Exactly.

So have I. But you know me, and you know I don't support Hamas, exactly...

Well said. And the people we should actually be listening to, are the ones in the middle. There are LOTS of Israeli Jews who do not support what their government does, just as there are lots of Palestinians who do not support what Hamas does.

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

I defend what I believe to be true. It has been shown that Hamas stopped firing rockets after the ceasefire and that Israel did not fully open trade routes in response. Hamas has admitted that they started firing rockets because of the blockade (November 4th is just a catyalist). Hamas has admitted that they will be willing to accept a two state solution on certain terms. These are facts that can be backed by evidence. I am not supporting Hamas by making those statements, or even purposely defending a resistance movement/terrorist group, I am laying out the facts and what I believe.

But, as I said many times before, those arguments don't really mean much to me besides proving that Israel has some fault in this conflict as well. In reality, I see both Israel and Hamas as two groups that are forced into situations where they will naturally choose the "immoral" route, the difference being that Israel has massive amounts of power while Hamas does not. Both sides are willing to kill civilians. Both sides have made decisions that have led to further conflict. Both sides will fight until their terms are met.

Going back to the choice argument, one can say that one side does have a choice but those are usually idealistic at best and will only accomplish goals that the person who is speaking wants. If one thinks that peace should occur right now with the current situation, Palestine (Hamas to be more specific) will naturally be blamed. If one thinks that peace should occur with in a situation that is more favorable to Palestinians, Israel will naturally be blamed.

I urge you to read the Hamas charter. It starts about a quarter of the way down the page, with the heading "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement".

After you do, you will understand, and you will never make the above statement again.

You are right if we are defining Hamas as the movement that existed over 20 years ago. The PLO was the leading resistance movement for over 20 years and now they are seen as "being in bed" with Israel by many of the hardliners.

Corruption will overcome Hamas in time and as I said earlier, they are dependent on the population around them. Eitherway, Hamas is reactionary and easily replaceable. I would be more scared of what comes after Hamas (another party or evolved group) then what it is now.

Oh holy crap. Then go and fucking read the Current Positions section, about a tenth of the way down the page.

"We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity" stated Hamas leader Fathi Hammad in Gaza on Friday January 2nd 2009.

Yeah? So we have two contradictory quotes. How can we tell what the official position of Hamas is? And by official, I mean what they will do not what they say. These politicians should never be trusted.

Hamas is most likely littered with scattered views. Some will be willing to accept 1967 borders, some will never accept Israel as a state. Which side has the most power in the end is which matters.

Those with the most guns makes those decisions. Hamas has made that point quite evident. Peace with Israel is not one of thier goals. How to get the Israelis to stop bombing the hell out of them is a short term goal IMHO. And they will say any thing to the international press to do it. Other than that my expectations for them to seek a unified peace plan is very low to non-existant.

And peace with Palestine is obviously not one of Israel's goal either.

ok I'll bite - Why do you say that?

Because. They consistently do things that are not in the spirit of peace. Israel has broken ceasefires as much as Hamas has. Israelis bulldozed Palestinian houses and claimed the land for themselves so they could build more settlements. Israelis arrest Palestinians and put them in camps. They block food. They make it almost impossible for Palestinians to move around. etc etc etc.

As I've said before, both sides are at fault. We really need to get out of it (stop funding Israel) and let them solve it on their own, with their own money. Either that, or force Israel to be more reasonable.

Sugarpop, you're trying to tell us the Israelis have no right to survive. Stop such genocidal nonsense yesterday if not sooner. Antisemitism rubs Adolf Hitler's runny mental shit all over your soul, and you can't get clean.

The Palestinians are being used as catspaws by the Muslim nations in the Middle East to fight a proxy war with Israel, over a land the Jews were in before ever there was a Muslim. If it was just between the Palestinians and the Israeli Jews, the fight would have been over by the 1956 Suez Crisis. Blame Jordan, Iran, Egypt and Syria: these are the nations that either still don't want peace, valuing their feud with the Jews over any peace and prosperity, or acted that way at one time -- Egypt's cleaned up its act most.

Consequently to all this, my sympathy for the poor Palestinians remains just about zip. They have to hang all their assholes, yesterday. They aren't doing that. What do you say about people who refuse to hang their assholes? Does the idea that asshole-sympathizing may be in play here come in at all, do you suppose?

