Hamas is the elected governing body of Palestine's Gaza Strip. Worldwide ignorance of the Palestinian people is contributing to the rising death toll in the latest Israeli and Palestinian conflict. Americans should help civil rights reformers in the Middle East uphold civil rights standards, protect our investment in Israel, and repair President Bush's fiasco in Palestine.
Hamas has been active since the late 1960s and has much support by the general Palestinian population. 90% of Hamas’ focus is public service. They provide community around mosques, clinics, and schools. However, Hamas has continued its refusal to recognize the state of Israel. Israel's United Nation’s ambassador said that the goal of Israel’s military defensive is to completely destroy Hamas. Palestinians have been legally given the right to govern themselves in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hamas hopes to obliterate Israel. This has led Israel to enforce economic sanctions on Hamas in 2006 thru 2007 and are currently pushing for an international embargo on the Gaza Strip. Essentially, Palestine and Israel are fighting for the same space.
Just as the entrepreneur president of Rwanda Paul Kagame has said that Rwanda should now be a crusher of genocide around the world, due to its 1994 background with genocide, the American government has a similar obligation in the ways of civil rights. America continues to have a tumultuous relationship with civil rights. Nonetheless, over the decades since the movement of the 1960s and 1970s America has set a precedent for civil rights in the world. Therefore, like Rwanda, it's America's duty to uphold those rights. American writer Stan Lee admonishes,"With great power comes great responsibility." It would be horrible to do nothing when we have the sway to effect change simply by moderating communications. As we go into these next four years, America will be seeking to improve its garish image worldwide. Standing idly by as the Bush administration has done for eight years would be callus of us, and not a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, the American government has contributed to much of the civil unrest in the Mideast by strengthening tyrants resources to oppress. While the CIA was supplying millions of dollars to the Afghanis in the 1980s to help defend against the Russians, that same regime was torturing, maiming, and deforming the limbs of many of its own people, while forming the Taliban. The same is true of trade with Saudi Arabia to obtain oil. Neither nations regularly and consistently acknowledge the civil rights of all its citizens. America has financially supported fundamental, extremist, supremacist groups for decades just to get oil under ideal conditions.
In order to improve the impression of Americans worldwide, we must separate ourselves from the Bush administration's policies. Many christian Americas believe that biblically the land belongs to the Israelis. Many feel this is why President Bush, in his right-wing fundamentalist christian glory, has done so little maintenance in this region. Some, such as statesman Zbigniew Brzezinski, hold Bush responsible for this turmoil. On the MSNBC show Morning Joe Z. Brzezinski said, "What have we done to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians? And look at the last 8 years, we have relied on force, we have stopped being the mediators, we have become very partial, and we have essentially observed the situation as it deteriorates... The problem is that this conflict has lasted for years, and the United States have been largely passive. So the right question is not what do we do when things breaks down, the right question is what do we do to avoid a break down. By being engaged seriously in the peace process, and for the last 8 years we haven't been and that is why we have the mess like we have right now on our hands." Anchor Joe Scarborough said,"You can't blame what is happening in Israel right now on the Bush administration." To which Z. Brzezinski proclaims,"Yes you can!... In the last 8 years we had a policy in witch we have proclaimed an interest in peace. Condi Rice has traveled 16 times in 21 months to the region proclaiming 'you must do this, you must do that' but the United States never exerted itself. So the issue that Obama faces...is are we going to be sitting there issuing condemnations whether its at the Hamas or Israel or anybody else or are we going to be seriously engaged in the peace making process? That is the question." Barack Obama must renounce Bush’s passive, do-nothing tactics and take effective action to restore diplomacy in Israel. Bill Clinton worked to pacify relations with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat before the turn of the century. That work was all but negated as President Bush did nothing to keep any truce. A stark contrast to former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter who hoped to leave as part of their legacy “Peace in the Middle East”.
In America, Obama would come under much scrutiny if he met with the Hamas without any preconditions. In all likelihood, his 80% public approval would plummet. Nonetheless, this is exactly what is needed. It's this reason, among others, that President-Elect Obama has hesitation to meet with Hamas leaders to potentially work this situation out and cease the senseless killings. General Colin Powell, former president Jimmy Carter, and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC all feel the Hamas would be better dealt with than ignored and are seen as radical for it. Carter has been openly ridiculed for meeting with the Hamas. However, his reputation can withstand these attacks, Obama's could not. This is why Americans need to support and expedite this meeting. If we don't, the death toll will continue to rise, more families will be found dead, with the bodies of their babies swaddled in their arms, an attempt at protection all in vain.
There is worry over Barack Obama’s silence. Though he is not in position to act before his inauguration, how will he deal with the conflict in the Gaza Strip? Currently France has proposed a truce which is backed by Egypt, the United States, and other nations. During the campaign season Sarah Palin accused him of having the inclination to sit down and talk with Hamas without preconditions. How could the President of the United States ignore the input of the Palestinian people’s elected official? Especially, when the United States recommended the manner by which Hamas was elected. A democratic election voted on by the people. We are virtually at a standstill. Hamas won't accept a truce unless it states an end to the Israeli embargo of Gaza. Israel says that will not happen, and is pushing for an international embargo. Under these circumstances, no preconditions can be formulated. Unfortunately, instead of being grateful to Carter for meeting with Hamas, Obama condemned his actions and attempts to distance himself from Carter who has been trying to help the Mideast since his presidency. Astutely, Carter wants to keep doors and communication open because he’s not afraid to be a diplomatic moderator.
Since December 27, 2008, nearly 700 Palestinians have been killed, nearly 100 Israelis, and thousands injured. Rachel Maddow questioned if conflict in this region can be avoided at all. Israel is our major ally in the Mideast. It is very unpopular for anyone to speak ill of Israel or sympathetic of its aggressors. In a chat room someone categorized enemies of Israel as "all the uncivilized countries". Unfortunately, many don't see any problem with this. Though it doesn't compare to the vast censorship of some middle eastern countries such as Iran, United Arab Emigrants, and Saudi Arabia where citizens have been imprisoned for blogging, and others must access proxy internet servers to bypass stringent government filters, America has its own version of vast censorship. We have a biased media with its own level of elitist supremacy that often serves to give us a one-sided view of many world events. The general public need to examine both positions and not simply side with our political allies. If we were to truly do this, I believe the general consensus would not be that one state is righteous and one is evil, but we would recognize a need for diplomacy and open communication. This is why it's not going to do any good, especially not for Israel if the president of the United States refuses to meet with the Hamas. It's time for a change of mindset. Meeting with Hamas is the answer.
I pledge to struggle for civil rights in the Middle East by making more Americans aware, and supplying balanced information on personal blogs and podcasts. While researching, I found how complex it is to find objective information. This can make information very difficult to decipher. Americans must begin to change their mindset so we don't see foreign peoples as a political agenda of allied states and non-allied states, as our government appears to do.
You provided me with information I didn't have, and I appreciate your effort.
However, i don't think the Hamas can be negotiated with. As I said on a forum discussion a few minutes ago, it is a good policy to "never negotiate with terrorists."
Meeting with them and trying might not hurt, but Obama might get himself killed in the process. Let's see what happens.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Heaven forbid harm come to Obama, esp under those circumstances. However, Carter met with them and he's still fine. I think the defacto policy that America doesn't "negotiate with terrorists" is BS in this case. Hamas are no more terrorist than the Russians or Cuba or even us. they as well as the Israelis are misguided in that they feel entitled to this stretch of land so much that they would kill for it. ideally they could occupy the same space, secretly think the other are Godless heathens, but not kill over it... I said IDEALLY. As i said in the essay, HAMAS WAS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, under the recommendation of the united states!!! its hypocritical to now ignore their right to be a governing body. democracy is biting isreal & the US in the butt, but we cant have one set of rules for some, and others for others. also, keep in mind, the Isrealis are killing the Palestinians 7 to 1, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
"Hamas are no more terrorist than the Russians or Cuba or even us. they as well as the Israelis are misguided in that they feel entitled to this stretch of land so much that they would kill for it."
