Humanize Palestine

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, how would you recommend Israel eliminate Hamas (or at least eliminate their ability to attack Israeli civilians) without any adverse effect on Gaza's civilian population?

Why do you think Hamas needs to be eliminated?

10:06 PP here - let's concentrate on my parenthetical. How would you recommend Israel eliminate their ability to attack Israeli civilians?

I can't focus on your parenthetical because I don't believe Israel has a right to eliminate Hamas. Who gave it that right? The real question is , does Israel have the right to use force to maintain an illegal occupation and the answer is No

Ok, let's say Israel doesn't have the right to eliminate Hamas. How would you recommend Israel protect its citizens from the rockets Hamas fires? From their other attacks?

Israel’s very posture is offensive, and it cannot claim to be engaging in “self-defense” against the very people whose land it has been illegaly occupying for decades. If Israel wants to protect their citizens, they need to end the occupation, siege , blockade ect.

To personalize this for a moment, imagine a bully sitting on a smaller child, and every time someone objects to the fact that the bully is beating the smaller child with an iron rod, the bully exclaims, “Well, he tried to slap me, so I was forced to defend myself.” No, you can’t claim that you’re beating the smaller child with an iron rod in self-defense, especially when you can end the entire confrontation simply by getting off him.

If Israel ends the blockade, how can they ensure that Hamas will not immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel?

And how do we ensure Israel doesn't use weaponery on Gaza and Hamas? Why does Israel have a right to arm itself but nobody else can? Why would Israel have the monopoly on owning weapons?

Look, I'm trying to get at practical solutions here. I promise to answer this question if you answer mine first: If Israel ends the blockade, how can they ensure that Hamas will not immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if the 2 sides cant trust each other, then we are stuck at the status quo.

Israel will never negotiate with Hamas, anymore than the US would negotiate with Al Queda. Maybe the Gazans need to let Fatah regain control over Gaza if they have any hope of lifting the blockade.

They have also shown that when they have smuggled cement in, they are not being used for building schools, malls, hospitals, house, but instead for tunnels into Israel civilian areas. Why should Israel believe that if they got the cement and building materials in a legitimate manner, their use would be any different?

OMG this is so repetitive and stupid. Israel makes Fatah look ineffective and pathetic because they concede nothing to them. If they pulled out of the West Bank maybe people would be more excited about Fatah.

How could someone who wants to build a school or hospital smuggle materials in? Do you not understand what being "legitimate" means?

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, how would you recommend Israel eliminate Hamas (or at least eliminate their ability to attack Israeli civilians) without any adverse effect on Gaza's civilian population?

Why do you think Hamas needs to be eliminated?

10:06 PP here - let's concentrate on my parenthetical. How would you recommend Israel eliminate their ability to attack Israeli civilians?

I can't focus on your parenthetical because I don't believe Israel has a right to eliminate Hamas. Who gave it that right? The real question is , does Israel have the right to use force to maintain an illegal occupation and the answer is No

Ok, let's say Israel doesn't have the right to eliminate Hamas. How would you recommend Israel protect its citizens from the rockets Hamas fires? From their other attacks?

Israel’s very posture is offensive, and it cannot claim to be engaging in “self-defense” against the very people whose land it has been illegaly occupying for decades. If Israel wants to protect their citizens, they need to end the occupation, siege , blockade ect.

To personalize this for a moment, imagine a bully sitting on a smaller child, and every time someone objects to the fact that the bully is beating the smaller child with an iron rod, the bully exclaims, “Well, he tried to slap me, so I was forced to defend myself.” No, you can’t claim that you’re beating the smaller child with an iron rod in self-defense, especially when you can end the entire confrontation simply by getting off him.

So if Israel end the blockade of Gaza, there will never be another missile or attack on Israel and they will all live happily ever after? Does Israel get any sort of assurance or guarantee? Maybe a pinky swear?

What about from 2005-2007 when there was no blockade but there were many rockets?

