shadow of a doubt, that they still haven't realized that Israel won't be going away. They believe that the Hamas will banish Israel and bring honor to the Palestinian people as heroes of the Arab world.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think this is just one more sign of exactly how badly the Bush administration has botched the war on terror.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
And Rabbit has decended into self parody...
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
One question of protocol:
If a suicide bomber with Hamas ties detonates him/her self on Israeli soil, will that now constitute an official act of war?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Pixiest, Which universe do you live in? It clearly isn't the same one I inhabit.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I live in the one where Bush has plenty of faults (tons of them, in fact) but isn't responsible for every evil in the world. You're right. It's a different universe.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Does this result contradict the oft-made assertion that most Palestinians do not support terrorism, and that it is only the extremists who do?
There are plenty of people who would rather support figures who they feel would actively do the wrong thing than figures who would do nothing, or be unable to do anything.
It's a mess. I dare hope that political recognition will make Hamas recognize how much is at stake, now that they can say with some clout that their actions represent the people's will. But that may be foolish optimism.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:What does he do when democracy elects terrorists?
*Brain explodes*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Pixiest, I'm really don't understand your comments at all.
Bush has declared it his mission to fight terrorism. That's his claim not mine. Now another group that Bush has indentified as a terrorist organization has taken power not through violence but via a fair democratic process. If that seems like progress to you, then fair enough. To me, it seems like just one more proof that Bush is loosing the war on terror. This isn't blaiming Bush for every evil in the world. It is simply holding him responsible for the duties he has claimed are his.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
First of all, Hamas isn't just a group that's been identified as a terrorist organization. They are-among other things-a terrorist organization, or else the designation has no meaning and doesn't apply anywhere.
Furthermore, given the popularity of Hamas amongst Palestinians, I think if you'd held a fair democratic election there five or ten years ago, the outcome might not be so different.
To attribute these election results to a failure of Bush's is really just a guess.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:To attribute these election results to a failure of Bush's is really just a guess.
It is a different thing to attribute the election results to Bush's failure, and to say, as I did, that the election results are evidence that Bush's war on terror is failing. The first one implies that Bush's war on terror caused Palestinians to vote for Hamas, the second simply states that Bush's war on terror failed to prevent Hamas' rise to power.
No one has ever really clearly identified what it would mean to "win the war on terror" which makes it pretty difficult to determine whether or not we are winning. But when a group that our government has labeled a terrorist organization gains power, that has to be considered a victory for the terrorists and not the Bush administration. In a war, victories for your "enemies" are signs that you are loosing the war.
I also never claimed Hamas was a terrorist organization. You will note that I said that Bush (or perhaps more properly the Bush administration) has identified them as a terrorist organization -- which is true.
To be fair, I did not simply say that Bush's war on terror was failing, I said he botched it -- meaning that Bush's decisions are the reasons its failing. I'll stand by that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Hamas runs many relief and education programs. 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. Either way, they have significatly incresed literacy in the areas.
quote: 1. The HAMAS - like its parent organization - the "Muslim Brotherhood" aims to create a religious-civic infrastructure in the following areas: aid to the poor, education, health, society and religion. Building this foundation has been the organization's goal since its founding in the territories, and this network of institutions is the source of the movement's strength, and provides the ability to recruit operatives, including suicide attackers.
I don't think Hamas is flowers and honey, but they clearly serve a purpose in Palestinian society that goes further than suicide bombings.
Beanny, where in Palestine do you live? Just curious.
I don't think the elections shows a clear mandate from the people for the eradication of Israel. While that COULD be the reason, it could just as easily be that they are sick of the corruption from Arafat-chosen administrators and want a government that actually listens to them and cares about them. They made no progress under Arafat and his cronies, they want a new direction. Hamas offers them that in a way that no other group in Palestine stepped up to try. It's not at all surprising they chose another road.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's worth noting that the wikipedia article you quote has the following warning on it:
quote: The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Oh, and from the same article:
quote: its stated goal is to "remove Israel from the map"
and
quote: The Hamas Covenant, written in 1988, states that the organization's goal is to "raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine," i.e. to eliminate the State of Israel (and any secular Palestinian state which may be established), and to replace it with an Islamic Republic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
All things which I never disputed. The only point of contention I was arguing, was that Hamas has done a lot of good, such as raising the literacy rate of Palestinians, and operating schools and hospitals. Those facts were disputed and I set about proving their accuracy, and I never claimed that Hamas DIDN'T do horrible things, or that it's goal WASN'T to wipe Israel off the map.