Very good Bruce- another somber read from a very credible resource.

No I'm not. Show me where I said that.
And I'm not antisemite, I'm antiZionist. There is a big difference. HUGE.

That is not accurate. As others have pointed out, Jews were not the first people on that land. It sounds to me like you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about with regards to the rest.

Whatever. I came to the conclusion that you and I will NEVER see eye to eye... on anything.

Hamas steals UN food aid

Wheeee

It's just a big fat mess over there. Leave them be and let them destroy one another.

If Israel should be condemned for oppressing the Palestinians by cutting them off from the world, what about their neighbor Egypt?

Many antisemites attempt to cloak themselves under the allegedly more respectable mantle of antiZionism -- but their fraud is transparent. Frankly, I reckon antiZionist Jews to be completely out of touch with their own people's interests: it is manifest that statelessness is a very dangerous condition to be in in Europe. With a Jewish State around, abuse of Jews has much declined -- is that not historically demonstrated?

As for yelling about "show me where I said that," SP, need I tell you that when you write words, there are thoughts behind the words -- whether these thoughts are acknowledged consciously or not. Ideas birth words -- and it is not difficult to see what those ideas are. Nor is it very complicated in your case to see that your words leave a scent of the anti-Semite on you. Anti-Zionism is, well, the realm of two schools of thought, and I wouldn't give two bits for the both of them taken together: stupid, unpractical Jews who can't see their own people's best interest in the mortal world, and stupid and brutal bigotry against Jews from outsiders. I'd not ally myself with either silly bunch.

Here you show a mighty misreading of what I actually said -- you're listening too much to what you were unfortunate enough to think I said, instead: I did not say "first people," I said "the Jews were in before there was ever a Muslim." The Jews have a defensible prior claim, if you want to assign sacredness to who's there before whomever else. Stop kidding yourself, or I will both chew on you like a dog toy and insult your intelligence the while. You aren't winning this. Not ever.

So by your logic here UG, you'd support indigenous American people blowing up non-indigenous simply because they have a 'defensible prior claim' to the land?

And so, this Michael Yon article sets forth yet another exigesis on just how those in authority in Palestine remain spherical assholes on the grandest scale available to them. To support this kind of behavior over that of the Israelis, whose forbearance should be the stuff of legend, shows you in the worst possible light, SP: as a complete whore for all that is evil.

{Edited at Classicman's suggestion: and before you blow up at me, read the rest of this thread, particularly post #268. Remember which contender in this strife is the democracy, and which are not.}

"Whore for evil" is something none can say of me. There are those, yet swimming in the great darkness, even yet unenlightened, who will complain about me all afternoon long, with an appendix after supper -- but one thing they cannot say is that UG attaches to evil. I scourge it. You don't feel like being scourged, then don't even be mistaken for an evildoer.

Now tell me: was this really what you set out to do??:eek:

Aliantha, just why do you insist that somehow I have to be as rigid and bullheaded as Radar??

Just a simple question UG. ;)

Edit that before its too late. That is/was completely uncalled for.

As an east coast liberal Zionist Jew, I am totally with UG on this one.

The creation of state of Israel was recognized by the international community with the partition of Palestine.

And the state of Israel has attempted to make peace with its neighbors for 50+ years and has succeeded with its more moderate Arab neighbors - Egypt and Jordan.

It sought a two state solution with the Palestinians in the 90s, only to have Arrafat kill the deal.

It sought to make peace with the Hamas by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza as a first step to a broader solution, only to be faced with 3 years of continuous rocket attacks into its southern cities.

Hamas exists solely to continue to wage war against Israel. It is at the very heart of its existence.

I would agree that Israel's response was heavy handed and did not help create an environment that could bring the parties to the negotiating table.

When Hamas is ready to recognize Israel's right to exist and disavow terrorism, I think they and the Palestinian people will find a willing partner.

And both sides will need to make hard choices and compromises.

Perhaps Hamas is just a willing pawn in a very ugly game.

I know I'm speaking harshly. I'm trying to tell her, in the strongest possible terms, not to be one of those. It would not be acceptable conduct. She can, I think, still pull back.

And to Redux: thanks.