This has been debunked:

Israel argues that its occupation of the Gaza Strip ended with the unilateral withdrawal of its settler population in 2005. It then declared the Gaza Strip to be "hostile territory" and declared war against its population. Neither the argument nor the statement is tenable. Despite removing 8,000 settlers and the military infrastructure that protected their illegal presence, Israel maintained effective control of the Gaza Strip and thus remains the occupying power as defined by Article 47 of the Hague Regulations. To date, Israel maintains control of the territory's air space, territorial waters, electromagnetic sphere, population registry and the movement of all goods and people.

Israel argues that the withdrawal from Gaza demonstrates that ending the occupation will not bring peace. Some have gone so far as to say that Palestinians squandered their opportunity to build heaven in order to build a terrorist haven instead. These arguments aim to obfuscate Israel's responsibilities in the Gaza Strip, as well as the West Bank. As Prime Minister Netanyahu once explained, Israel must ensure that it does not "get another Gaza in Judea and Samaria…. I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of theRiver Jordan."

Palestinians have yet to experience a day of self-governance. Israel immediately imposed a siege upon the Gaza Strip when Hamas won parliamentary elections in January 2006 and tightened it severely when Hamas routed Fatah in June 2007. The siege has created a "humanitarian catastrophe" in the Gaza Strip. Inhabitants will not be able to access clean water, electricity or tend to even the most urgent medical needs. The World Health Organization explains that the Gaza Strip will beunlivable by 2020. Not only did Israel not end its occupation, it has created a situation in which Palestinians cannot survive in the long-term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we stop with the stupid analogies already? We've done bullies, Latinos in Chevy Chase, break-ins to our houses. Obviously no one is going to be convinced by an analogy.

This, at least, I agree with. The analogies are transparently self-serving, and thus really fucking annoying.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, how would you recommend Israel eliminate Hamas (or at least eliminate their ability to attack Israeli civilians) without any adverse effect on Gaza's civilian population?

Why do you think Hamas needs to be eliminated?

10:06 PP here - let's concentrate on my parenthetical. How would you recommend Israel eliminate their ability to attack Israeli civilians?

I can't focus on your parenthetical because I don't believe Israel has a right to eliminate Hamas. Who gave it that right? The real question is , does Israel have the right to use force to maintain an illegal occupation and the answer is No

Ok, let's say Israel doesn't have the right to eliminate Hamas. How would you recommend Israel protect its citizens from the rockets Hamas fires? From their other attacks?

Israel’s very posture is offensive, and it cannot claim to be engaging in “self-defense” against the very people whose land it has been illegaly occupying for decades. If Israel wants to protect their citizens, they need to end the occupation, siege , blockade ect.

To personalize this for a moment, imagine a bully sitting on a smaller child, and every time someone objects to the fact that the bully is beating the smaller child with an iron rod, the bully exclaims, “Well, he tried to slap me, so I was forced to defend myself.” No, you can’t claim that you’re beating the smaller child with an iron rod in self-defense, especially when you can end the entire confrontation simply by getting off him.

If Israel ends the blockade, how can they ensure that Hamas will not immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel?

And how do we ensure Israel doesn't use weaponery on Gaza and Hamas? Why does Israel have a right to arm itself but nobody else can? Why would Israel have the monopoly on owning weapons?

Look, I'm trying to get at practical solutions here. I promise to answer this question if you answer mine first: If Israel ends the blockade, how can they ensure that Hamas will not immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel?

Did you read Hamas' s reform documents? This is what they said about their goals : " the aim is to
achieve equality before the law among citizens in rights and duties; bring security to all citizens and protect their proper- ties and assure their safety against arbitrary arrest, torture, or revenge; stress the culture of dialogue . . . ; support the press and media institutions and maintain the right of journalists to accessandto publishinformation; maintain freedomandinde- pendence of professional syndicates and preserve the rights of their membership."


Do I think Hamas is the solution ? No, but I think it is up to the Palestinian people to decide who their leader should be, that is the most basic of democratic rights.....

[Anonymous]

For those discussing this issue with Mulslima? I love all of you!!! Well-done!