Is it really all so simple as acquiring land? I think this explanation is oversimplified.
The US is generally stupid in my opinion, especially when it tries to govern other countries with puppet strings, and even more so when it does this without understanding the forces at work in those countries.
I am not very well educated on this subject. That's why I appreciate any information anyone posts. If my opinion bothers you, then correct me with information. i am applying theory to circumstances here. i don't know all of the circumstances, but I do understand the motivations of our nation, fairly well, I hope.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
H
But good job for you, taking the initiative to learn more. No it's not only land, did you see when I was talking about their religious conflict? what about the civil rights issue, did you see the words "international embargo"? also limited mobility plays a part as well. NOT TO MEANTION this conflict has ohhh say 2000 year roots attached to them! As I said before, "Rachel Maddow questioned if conflict in this region can be avoided at all."
And as far as comparing Palestine to Russia, Cuba, USA or any other country that would fight to keep their land and their people in tact... I just don't know any other way to plainly say that. I think its arbitrary for many, esp in America, to think of the Hamas as terrorists (when in fact they are a political party like the Independents, Repubs, or Dems) because they are not our allies. If Palestine were our allies and Israel were not then we would be saying the same jaded, racially-tinged stuff about Israel. I look forward too seeing you present some information, if my comments disturb you.
But on a genuinely friendly note, I would be way proud of you if u mentioned this conversation to 10 people!!! Until next time...
newayz, definitely agree that this is a very old war, dating back at least 2000 years. I've blogged a lot about that.
Yet, after 2000 years of war, and war always being the answer, we are still at war. I am talking about humans here, not just one nation and another. We haven't figured that war doesn't work. It just stops for a little while, in some places, and starts at the same time somewhere else. It is neverending.
I see the challenge now being for someone, anyone, and everyone coming with other possible solutions. That is all.
As soon as people accept what Israel is doing as appropriate because there is no other way, they have closed themselves off completely from any other option. They are insisting that 2000 years of failed solutions are the best answers that we have.
Interesting comparison of Hamas to Republicans, specifically (sorry, this time I am trying to be cheeky). Not necessarily in disagreement about that. Open to further investigation regarding all other political parties in the US.
Oh, and BTW, I've already shared this conversation, well not this particular one, lets just say I've had this conversation 3 times today.
I'm sorry if I am misinterpreting you but you seem to carry a bit of a defensive tone. I just want to say, no need. I find your ideas interesting, that's why I bothered to comment in the first place.
I am also having this same discussion on some other blogs in ProU. You might want to check it out on the forums page.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Interesting comparison of Hamas to Republicans, specifically (sorry, this time I am trying to be cheeky). Not necessarily in disagreement about that. Open to further investigation regarding all other political parties in the US.
I said this speaking of the Hamas "(when in fact they are a political party like the Independents, Repubs, or Dems)" that is NOT me comparing them, its me categorizing them as a political party
I'm sorry if I am misinterpreting you but you seem to carry a bit of a defensive tone. I just want to say, no need. I find your ideas interesting, that's why I bothered to comment in the first place.
Apology accepted. I often find you combative, for the sake of argument. I like to be witty, but not biting, so I'm sorry if I am less than patient with comments that dont seem to seek knowledge, but only to be contrary. I dont want to loose your interest, but I do want to be forthcoming.
H
I am apparently not making my intentions clear. I am not feeling combative. I just want to have a dialogue, I will make my opinion known, but my opinion is always open to change when my understanding is altered by new information.
I seriously can't figure out where you might have picked that up. If I come off that way it is unintentional, so that is why I ask for feedback. I think that I am usually very clear, and am open to being challenged.
I would appreciate a specific example. it helps me to understand. Of course I make sense to myself, that is why I am here, so I can see where I fit in, and so I can learn from others.
If you don't post one, i am afraid I am in danger of "biting" again. how am I to know if no one tells me? Granted, I have made some rash comments, but none to you, IMHO (thanks blackout!). I think I have done it maybe 3 times? Many more times than that have people assumed I was in a position of opposition where I was not. They brought it to my attention, and now we have freer exchange of ideas.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I just went over some of my past blogs, and in comparison to some, i really have no qualms with your posts. however, "I think this explanation is oversimplified. " was totally inaccurate (in my opinion) and the assumption "If my opinion bothers you, then correct me with information." may have put me on edge. because your opinions didn't bother me in the slightest, and i feel that I've supported everything with information to begin with.
I also happen to care very much for those "pseudo educated hippies" of souther CA (i lived in the valley for over 3 years) where you feel is "bordering a third world country" i think i should write a blog about that term btw, don't you think 3rd world country carries an elitist/supremest tone? I opt for developing country. This kind of makes me think of when we were talking of your lil girl using "retardando" that however was TOO CUTE!!!
but really really really accept my apology.
Now I have something to work with. Ok, I can see where you are coming from, and it is my fault for the way I blog.
My statement ""I think this explanation is oversimplified. " was preceded by a question, "So it is all about the land then?" I often consider the wider audience when I blog, and insert my opinions and ideas into my comments.
People misinterpret my intention because they assume my opinions which I am posting for the world to see are specifically arguments that oppose their own personal idea.
My question was an honest one, and directed at anyone reading this, not just you. My answer regarding my assessment of that question, which I posed, not you, was that it was too simple an explanation. I was not saying that your post was too simple.
In other words, I was thinking out loud and that was a conversation I was having in my head with your ideas being the stimulus for that conversation. I was also attempting to grasp what people might say in response.
I also do think that religion has a lot to do with it, but I thought your strongest point was about the fight to occupy land. When you bring religion into it, it makes it a much bigger problem.
What I said about my opinions bothering you was in response to a general feeling that there was distaste for them in your tone in the post that I was replying to. I appreciate the information you started with, and the information you brought into your replies to me. I could do without accusations of being "cheeky" though. I don't mind all that much, in fact it is good because it helps me to see where I am not clear.
I care for psuedo educated hippies in SoCal too, I just won't let my kid play with them for the reasons I posted on your blog.
If you can provide evidence that Mexico is "developing" in any way, shape or form, I might consider switching to the more politically correct term which seems to have come about without my being updated. I don't feel superior to anybody, but I wish there wasn't a reason to keep our borders closed to them.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Mexico... 2 words, dos parlabars (that might be wrong) Pollo Comparo... have u ever eaten there? theres one on sepulveda and nordoff, and one on sepulveda and sherman way, so i'm very curios, what's so wrong with mexico... besides the rampant kiddnapping and spousal abuse?
I think every American should have that experience. Let's just say, "Culture Shock" is a gross understatement.
After all of the heartbreaking storiesI have heard from people who have immigrated here, and what they have sacrificed, I am inclined to think there is something wrong with it.
Maybe that the Federali walks into peoples homes, kills the men, rapes the women, and burns down the home, taking over the land, leaving women and children homeless is "wrong."
Those women and their children are the ones that live at the border. The women carry one or two babies in slings, this is how the Federali recognize them as free for raping. They keep raping them, and the women keep having children. The children plaster themselves all over your windshield, trying to sell you "chiclet" or Chicklets gum.
It takes at least 2 hours to get through all of this, and it is heartbreaking.
My clinical rotation at the "L' Amistad" family clinic sponsored by St. Joseph's Hospital, which primarily treats illegal immigrants was a big eye-opener. I thought I was going to be giving people flu-shots, instead I was watching them get chemo for cancer, and antivirals for AIDS, babies with deformities, waiting for organ transplants, all in a "clinic."
I must say though, the lobster tacos are terrific!
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
actually i parked the car, and walked over the border, yeah it takes a long time, i dont know, i dont think of mexico as a 3rd world country. i've talked to many people from mexico as well, and most of their qualms are with the education and spousal abuse, we have ridiculous problems here in the usa, non of that response makes me think mexico is 3rd world, have you walked down skid row? or north hollywood at 2am with 16 yr olds selling their bodies on the streets?
chicle is not chicklets gum, chicle is all gum, actually if you go to a latino market and buy those individual ice bars, there are often time baby blue ones called chicle, that just means they are bubble gum flavored
and teen prostitutes. I work in the only locked in patient psych hospital that accepts medi-cal for all of orange, san bernardino, riverside and LA counties.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Interesting. I lived in Mexico for for just under a year and my experience was not that. Many of my family members live just fine their and have no troubles. I think it all depends were you go and what kind of people you talk to...kind of like The USA.