And my simple answer, as you're probably figuring, is "No." Now how 'bout my simple question? :cool:

It might be noticed that the overall pattern of these brawls is the Palestinians-in-charge-of-carrying-on-a-pointless-feud fire the first shot. Looks like picking a fight, no? Anybody think too highly of that? Anyone praise it? Anyone believe in it, or that good will come of it?

My very personal opinion is that both sides are out of line and even though the Jewish nation might have a valid claim to the land, obviously someone else thinks they don't.

Thousands of years of fighting over it haven't managed to change a thing.

I don't think it's working for them. They all need to find a better answer, unfortunately, I don't believe either side really wants to when it's all said and done. I think this war has become a way of life and will never end. Debating the issue is pointless because words mean nothing compared to the number of lives lost over long held bitterness and hatred.

My point however was that if Israel can say, 'We were here first, so it's ours', then there are many other nations who have the same claim over land which has been taken from them and yet I don't see too many other countries jumping to their defense. Even my own country could have the same issue but we're not blowing each other up, even though we don't share the same religious beliefs. Not by a long shot.

IMO, the Palestinian people are the pawn. Their fate is in their own hands.

A quote from Golda Meir says it all for me:

“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”.

Redux, let us continue: these ignorant people need to get punted around the playground a while until some fucking light breaks through. Poster DanaC has already left the fray with egg, or worse, on her face, for her non-enlightenment.

Why should we even be involved in the politics of nations halfway around the world? I understand we want to promote democracy and human decency and all that, but frankly, those countries have their own cultures, cultures that are very different from our own. Who are we to judge another culture? We cannot simply judge those cultures by our standards. It isn't right to do that. And how is our intention to "spread democracy" any different than Russia trying to "spread communism" during the cold war? We cannot just go around forcing our way of thinking and being on everyone else.

I personally believe in the whole Star Trek creed of not interfering in the development of other cultures, other than offering certain kinds of aid. We certainly shouldn't be fighting wars for people, giving them weapons or funding wars. Yes, we should work with groups like Amnesty International and the UN to fight genocide, and use NATO to help establish and keep peace in volatile regions, but more than things like that, I think we should mind our own business.

What are you going to continue with UG? A mutual admiration society? lol

Please don't call me ignorant and I wont call you an arsehole my friend. ;)

Ali, in those moments when you are ignorant -- and if I'm not -- I'll tell you so. If you're going to be an arsehole -- not likely, as you have a knack for avoiding that -- I promise I'll call you on that too.

Well, some people think I'm an arsehole that's for sure. Lucky I don't give a shit about that though (pardon the pun). ;)

I just don't think it's fair to suggest someone with a different opinion is ignorant. Perhaps they see facts from a different perspective or have different motivations, but that doesn't make them ignorant. It makes them different, and possibly helpful in situations which require diplomacy, which is what I think is sadly lacking in this instance.

And what is really ironic, is they are doing to others similar things that were done to them for generations.

AntiZionist Jews are not out of touch. Why can't you recognize they have a right to their beliefs as well? That is the whole thing with you, it is your point of view, or none. All others are wrong. I reject that very narrow focus. There can be more than one right answer, more than one way to do things, or to look at things.

Wow. So you think you have some kind of magic mirror that allows you to look into my soul, and my brain, and know what I'm thinking? Then why am I bothering to open my mouth? In the same vein, it isn't hard at all to see where YOU are coming from. You have the same attitude bush had, egomaniac. You're always right. Your opinion is the only right one. Only your answers are the right ones for any problem. It must be really nice to be right all the time, and to know that you are so superior to the rest of us. Better watch out up there on that pedastal...

How can you possibly know that? You can't. No one can. And what does Islam have to do with the people who live there? Islam is a religion. The people in the Middle East predate religion... ALL religion, including Judaism. Just because Judaism predates Islam does not mean the people who are there (and happen now to be Muslim) don't have roots that go back in time to before Israel's first incarnation.

So you are calling me a whore for evil? Nice. I'm done with you. You're an asshole, in the worst possible way.

I understand your point, and I agree with you up to a point. But both sides are at fault.

