Hamas leader affirms the obvious; refuses to recognize Israel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sure. Hamas does not recognize Israel. At all. As in 'kill and capture from sea to sea' Israel, knowing this, is still willing to let there be a Palestine, just not a sovereign one with such a murderous goal. Nor would I. If people wanted to kill me, I would do what I could to keep murderous tools from their hands

Ok. Unfortunately, this is not how the world works. You do not get to deprive an entire people of sovereignty because you don't like their government. You do not get to deprive someone of their human rights. If Israel does not want a Palestinian state to exist, then it MUST absorb all Palestinians as citizens of the state of Israel. If they do not do this while simultaneously professing that they will not permit a Palestinian state, then they will have an apartheid state.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Sure. Hamas does not recognize Israel. At all. As in 'kill and capture from sea to sea' Israel, knowing this, is still willing to let there be a Palestine, just not a sovereign one with such a murderous goal. Nor would I. If people wanted to kill me, I would do what I could to keep murderous tools from their hands

Can you please explain the difference between the outcome you describe -- and apparently support -- and Apartheid?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Does Israel recognize Palestine? There are posters here who actually say there is no such thing as a Palestinian. The Likud Party's platform describes Gaza and the West Bank as part of Israel. Why are you concerned about the position of only one party in this conflict?

NP here. Yesh Atid, a member of the ruling coalition, along with Likud, supports a two state solution, so it isn't like the governing coalition has one position, and Likud has to go along with the wishes of their partners, or their coalition will collapse. Also, Likud has in the past held talks for disengagement. As for emphasis on Hamas, many posters here have claimed that Hamas wants a two state solution.

Those posters are wrong about Hamas. But, along the lines of your argument, Hamas joined the unity government with Fatah and the unity government supports a two-state solution. So, if transference of the government policy to Likud works, it should also work for the Palestinian unity government to Hamas.

I'm not saying Likud wants a two state solution based on transference, I'm saying Israel's government wants a two state solution. Likud, however, has held disengagements, which implies supporting a two state solution. Fatah is not involved in this current crisis, despite having a unified government, so in the context of what is happening now, they are irrelevant.

Netanyahu, Israel's current leader (so I assume what he says matters) just ruled out a Palestinian state:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/benjamin-netanyahu-palest_n_5598997.html

and

http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-finally-speaks-his-mind/

"He made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank."

"But on Friday he made explicit that this could not extend to full Palestinian sovereignty."

So, does anyone want to distinguish between the positions of Hamas and the Prime Minister of Israel?

Hamas wants to kill the Jews. Netanyahu does not want to kill all the Muslims.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Hamas wants to kill the Jews. Netanyahu does not want to kill all the Muslims.

For someone who does not want to kill Palestinians, Netanyahu is pretty pleased about doing so. In this round alone, he has killed more than 1,000 and counting. I'd suggest that his desire to kill is very similar to that of Hamas. Netanyahu just has better PR skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Hamas wants to kill the Jews. Netanyahu does not want to kill all the Muslims.

Really? This is your defense for the loss of life and property that Israel has brought on innocent civilians? This is your explanation? Here is the only thing that matters: what Hamas DOES and what Israel DOES. Both are heinous, as evidenced by their actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure. Hamas does not recognize Israel. At all. As in 'kill and capture from sea to sea' Israel, knowing this, is still willing to let there be a Palestine, just not a sovereign one with such a murderous goal. Nor would I. If people wanted to kill me, I would do what I could to keep murderous tools from their hands

Ok. Unfortunately, this is not how the world works. You do not get to deprive an entire people of sovereignty because you don't like their government. You do not get to deprive someone of their human rights. If Israel does not want a Palestinian state to exist, then it MUST absorb all Palestinians as citizens of the state of Israel. If they do not do this while simultaneously professing that they will not permit a Palestinian state, then they will have an apartheid state.

Sure you do, if their government is out to harm yours. Israel should not take people who are out to harm their citizens. You don't move a fox into your henhouse.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Does Israel recognize Palestine? There are posters here who actually say there is no such thing as a Palestinian. The Likud Party's platform describes Gaza and the West Bank as part of Israel. Why are you concerned about the position of only one party in this conflict?

Israeli government recognizes Palestinian national aspiration as a matter of policy and international and bi-laternal agreements it signed. Most Jews consider Gaza and West Bank (Judea/Samaria to us) as part of of "The Land of Israel" but most Israelis agree with Palestinians having their own state and sharing the territory of "The Land of Israel". Many Israelis even support Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem being part of a Palestinian state. But as long as Hamas (which wants the total destruction of any Jewish state) is what Palestinians want as their government, there will be no peace. The problem is that too many Palestinians believe that Israel will go away in 50 years or 100 years or 150 years if they just wait. And the problem is also that enough Jews (the settlers who have a big influence on Israeli politics) believe that they can take back more and more small pieces of The Land of Israel in the meantime.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure. Hamas does not recognize Israel. At all. As in 'kill and capture from sea to sea' Israel, knowing this, is still willing to let there be a Palestine, just not a sovereign one with such a murderous goal. Nor would I. If people wanted to kill me, I would do what I could to keep murderous tools from their hands

Can you please explain the difference between the outcome you describe -- and apparently support -- and Apartheid?

Can you tell me why this would be apartheid ? You like throwing that word around

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hamas wants to kill the Jews. Netanyahu does not want to kill all the Muslims.

For someone who does not want to kill Palestinians, Netanyahu is pretty pleased about doing so. In this round alone, he has killed more than 1,000 and counting. I'd suggest that his desire to kill is very similar to that of Hamas. Netanyahu just has better PR skills.