I was merely trying to offer further opinion on what is going on there beyond the same old "the Palestinians want to kill the Israelis" explanation. I think there's more to it.
And I'd have no difficulty find another dozen articles that say that Hamas does good things for the average Palestinian, Wikipedia was just the fastest.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Lyrhawn, thanks for the enlightment. I still think that the Hamas are probably just selling a pack of lies, but... who knows - I mean, in a way it could be like the communist reign: despite the horrifying violation of human rights - people got free education and health insurance, and if they excelled at something, the government would invest in their success, for the pride of the country.
And by the way, Palestine is a ten-minute drive from where I live, I have participated in various Jewish-Arab meetings, I have quite a few family members who used to hire Palestinian workers that would come there from Gaza and the West Bank ("used to", because all of the money they deposited in their workers' bank accounts was taken by the "government"), many of my friends are already in the army and serve in the territories - so yes, I have a good idea of what's going on.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sopwith: One question of protocol:
If a suicide bomber with Hamas ties detonates him/her self on Israeli soil, will that now constitute an official act of war?
It should, but it won't. After all, there've been Fatah suicide bombers, too.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote:What does he do when democracy elects terrorists?
*Brain explodes*
Hitler was democratically elected as well. Everything Lyrhawn is saying about Hamas could have been said, almost word for word, about the Nazi party's rise to power in the 1930s. And many people actually did say it. I guess some people just don't learn from history.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
starLisa -
quote: Originally posted by Sopwith: One question of protocol:
If a suicide bomber with Hamas ties detonates him/her self on Israeli soil, will that now constitute an official act of war? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should, but it won't. After all, there've been Fatah suicide bombers, too.
American servicemen have committed murder of civilians in cold blood of citizens from more than a dozen countries around the world, on their soil. Are we are war with all of them?
Further, an official act of war? How official can it get? Palestine isn't an official state, and Hamas doesn't recognize Israel as an official state. Officiality doesn't really matter anymore. It's a matter of what any side can get away with politically.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What does he do when democracy elects terrorists? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitler was democratically elected as well. Everything Lyrhawn is saying about Hamas could have been said, almost word for word, about the Nazi party's rise to power in the 1930s. And many people actually did say it. I guess some people just don't learn from history.
Did you seriously just call me a Nazi supporter? I almost hope you did, for the laugh I'd get out of it, and I wouldn't put it past you judging from your love of spewing hyperbole and invective. Furthermore, I agreed up and down that Hamas' military wing, or if you don't want to distinguish, that Hamas itself is still a terrorist organization that kills innocent civilians, in addition to what I said about them improving infrastrucure.
I think you're really grasping at straws in yet another attempt to assualt me, which is more sad than pathetic, but you can take your pick I guess.
Further still, the original point that I made, that bellabee was responding to is a valid one. Bush is the enemy of terrorism and the champion of democracy, but he's ignored a rather important hedge in his little war, what do you do when democracy elects terrorists to office? It appears he dodged that bullet in Iraq, but he can't ignore it in Palestine.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I believe the point was that you are similar to a Nazi supporter, not that you actually are one.
Anyways, I would say that this election illustrates something that I thought should have been obvious to the Bush administration: That democracy is not inherently the opposite of terrorism.
When you promote democracy in a state where terrorists are popular, who do you think is going to be put into power? Not necessarily the guy backed by America but unliked by the people of that state. This is an important lesson not only for Palestine, but also for Iraq and other states we might overthrow, where it's definitely possible we will see terrorism eventually get elected into office. This is not to say that making these countries democratic is bad - but just that we should not expect democracy to make terrorism go away, as long as the people still feel terrorism might be necessary.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I believe the point was that you are similar to a Nazi supporter, not that you actually are one.
In the same way that Diet tastes similar to regular Pepsi, but not quite? Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: American servicemen have committed murder of civilians in cold blood of citizens from more than a dozen countries around the world
For those that want to know why the red states don't listen to you anymore, allow me to present Exhibit A
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Indeed... "red states" apparently don't like to think that American servicemen could be fallible. And if someone says something you'd rather not think, why listen? Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
Very large difference between "fallible" and "cold-blooded murderer"
it is, as Douglas Adams once pointed out, "a difference which keeps the vast majority of the population alive from day to day."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
password, are you denying that the military justice system has convicted american service personnel stationed oversees of murder? I can't vouch for a "dozen" countries, but both Japan and Korea have had fairly well-publicized incidents in the past that have resulted in convictions by U.S. Courts Martial.
