This Talk of Peace Makes Me Want To Go To War. (Impossible Thread Episode 4)

originally posted by: demus

offer a way to guarantee Israel's safety with more than another Hamas promise.

stop killing innocent civilians, stop razing homes, stop shelling hospitals and return (at least some) stolen land, for beginning...

Israel did not start the wars. Israel did not start killing civilians. Israel tries to minimize it. Their enemies do not. Their enemies tried to steal land. Their enemies target civilians as much as possible.

I agree with what you said, it's just ironic that it applies to Hamas.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
The whole issue of who started it and who is to blame is is ridiculous. Where two fight, two are to blame. So I would suggest that if Israel and Palestine can't play nice, they both pack up their stuff and leave the region. We could turn the place into the World's largest waterslide amusement park and be done with it.

So let me get this straight. Russia attacks Ukraine. Ukraine defends itself. Since who started it doesn't matter, Ukraine should pack up and lose their land?

Not sure you thought that through.

Who started it does matter when you talk about what has happened, and concessions made.

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: demus

By listing a bunch of concessions then saying when you've conceded all that, we'll ask for more, you've missed the point of the thread and offered a completely unworkable position.

did I missed the point?

you are talking about survival of a Nation and I understand that from that point of view but are you taking away right of another Nation to survive?

I don't agree or promote any view posted here but I was thinking it should be acknowledged that Hamas is not out there to "relocate or destroy every Israeli" but to do exactly what is Israel trying to do - to survive as a Nation.

Article Thirty-One of the Charter states: "Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions—Islam, Christianity and Judaism—to coexist in peace and quiet with each other."

Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar did not rule out the possibility of accepting a "temporary two-state solution"

Al-Zahar "did not rule out the possibility of having Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state"

In late 2006, Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, said that if a Palestinian state was formed within the 1967 lines, Hamas was willing to declare a truce that could last as long as 20 years, and stated that Hamas will never recognize the "usurper Zionist government"

In November 2008, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh re-stated that Hamas was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and offered Israel a long-term truce "if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights"

On December 1, 2010, Ismail Haniyeh again repeated, "We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees," and "Hamas will respect the results [of a referendum] regardless of whether it differs with its ideology and principles."

Pastor states that those who quote the charter rather than more recent Hamas statements may be using the Charter as an excuse to ignore Hamas.

British diplomat and former British ambassador to the United Nations Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006"

the use of the charter by Israel and its supporters to brand Hamas as a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization and claims that they have taken parts of the charter out of context for propaganda purposes. He claims that they dwell on the charter and ignore that Hamas has changed its views with time.

So ... according to your post ... Hamas is ok with a TEMPORARY Two State solution that ends in the whole region under Islamic rule with Israel no longer a nation. Gotcha.

Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar did not rule out the possibility of accepting a "temporary two-state solution"

Al-Zahar "did not rule out the possibility of having Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state"

Wow wonder why Israel did not jump at the chance ....

a reply to: demus

None of those are facts. They are opinions.

As for how to get both sides towards peace, put some MDMA (ecstasy) in the water supply. Not a lot, but some to help bolster peoples respect more than disdain for each other.

Even if this whole messed up Palael or Isrestine state issue is sorted, people are still going to die and kill each other. Is there any security issues that the IDF and Hamas work together rather than against on?

originally posted by: kwakakev
As for how to get both sides towards peace, put some MDMA (ecstasy) in the water supply. Not a lot, but some to help bolster peoples respect more than disdain for each other.

Even if this whole messed up Palael or Isrestine state issue is sorted, people are still going to die and kill each other. Is there any security issues that the IDF and Hamas work together rather than against on?

Nope. Israel works with other Muslim countries though. They even returned land to countries who agreed to peace.

originally posted by: charles1952
Dear ATSers,

Everybody says they want peace and an acceptance of the other parties in the area, except for the Islamic leaders that don't say that...

The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, seeks peace. Israel and Hamas don't want it, though.

How do we get the opposing parties to talk to each other at a peace table?

The only way Hamas and Israel will talk, is if they can come to an agreement on a set of problems. Perhaps it would be best for the Palestinian President to mediate a peace process, with the help of the UN. Indeed, he is already attempting such measures, but Israel and Hamas have so far been unwilling, from what i understand.