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I'm trying to get at practical solutions here. I promise to answer this question if you answer mine first: If Israel ends the blockade, how can they ensure that Hamas will not immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel?

Did you read Hamas' s reform documents? This is what they said about their goals : " the aim is to
achieve equality before the law among citizens in rights and duties; bring security to all citizens and protect their proper- ties and assure their safety against arbitrary arrest, torture, or revenge; stress the culture of dialogue . . . ; support the press and media institutions and maintain the right of journalists to accessandto publishinformation; maintain freedomandinde- pendence of professional syndicates and preserve the rights of their membership."


Do I think Hamas is the solution ? No, but I think it is up to the Palestinian people to decide who their leader should be, that is the most basic of democratic rights.....

Except they have done none of those things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Hamas_political_violence_in_Gaza
http://conservativetribune.com/journalists-gaza-threatened-hamas/
http://utbnewsdesk.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/hamas-institutes-sharia-law-in-gaza/

[Anonymous]

[

Look, I'm trying to get at practical solutions here. I promise to answer this question if you answer mine first: If Israel ends the blockade, how can they ensure that Hamas will not immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel?

Did you read Hamas' s reform documents? This is what they said about their goals : " the aim is to
achieve equality before the law among citizens in rights and duties; bring security to all citizens and protect their proper- ties and assure their safety against arbitrary arrest, torture, or revenge; stress the culture of dialogue . . . ; support the press and media institutions and maintain the right of journalists to accessandto publishinformation; maintain freedomandinde- pendence of professional syndicates and preserve the rights of their membership."


Do I think Hamas is the solution ? No, but I think it is up to the Palestinian people to decide who their leader should be, that is the most basic of democratic rights.....

I don't understand -- how would this minimize the risk that Hamas would immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel? Let me try to get at this another way - would you support lifting the blockade but requiring full access to all imports/exports by third-party monitors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

[

Look, I'm trying to get at practical solutions here. I promise to answer this question if you answer mine first: If Israel ends the blockade, how can they ensure that Hamas will not immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel?

Did you read Hamas' s reform documents? This is what they said about their goals : " the aim is to
achieve equality before the law among citizens in rights and duties; bring security to all citizens and protect their proper- ties and assure their safety against arbitrary arrest, torture, or revenge; stress the culture of dialogue . . . ; support the press and media institutions and maintain the right of journalists to accessandto publishinformation; maintain freedomandinde- pendence of professional syndicates and preserve the rights of their membership."


Do I think Hamas is the solution ? No, but I think it is up to the Palestinian people to decide who their leader should be, that is the most basic of democratic rights.....

I don't understand -- how would this minimize the risk that Hamas would immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel? Let me try to get at this another way - would you support lifting the blockade but requiring full access to all imports/exports by third-party monitors?

Interesting. This actually could be a viable option but the monitors would have to be true representatives of the economic, security, and well-being of both Israel and Gaza.

[Anonymous]

[
Look, I'm trying to get at practical solutions here. I promise to answer this question if you answer mine first: If Israel ends the blockade, how can they ensure that Hamas will not immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel?



Did you read Hamas' s reform documents? This is what they said about their goals : " the aim is to
achieve equality before the law among citizens in rights and duties; bring security to all citizens and protect their proper- ties and assure their safety against arbitrary arrest, torture, or revenge; stress the culture of dialogue . . . ; support the press and media institutions and maintain the right of journalists to accessandto publishinformation; maintain freedomandinde- pendence of professional syndicates and preserve the rights of their membership."


Do I think Hamas is the solution ? No, but I think it is up to the Palestinian people to decide who their leader should be, that is the most basic of democratic rights.....


I don't understand -- how would this minimize the risk that Hamas would immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel? Let me try to get at this another way - would you support lifting the blockade but requiring full access to all imports/exports by third-party monitors?