Here's a more recent one from CBS. We don't know if he's guilty or not yet, but it's serious enough that we turned the suspect over.
It happens, and Lyrhawn's point was we don't want such things considered an act of war.
I think the fact that Hamas is recruiting the people to blow themselves up changes the analysis from Americans who are living in a foreign country and commit crimes against with no support or prodding from superiors.
But that doesn't mean the sentence that provoked your ire is incorrect. Even if the number is wrong, the underlying concept - that American servicemen sometimes commit crimes against host-country citizens - isn't.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
Oh, it has happened. But Lyrhawn's intimation that it's a comparable event to a Hamas bombing is ridiculous, both for the reason you point out (that the attacks are the sanctioned intent of the arm in the case of Hamas) and because the frequency is, I'd be willing to bet, about two orders of magnitude off (i.e 100 suicide bombings for every serviceman that commits murder against a foreign citizen). I'd also be willing to bet he has to go back a good ways to get "more than a dozen" countries.
Lyrhawn, if you can cite examples of cold-blooded murder of a civilian by a U.S. serviceman in 13 countries in the last 15 years, I'll eat my words.
quote: Even if the number is wrong, the underlying concept - that American servicemen sometimes commit crimes against host-country citizens - isn't.
Then why give a wrong number? why make such an outlandish statement? I actually agree with Lyrhawn's point-- that the actions of an individual acting alone do not constitute an act of war-- But what I'm saying is that embellishment detracts from a point... if your purpose is to convince anyone. The statement could have easily been made without the slam, as only one example would have been plenty sufficient.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But Lyrhawn's intimation that it's a comparable event to a Hamas bombing is ridiculous
He wasn't saying it was comparable. He was pointing out that actions of individual people tied to a nation's government don't necessarily lead to war. Something you agree with.
quote:Then why give a wrong number?
Do you know the number is wrong?
quote:why make such an outlandish statement?
What's outlandish about it?
quote:But what I'm saying is that embellishment detracts from a point
What embellishment? You admit you don't know the number is wrong. I don't know the number is right, but you accused Lyrhawn of inaccuracy without looking it up yourself.
quote:The statement could have easily been made without the slam, as only one example would have been plenty sufficient.
Who was it a slam on? The cold-blooded murderers?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote:What does he do when democracy elects terrorists?
*Brain explodes*
Hitler was democratically elected as well. Everything Lyrhawn is saying about Hamas could have been said, almost word for word, about the Nazi party's rise to power in the 1930s. And many people actually did say it. I guess some people just don't learn from history.
So if I'm reading this right, you believe that the US, or perhaps Israel, should invade the Palestinian area and impose a government more to their liking? Not criticising, just checking. Hasn't it been tried already?
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
Perhaps, I'm being overly sensitive to the tone (a notoriously tricky thing on "the internets")... I obviously read it as impugning the service in general, you didn't. Not many others have weighed in but, given our respective post counts, I'd say you're more likely to have the pulse of the forum.
I didn't check my facts, no, but I also didn't make the accusation. And I do know enough about the world around me to know that a US servicemen being bound by law for murdering a foreign national is a rather rare thing. He said something, I'm skeptical. That's where it stands.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The number is immaterial when one is all it takes.
It doesn't matter if 1 or 1,000 servicemen committed murder overseas, if all it took was one for cassus belli.
And no, I wasn't making a generalized criticism of the military.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Skepticism leads to "for those that want to know why the red states don't listen to you anymore, allow me to present Exhibit A"?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote:What does he do when democracy elects terrorists?
*Brain explodes*
Hitler was democratically elected as well. Everything Lyrhawn is saying about Hamas could have been said, almost word for word, about the Nazi party's rise to power in the 1930s. And many people actually did say it. I guess some people just don't learn from history.
So if I'm reading this right, you believe that the US, or perhaps Israel, should invade the Palestinian area and impose a government more to their liking? Not criticising, just checking. Hasn't it been tried already?
Would it be hypocritical of the US not to? The US is supposed to be fighting terrorists. Well here we have a government run by terrorists.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
My point, Lyrhawn, is that if one is enough, why make it "dozens"? If one specific example is good, then give one specific example, instead of a sweeping gesture that implies "it happens all the time".