Of course, the solution can't be based on a cease fire, Hamas treats cease fires with a 50-50 attitude lately.

As does Israel. They actually violated a ceasefire the other day, by continuing shelling in a suburb of Gaza. Also, the destruction of tunnels during a ceasefire, really isn't a ceasefire. Israel was just trying to be sneaky, and achieve their goals without getting their soldiers killed.

But maybe we can find a place where Hamas and Israel can reach an agreement.

Perhaps...

Here's part of an article from 2012:

Khaled Meshal is the top political leader of Hamas, and entered Gaza for the first time this weekend. Here are some of his remarks to a mass rally celebrating Hamas’s 25th anniversary:

"Palestine, from the river to the sea, from north to south, is our land. Not an inch of it can be conceded. We cannot recognize the legitimacy of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. There is no legitimacy to occupation, and therefore no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take. Liberating Palestine, all of Palestine, is a duty, a right and a goal….we will liberate [Jerusalem] inch by inch, stone by stone, Islamic and Christian holy places. Israel has no right in Jerusalem…."

As to the recent UN vote giving “Palestine” the status of “non-member state,” Meshal said:

"Liberation first, then the state. The real state is the product of liberation, not the product of negotiations. Holy war and armed resistance are the real and right path to liberation and recovery of rights."

blogs.cfr.org...

So, we now know that Hamas wants the elimination of Israel.

Indeed, Hamas has never hidden their true agendas. That said, i can say that some Israeli folk want the opposite goal, that is, obtaining the entirety of Israel as Jewish land. Here's footage of an Israeli minister saying that he believes all land between the river and sea belongs to the Jews:



He's okay with allowing Palestinians the right to live there, providing Israel retains the land. It isn't much different from the goals of Hamas, which states in its charter that it would be tolerant of any religion, providing they accept the land as Palestinian. Besides, the Hamas leader claimed in 2010, that their charter should now be viewed as nothing more than history:

When Pastor asked about the Hamas Charter, Meshal replied that it is a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons.

www.wrmea.org...

But assume for a moment, that by some strange twist of fate the Israeli government doesn't want their country to be eliminated. Is the best course of action to send Hamas a letter asking them not to?

No, they should actually try working with Mahmoud Abbas and his unified government of Palestine. You know, the government that Israel doesn't want to acknowledge for fear of allowing them legitimacy...

Speaking of shelters, Hamas has done a lot of digging underground. It's really too bad that some one spilled coffee on their plans to build shelters for their people. Oh, well, you can't make martyrs without cracking a few skulls. Besides, they make good publicity photos, which the world will show over and over. It's no problem if they run out of pictures, Hamas has discovered how to create fake victim photos. They're not very believable, but their good enough to cause some more emotional outrage.

Your bias is showing.

Hamas isn't the only organisation which engages in propaganda. Have you seen the IDF lately?

Israel, due to it's neo-fascist, Black and White thinking, accepts only two possibilities in their narrow minded way, stop Hamas, or don't stop Hamas. Those war mongers somehow think that stopping Hamas is a good idea. But the world knows better. If Israel does more than any other army in history to protect civilians in an urban area under attack, it proves that their intent is to kill kids. It's a shame that those 16 year old "kids" don't get a chance to gently put down their rifles, the stocks get scratched when they're dropped.

You talk as if you've been in Gaza.

While Israel is showing some restraint, they could try harder. Bombing hospitals, mosques and schools for suspicion that rockets may be located there, does not constitute the protection of civilians. If they really cared for the lives of civilians, they wouldn't bomb crowded areas, and instead, deploy special forces to raid and destroy the bombs.

And yes, i know you are using sarcasm. Just thought i'd make some points.

Oh, on a serious note? Hamas has admitted to firing three rockets at Dimona, the site of Israel's nuclear reactor. Iron Dome got one, the other two missed. Consider, for a moment, a Fukushima in Israel. I don't suppose Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran,and Syria would be too happy if radiation started coming their way.

Indeed. As they say, 'drastic times call for drastic measures'.

Seriously though, it is a worrying situation. A good thing that Israel is protected from those pesky rockets though!

Iran, by the way, is one of Hamas' great supporters and funders. How far is Iran from getting a short-range nuke? When they get one, might they share with Hamas?