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
I'm always happy to hear of how things are better than we may think. Mexico is HUGE. So I'm sure their are differences in class and economics in different regions. As I said earlier, my first person experiences hearing about issues in Mexico were about education and spousal abuse. I have no reason to think Mexico is "3rd world" or not "developing" well. If i come across information that states otherwise, of course I will amend and reshape my POV.
a lot of Americans own property there and retire there or vacation there. These are areas where Americans impact the environment.
Many other areas are subject to geurilla warfare and the Mafioso.
I went to an orphanage there, I have never seen anything so sad. I have a friend who started a restaurant and an orphanage there. It is wonderful. She is American, and her business is doing well.
Still at any time the Mexican government can claim American owned property as their own and kick anyone living there out and not give the owner a single penny. They don't because they know that Americans bring in money.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I'm sure there are plenty of examples of Mexicans adding to the wealth of they country and not just American's (i certainly dont think any1 implied the contrary)
I have is using the word "you" as a universal "you" directed at anyone who is reading. I do not always mean it in direct response to the person I am replying to. Just wanted to let you know.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Here is my evidence, "They are insisting that 2000 years of failed solutions are the best answers that we have."
The most workable definition for insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results."
I wanted to edit my post, but since you replied, I cannot, so I just tagged on another little thought.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I think it is interesting that we (USA) view the Hamas as terrorists. Do we then by definition view the people of the Gaza Strip has terrorists as well? It seems that we are completely negating Palestine's part of this story, which makes no since considering that they are an entire nation of people. The Palestinians are not an independent militia, they're not a group of radical fundamentalists, they're not even a religion, they are a nation. If we show them no respect then we put everyone in a position for violence.
I'm not saying they are right, but we most certainly can not get to a place where every one can act like a human being if we refused to acknowledge people's humanity.
Thanks for the education. The more we know, share, and discuss about this the better.
Love-Health-Awareness-Wealth
Mjh
"Until the philosophy that holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, then every where is war" - Bob Marley
I'm not sure how you see it as "interesting", in the questioning sense, that the U.S. views Hamas as a terrorist organization? I think that using suicide bombers, killing innocent civilians in an out-of-war setting, and firing dangerous rockets at a population, all for the purpose of inducing terror and killing "enemies" is certainly terrorism.
in response to your second point, i don't think that the Palestinian people are terrorists, but Americans may sometimes link Palestine to terrorism since Hamas, a terrorist organization, has control of the government.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
The Palestinian people have elected a terrorist government. So we shouldn't negotiate with their government and allow them to be caught in a war ?
Is the Philadelphia Police department a terrorist organization because of how they bomb a non violent organizations home and burned down an entire neighborhood in the late 70's /early 80's ?
The LAPD, NYPD, Nixon Administration, General Custard, George Washington, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Bull Conner, Geroge Wallce, J Edgar Hoover etc. have all done everything you have mentioned with the exception of suicide bombing. But the fact is that they were all democratically elected or democratically appointed and if the revolutionaries who fought to make a better America would've refused to sit and talk to these organizations then they would have been doing their people a great disservice.
We can continue to do nothing and get what we've gotten, or we can change and watch things change. You can't eliminate anything with violence alone. Especially when people aren't afraid of death. It's just going to create a whole new generation which feels they have a reason to hate Israel and the U.S.
If we can be allies with The British Empire we can talk to Hamas
Love-Health-Awareness-Wealth
Mjh
that was excellent, and another example how their are double standards when looking at (as i posted in another comment) people who are brown, non christian, and dont live in a manner that we think is the most civilized and progressive
with you and Mjh
Hit 'em back with facts and the truth
that's how you make it hurt (their pride at thinking only one side is always right)
"He who awaits much can expect little."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, No One Writes to the Colonel
(me thinks...I will meet GM in another life)
Do you realize what the bulk of the population of Israel is? Really? Last I checked, they weren't Christian, and the bulk of them are North African or Mediterranean in descent (Sephardic culture, as opposed to the Ashkenazi culture of the Northern and Eastern European countries).
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
It does not matter what they truly are but how they are perceived. For example, the biggest muslim populations are in Indonesia, India Bangladesh and Pakistan, but most people hear Muslim and just think Muslim=Middle Eastern=Arab (and sometimes)=Terrorist. Facts don't stop people from believing what they believe. I know people who believe Israelis are holy cursaders, not because they actually know anything about Islam, but because they know that Israel is in a war with Arab Muslims ie the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
that can stand up to ignorance. It can take a very long time to present itself in such a way as to cause a shift in collective consciousness, but history shows it does happen. The only conduit for truth in the face of ignorance, intolerance and prejudice, is the voice of those who choose to speak it regardless of the consequences.
Martyrs of Truth: Socrates, Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, to name the most prominent.
What would our world be like without them?
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I think we would have been okay without Lennon
Pardon me for being foolish but what is it that Lennon did?
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
http://www.lennonfbifiles.com/usversusjl.html
He was actually considered a national threat. People who talk about global peace, and get the world's attention often become assassinated, don't you know. :idk:
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
point well made
ie Malcolm X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
http://pakistaniat.com/2008/01/01/heer-ranjha-the-story-of-punjabs-first...
I think it is interesting that we (USA) view the Hamas as terrorists.
Why is it "interesting?" We certainly aren't unusual in applying that designation to Hamas. Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Australia and the United Kingdom also consider the group to be terrorist in character, which isn't surprising considering their profuse campaign of suicide attacks that began in 1993. Heck, even the group's charter states...
It is difficult for me to see how ANY modern nation could see a group that calls for genocide in its founding document to be anything OTHER than a terrorist group.
Do we then by definition view the people of the Gaza Strip has terrorists as well?
To some degree, yes. The People of Palestine (including Gaza) elected Hamas to be their leaders. That doesn't make them terrorists, per se, but it does render their country and their people culpable for what Hamas does in their name. This is especially so since the opinion polls taken within Palestine show a consistent strong support for Hamas and its aggressive policies towards Israel.
Frankly, anyone who DOESN'T see Hamas as a terrorist organization is either incredibly naive or a terrorist sympathizer. I don't see any other rational way to characterize the relationship.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Frankly, anyone who DOESN'T see Hamas as a terrorist organization is either incredibly naive or a terrorist sympathizer. I don't see any other rational way to characterize the relationship.
dealing in absolutes, this is a great example of oversimplification. I havent (nor has anyone) called Israel a terrorist org and they are doing exactly what Hamas is doing but they are infinitely better equipped at it, check the death tolls. AND the Israelis want to annihilate the Palestinians just as badly as they want to obliterate the Israelis. The UN Ambassador to Israel said that their military defensive's GOAL is to completely destroy hamas. sounds a lot like the hamas charter, just not as poetic. I dont hear (nor do i want to) the Japanese being called terrorists but they used suicide bombers as well.
Israel does not engage in suicide attacks against civilian targets. Likewise, Israel's founding documents do not call for the death of all muslims. The fact that Israel ceded territory for the formation of the country of Palestine demonstrates that unlike Hamas, they are willing to compromise to achieve peace.
The REASON there is such a horrible toll of civilian deaths in the most recent conflict is that Hamas intentionally stations its militiary operations inside civiilian structures and hides its fighters among the civilian population. And, OF COURSE they want to destroy Hamas...an organization founded specifically to destroy the Jewish people. Your quid pro quo comparison, however, is not valid, since Israel doesn't want to destroy all Palestine (which, frankly, they could do easily if they really wanted to). They are targetting Hamas (which is an organization, not a people) and its fighters. Dressing like civiilians and hiding among them while commiting acts of terrorism and war makes it impossible for Israel to strike back without inflicting high numbers of civilian causalities...which is why those tactics are against the "rules" of modern warfare. When Hamas hides among civilians, THEY take the responsiblity for the civilians who are killed when the people whome THEY ATTACKED DURING THE CEASE-FIRE TO WHICH THEY AGREED come after them.