Dagonee, no, the skepticism doesn't lead to that. I already said I read it as a generalized staement about the military. Lyrhawn says it wasn't. Fair enough. It seemed like one to me, and that's why it was off-putting.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Stephan -
That's a lose/lose situation. If we declare war on a democratically elected government it breaks Bush's creed that democracies don't declare war on each other. There's too much to be lost by invading, and really nothing to be gained.
password -
If I had enough time, I have little doubt I could find 13 over the course of American history. You're limitation to fifteen years in that previous post was wholly arbitrary and is baseless as far as I'm concerned. I think saying more than a dozen was probably true, so I said it. No, I'm not going to make a special trip to the library just to look it up, just for you, but I personally believe that number isn't wrong, and you are more than free to try and prove otherwise.
Further, I fail to see how what I said translates into "it happens all the time."
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
Yes, 15 years was arbitrary, so is your reference to American servicemen at all.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Further, I fail to see how what I said translates into "it happens all the time."
If you truly can't see how your original statement might be taken as a broader implication of, or appeal to, a common (rather than an isolated) occurance then perhaps I should just leave off.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Figures.... something happens in the world, and it was either caused buy the President, or reflects negatively upon him.
Oh, and the red states see a difference between an act of terrorism committed by an indvidial, sanctioned by an organization, and a crime committed by an indivdual who is part of an organization. Service members aren't infallible. But they shouldn't all be judged by the acts of idiots like Pfc. England.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:American servicemen have committed murder of civilians in cold blood of citizens from more than a dozen countries around the world, on their soil. Are we are war with all of them?
Obviously not. This is in large part due to the way we treat such people, and on whose orders, exactly, they're murdering civilians in cold blood.
When a member of the American military murders a civilian abroad without orders from his superiors, far and away the most common practice is for them to be severely punished with jail-time at best. When a Palestinian member of Hamas murders a civilian in Israel-on the orders of Hamas leadership, frequently-the response is...cheering in the streets and regarding the dead murderer as a matyr who has ascended to Paradise.
So I think the two situations aren't really similar at all. Certainly nations would respond to the two things differently.
quote:Further, an official act of war? How official can it get? Palestine isn't an official state...
They lack real-estate, but they have a government, elections, laws, an economy...it seems to me that they're a pretty damn real state.
quote:Furthermore, I agreed up and down that Hamas' military wing, or if you don't want to distinguish, that Hamas itself is still a terrorist organization that kills innocent civilians, in addition to what I said about them improving infrastrucure.
While it is undeniable that Hamas has done good things for some Palestinians, I really don't understand why it's mentioned so often. I mean, Adolf Hitler (since Nazis have already been invoked) was kind to animals, or so I've heard. The Klan in the past has done some nice charity work, its members have anyway.
But no one remembers those things, and rightfully so. Because the mass- targeted murder of civilians for politics overwhelmingly trumps the building of infrastructure.
And as for democracy...well, the technical definition of a democracy is a society which chooses its political leadership through a democratic process. But there is another thing we usually think of when we say "democracy", and it involves a lot of things not present in Palestine. Things like a free press, safety to express contrary political views.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I brought it up in correlation to trying to describe the Palestinian mindset, and why they might decide to choose Hamas, who regardless of the surrounding circumstances, actually helps them out from time to time, over Fatah, who seems to be only in it for themselves.
What is it with this thread and a lack of recognition of context?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:What is it with this thread and a lack of recognition of context?
Lyrhawn, I understand what you are saying and am a little perplexed by the reaction of a few Hatrackers.
I do not read sympathy for Hamas, anti-Americanism, or support for terror. It seems to me you are just trying to get into the mindset of Palistinians and understand why they voted the way they did.
It makes sense to me. I agree that the Palastinian sees more of the "good - as in infastructure for the citizems" works Hamas does. They probably have a different perspective on what terror is. It is a muddled and murkey region.
I just wanted to let you know I am with you. I get your context.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have not said I don't understand why Palestinians voted Hamas over Fatah. Furthermore I did not intend to be saying that you spefically, Lyrhawn, were including infrastructure improvements and charity work right up amongst the most important and attention-worthy things Hamas does. However looking back, very specifically did so, because my post had your name right on top, heh.
That was a mistake on my part, sorry about that. I meant my remarks about not understanding why Hamas's charity work is mentioned along with their murder to be towards people in general who do so, not you in particular.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, I guess a victory for Hamas is a victory for the hawks in Israel.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Whew, thanks lem, Rakeesh. Sanity reigns on Hatrack!
We won't know who really wins in this situation for awhile yet. Hamas has agreed to a cease fire "at the very least" according to CNN. Israel, from what I understand, has agreed. First we'll see how that lasts, then we'll have to see what real changes come from Hamas having a majority in their parliament. We'll also have to wait and see if Abbas can survive the power shift, or if he too will be ousted and a Hamas militant will be thrusted into the Presidency.