Never gonna happen. Lol.

Besides, nothing much is stopping Hamas from purchasing nukes on the black market.....

Well, what solution do these attempts at peace (also known as conquest) lead us to? This is the unhappy conclusion I need to be dissuaded from. The only thing I can see is that Hamas must be completely destroyed as a threat.

The question is what to do with a terror organization that gives every appearance of wanting to go to paradise through committing "Suicide by IDF."

Hamas shouldn't be destroyed. If they are destroyed, another organisation will take their place. I am not the only one to share such an opinion:

A top Pentagon intelligence official warned on Saturday that the destruction of Hamas would only lead to something more dangerous taking its place, as he offered a grim portrait of a period of enduring regional conflict.

“If Hamas were destroyed and gone, we would probably end up with something much worse. The region would end up with something much worse,” Flynn said at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.

“A worse threat that would come into the sort of ecosystem there … something like ISIS...”

www.businessinsider.com.au...

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: charles1952
Dear ATSers,

Everybody says they want peace and an acceptance of the other parties in the area, except for the Islamic leaders that don't say that...

The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, seeks peace. Israel and Hamas don't want it, though.

Which is why Abbas lost a lot of power. I think if he was supported by the people and had his way peace could be realized. The problem is the Palestinian people do not want peace, and do not support him.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: demus

Dear demus,

Unfortunately, we're drifting from the point here. That happens in a lot of threads and I'd rather it not happen here. The question on the floor is "How can Israel guarantee it's safety and continued existence, with more than a Hamas promise to secure it?"

The secondary question is "If Hamas continues to fight against Israel and refuses peace terms, what should Israel's response be?"

With respect,
Charles1952

hi charles,

israel cannot guarantee it's safety forever, unfortunately, by itself.
destroying hamas is a good start, tho.

once they are gone, hopefully the other arab states will step up and not let something like hamas grow again.
they need to be held accountable also, for peace in the area.
if the world wants a say in the conflict, then they better put their money where their mouth is.

"palestine" is a failed state, imo, the UN should be stepping in somehow and not against israel.



if they don't stop, hamas has to be crushed until someone on that side cries uncle.


S&F

a reply to: charles1952

If you ask yourself why they were given the land by the British you'll find the answer. They deserved to have a country however they were given the wrong one. The only way to fix it is give them the land they should have been given and release Middle East to the Arab Nations.

IMHO I think the answer to your question is there is no answer. Both sides have been raised since birth to think they are in the absolute right and that god is on their side. Israel can not and should not back down from wanting to secure their nation. Palestinians can not and should not back down from wanting a nation they can call their own. Both sides will continue to do what THEY think they have to. Nothing I say or anyone on the internet says will change that. No side is right. No side is wrong. So to sum up my position. There will be no peace.

a reply to: charles1952

Charles, a brilliant thread. I have to caution myself to not make another account simply so I could star and flag it further.


I've tried to remain rational throughout this entire action, dispute war.

War is bad for all sides, regardless who is winning. War is what happens when everything else fails.

That being said, I've offered my support to any side that sues for peace. Real peace.

I've also been curious, of late, to discern the differences between anti-Semitic and anti-Zionism. I hope someone can illustrate the differences for me.

Your threads have the bad habit of being very wise and illustrative.

a reply to: charles1952

A nation has a duty to insure it's survival. What can Israel do to guarantee it's survival as the State of Israel?

Does not Palestine have the right to ensure the survival of it's nation? Israel proved back in 48 they couldn't be trusted to stay within the borders of the nation it was given. From day one they started stealing Palestinian land crying it was for their defense. Each year a little more of Palestine is stolen so between the two Palestine has more of a right to self defense because there is far more of a chance of it disappearing than Israel. Not to mention seeing how Palestine is an occupied nation it has more of a right to self defense than the nation that is doing the occupying.

In this situation, I'm reminded of the apocryphal notice once erected (allegedly) in a French zoo;
"Cet animal est tres mechant;
Quand on l'attaque, il se defende".
(This animal is very naughty; when it's attacked, it defends itself".

There is one of our number who believes he has the answer, if you're willing to receive it (though that's not my recommendation).
If you fancy your mind being blown;
The Cecil solution

a reply to: daaskapital

Dear daaskapital,

Your post seems to me to be one of the better ones you've done. It's almost as though you put extra effort into it and I really appreciate that.