And to be clear, I remember reading an article, and seeing a documentary on PBS (maybe it was Frontline?) or somewhere back in the late 90s/early 2000s, where Clinton had said he was frustrated with Israel because they were the ones who were being unreasonable when he was trying to broker peace between them. And I know for a fact that Israel has broken many cease fires, as well as Hamas. So, while I understand your point of view, and I agree somewhat, it isn't the whole truth, and isn't completely accurate.

Yes, Hamas uses horrific fighting techniques, and I do not condone them. They are fighting an enemy that has unlimited resources, while they have very few. So they resort to techniques that most people think sickening. Yes, their thinking is very backwards, but I do understand how certain things (like oppression) can drive people to do the unthinkable. It's human nature, psychology.

And let's not forget that Israel used terrorism, and had terrorist organizations, well before the PLO was in existance. Yes, it's in the past, but their hands are not completely clean, like you make out. Terrorism is nothing new. It has been around for a very long time. You cannot win against terrorism fighting with conventional methods. Usually, it needs diplomacy, not weapons. (ftr, I always thought Britian should leave Ireland to the Irish, and that would have ended the actions of the IRA. In cases of terrorism, it is almost always a very strong country trying to force their will on a weaker one, in many cases using force to take over their country.)

What we see with democracy (I speak in a loose sense) is that it's simply better than autocracy or oligarchy: democracies are slow to war and powerful to prosperity, both of which are very good things, acclaimed by anyone not a sociopath. A culture with an oppression enshrined within it is a culture that is sick, cancerous, bad -- and if its sickness is infectious, this is very bad.

Ah, yes: moral relativism. You've been persistently schooled in it, I see. Your education will no longer be impeded by your schooling, SP, when you abandon this philosophy -- for until you do, you will not be able to distinguish that which is good from that which is evil. That's whatcha call dumbth. Somebody wants you incapable of moral choices, and that incapability will screw your entire life up. Hey, when I was a college frosh, I had some of these ideas too. But I haven't been a college frosh these thirty years now; and there's been some growing up done. I gave up any trace of moral relativism when I noticed I couldn't distinguish good from evil by those means. I've never had cause to return, either.

So, in the end: Why do we make moral judgements? It's because we are moral beings, however imperfect, however perfectible. They of the leftward lean would like us not to be so, that they may the better perform the hemipygian deeds, adhere to the ill-thought philosophies, that their baser natures accustom them to. It ain't for me, Sugarpop. For me, it's been, Been there, did that maybe a little, and eww.

When democracy is spread abroad, prosperity follows, oppression recedes. Where was there prosperity in the Soviet bloc? Was there anyone not oppressed? Even the Party animals and the nomenklatura could end up shot or in the Gulag. (Holding unpopular opinions/being not politically correct in a nondemocracy is very bad for your health. Here in a democracy, it just gets you into internet flamefights.) There's your answer for how very different we are from those. You have not been taught our quiet nobility yet, SP, and you need it now.

As for "forcing:" we don't force, no matter what the anti-American Left will repetitively say. There are approximately eleven million people in the States right now who personify my argument. These are the illegal immigrants. They want to partake of our way of thinking and being so badly they break in to get it. Quite illegally. Think about that for a minute. They're here because they want what we do and how we do it more than anything else, including not getting arrested. Add to these eleven million the ones who ARE here legally, and you've got quite an example. Show me another nation with that kind of attractiveness. Again, how many nations are getting their doors kicked down and fences climbed over, to partake at literally any price? I can think of some other places that are really really nice; I've seen a few of 'em; but I can't think of one to compare with our City on the Hill for sheer mass of people trying to get in.

I say all this is our business, and unless we turn into a hermit kingdom, it will remain our business. We are the most successful capitalist democracy ever seen, anywhere on the globe. We achieve that by our global reach, and we cannot do without it. Humanity will prosper all the better the more it imitates our best features. All of humanity's androgenic woes come from not practicing America's ways, but sticking with ancient despotisms and oligarchies. The wisdomless invertebrates who taught you do not comprehend this -- their bowing before ancient despotisms and oligarchies is not understandable, except in terms of closet fascism for the braver/more crazed ones and abject cowardice for all the rest.

