It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: Palestinian PM Steps Down- Gives Job to Hamas

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 08:32 AM
Where did I learn it? Well, living in a Nation that has been fighting terrorism against a group long before the state of Israel you tend to learn a few things. One of these, is the fact Irish Republicanism - which desired to destroy and remove British control from Northern Ireland, never was resolved while we invaded and attacked them, however I can list tens more; Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, Congress of Vienna and so on and so fourth. You just refuse, like many other people that peace is formed between two enemies.

As for your plan to take care of Hamas? That’s a joke, the fact is Israel will end up causing more harm, killing more innocent people and giving Hamas even more strength and more members. Unless, of course you think they are not innocent because they voted for Hamas? In which case, the last decade of their attacks are also justified. It can’t be swinging both ways, just because you dislike one group or another the hypocrisy of such things is why Hamas got into power and why the West are disliked so much.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Odium
Where did I learn it? .....of 1783

Didn't lknow you are that old. I always thought you are a law student, age 19 or so...

...which brings me to my next question.

Originally posted by Odium

Unless, of course you think they are not innocent because they voted for Hamas?

As a law student, you should know the answer to my following question:

Voting - and of course with that vote supporting their actions and/or being a member of a group or collecting money for a group that is listed as a TERRORIST organisation in the United Kingdom makes you what according to the British law?

[edit on 31-1-2006 by Riwka]

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:05 AM
Thank you, ArchAngel, speaking of ignorance. You can't argue against the facts, so you attack the fact -bringer. Not surprising, and thank you for making a point I didn't even mean to bring up. By the way, you need a long stint ion reality, looking at who put the shoe on the feet of the Arabs you call "Palestinians". There was no violation of International law or human rights. I'm curious, if I put a gun to your head and make it clear that I am going to pull the trigger, but you have the ability to strike first, what will you do? Talk about denial. Come back when you have facts, not propaganda, and something more than simple insults. I don't expect you back.

Astronomer, the Hamas has changed none. The fact that it is now an elected government doesn't give it legitimate status, but makes the entire group of people it allegedly represents less legitimate.

Of course, Hamas has done things such as build schools. Of course you want to win the hearts and minds, and, of course, you want to control the education of the children, and of course, you want to be elected to government.....
no surprises, I see.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:38 AM
Hey Thomas, wanna Play "Picture Speaks more then a Thousand Words"?

Well, I am not going to be INSULTIVE, as you were, but I will be more to the Point and more from the Real World:

If Americans Knew

And those are HARDCORE FACTS, Mister.

From the 1967 the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been Under ILLEGAL, Military OCCUPATION! Media all Over the WORLD will Use that WORD - Occupation - because that's what it IS! An ILLEGAL OCCUPATION! The Problem is, that US Media is So Much Influenced by Pro-Isreali Lobby in Washington, which is the Strongest Lobby there, that only 4% of the News Reports use that Word OCCUPATION.

Why is that?

Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

Why have the United States Vetoed Over 32 UN Resolution Targetin Isreal and their ILLEGAL Occupation of West Bank and Gaza Strip?

Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same period

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:10 PM
Hi, Souljah. Wow, you come in here and claim that I am being insultive? I see there is a connection between your posting and your assertion; both are highly askewed.
This is getting way, way off topic, Souljah, and your post would be a great thread starter (hint-hint), but I'll give you a small explanation.

Every one of the beautiful graphs are biased, such as the first one, which says the U.N. is obviously biased against Israel. A graph was not needed for that. Thanks for the visual for that.

"Political" prisoners? LOL! I love graphs created to fit subjective assertions! Souljah, do you really believe this garbage? Please, tell me no. Besides, people blown to bits cannot be taken prisoner. When the bomb is placed under the baby carriage, neither the victims or the baby can be taken as a prisoner for eitehr side.

The other biased, misleading graph does not explain why the buildings are demolished, does it? Nope. It would indicate that Israeli bulldozers roam aimlessly to destroy poor "Palestinian" homes. Please, Souljah.

Palsetinian unemployment? Absolutely. Why haven't the Syrians or the Jordanians hired these poor people? They have had several decades to assimilate them and employ them yet, they do not do that. You know where they could start, if they want to work? They could rebuild the Gaza; rebuild the Greenhouses and water purification stations and houses that they vandalized and destroyed when the Israelis pulled out. That would be a good start, huh? Who should pay? I don't know. The Israelis payed for it to be built, and left it for them when they left. I don't think they should pay any more.