I'm also surprised at how much we agree upon. But, I have to be honest and say there are areas where we have disagreements. The first is the idea that Israel doesn't want peace, and that Abbas might be a good choice to mediate the peace process. Abbas may not be a good choice. An Associated Press article from March of this year was reposted in Yahoo. It contained the following:

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said there is "no way" he will recognize Israel as a Jewish state and accept a Palestinian capital in just a portion of Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem, rebuffing what Palestinians fear will be key elements of a U.S. peace proposal.

Abbas' comments signaled that the gaps between him and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remain wide after seven months of mediation efforts by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

Speaking to youth activists of his Fatah party, he suggested he would stand firm again, particularly over the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"They are pressing and saying, 'No peace without the Jewish state,'" he said, though not spelling out who is applying the pressure. "There is no way. We will not accept."

Abbas' 2014 comments to young Fatah activists.

Me:

So, we now know that Hamas wants the elimination of Israel.

You:

Indeed, Hamas has never hidden their true agendas.

Hamas won't accept a Jewish state, Abbas and his party won't accept a Jewish state. Why would Israel agree to being eliminated?

No, they should actually try working with Mahmoud Abbas and his unified government of Palestine.

As I've said, what reason would Israel have for working with this guy? Abbas wants to have total control and ownership of Jerusalem.

While Israel is showing some restraint, they could try harder. Bombing hospitals, mosques and schools for suspicion that rockets may be located there, does not constitute the protection of civilians. If they really cared for the lives of civilians, they wouldn't bomb crowded areas, and instead, deploy special forces to raid and destroy the bombs.

Now that's an interesting idea. It seems you're saying that it would be a solution if Israel said, "We won't bomb you any more, but we are going to send in a whole lot of soldiers to search and destroy these bombs, rocket launchers, and weapons dumps." Would that win the praise of Palestine and the world?

Hamas shouldn't be destroyed. If they are destroyed, another organisation will take their place. I am not the only one to share such an opinion

Then you quote some of Lieutenant General Flynn's statements agreeing with you. But first, look at the logic of that. If ISIS is more dangerous than Hamas, couldn't they take over Palestine if they wanted to? Besides, what more would ISIS do? Use better rockets? If ISIS will be able to defeat Israel, it won't matter much where the attack is launched.

Further, Hamas has good press (relatively). If ISIS took over Gaza, I suspect that the public opinion of some of the Mid-east nations, and most of the rest of the world, would shift in Israel's favor. And there's more. If ISIS is to be defeated, who is going to do it? Not Iran or Iraq, Syria is going to be busy for a long time. Not Turkey. Then who will do the work?

Also from your article:

Flynn’s comments about the conflict came during a gloomy, broader assessment of unrest across the Middle East, including in Syria and Iraq. Flynn said bluntly: “Is there going to be a peace in the Middle East? Not in my lifetime.

This confirms my gloomy conclusion. Peace won't occur, fighting will, and I would rather have Israel win than Hamas.

Daaskapital, you're leading me to believe it's time for Israel to get serious about the whole mess. I believe there is an old American folk saying: "Defecate, or release the personal sanitary facility to be available for use by another person."

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: tsingtao

Dear tsingtao,

I think you've got something there. What really struck me was:

once they are gone, hopefully the other arab states will step up and not let something like hamas grow again.
they need to be held accountable also, for peace in the area.

That may be a path to peace. I like your thinking. It might go like this:

1.) Israel announces that it is fed up to the yamulke (skullcap) with Hamas and the Palestinian attacks. Offers one last cease fire and settlement, including recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

2.) Palestine says impolite things in rejecting Israel's offer. (As the Arab states have been doing for almost 70 years.)

3.) Israel destroys Hamas, thoroughly and viciously.

4.) The UN, Barack Obama, and The New York Times write nasty letters to Israel. Justin Bieber announces he won't perform there.

5.) Israelis sleep soundly, knowing they won't have to spent the night in a bomb shelter.