Your arguments are weak, and your defense of Hamas is disgusting. You aren't fooling anyone here with your bullshit, "poor me" argument that suggests any sort of innocence on the part of Hamas, or the people who support it.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
thank you for this post, one doesn't have to look much further to understand the nature of Hamas. I am still disturbed by Mai's statement that the US encouraged Palestine to elect them.
What do you think of our involvement in all of this? I mean it goes pretty far back. Do you think the US has done any good in this war (the new Holy War, I mean)?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I hope that fact that I never said the US encouraged Palestine to elect the Hamas, but that the US recommended the Palestinians hold "democratic elections" of which the Hamas was eventually elected, helps to ease your disturbance.
"HAMAS WAS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, under the recommendation of the united states!!!"
If I misunderstood, I don't think it is because I read wrong.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
you would have understood where mai is coming from
but mai's sentence does make it seem that US said to elect Hamas.
but Mai is 100 percent correct in saying that US was one of the strongest proponents for letting the people of Palestine have free and fair elections.
All of us sometimes have problems with sentence structure and construction,
I had some for a long long time and I still confuse people -__-""
"He who awaits much can expect little."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, No One Writes to the Colonel
(me thinks...I will meet GM in another life)
I understand that we probably meant well, but I am seeing a trend in our government of acting prematurely, such as in her dealings with the bailout, which is going to cost more than the Vietnam war, Desert Storm, and our newest, "War Against Terror," all together.
Urgency is not helping us make good decisions. We need to think things through.
What will be the residual effects? What is our objective? How are we going to meet it?
Obviously Bush's plan has failed. Why should we keep doing the same thing, again, expecting different results? That is, again, insanity
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
H.Clinton spoke an itty bitty bit about this situation yesterday, and she expressed a focus on acting at due pace, and wisely, she used some sound bite... said said something like "smart action" in the Mideast, anyway, I love Hillary!!! i predict she is going to do great things for America's reconstructing image aboard as sec of state... or at least I hope, I'm worried that I'm not more skeptical lol I guess we'll have to wait and see and keep an eye on them all
Senator Clinton stated...
These three points are perfectly reasonable conditions, I think. It is unlikely, however, that Hamas--whose founding charter defines the basis of that group on the first two points, and who has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to abide with the third in the past--will comply voluntarily with with ANY of those conditions.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The only way Peace is going to come is if we establish it and then provide all the support needed for Peace. If we plan to say "ok Peace, but I am still right, your wrong, and if you get out of line I'll kill you" then we can't expect any sort of Peace to come about.
The fact that we refuse to acknowledge the government of these people says we refuse to acknowledge these people's plight. So they have no reason to sit down with us while we say "everything you believe is wrong" any more than we have to sit down with them if we believe them to be terrorists.
Which it seems that War is the answer you prefer. Everybody just get out of the way and let the killing occur?
In your opinion where has that strategy worked in the past?
As far as you calling Mai's arguments bullshit, it seems that you all you want to hear is that everything the U.S. does is right and that the people with the biggest guns should always be in control. That mentality does nothing but promote death.
Go deeper. Keep growing.
...thanks to the fact that my particular age which placed me outside the range of any particular conflict. However, I lost my father when I was very young, when he was killed in service to my country, so I know very well what the consequences of war really are.
I would also categorize YOUR arguments as "bullshit," and for the same reasons. You simply cannot reason with people who only respond to reason with force, and Hamas and the people of Palestine have proved themselves to be among that category, time and time again.
I mean, you guys keep avoiding the fact that it was Palestine (Hamas) that threw the first punch in this fight, when they violated the cease-fire and began firing rockets into Israel (again).
No matter how you wriggle and whine, the fact is that there was a tentative peace, and it was Palestine that violated that peace with an unprovoked attack. Your claims lack any sort of integrity, because of this. Israel responded to military force with military force, and Palestine is suffering from its own lack of judgment, and its unwillingness to refrain from plain acts of terrorism.
When I was a little boy, my grandfather (a vetarn of WWII) told me that if a bully hit me and pushed me down, I should stand up and punch him right in the nose. All bullies are inherently cowards, and is a perfect metaphorical example of what happens when you stand up to a bully. They fall apart and start crying in the face of their vicitims justifiable wrath.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/58298
"He who awaits much can expect little."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, No One Writes to the Colonel
(me thinks...I will meet GM in another life)
I will need at least a little editorial explaining your point if you want me to go and read your source.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
their opinion, I will not get mad or angry or hurt if you disagree.
I welcome disagreements and don't feel it necessary to argue over everything because I can say that there are some things in the article I can see eye to eye with, others I don't.
---
"Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish." [17:81]
* "He who awaits much can expect little."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez,
It is true that you can not reason with someone who thinks their way is the only way. I'm not here in defense of the Hamas. The Palestinians however are an entire people who do not deserve to lose their lives because of the issue between governments. If you honestly think that governments trying to out kill one another is the best solution I would say to you that you are not thinking. I've fought bullies in a playground too, and when it was over only me and the bully were affected. If a bully punches you in the face, and you get up and go burn his house down, killing his entire family, then what would you call yourself?
My argument is not that we should love the Hamas, but if you think they are not people and that the people of Palestine are not people then your reasoning is far beyond bullshit or bullying, you are the stuff oppressors are made of. Grow up, this ain't about lunch money or jungle gyms, this is about people's lives and people's future. The consequences of war are unmeasurable, and not some internet political word fight from the comfort of cubicles or living rooms, where everything is black and white.
Love-Health-Awareness-Wealth
Mjh
...people get the leaders they deserve. When the Palestinians chose Hamas to be their leaders, they bound their fates together with the policies that those leaders pursue. Opinion polls within Palestine have indicated that the people of Palestine are supportive of Hamas and its policies, even now, so I think it is disingenuous to suggest that they are just "innocent bystanders" in this conflict.
If a bully punches you in the face, and you get up and go burn his house down, killing his entire family, then what would you call yourself?
This is a good point, and it is one of the reasons why it is against international humanitarian law to hide military operations in civilian areas. But your use of the metaphor fails, I think, if you include the consideration that they bully's family is protecting him, and hiding him within the home. Palestine didn't just punch Israel in the face. It has fired literally thousands of rockets into Israeli territory, and has killed a great many Israeli civilians over the years. The Palestinians in Gaza have hidden the culprits and helped keep Hamas from facing any sort of justice. In doing so, they have become culpable in those crimes and must share in the responsibility.
My argument is not that we should love the Hamas,
You could have fooled me.
but if you think they are not people and that the people of Palestine are not people then your reasoning is far beyond bullshit
I never said that. Perhaps you should confine your responses to what I actually DID say.
or bullying, you are the stuff oppressors are made of. Grow up, this ain't about lunch money or jungle gyms, this is about people's lives and people's future.
You're right...this IS about lives and people's futures...something that Hamas and Palestine seemed to have had very little respect for when they attacked Israel from behind the white flag of truce. Again, it wasn't Israel that violated the cease-fire. It was Palestine that started the killing. For Palestine to turn around now and cry about the violence that THEY STARTED is a childish tactic, and not one that evokes a great deal of pity.
The consequences of war are unmeasurable, and not some internet political word fight from the comfort of cubicles or living rooms, where everything is black and white.
Everyone who has actually lost an immediate family member in a war, please raise your hand.
*Blackout raises his hand.*
Thank you, but I know the consequences of war better than most. Perhaps when peace is finally restored to the region, the Palestinians will remember those consequences the next time they are thinking about launching an unprovoked attack into Israeli territory.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Hopefully someone will learn from the pains of war to seek other alternatives. If not people will just keep dying.
Goodnight everyone.
Love-Health-Awareness-Wealth
Mjh
...since THEY seem to be the one's who can't behave themselves and keep launching unprovoked attacks on their neighbors.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Do you think the polls you are talking about are accurate or truly representative of the Palestinian people?