The Left would very much like you not to understand any of this, Sugarpop, for once you do, you turn away from the Left as an aggravating aggregation of egregious dweebs -- a committee with three or more legs and no brain. The leftwards people do not value general prosperity, nor good conduct. They are the Left because they value only Power, with a capital P. They are the latterday Ebenezer Scrooges, monomaniacally fixated on but a single thing. Scrooge illustrates how it's the dose that makes the poison -- and hints that you'd have to be absurdly lucky to fully learn his lesson as late as he did.

Your life's education begins with an openminded reading of Russell Kirk -- though Robert A. Heinlein isn't bad this way either, only he wrote fiction and Kirk's an essayist.

Because on the whole, their beliefs are destructive of Judaism. That seems to me too much wrongfulness. See above about moral relativism -- it cuts no ice.

Magic? Why, none whatever. You write; I read, I get your ideas -- and thus, I see into your soul. Your ideas are exactly what you're thinking, no? While you're bothering to open your mouth, I'm bothering to look inside. And I've probably got twenty or thirty years of life's experiences on you, which does rather help to clarify the view.

Yes, I know what you're thinking. I read your posts.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/.../kfojmhmhidey/

You are the debbil

(runs and hides)

Can't hide from me! (runs after Classic)

ok, now the mental image I have is of classic running around the couch being followed by UG in chainmail carrying a horse whip. lol

Trust me, it's funny!

It also sounds like "shingshing shingshing shingshing shingshing!" Somewhere between pocket change and the rustling of leaves.

lol...thanks for that. The image is so much better now.

BTW, I think classic is getting tired. Keep running UG. :D

Arf arf arf.

Don't forget the bagpipe. :cool:

Bruce! You're killing me!!! A girl can only take so much you know. lol

And the Haggis.

:lol2: ok, now it's just too funny.

THAT'S ENOUGH!!!

Well said.

An interesting assessment:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901u/gaza

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...de-678667.html

Writing in the New York Review of Books, Robert Malley, who was Mr Clinton's special adviser on Arab-Israeli affairs, claims that Mr Barak failed to honour previous Israeli agreements – assurances which Mr Clinton had been personally guaranteed to Mr Arafat. Mr Barak, the author writes, failed to fulfil promises to withdraw from three villages around Jerusalem and to release Palestinian prisoners – provoking an angry confrontation with Mr Clinton...

...In reality, Palestinian officials and American sources – the latter wisely avoiding Israeli condemnation by talking anonymously – have pointed out that the figure of 96 per cent represented the percentage of the land over which Israel was prepared to negotiate – not 96 per cent of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Left out of the equation was Arab east Jerusalem – illegally annexed by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six Day War – the huge belt of Jewish settlements, including Male Adumim, around the city and a 10-mile wide military buffer zone around the Palestinian territories.

Along with the obligation to lease back settlements – built illegally under international law on Arab land – to Israel for 25 years, the total Palestinian land from which Israel was prepared to withdraw came to only around 46 per cent – a far cry from the 96 per cent touted after Camp David.

http://www.islamonline.net/english/N...rticle18.shtml
WASHINGTON, July 18 (IslamOnline) - In a new revelation that disputes a widely held U.S. view that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat caused the breakdown of U.S.-sponsored Mideast peace talks last year, a report in The Washington Post said that former President Bill Clinton was in fact exasperated at former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's strategy during the talks.

Though President Clinton publicly blamed the Palestinians for the failure of the Camp David peace summit last July, privately he became exasperated with Barak's negotiating tactics, according to a key White House adviser, The Washington Post said.

The paper also said that at the close of Camp David, a frustrated Clinton blamed Arafat for missing a chance for a "historic deal", thus breaking a pledge to the Palestinian leader that he would not be faulted if the summit failed.

Anyone read "Bury Me Standing" by Isabel Fontescu?

The Roma are stateless, and atrocities against them are legalized and encouraged across most (if not all) European countries, from Germany to Russia.

They have been compared to Jews before Israel.

I'd heard of this, which is why I spoke of statelessness.

Don't forget playing Monty Python's The Lumberjack Song on the bagpipes. It does fit. :eyebrow: It will have to wait, though, until I've finished chasing Classic around the sofa. Puff puff puff.

Then we can refresh ourselves with the haggis and the whisky and the bashed neeps. Sort of a post-Burns Night supper.

I never realised you were so into role playing UG. lol

There's a turn up for the books. ;)

OK, you are creeping me out now - A LOT!