It's too early to say much of anything yet.
I highly doubt, however, that regardless of how negotiations go, there's no way Hamas will agree to disarm. I think their militant wing should be molded into a national police force and army, which will go hand in hand with them declaring official statehood. There's no way anyone is going to get them to give up their weapons though, and I wonder why they should. If they can actually change their ideology and stop committing acts of terrorism, then it makes sense they should keep their weapons.
Again though, it's too early for speculation.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Well, I guess a victory for Hamas is a victory for the hawks in Israel.
No, getting what you want is only a victory for you if you want something that's actually good for you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If they can actually change their ideology and stop committing acts of terrorism, then it makes sense they should keep their weapons.
I don't see how that follows. There definitely needs to be a "de-Nazification" (to use the only analogous term that I know) in such a situation, else how would the Israelis possibly trust such a group?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If they have no weapons, and aren't committing terrorism, they are just a hunk of defenseless land in the on the Med, with a very angry neighbor that has a long memory of the last 50 years that has a penchant for military incursions at the slightest provocation.
You're saying Palestine doesn't have the right to have defensive weapons?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: No, getting what you want is only a victory for you if you want something that's actually good for you.
Well, here's my question. While it's unclear to me if Palestine is actually another country legally, let's for the sake of argument say it is. If this is so, and the majority government of that country has pledged to wipe you off the face of the earth, is this a de facto declaration of war?
If we say that it's not the government but rogue elements in the country striking at Israel, then what is a reasonable amount of time for Israel to wait for Palestine to reign in those rogue elements before it takes matters into its own hands? Do things change if more or less people are killed, and if so, what is the threshold at which a country can invade. I'm thinking of how this applies to the U.S..
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hasn't North Korea more or less proclaimed its desire to see America wiped off the face of the earth?
Iran HAS declared its desire to see Israel wiped from the map, and that apparently didn't constitute a declaration of war.
Or does it only constitute a declaration of war if the person 'declaring' it is weak enough to be conquered, in the case of Palestine and Israel.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As an aside, I was just listening to FDR's "Arsenal of Democracy" speech, and this line really struck me:
quote:In other words, the Axis not merely admits but the Axis proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy -- their philosophy of government -- and our philosophy of government. In view of the nature of this undeniable threat, it can be asserted, properly and categorically, that the United States has no right or reason to encourage talk of peace until the day shall come when there is a clear intention on the part of the aggressor nations to abandon all thought of dominating or conquering the world.
For the sake of curiousity, exchange "Axis" for "Hamas(Palestinians)" and "United States" and "the world" for "Israel."
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Hasn't North Korea more or less proclaimed its desire to see America wiped off the face of the earth?
No idea, but it sounds reasonable. What's your point?
quote: Iran HAS declared its desire to see Israel wiped from the map, and that apparently didn't constitute a declaration of war.
It may or may not.(edit: I would say it does.) Just because Israel, for whatever reason, hasn't declared war on Iran doesn't make Iran's statement not a declaration of war.
quote: Or does it only constitute a declaration of war if the person 'declaring' it is weak enough to be conquered, in the case of Palestine and Israel.
You say this as some kind of gotcha, but reasonably, how else could it be? 'I declare war on principle, despite the fact that you are going to kick my ass!' Sounds silly. (edit some more: actually, I guess that could happen if the country being attacked had no choice in the matter. That is, it's going to be war whether it chooses or not.)
quote: As an aside...[etc.]
I'm not sure of your point here, whether you are asking a question, or just being flippant in making whatever the point is that you're making as this sentence
quote: For the sake of curiousity, exchange "Axis" for "Hamas(Palestinians)" and "United States" and "the world" for "Israel."
scans oddly to me.
Making a stab and doing what you suggest, if I 'exchange Axis', etc., I would think that if there can be no expactation of peace, then logically that leaves only one avenue--war.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Hasn't North Korea more or less proclaimed its desire to see America wiped off the face of the earth?
You do know we aren't actually at peace with North Korea, right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For North Korea and Iran...
I thought you meant generally, does that mindset and declaration count as a de facto state of war. If it does, we're at war with North Korea, and Israel is at war with Iran, it's just that neither side is doing anything about it.
For Palestine...
Haha, yeah, you're right. I didn't mean it as a 'gotcha' in that sense, but you're point is right on the money.