I feel as though the people living under the rule of terrorists are not going to be honest first, because they fear backlash.
second, I am curious about how the poll was conducted and who presented the results.
i will never forget something I heard on the radio a long time ago, when we first invaded Iraq. An Iraqi woman who was born in Iraq and was then a US ambassador in Iraq told a very disturbing story.
She said that when Bush Sr. went to war the first time, the people had hope. She said people were celebrating in the streets, even if it got them killed. She said that they celebrated because they felt a new sense of hope. They felt that with the support of the US they could now stand up to Saddam.
When Bush signed a peace treaty and we retreated, all those civilians who had stood up were hunted down, women raped, children killed. The backlash was quick and harsh.
She said that this is a lot of the reason why the US is not trusted. Now people are even more afraid to stand up. I am glad we at least got rid of Saddam.
What strikes me about this story is the way in which the US does business in war. When it was good for us, we pretended we were there for the people. When it was no longer good for us, we abandoned the people.
"A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Hussein.[32]
In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of and collaboration with Hussein).
There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
In short, I believe that it was wrong for the US to "negotiate" with Saddam, and we should have finished the job the first time.
In general I am opposed to war, but if your going to go there, do it right.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research is the resource behind the polls to which I am referring. Here is their entry on SourceWatch. The Center is a member of The World Movement for Democracy, and as far as I can tell appears to be a credible, and relatively unbiased source.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
but are the Palestinians they encounter? How can we really know what they think?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
...but I would suggest that the long term support of Hamas from within the larger Palestinian movement would seem to indicate that the reported support is probably genuine.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I agree with you that we should have finished the job in Iraq the first time. We had won that war and we did not do what we should have and remove Saddam Hussein. There are many reason why we did not. The main one that come to my mind is that we were going into an election year and political powers did not want the war to tarnish them and not get them elected.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
"In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[33]
Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.
On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Storm began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
My interpretation: This is a bunch of weaseling crap. If Saddam's life was not worth 146 American lives, how come it became important again when the same man's son became president?
His answer is the answer why we should pull out of Iraq now.
In regards to using 9/11 as the excuse to run in there and go for Saddam's throat, I would like to share something that is posted by my instructor on the forum for my logic and reasoning class:
"Consider the following:
* That Saddam Hussein was aiding al Qaida was the second rationale the U.S. administration gave for invading Iraq.
* Yet Saddam is a secular Muslim, and al Qaida detests secular Muslims.
* How long would Saddam have lived had al Qaida gained power?
* Is it plausible that Saddam would aid any organization that would have most likely executed him?
In fact, none of the rationales we gave for the invasion were plausible and had supporting evidence. So why did we invade Iraq?"
How convenient that America blew up the confidence of the Kurds, inciting them to revolt, and duck out. Seems like an effort to set up that little coup d'etat to me.
All of this, including your own comment is why I think the US should but out of all conflicts in the middle east.
No matter how "good" the intention is going in, priorities shift, and since we are ultimately concerned with ourselves, and would put our own facade of a new election as a higher priority than *following through* with what was started, we have no business being there at all.
To aid any country in the middle east, the forces that assert themselves should be *objective* and not have their own interests in the situation.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I would love not to get involved in any of the fighting in the middle east. I still believe that Freedom is not something that can be given it needs to be earned. Our freedoms that we enjoy and abuse everyday came at a really high price. I am not speaking of the fighting soldiers but the civilian damage that the English justified as a means of intimidation that would make it hard for the revolutionary army to get help or needed supplies.
I little back near the topic: What would you expect/want America to do if Mexico's drug cartel started to launch rockets into Texas and California? What if Ontario Canada French Canadian population started to shot missiles into Minnesota, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois? What would you want America to do then? Side note: This is all hypothetical as far as I know neither Mexico or Canada wish to attack America or have, in recent years tried to attack us.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
Blackout said:
"If you are REALLY worried about "the kids, the mothers, the fathers, the brothers and the dead sisters" who are dying, then you SHOULD be calling for end of Hamas leadership and the capture, imprisonment and perhaps even the execution of every member of every Hamas supporter, fighter and leader."
Turtlesuds said:
I do think that international efforts should be made to accomplish this. I think that these kinds of groups need to be weeded out from underground. Let's get Jack Bauer on the case, please! (Sorry, I love 24)
Even if this situation is contained, these terrorist groups are still working, like colonies of ants under the ground. Rather than running into open fire with more open fire, why can't we implant spies and grab these people by their ankles?
They should be treated like war criminals. I don't necessarily believe they should be executed because my jury is out on the death penalty yet.
mvenus929 asked me this same question on the forum post, and this was my answer:
First, evacuation. Let them have their stinking land.
I would figure out how they were getting their support. I would seek to cut off their supplies to weapons. I would put intensive intelligence forces to work. They need to be DISABLED.
Find out who is supporting them and how. Conference with the rest of the world's leaders. Figure out to cut them off. Train nations how to respond to fear and scare tactics. Flee if necessary, give them the illusion they won, then choke them out.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
in my Presidential Platform this is how I said I would handle things if I was in charge:
Finally, my family values make it difficult for me to sleep at night when I know that there are children overseas who are suffering because of tyrannical oppression and our military presence. I will not support any terrorist regime. I will continue the war on terror, but I will end the war on other countries.
I will provide sanctuary for any oppressed citizen in such countries, and I will work closely with our allies to encourage them to do the same. At the same time, I will pull military resources out of the battlefield, and place them in charge of protecting such citizens.
I will enforce strict, air-tight immigration. I will have our military bases serve as safe havens for refugees who wish to leave their countries, and will enforce thorough background checks before admitting them into our homeland. I will train more of our military in special ops and intelligence, and we will fight and win this war the same way our enemies are fighting it, that is underground.
I will fight the war on terror in our homeland by protecting our most precious resources; our water supply, energy supply and communications networks.
I will work with the states to develop evacuation plans and disaster plans to ensure that no disaster, whether natural or humanly imposed, will leave anyone isolated and out of reach of aid. I will booster our nation’s infrastructures.
I will also work with our nation’s scientists and engineers, searching for more ways to wean our nation off of oil. I will recruit scientists, doctors and engineers on our nation’s behalf. I will provide scholarships for high achieving scholars who choose majors in the sciences. Many of our most gifted minds will be leaving this life in the next decade, and the interest in the up and coming generation in science is dwindling.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
People are easy to fool when they want to be. Though we've already addressed this: Israel attacked first in this conflict which started dec 27th in other offensives maybe Palestine attacked first, but not this time. also, hamas was voted in democratically, not everybody voted for them so why is it their plight to die as well, that argument is hateful. Hatemongering. what about the people who dont vote? or werent eligible? their crime is being born Palestinian and not having the means or desire to leave their home. as of yesterday Palestinian death tolls reached 940, gaza is a grave yard, they have no where to bury their dead, i think that may be exciting to some people. Hatemongering.
my position is not anti-israel, It is anti-slaughter. H. Clinton said "We must not give up on Peace in the Middle East." So I maintain, all world leaders need to recognize Hamas as a governing body, and be willing to talk with them/treat them as such. Maybe one day they can be put OUT of office!!
mjh7 i enjoy your writing, (this is a recommendation not an order) dont get entrapped by rude comments so that you are accused of targeting a person & not their issue. i put this in public cuz other people will benefit from this too, some say rude things but say its a comment on another's argument, seems like a "trick" to me but it may "save" you sometime
keep writing! i keep checking from another blog from you :)
...and some people are just liars.
Though we've already addressed this: Israel attacked first in this conflict which started dec 27th in other offensives maybe Palestine attacked first, but not this time.
This is completely false. Palestine and Israel were under a mutually agreed upon cease-fire that began on June 19, 2008. The cease-fire turned out to be one-sided, however, as Palestinian and Hamas fighters continued to launch almost daily rocket and mortar attacks into Israeli territory during the cease-fire. As of Dec. 27th, when Israel finally said "enough" and responded to the unprovoked attacks, there had been litterally hundreds of attacks, each and every one of which constituted a violation of the agreed upon cease-fire. Here is a detailed timeline of Hamas' rocket attacks on Israel during the time period in question.