New settlements built? What does that have to do with anything? Where were these built? Let me guess, they were built in Judea or Samaria, a land that was annexed by Jordan, and taken back after it was clear that the Arab neighbors were going to strike Israel. How is it known that they were going to strike Israel? They amassed troops and equipment of the Israeli borders in '67 and said that they were going to attack and destroy Israel. That is a pretty good sign of an emminent attack, any logical and sane person would see. Now, let us also keep in mind that Gaza is there for all the Arab settlements to be built that they wish, so why don't they go for it? Build away, build a Utopian paradise! Hey? Do you think their Arab brothers will pitch in and help pay for it? Do you think they will help build a viable economy? Or do you think Hamas will lead these people to more pain, suffering and death? Hmm, they have been better at building explosives belts than economies, it seems.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:27 PM
Well, Riwka I am as old as time itself and well…the fact I turned up to history classes.

As a Law Student, I know that legislation isn’t black and white. It isn’t that simply cut, take for example Ireland. You were a terrorist, if you support the I.R.A. with funds, however you were not directly a terrorist if you supported Sinn Féin - however people still viewed you as one. Hamas, now are political and although previously they were just an organisation built on violence, it is shifting - like we had in Ireland - refusing to communicate with them, won’t resolve the issue.

In fact, the Policy that I pointed out above is how many terrorist organisations justify their actions. Look at the Suicide Bombers in London, the justification they used was that the Labour Party were still in power. Not everyone voted for them, not everyone voted for Hamas. So to justify murdering anyone on the basis Hamas won the election, is to validate the claims of that terrorist organisation and the lives they took in London. You can’t pick and choose when your views are applied - otherwise, you are falling into the same trap that the terrorists themselves make.

In fact, this justification is what Hamas have been using in Israel for decades - claiming that all Israeli’s are part of the military. Yes, they all are due to National Service but does that mean it is O.K. to kill them? Of course not.

Peace Processes are a two way thing, both groups have to give and both groups have to take.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:34 PM
Ok, Odium, again, let's see Hamas try a bit of that "peace" stuff before we give them credit or have expectations.

For you to have pet my sentry dogs, back when I was a sentry dog handler, because you wanted them to be lap dogs, would not have been wise. To treat murderers like peace brokers is, well, suicidal. Oh, I guess that isn't the case it you don't live in that little country.

Old as time itself? LOL! You weren't even born when I went to dog school!

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Odium

Peace Processes are a two way thing, both groups have to give and both groups have to take.

Regarding to this topic, I then assume you mean the Fatah - and the Terrorist group Hamas.

So- what would you suggest, what should Hamas and Fatah both give and have to take to build up the Palestinian Authority?

[edit on 31-1-2006 by Riwka]

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by ArchAngel
I read the link, and it says nothing about anyone forcing Jews to leave.
I stand by my statement.
More importantly, unlike the situation with Israel, Jews were not banned from returning.

I am in a dilema, I cant decide if you are pretending to ignore the facts on purpose or are really brainwashed into advocating this doctorin.
The link specifically says that the climate for the Jews had become hostile and the Jews found their position untenable in the face of rising abuse and had no other option but to leave as refugees.
What do you think that says ?? Obviously the words are not as direct as you would want them to be but anyone with little comprehension of the English language will easily be able to tell what these lines mean.

Israel controls those borders, and Israels military occupies all land within those borders.
If it is not under Israeli control then the Israelies should withdraw their armed forces.

This is yet again the denial of the obvious. The Palestiniand territorial integrity had been compramised by external Arab forces and thus Israel had to restore the territorial integrity back to its inital state.
I am sure you realize this but choose to act obtuse in order to escape the inevitable truth.

Israel still has not given up territories stolen in that war.
The West Bank, Gaza, Golon, and the Cheeba Farms District were never given to Israel, nor are they included in Israeli recognized borders.

West Bank and Gaza have always been part of the Palestine region and thus constitute the limits of Palestine. The retake of these areas is well withing the rights of the Israelis to protect their territorial integrity.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by IAF101]

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Israel is the Bigoted State because no matter the reasons people fled Jews were not denied the right to return to their former Arab Nations[if any even wanted to], but the former Palestinian Arabs were not allowed to return.