As for the aside -
It had nothing to do with the previous argument at all, it was just that, an aside, a non sequitor, a random thing I came across that is relevant to the current discussions being held.
And yes, that's what I was suggesting, not necessarily that I agree with that stance in the case of the current situation. But that struck me as an interesting parallel between America's position in the 40's and the position of many of the hawks in Israel right now.
I wasn't trying to make an "ah ha!" in any sense, it just seemed interesting to me as a comparison.
Edit to add: Yeah, I knew that, but forgot to incorporate it into my argument. Legally there's no peace, but there's been a cease fire for the last fifty years, and if I remember correctly, we never actually declared war on them. But those are all neither here nor there. Regardless of a lack of peace treaty, Korean War hostilities ended five decades ago, legally the war is between North and South Korea.
If it makes you feel better though, I'll retract the North Korea part of my statement from before and leave it at Iran/Israel, it's more fitting anyway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:mindset and declaration count as a de facto state of war.
I believe that mindset and declaration count as worse than a declaration of war, they count as a declaration of total war, war of annihilation.
That's not a kind of war the West is thankfully no longer familiar with, for the most part. The trouble is, that kind of mindset and declaration open of the can of worms labeled, "OK, then. That just means we'll do whatever the hell it takes to make sure you fail," and it's justified because the alternative to forcing them to fail is, well, endless warfare and eventual destruction.
Now I expect someone will chime in here and say, "Well it doesn't really mean they can do anything," but if someone should chime in I would have to ask: how many suicides have you committed for principle?
Anyway, formal declarations of war...in many ways, they're things of the past. The methods and intensities of warfare have changed so dramatically in recent history that it's quite possible for one nation to wage a war on another and have that other nation-and the rest of the world-know who's behind it, but be unable to prove it.
That's not a commentary on whether or not formal declarations of war should be things of the past, just a perception of reality as I see it. The USA, for instance, has done an awful of of fighting with its military in the past fifty years, without declaring war.
quote:Regardless of a lack of peace treaty, Korean War hostilities ended five decades ago...
What happened five decades ago was stalemate, not a cessation of hostilities. Both sides (three if you decide to include the USA who still mans an awful lot of that border) are staring at each other through the deadliest No Man's Land in the history of warfare, and both sides would love to resume the war if it could be won.
You may think I'm nitpicking, but I regard the difference between "hostilities ended" and "stalemate" as pretty major. If hostilities have ended, then if circumstances change and one side or another has an advantage, then the war might not fire up again. But in a stalemate, if circumstances change and one side has a winning advantage, then the war definitely fires up again.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wholly agree with you when it comes to the irrelevance of a 'declared' state of war. I was thinking about what I said after I said it and declarations really are a thing of the past, regardless of whether or not they've been officially abandoned. War for the forseeable future will simply happen when one side attacks the other. Western nations might attempt a moral highground by warning that nation beforehand, but declarations are a moot point, and have been for decades.
So far as I can remember, the US has done ALL of it's fighting in the last fifty years without a declared state of war.
I have a problem with your divisions between "stalemate" and "hostilities ended" however. Major combat operations ended in Iraq years ago, and still there's heavier fighting there than America has been engaged in since Vietnam.
I don't see how you can really say that hostilities between N. Korea and America HAVEN'T ended, when the most hostile thing we've traded with them in the last fifty years are grumpy diplomatic emails. The biggest hostile action we've taken was when Bush called them a part of the Axis of Evil. And hell, we've traded angry words with a ton of countries over the last fifty years, but there aren't current hostilities between us.
While I agree the end of that conflict was a stalemate, and while LEGALLY there may still be a de facto state of war or whatever between is. For all intents and purposes, the war is over. Hostilities are over.
You'll have to more carefully define the differences if I'm to recognize where you're coming from.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Interesting. An army to do what, exactly? A Palestinian army cannot hope to defeat Israeli occupiers...certainly not in open battle, at least. It would be a welcome change if they used the kinds of tactics against the military that they've been reserving for civilians. I would certainly have more respect for Hamas (my current level is 'none') and Palestinians as a people (minimal).
quote:On Friday, the deputy chief of the Hamas political bureau, Moussa Abu Marzouk, set a high standard for discussions regarding disarmament. "Europe and the United States must ask Israel to withdraw from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, according to international legitimacy, before they ask Hamas to disarm," he said.
This is laughable. Israel has offered these things-almost all of it, in fact-in the past and been rejected. Furthermore, how stupid do they think Israel is? Hamas is an organization which has declared its permanent goal to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. So...why exactly should Israel give them anything?