If you cannot deal honestly with the facts, then I have no choice but to challenge your crediblity and call you out for your deception. Palestine's unwillingness to honor its agreements and refrain from attacking Israel even during an agreed upon cease-fire is the reason why Israel feels its current actions are justified, and frankly I agree with them.
The only things that are "hateful" here are 1) Hamas' clearly expressed refusal to recognize the State of Israel and its openly declared violent Jihad against all Jews, and 2) the dishonesty of those who are willing to lie in order to protect that hateful violence.
my position is not anti-israel, It is anti-slaughter.
If that's true, then where were your calls to Hamas and Palestine to STOP THEIR ATTACKS ON ISRAEL DUING THE CEASE-FIRE? And for that matter, where are those calls NOW?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I always ask for clarification when people say things like this..."The only way Peace is going to come is if we establish it and then provide all the support needed for Peace." Why is it WE have to be the ones to instill peace?
Seriously, the only way THEY are going to have peace is if THEY establish peace and can compromise. My breif understanding is that the over simplified problem is the inability to compromise or even budge a little on their stances (on both side). They think that can find happiness is a compromise, which is falacy.
I will ask again how is that WE are the only ones that can force peace. In school they teach us that any goal or fix for any problem will only work if its the person's idea/choice.
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
I mean people in general. As for the United States and our role, "we" are already involved. Israel is our alie, so if the shit pops off too heavy over there we will at least be supplying them with war supplies and funds and at most be going to war, now war
1. Kills people(specifically a war we fight in kills us)
2. create enemies(see blog response further down)
3. Is EXPENSIVE!
It takes a whole lot of money from a hurting economy to get into a war, not to mention we are supposedly trying to end one war, so that we can concentrate on another. So the hope is that some cheap diplomacy in 2009, will save us some expensive killing and getting killed in 2010,2011,2012 etc. Like it or not we're involved. So we might as well give it the ole' Ivy League College try.
Thank you for your blog. 1 Hamas attack first They have been shotting rockets into Israel for awhile. 2 Obama could be killed over there. Why? Some people in the middle east think that he abandon the Muslim faith and that is a punishable by death. 3 The best America can do is host peaces talks.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
1 Hamas attack first They have been shotting rockets into Israel for awhile.
H
Hey!! thanks for the positive feedback :) You rock! anyway actually Israel started shooting first in this offensive. you don't have to take my word for it, but i read in an AP article on Yahoo last week that Hamas started firing at Israel after being attacked, then Israel started firing, and said that the first fire from them was an accident and wouldn't take blame for it... here's the wikipedia info on that, you will see that they also state Israel fired first on Dec. 27, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict
You are right the first shoots were fired by Israel in this offensive, but Hamas took the Gaza by force by 2007 and were attacking into Israel. There was a cease-fire and talks. The talks fell apart after Palestinian would not agree to stop Hamas "terrorist" from launching rocket or other attack against Israel.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
H
I'm not sure how Hamas took Gaza by force when they were elected by the people there. and the Palestinians have had the right to occupy and govern themselves in Gaza since 2000 when Clinton was in office. also, i have no info on hamas attacking Israel thru gaza in 2007 but i do know that during 2006-2007 isreal had imposed crippling economic sanctions on them
seem to think that Hamas was only elected by the people because they already their jaws of fear in the heart of the people. The people elected them because they were terrified not to.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
did you get that info from a forum, a site, or is that something u r formulating? i could definitely see that as a possibility but have you considered that 90% of what hamas is doing is for the people, to protect the people, to heal and educate the people? I could see that making them a champion in the eyes of the citizens (not my eyes per say) . Also, we should consider that the other major Palestinian political party (besides Fatah) is the Palestinian Authority (i hope i have that name right I'm getting too tired to Google- shame on me) and the Palestinian Authority (which is governing the west bank right now) doesn't have the means to provide for the people on a whole that the hamas does.
is the general answer that I see repeated every time the subject of the citizens and their feelings being brought into the equation.
I don't have specific, solid information that proves that, but that is the feeling of many Muslims who have left the region, but remember and know the oppression that thrives there.
In an article called, "The Politics of Hate" by Fareed Zakaria, he describes the Muslim civilians in these regions as mostly poor to impoverished, undereducated, with little more than oral tradition as an orientation to the Qur'an. He describes them as already desperate, trying to survive, and living in fear for their lives from terrorism. I agree that this looks like a prejudicial stereotype, and it very well may be. However, this idea sunk in, and it makes sense to me. People's complaints against the peaceful civilians is that they don't stand up and take control of their own government. This idea helped me to put it into perspective.
I am not surprised that Hamas is capable of doing good things, and even making a display of it. To do good works gets them points in paradise. Charity is highly valued in the Qur'an. The message they are seeking to give, seems to me, to be one that they really want a peaceful place where everyone will worship Allah to their own understanding, and rejoice and be happy. Just because they are capable of good things, does not negate the horrible things they have done. It seems this serves as a display to the world, saying, "see, if you only do things as we say, we could all be happy." if I murder a stranger, but love my own family, does that mean I am good and should be trusted?
I am not sure that my assessment is accurate, this is my interpretation of the information I have received up to this point.
Didn't the people also elect Saddam Hussein? Wasn't most of Germany happy and thriving while Hitler was busy filing away all the Jews in Germany?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
" In an article called, "The Politics of Hate" by Fareed Zakaria, he describes the Muslim civilians in these regions as mostly poor to impoverished, undereducated, with little more than oral tradition as an orientation to the Qur'an. He describes them as already desperate, trying to survive, and living in fear for their lives from terrorism."
Sounds an awful lot like poor communities in the U.S. just replace Muslim with Christian, and the word Qur'an with Bible. Communities of poor faithful believers, who live in fear of criminal police and law enforcement officials, sub standard living conditions, and organized crime, who only know the Bible through quotes from their elders and religious leaders, where people are murdered in the streets and schools are under equipped, under funded, and job prospects low - I call those places Chicago, Tennessee, Michigan, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, South Bronx, Pennsylvania, and Wasilla Alaska just to name a few.
I'm often reminded of the scriptures people used to justify slavery, the murder of homosexuals, the rape, murder, physical and psychological abuse of women that has/is occurring in this country (and especially certain regions of the country everyday)
Acts of "homosexuality" can get you arrested and imprisoned for up 15 years in states like Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas.
There is no need to classify terrorist by race or religion because neither category justifies or even explains their terrorists actions, all it does is associate them with those categories. If we seek to fight "Islamic" terrorism, what do we plan to do about "Christian " terrorism. The only difference seems to be that Christian terrorist always try to escape with their lives in tact. The Klan and The Nazi under Hitler both claim that they were soldiers for a Christian god, but I have never officially heard a term for "Christian Terrorists" ever.
Sadaam originally came into power through a violent coup in the late 60's/early 70's I wanna say. (A United States funded and assisted coup I might add). And though many of the Iraqis hated Sadaam, it's not like they like us. A missile screeching through your neighborhood or a tank rolling past your playground is a bad memory, no matter why it happened. If we don't do some discussing and some educating along with all this warfare everybody's just going to see us as screeching missiles and imposing tanks.
Love-Health-Awareness-Wealth
Mjh
and America has its own demons to face. Why should she be involved at all in the affairs of others.
All hate, intolerance, and oppression is wrong. Terrorism affects us all. A fear based reality is the result of terrorism. Yes, it is everywhere. Anyone living in fear is a victim of terrorism.
But I thought this blog was about what Obama should do to influence the happenings in the middle east right now.
I don't know about anyone else but I think that terrorism is a huge part of the history of Christianity, and I do not ignore that fact.
For the most part though, the Christians in America have chosen to put down arms and instead use ideologies to oppress people. yes, it is just as harmful, but blood is being shed at too high a rate to ignore in the middle east.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
not that America shouldn't get involved with helping the planet but that we cannot get involved from the perspective of "We are the great Christians coming to impart wisdom on you radical Islamic terrorist".
If we assume the worst about them because of their religion then we have failed before we have started. We must go into with the understanding that they are people, not all right, not all wrong. But most importantly that we are people, not all right, not all wrong.