6.) Israel wakes up rested and refreshed and calls the remaining Palestinians and some Arab countries in for a conference. The main idea of the meeting is summed up in the opening speech:

"We know Palestine has had a tough time, but it looks like we've gotten rid of the crazies. There's a bunch of things we can do for Palestine, and we will. All of the things that you might need will be made available. But there's a lesson here; "Don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry." We trust you to set up a reasonable government with the aid of your fellow Muslims in other countries. We'll tolerate and accept each other. We already do. About a quarter of our population is non-Jewish Arabs. Frankly, we can make this work, we'll help make it work, and if you guys foul it up, we'll get rid of you as well."

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: usertwelve

Dear usertwelve,

If you ask yourself why they were given the land by the British you'll find the answer. They deserved to have a country however they were given the wrong one. The only way to fix it is give them the land they should have been given and release Middle East to the Arab Nations.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post at all. If the land was given to them, it's theirs, isn't it? If I give a beggar a bill from my wallet, why does it matter why I gave it to him, it's his.

If I drive down the road (say about 70 years) and discover I gave him a $100 bill instead of the $10 I intended, I can't go back and just take the hundred from him.

Give them a new country? That's really strange. You're going to force other countries to give up part of their land to make a new Israel? Then you're going to force the Israelis to move there? As the kids on the playground used to say "Yeah? You and what army?"

Israelis are currently living in and around their main holy city, just as Muslims are. As an aside, the majority of the citizens in Jerusalem in 1890 were Jewish. Yet the Israelis have to go. Why not move out the Palestinians? There are fewer of them, it would be an easier move.

And who is going to come up with the trillion dollars plus to compensate Israel for what they leave behind?

If I understand your meaning, it won't work without massive war.

If I don't understand your meaning, please explain it to me, I'm curious to hear of any solution.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

That's just it Charles, there is no solution because they screwed it up. War will continue until things are set straight which will never happen. The land that should have been given to them is from the country that attempted to wipe them off the earth through genocide in WWII. If they had been given the land of their persecutors, or a portion thereof, we wouldn't be here.

a reply to: karmicecstasy

Dear karmicecstasy,

I don't think you're giving your thoughts enough credit. Let's not throw them out into the snow as orphans just yet.

Both sides do firmly believe they are in the right. It would be abominable for a country to kill and die for a cause they knew was wrong.

Israel can not and should not back down from wanting to secure their nation. Palestinians can not and should not back down from wanting a nation they can call their own.

Why should it be impossible to achieve both of these goals? (Although, I don't believe that Palestine will stop it's violence when they achieve statehood. Do you?) The entire rest of the world has done it. Israel has done it with some of its Muslim neighbors, Egypt being the most striking example.

Both sides will continue to do what THEY think they have to. Nothing I say or anyone on the internet says will change that.

Of course you're right. If I wanted to change the world, or even a nation or a state, I wouldn't spend time on ATS, no one who wanted to change the real world would.

No side is right. No side is wrong.

That's where I think you're throwing the orphan into the drift of the white stuff. It's too easy to say everybody is wrong. On the one hand, it's because "All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Nobody's "right" in that sense.

On the other hand, the motives, and actions, of two parties in any situation, can't be precisely equally moral or "right."

Let's try this as a test. A sheet of paper shows up on the doorstep of the Israeli boss and the Palestinian boss. It says, "I and my government promise to recognize the right of the other county to exist and promise to launch no further aggressive action against it, if it promises the same. Cross my heart and hope to die, and I'll pinky swear."

Who do you think will sign the paper? I know that Palestine will not. Might Israel? I think so, but there might be discussion on it. Based on that, is it a little easier to see which country might be considered "right?"

Listen, maybe it's not clear to the posters here. I DON'T WANT A WAR. I really want this to be worked out. I was hoping for a hint that it could be. But now I'm pretty much convinced that it can't be.

WHAT I REALLY WANTED HERE, was to find one of our many, many Hamas and Palestine supporters to chime in with something other than "The fighting is Israel's fault." I'm disappointed that they haven't arrived. Maybe they will yet. The fact is that fighting is currently going on, how do we stop it and prevent it in the future?

When the kitchen stove is on fire, no sane person watches it burn while they try to affix blame on Fluffy the cat, or some other cause, they put the fire out.

Israel wants security and to be left alone by it's Muslim neighbors. That's not unreasonable. How do we reach an agreement that includes that? It's easy to blame, but eventually some adult has to come and fix it.

With respect,
Charles1952