Hamas is more nakedly ambitious and land-grabbing (or land-taking-backing, depending on your point of view) than Hitler ever was, and it was obvious to everyone but fools that Hitler wasn't going to stop with anything short of European domination. Hamas actually has it down on paper, "We're not going to stop until you're gone." Hamas has forced Israel into a posture from which it cannot possibly negotiate.
This gives them the opportunity to say, "We're freedom fighters, they don't want to negotiate." And so many saps fall for it.
quote:Mashaal said that while Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, "not accepting them doesn't mean that we cannot deal with their realities ... Let Israel end their occupation or this struggle will continue."
Another blatant lie. Hamas's state goal is not just the end of occupation. It's the end of Israel.
quote:"If you want to punish the Palestinian people for practicing democracy, then the American administration should punish Americans for choosing President Bush," he said. "Please remember that you were the one who created the Palestinians' crisis."
I don't know if he's speaking to the West or America in particular, but we (America) certainly didn't create the Palestinian crisis. And although we had a hand in it, they have not acquitted themselves admirably.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting. An army to do what, exactly? A Palestinian army cannot hope to defeat Israeli occupiers...certainly not in open battle, at least. It would be a welcome change if they used the kinds of tactics against the military that they've been reserving for civilians. I would certainly have more respect for Hamas (my current level is 'none') and Palestinians as a people (minimal).
Just because they can't win doesn't mean they still don't have the right to have an armed forces. Even Japan has self defense forces, and their constitution disallows a standing military. And at this point, Japan could probably invade and take over Palestine due to the disparity in forces.
Also, having it be a national army will hold the government directly accountable for their actions. I'd say it's in Israel's best interest for that to happen in fact, it gives them far more leverage.
As for the rest of what you said, I agree with most of it, and am especially confused by that last quote where they apparently blame us for the Palestinian crisis. Like most Middle Eastern problems, it's actually Britain's fault. Blaming the US is just more popular.
Edit to add: Something I thought of later, but didn't want to create a whole new post for. Hamas is in control of their government, but more than a third of the Palestinians still voted for Fatah, who the rest of the world has dealt with for forty years. Cutting off aid to ALL the Palestinians, declaring war on ALL the Palestinians, etc etc to all of them, isn't really fair.
You're either forcing them into civil war, or punishing the innocent. They elected Hamas to their government, they didnt' ALL JOIN Hamas. There has to be another way. How can everyone make so many blanket decisions only two days later without waiting to see how this will unfold?
[ January 29, 2006, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So far the only official decision is to "reevaluate" aid-a non-blanket decision. But it seems inevitable that a party which won 2/3s of elections will take control of the government.
We cannot give money to a government controlled by Hamas until they publicly-in many languages-their goal to eradicate Israel and their stance of murdering civilians.
They have a right to a military, but that wasn't what I asked. What will they do with it? Furthermore, I somehow think it unlikely Israel will regard the formation of an army by the enemy who's been murdering their civilians and sworn to destroy it as a good thing. And frankly I don't trust any such group at all, period. Not what they are doing, nor what they will do. Trust is earned.
As for Japan, what their constitution allows is debated in Japan. The relevant part is Article 9 from 1947.
quote:Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:They have a right to a military, but that wasn't what I asked. What will they do with it?
It doesn't do anything. That's the beauty of it!
Seriously, just about any sovereign nation -- Iceland excluded -- has a standing army. Most don't use it for anything except parades and general deterence. However, a key to the stability of a country is that the central authorities maintain a monopoly on organised violence, and a unified army would probably work better in all kinds of ways for Palestine than the current system with "security forces" and every other organisation holding with their own armed men.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
But any army is not used for domestic violence. An army is used for conquest or defense against other armies. Not for maintaining a monopoloy on organized violence domestically. That is the province of police forces.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The people are already there, they already have guns. Letting them officially call themselves an army isn't going to change the nature of the threat against Israel, and it's silly to think it will. Israel can only gain from Palestine forming an official army. Consider, they aren't even going to just give up their weapons and trust Israel. Asking them to do that is like asking the same thing of Israel, only to trust Palestine. We might not agree, but to THEM, that's how they see it.
So let them form an army. Fixed targets, people in uniform, international political fallout...there are only benefits in that for Israel. Either way, no one has the right to tell them they can't form an army for defensive purposes. Some of the smallest nations in the world still have a defensive military, even if they have no hope of ever winning a battle.