And no, as a Christian, I don't believe that we are any more committed to peace than Muslims are. Both the Qu'ran and the Bible call for peace, both call for justice. In no case where religion is used for terror is religion the actual cause of the terror, it's just the excuse.
You don't need religion to see that Palestine (Hamas) is at fault, here. I am an ATHEIST and it is perfectly clear to ME that there WAS peace (however brief and fragile it may have been), and that it was Palestine, not Israel, that violated the cease-fire and started the fight that is now ravaging the Gaza strip.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
on this point and I understand what you are trying to say and what you've been trying to say to all of who want to understand, and it's not that we don't....maybe we don't want to and are not ready to understand these things, yet, most of us have a veil waiting to be lifted, but are we ready for it
(reference here being nathanial hawthorne's, minister's black veil)
---
"Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish." [17:81] "You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together than
"we cannot get involved from the perspective of "We are the great Christians coming to impart wisdom on you radical Islamic terrorist"."
I honestly don't think this is what the powers that represent our country in the middle east are thinking. I know some ignorant people who think this way, but thank God their ignorance has kept them from positions of power.
I do not think that I or anyone else in this discussion is suggesting that this is about squelching Islam.
I do not believe it is prejudiced to assess something and see it for what it is. I do not want to be politically correct and ignore the terrorist nature of Hamas just to make some people feel better.
I have been studying and learning about Islam for this very reason, to understand just what it has to do with the wars we have been seeing in the middle east.
the answer is that it is not Islam which is the problem, but the way certain radical groups interpret the Qur'an that is dangerous. I am not saying the Qur'an is dangerous, it is the thinking of those kinds of people. The same goes for radical fundamental Christians who interpret the Bible totally literally.
To pretend that their faith is not a factor in their behavior is just plain ignorant.
No one should enter this situation thinking that their religion has anything to do with our intent. We should not go in saying anything about Christianity. This is about international law.
I really think that America's involvement in the middle east has created a web of a mess, and I don't think we can clean it up that easily. I think we need to step back, and reign in our own shit, and start thinking about how we are going to preserve democracy as a reality in this world.
For us to be accountable, we would have to go back and deconstruct all of the shady dealings we have had over the past 30 years. If we want to help, we should reexamine our own actions, and study the effects of those, and determine where we have helped and where we have not. That way we can forge a new approach, that is responsible and informed. If we need to make amends for our own mistakes, so be it. That is how we can restore our reputation in the world.
To ignore our mistakes, and still take the stance of "We are America and we stand for democracy, and we are going to help you be democratic whether you like it or not" is very stupid, especially when many are resenting us for the residual effects that our involvement has had. If we can admit our mistakes first, then we might be able to offer a real solution, and people might be willing to listen.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Hi everyone let's clear somethings up.
A few posts ago we digressed a tiny bit on the topic of prefacing terrorist with a religious connotation.(ie. Islamic terrorists, Islamic radicals, Islamic extremists) my response to that was "No need for a religous prefix a terrorist is a terrorist". To which I got a response that featured this article quote about Islamic nations, to which I responded (in a nut shell) by saying Christianity, my religion is no better.
So my point is no you don't need religion to see that this about international law. To think that you are going to deal with people who feel their religion is under attack by attaching their religion to words like Terrorist is not a good idea. It is obvious that for some reason or another several people around the globe find the US approach disrespectful to say the least, if we continue to go into this with the same mind set we will get the same results.
Leave religion out of it and deal with the international law violations, if a terrorists tell you it's in the name of God he's lying to either you or himself, either way you will never see past the religion to the terrorist if every time you talk about the terrorist you put the religion in front. Move all the excuses aside and deal with the problem. It's not about being P.C. it's about understanding that Islam has nothing to do with the mindset of oppression. You would do more to understand the mindset of oppressors than to understand the mindset of Muslims.
You'll find that all of them are the same and all their devout followers are the same. If we don't take issue with the religion, then stop making the religion an issue, especially when none of us are Muslim or studying the Qur'an so we have no idea what it's telling people and what kind of mind set it creates.It's naive to think that we can understand a religion from second, third hand information and translated holy books out of context by people who don't even subscribe to the religion. It is also naive to think that their leaders have a religious agenda and our leaders don't. There's no way people are going to say that George W. Bush's religion doesn't come into his foreign policy decisions.
Love-Health-Awareness-Wealth
Mjh
a little bit of the Qur'an but in any case, I think everyone has been jaded by the recent history...truthfully the Muslims of today...that commit these atrocities have dirtied the pure thing called Islam.
It still is pure but the people who practice it in this way are dirty, they are definitely going to hell, regardless of what they say about going to heaven with 72 virgins. one of the biggest sins in Islam like other religions is taking a life and innocent ones on top of that, They ARE going to go to hell...it is all up to him.
017.081
YUSUFALI: And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."
017.082
YUSUFALI: We send down (stage by stage) in the Qur'an that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe: to the unjust it causes nothing but loss after loss.
YUSUFALI:
017.083
Yet when We bestow Our favours on man, he turns away and becomes remote on his side (instead of coming to Us), and when evil seizes him he gives himself up to despair!
017.084
Say: "Everyone acts according to his own disposition: But your Lord knows best who it is that is best guided on the Way."
017.085
They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!)"
017.086
If it were Our Will, We could take away that which We have sent thee by inspiration:then wouldst thou find none to plead thy affair in that matter as against Us,-
O17.087
Except for Mercy from thy Lord: for his bounty is to thee (indeed) great.
017.088
Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.
017.089
And We have explained to man, in this Qur'an, every kind of similitude: yet the greater part of men refuse (to receive it) except with ingratitude!
-----
Hadith:
What are the biggest sins?:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 55:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:
A bedouin came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! What are the biggest sins?: The Prophet said, "To join others in worship with Allah." The bedouin said, "What is next?" The Prophet said, "To be undutiful to one's parents." The ... Read Morebedouin said "What is next?" The Prophet said "To take an oath 'Al-Ghamus." The bedouin said, "What is an oath 'Al-Ghamus'?" The Prophet said, "The false oath through which one deprives a Muslim of his property (unjustly)."
---
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
http://pakistaniat.com/2008/01/01/heer-ranjha-the-story-of-punjabs-first...
""Consider the following:
* That Saddam Hussein was aiding al Qaida was the second rationale the U.S. administration gave for invading Iraq.
* Yet Saddam is a secular Muslim, and al Qaida detests secular Muslims.
* How long would Saddam have lived had al Qaida gained power?
* Is it plausible that Saddam would aid any organization that would have most likely executed him?
In fact, none of the rationales we gave for the invasion were plausible and had supporting evidence. So why did we invade Iraq?"
Now, here is one example where the understanding of the *religion* of the people involved, and its distinct prefixed classifications would have served *everyone* involved in the situation. Instead, America made decisions that come with a very high cost with little reward (yes I am engaging in cost-benefit analysis in relationship to war) based on a choice to be *religiously ignorant.*
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I dig. I even understand your "Islamic Terrorist" thing, I still don't agree, but I will say we do need to step back and reign in our own shit some. It's also not going to be easy. There's no clean break and we gotta do something. So I say let's talk to these people, if for no other reason to see where their head is at.
Good Night!
Mjh
it is not Islam we are fighting. And you are right in that anyone who violates international law should be held accountable for that, regardless of their motivation.
If you haven't yet, check out the discussion in the forums about this. Most of us posting here have posted there as well and it might help to understand a bit better where we are coming from.
Also the last poll about war goes into this a little.
If you or Mai cared to you would see how many blogs I have written about Islam, along with Judaism and Christianity. I had many motivations for doing so, one being that I do think that religion is relevant to war.
Religion is one of the most powerful influences over human behavior.
I have absolute respect for Islam and Muslims both. I want to see those in the middle east free to express their faith on their own terms.
It is important to understand an enemy's motivation, *especially* if you intend on negotiating with them.
Walking into negotiations ignoring their motivation to create a pure Islamic state is ignorant and wouldn't get very far. You have to be willing to at least appear that you might be willing to help them meet their needs.