Yes Gaza has a right to self defense, if not Israel must disarm. We all know Israel will not attack another country that can hit back.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

[

Look, I'm trying to get at practical solutions here. I promise to answer this question if you answer mine first: If Israel ends the blockade, how can they ensure that Hamas will not immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel?

Did you read Hamas' s reform documents? This is what they said about their goals : " the aim is to
achieve equality before the law among citizens in rights and duties; bring security to all citizens and protect their proper- ties and assure their safety against arbitrary arrest, torture, or revenge; stress the culture of dialogue . . . ; support the press and media institutions and maintain the right of journalists to accessandto publishinformation; maintain freedomandinde- pendence of professional syndicates and preserve the rights of their membership."


Do I think Hamas is the solution ? No, but I think it is up to the Palestinian people to decide who their leader should be, that is the most basic of democratic rights.....

I don't understand -- how would this minimize the risk that Hamas would immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel? Let me try to get at this another way - would you support lifting the blockade but requiring full access to all imports/exports by third-party monitors?

Yes but this brings us back to the double standard issue I've been raising. Why is it okay to monitor Gaza while Israel has been buying weapons freely since it was created? Why is it okay for Israel to be military strong while Gaza has to use rockets ?

[Anonymous]

[
Look, I'm trying to get at practical solutions here. I promise to answer this question if you answer mine first: If Israel ends the blockade, how can they ensure that Hamas will not immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel?



Did you read Hamas' s reform documents? This is what they said about their goals : " the aim is to
achieve equality before the law among citizens in rights and duties; bring security to all citizens and protect their proper- ties and assure their safety against arbitrary arrest, torture, or revenge; stress the culture of dialogue . . . ; support the press and media institutions and maintain the right of journalists to accessandto publishinformation; maintain freedomandinde- pendence of professional syndicates and preserve the rights of their membership."


Do I think Hamas is the solution ? No, but I think it is up to the Palestinian people to decide who their leader should be, that is the most basic of democratic rights.....


I don't understand -- how would this minimize the risk that Hamas would immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel? Let me try to get at this another way - would you support lifting the blockade but requiring full access to all imports/exports by third-party monitors?

How do you make the assumption that Israel is a trustworthy partner....far from it. Israel will attack Gaza for sport.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:
Do I think Hamas is the solution ? No, but I think it is up to the Palestinian people to decide who their leader should be, that is the most basic of democratic rights.....

Yes. It is their right. But they shouldn't then act all surprised that electing a party whose outdated-but-not-updated charter says "Kill the Jews!" does not lead to peace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you make the assumption that Israel is a trustworthy partner....far from it. Israel will attack Gaza for sport.

You are completely insane. I know many Israelis. None of them are having any fun.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[

Look, I'm trying to get at practical solutions here. I promise to answer this question if you answer mine first: If Israel ends the blockade, how can they ensure that Hamas will not immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel?

Did you read Hamas' s reform documents? This is what they said about their goals : " the aim is to
achieve equality before the law among citizens in rights and duties; bring security to all citizens and protect their proper- ties and assure their safety against arbitrary arrest, torture, or revenge; stress the culture of dialogue . . . ; support the press and media institutions and maintain the right of journalists to accessandto publishinformation; maintain freedomandinde- pendence of professional syndicates and preserve the rights of their membership."


Do I think Hamas is the solution ? No, but I think it is up to the Palestinian people to decide who their leader should be, that is the most basic of democratic rights.....

I don't understand -- how would this minimize the risk that Hamas would immediately import sophisticated weaponry and use it on Israel? Let me try to get at this another way - would you support lifting the blockade but requiring full access to all imports/exports by third-party monitors?

Yes but this brings us back to the double standard issue I've been raising. Why is it okay to monitor Gaza while Israel has been buying weapons freely since it was created? Why is it okay for Israel to be military strong while Gaza has to use rockets ?

Honestly? Because if Israel wanted to eliminate Gaza, it could do so today, in about 12 hours. It's had the ability to do so for years. And Gaza is still here.

Do you really believe that, if Hamas had a nuke, it wouldn't launch it at Israel at the first opportunity?