And yet Hamas keeps on keeping on. Shame innocents have to die.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure. Hamas does not recognize Israel. At all. As in 'kill and capture from sea to sea' Israel, knowing this, is still willing to let there be a Palestine, just not a sovereign one with such a murderous goal. Nor would I. If people wanted to kill me, I would do what I could to keep murderous tools from their hands

Can you please explain the difference between the outcome you describe -- and apparently support -- and Apartheid?

Can you tell me why this would be apartheid ? You like throwing that word around

There is actually an entire page on Wikipedia dedicated to Israel & Apartheid : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

The analogy has been used by scholars, United Nations investigators, human rights groups and critics of Israeli policy, some of which have also accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid.[2][3] Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including Jewish-only settlements, the ID system, separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian citizens, military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheap labour, Palestinian West Bank enclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law.[4] Some commentators extend the analogy, or accusation, to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-cla

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure. Hamas does not recognize Israel. At all. As in 'kill and capture from sea to sea' Israel, knowing this, is still willing to let there be a Palestine, just not a sovereign one with such a murderous goal. Nor would I. If people wanted to kill me, I would do what I could to keep murderous tools from their hands

Can you please explain the difference between the outcome you describe -- and apparently support -- and Apartheid?

Can you tell me why this would be apartheid ? You like throwing that word around

Yes, for the sake of ease, let's borrow from Wikipedia:

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

Apartheid: an Afrikaans[1] word meaning "the state of being apart", literally "apart-hood")[2][3] was a system of racial segregation in South Africa enforced through legislation by the National Party (NP) governments, the ruling party from 1948 to 1994, under which the rights, associations and movements of the majority black inhabitants were curtailed and Afrikaner minority rule was maintained.
...

By extension, the term is nowadays currently used for every kind of segregation, established by the state authority in a country, against the social and civil rights of a minority of citizens, due to ethnic prejudices.
...

Non-white political representation was abolished in 1970, and starting in that year black people were deprived of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states


So, what you propose is separating Jews and Palestinians, requiring the Palestinians to live in nominally independent Bantustans. I am not trying to score cheap debate points. If Israel granted the Palestinians independence, Israel could remain Jewish and democratic. If Israel granted the Palestinians full citizenship, it could remain democratic, though not primarily Jewish. But, anywhere in between is half-pregnant. You can't be half-pregnant. Please explain why the half-pregnant solution is not an Apartheid system?

[Anonymous]

Well Jeff, I guess you should ask Michael Oren:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Well Jeff, I guess you should ask Michael Oren:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html

No, as a rule, I don't ask former Israeli ambassadors anything. That article is pretty good justification for that rule. I see a lot of lipstick on a very ugly pig, but I don't see any real difference between what he describes and Apartheid. He says some really stupid things such as:

"Israeli roads are used by Israeli Jews and Arabs alike"

and

"Israelis can indeed vote for their leaders, and so too can the Palestinians, but the Palestinian Authority has refused to hold elections for years."

First, an independent but powerless government is one attribute of Apartheid bantustans. Second, the last time the Palestinians held an election, Israel refused to recognize the results. The current fighting may well, in part, be caused by the recent agreement between Hamas and Fatah to hold elections. Israel fears the legitimization of Hamas and was strongly critical of the agreement.

If Palestinians are not able to have full rights like the citizens of any other nation, then being able to use Israeli roads is hardly a consolation. Note that they are described as "Israeli" roads even though the run through territory that is supposed to be Palestinian. I wonder if the Palestinians funded a road from the West Bank to Gaza if it would be a "Palestinian" road, or if Palestinians would even get to use it?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hamas wants to kill the Jews. Netanyahu does not want to kill all the Muslims.

For someone who does not want to kill Palestinians, Netanyahu is pretty pleased about doing so. In this round alone, he has killed more than 1,000 and counting. I'd suggest that his desire to kill is very similar to that of Hamas. Netanyahu just has better PR skills.

There is one problem with Jeff's argument. If Israel's goal was to kill, the death toll would be 100x higher, based on his argument of the superior weaponry. We have rockets fired into Israel....Cross border tunnels to allow terror invasions at will....Hamas shows no sign of targeting military targets. Israel is trying to avoid civilian deaths, but when Hamas uses human shields....Oh why am I wasting these electrons.

Haters will hate.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hamas wants to kill the Jews. Netanyahu does not want to kill all the Muslims.

For someone who does not want to kill Palestinians, Netanyahu is pretty pleased about doing so. In this round alone, he has killed more than 1,000 and counting. I'd suggest that his desire to kill is very similar to that of Hamas. Netanyahu just has better PR skills.

There is one problem with Jeff's argument. If Israel's goal was to kill, the death toll would be 100x higher, based on his argument of the superior weaponry. We have rockets fired into Israel....Cross border tunnels to allow terror invasions at will....Hamas shows no sign of targeting military targets. Israel is trying to avoid civilian deaths, but when Hamas uses human shields....Oh why am I wasting these electrons.

Haters will hate.

One of the weakest arguments you can make is that the person with whom you disagree is a simple "hater". That relieves you from having to deal with substantive arguments I make. Realistically, how many Palestinians do you think Israel could kill before there was a backlash it could not control? 1,000? Obviously, that's not a problem. 10,000? I don't know, but we may unfortunately find out. I don't think that Israel could kill 100,000 Palestinians regardless of its desires. The world is not ready for that.

Watch this video and explain to me how Israel is showing restraint?

This is the Dahiya Doctrine in action:

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