The Qur'an does support a pure Islamic state. Muhammed was not just a prophet, he was a leader of an empire. It was his vision that Muslims would be governed by one person who was both king, or caliph, and prophet. The premise of the Qur'an is that there is no separation between church and state.
That seems disturbing doesn't it? It is true though. So I asked my friend asmaw about her feelings, since she is a Muslim. I said something like, "is it religious intolerance to not support theocracy?" She said she didn't support it either.
So how do we reconcile these things? Well for one it helps to look at the history of Judaism, which started out exactly the same way.
The answer to how do we respect the religion and its followers and still justify interfering with the establishment of a pure Islamic state is that Islam, like the other Abrahamic religions, must adapt. Judaism is so strong because it has been successful with this.
When the second temple was destroyed the Jews adapted so that they could maintain their rituals and beliefs.
Obviously the reasons for going to war in the middle east are not to squelch Islam. We are at peace with countries that do live by sharia law, so that is not the issue.
The issue is, however, that the ideology of radical, militant Muslims which is willing to pursue its goals at any and all costs.
By their ideology democracy is evil. We are evil. We must be aware that we are going in as enemies, no matter what we say or do.
The US would do well to take this into consideration whether it negotiates or does not.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Turtlesuds is exactly right. Sure there were some of the population that truly supported Hamas but the elections were overwhelmingly influenced by Hamas' scare tactics and their appeal to the radical sects by manipulating the Islamic religion.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
A sincere, "Thank You!" I was sincere when I said it before, but I decided to clarify so you won't assume some other tone into my gratitude.
From the wikipedia link you provided, I pulled this;
"On 19 June 2008, an Egyptian-brokered six-month cease-fire agreement "for the Gaza area"[33][79] went into effect between Hamas and Israel.[33] On 24 June 2008, Israel raided the city of Nablus on the West Bank, outside of the cease fire area,[80] killing a commander of Islamic Jihad (an organisation independent of Hamas) and one other Palestinian.[81] Later the same day, three Qassam rockets were fired from Gaza into Sderot, Israel, causing two minor injuries, and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, stating the attack was in response to the Israeli raid.[82] Israel closed border crossings into Gaza in response to the rocket attack,[80] and on 26 June, Hamas warned Israel that its closure of the Gaza border was seen as a major cease-fire violation.[citation needed]
Monthly rocket hits in Israel 2008.[83]
Hamas called on other Palestinian factions to abide by the truce, and a rocket attack on Israel by Fatah was condemned by Hamas,[84]which undertook to imprison anyone, from its own ranks or other groups, caught firing them.[85"
There is a lot more, but it just goes back and forth. Israel is following the law of "eye for an eye," and were actually in warrior pose by putting up the blockade. i am sorry, but that seems a little like they are creating their own reality.
To claim a truce, but keeps your guns out does not work in the interest of peace very well. It seems like an invitation to attack.
Please understand, that I am constructing my opinions as I process information. Before today and the discussion on the general forum about Palestine, I did not know that the Hamas were elected, or that they have ever been anything other than militant terrorists.
CNN made them out to be this evil force that was inciting Israeli back lash on Palestine, basically in an effort to get the war between Palestine and Israel to a climax, so they could sit back and watch the 2 countries destroy each other.
I still have a lot to learn. Nothing I say is my final verdict. Also, I noticed that there is still citation needed for this comment:
"and on 26 June, Hamas warned Israel that its closure of the Gaza border was seen as a major cease-fire violation.[citation needed]"
Wikipedia is neat, but it's not totally reliable. I use it myself a lot to familiarize myself with things I know nothing about, and then try to follow up with verifying things, if Ineed to. I like that it tries to be comprehensive so I don't have to dig everywhere to learn the overall history of things.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
"Hamas was created with massive aid from the Israeli government. Following is an excerpt from my Terrorism & Tyranny (2003):
Perhaps the single largest mistake in the history of the Israeli government’s long war on terrorism was its covert financing, cosseting, and arming of Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon denounced Hamas as “the deadliest terrorist group that we have ever had to face.” But the Israeli government is reticent about admitting its role in creating this Frankenstein.
Beginning in the 1970s Israel began pouring money into Islamic organizations —especially the Moslem Brotherhood—hoping that religion would distract the Palestinians from political activism and the radical left-wing Palestinian Liberation Organization. Hamas was a late offspring of the Moslem Brotherhood. Prior to 1988 Moslem Brotherhood activists “had refrained from openly anti-Israel activities.” But with the outbreak of the first Intifada (uprising) in late 1987, the Israeli government was stunned to see how fast Hamas became the primary source of deadly attacks against Israelis.
Anthony Cordesman, a former State Department and Defense Department intelligence officer and currently a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, stated that the Israeli government “aided Hamas directly—the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO.” A United Press International analysis reported, “According to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.” UPI noted that, according to documents provided by Israeli terrorism experts, “Hamas was legally registered in Israel in 1978 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the movement’s spiritual leader, as an Islamic Association by the name Al-Mujamma al Islami.”
The Jerusalem Post reported on May 29, 1989, that, until the late 1980s, the Moslem Brotherhood “organizations in Gaza and the Islamic University received much encouragement from the [Israeli] military government. . . . The military government believed that their activity would undermine the power of the PLO and of leftist organizations in Gaza. They even supplied some of their activists with weapons, for their protection.” During the first Intifada (uprising), the PLO and Hamas openly clashed over how to resist the Israeli occupation. The Jerusalem Post noted: “The [Israeli] security forces greeted this tension [between Palestinian groups] with satisfaction, in line with the principle of divide and conquer. In several cases, Palestinians noticed that troops stood by quietly during Hamas street activity, but did interfere when PLO activists engaged in the same activity.” The Israeli government assumed that if the PLO could be thwarted, the Palestinian problem would be solved. But Hamas was far more bloodthirsty and radical than the PLO. The PLO effectively recognized Israel’s right to exist in 1988, while Hamas devoted itself to seizing all of Palestine for an Islamic state."
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/01/08/senates-know-nothingism-on-hamas/
"He who awaits much can expect little."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, No One Writes to the Colonel
(me thinks...I will meet GM in another life)
Interesting indeed. It seems to me then that Israel's efforts to control people with money and religion are backfiring on them. Not surprising, that is usually what happens.
Throwing money at dangerous people to appease them, that almost sounds like tribal practices of animal sacrifice to stave of the wrath of God.
Yes, i know I am oversimplifying things, but still, I was surprised to read this.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
relationship with Taliban and Israel's with Hamas....are uncanny, unsettling and mind boggling. who the hell comes up with this sort of thing, whatever, I have to stop caring or I will go crazy.
"He who awaits much can expect little."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, No One Writes to the Colonel
(me thinks...I will meet GM in another life)
don't stop caring. I need you. The world needs you. I understand why you want to though. It is a heavy burden to care about things we seemingly have no control over. But information brings power. We (the world) need to dialogue and exchange information an ideas. That is our only weapon against terrorism right now.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
These types of accusations seem to fight with reason. Do you really believe that the U.S. provided war materials and funding to the Taliban during the 80's with the knowledge that they would move from fighting russians to bringing a war of terror on the U.S.? Although looking back now it was a mistake, it certainly was not a mistake at the time and was a good thing for America and the people of the world. The Taliban's repulsion of the soviet invasion ended the threat of the Soviet Union expanding further into central Asia and southern Asia. Can you imagine if the soviets had brought the same communism to countries like Pakistan and India, which far larger populations then Vietnam or Cambodia? When Israel funded Hamas, it was in their best interests for the time. How are these examples mind-boggling?
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
I think the same what if could be applied, imagine nothing like what you're saying would have happened....we believed it might and that's fine, so no regrets, deal with the huge mess we created and in retrospect, learn from your mistakes so you don't mess up the future the same. PLEASE! that is all I want to say. Let's not argue more.
Agree to disagree if you are still not satisfied.
Still mind boggling, sorry.
"He who awaits much can expect little."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, No One Writes to the Colonel
(me thinks...I will meet GM in another life)