I question a great deal of the sincerity of much of what al-Zahar is saying. But there's some hope in those words. I didn't see a demand for Jerusalem as part of his demand for a truce, it seems the things he's asking for are things that Israel has been willing to give up in the past.
I still think what is needed is a neutral third party to guarantee whatever peace the two of them set up. If Hamas were to disarm, someone that Palestine trusted would be needed to ensure their safety, and that eliminates most of the West. Russia comes to mind, but I'm not sure if they'd be willing. Likewise, Israel won't give up the territory without assurances that Hamas won't move in and set up new bases to launch attacks from.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:Either way, no one has the right to tell them they can't form an army for defensive purposes. Some of the smallest nations in the world still have a defensive military, even if they have no hope of ever winning a battle.
I disagree that every nation has the right to a defensive military just by default. Like individuals, there are things nations can do to negate this right.
The difference between an army and a de facto army is, for instance, the way money is spent. Hamas cannot have transparency when it funds terrorist operations, but when it funds "defensive military training"-even if used for the same purpose-it can.
I certainly don't trust Hamas to start issuing uniforms and housing its terrorists in buildings that say things like "Terrorist-Martyr munitions dump".
No, what would likely-just a guess, of course-is that the same people would be in the army, but they wouldn't be wearing uniforms then they blew up some women and children in a restaurant. Possibly they'd even be linked to a "PDF", led by Hamas, which would say something like, "We're not responsible for Israel infuriating and oppressing our soldiers to the point that on their own, without orders, they take action."
What you're telling us is that Israel should think it's a good thing for Hamas "fighters" (fighting mostly unarmed civilians) to actually be the official army of Palestinians.
Hamas isn't stupid. They're not going to suddenly maintain and fight with a conventional army. Why on Earth should they? Unconventional warfare (terrorism) has served them so well. Israel knows this.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
Hamas is composed of radical Islamists who have planned and carried out acts of unspeakable brutality in cold blood.
They reportedly won this election because the Fatah party is so corrupt that people who don't really give a flip about the intifada were tired of being governed by incompetents and crooks.
Hamas filled a void.
Sadly, they are capable of doing a lot of really bad things to retain power. And the frequency of elections in the PA is not very encouraging (one every 10 years...whether they need it or not?)
There are forces that may cause Hamas to become more reasonable and act like a government: - The west will not invest in the PA, or work on real development in the region if their government appears to be so unstable, or if they are just a front for militant Islamists. - Now that they have a taste of "legitimacy" they may find that they actually like it. Hey, it's possible. Doubtful, but possible.
Sadly, there are many more things that would tend to make Hamas nothing but a political front for terrorism: - The really deadly folks are the extremists within the organization. The ones who won't let the political leaders go "too far" before they turn the weapons on them in addition to the Israelis. - It's not like they've learned any valuable lessons yet about statecraft. They've simply found themselves in a good position to exploit a political void created by the crappiness of the Fatah party. - Poverty, deepening poverty, is a better recruiting tool for radicalism than it is for working within the system. Hamas knows one way to help young Palestinian males vent their frustration. I'd be surprised to learn that they have other, more productive ideas.
My fear for the Palestinian people has ratcheted up about 1000% after this election. Seriously, I didn't meet a single one when I was there 10 or so years ago who had anything positive to say about Hamas. They all knew the bombings were counter productive. But they hated Fatah party and Arafat back THEN, and look at what's happened.
If ever there was a people stuck in a barrel about to go over the falls, it IS the Palestinians.
Now...I know some of you are going to say "well, why don't they just elect reasonable leaders who will make THE RIGHT choices?"
Honestly, I don't know that I have a good answer for you if you feel that way. I wonder why we don't seem to be able to elect leaders who can't find other ways to solve problems besides violence and covert operations. In some vague general way I think there's just a lot of incompetence and shared evil in the world, and it maybe infects those most who wish to lead governments.
On the other hand, I also see that the Palestinians aren't really looking at a bunch of good choices for people to elect. I mean, as much as I complain about President Bush and his inner circle, I would never say that they are as bad as the people leading the PA, or those who have run for election there.
Maybe the really good people, the sane ones, would never run for office there because they're afraid they would be killed.
I don't know. But I do believe that democracy is a great system of government, unless it gets hijacked by people who are afraid.
Then it can be capable of just as much nastiness as any form of government.
Maybe even more, because it can hide longer behind a veil of popular support.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Everything is at a pause right now. Both sides consider the ball in the other's court, but that won't last forever. Once Israel sorts out its political situation, they'll take action.
Then we'll see which way this thing is going to go.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)