I would say that this post epitomizes your perspective on the Israel issue.
You clearly have forgotten that the very essence of Zionism is religious pluralism.
As for the right to return of the Jews, you surely must be joking ! Do you think they would let the Jews return to saudi Arabia or syria or Iraq etc today ?? They only way they would want the jews to return would be in bodybags. They will never allow the Jews to come and settle in their countries. Especially SA, which I can vouch for. The laws in most of these countries strictly state forbid the practise of other religions and strictly restric ownership of all property to be owned by Muslims only, And if you want to enter SA you cant just walk up and ask for a tourist visa, you need to be sponsored by a citizen. The Jews will never be sponsored by anyone and they will never be allowed to step one foot on their soil.
Thoguht this might not be evident, the Arab nations will never allow the Jews to resettle again in their soils. The very notion is absurd to say the least.
So dont claim any moral high ground for the Arabs on that aspect.

In every war there are people that move out of their homes, and thats not ethnic cleansing unless its done by force.

Refusing to allow them to return.....Thats Ethnic Cleansing.....

Ethnic Clensing is VERY DIFFERENT form eviction and deportation. Ethnic Clensing is what happened in the balkans with the muslims killing off the Chrisitians and vice versa to totally end their presence in the region. Their is no such done by the Israelis, if they did then we wouldnt be seeing the Palestinian problem still last to this day.
Infact if you can call anybody it should be the HAMAS which has an agenda that seeks to wipe out the Jews by killing every single one of them, THAT is Ethnic Clensing.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Odium
Wars themselves, have been started time and time again by groups who desire to wipe out another and who desire to commit horrid actions of genocide. However, look at Europe. Look at our history, of Nation after Nation desiring to destroy one another and eventually these “Old Enemies” made peace.

So you are comparing the Wars between European nations to the Terrorism between the Palestinians and the Israelis ??
Is that even comparable as the two are so far apart and have nothing in common except for violence and that too the nature of violence is very differnt as well.
If Israel had to fight a war to secure permanent peace I am sure they would have welcomed it instead of the long and protracted violence that has eaten away at Jewish society and taken the lives of mostly civilians on the Jewish side.
Your recomendations of negotiation etc are all admirable but to talk to somebody you must be sure he wont kill you. You cannot reason with such people and you cannot talk. First the terrorism has to stop, only then can their be talk. That has always been the conditions by the Jewish side. Is that too unreasonable for the Palestinians ?
There is no place for guns at the table of peace.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 02:26 PM

Originally posted by ArchAngel
I represent the middle in an area with a far right Zionist tilt.
Above all else I support Equal Rights for all of the CHRISTIANS in Palestine and Israel, and every righteous means leading to that end I may employ.

The state of Israel " enables those holding every opinion and belief to live as they wish" in the spirit of religious pluralism which is the Zionist way. There is no discrimination based on faith in Israel at all. In effect Zionism seeks to perpetuate the pluralistic society that Isreal has maintained for so long.
To misinterpret Zionism as radical Judaism is the most blatant of fallacies.

The "righteous means" you have employed are not so righteous if you insist on using derrogative statments like you have done in the past. They merely defeat your own cause.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 02:39 PM

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Not only are they welcome, they are afforded automatic seat in the Legislature.

Islamic Republic of Iran Constitution

Although small, the Jewish community in Iran is represented in the government.
[edit on 30-1-2006 by ArchAngel]

This is very true. The Jews in the fundamental society of Iran as especially well treated and are able to practise their religion and rituals without the usual restriction that are enforced on muslim citizens. After the revolution the Jewish community is said to have grown much closer than they were before.
For example, Jews are allowed to keep alcohol with them, go to co-ed schools, have dances at weddings and some more priveleges that common Muslims cannot have.
These special priveleges were granted by Kommeni after he returned form exile in Paris and met Jewish leaders. The Jews there feel more Iranian than anything else.
The bizarreness of this situation is indeed facinating. One hand you have their president who is talking about nuking Israel and then you have them living there relatively free lives.

Just goes to prove that there is still hope in every situation.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:06 PM
Thomas, glad you realised it was a joke and last I checked I lived in the United Kingdom.


Yes I do, which means I lived in a Nation with terrorism happening and terrorist attacks happening - so I do know what it is like. In fact, I lined in Coventry and Birmingham as a child [with a few years in London] and was in London during 2000 and 2001. In fact, during the years the I.R.A. bombed the city, several times. [Although, rather far from where we lived.] So I do mildly know what it is like - also, we were bombed last year by Suicide Bombers however the extent isn’t to what Israel was and the methods of delivery are mildly different.

However, the fact still remains Hamas have not attack Israel for almost a year, I believe last August was the last suicide bomber and that was from a splinter group.

Riwka, my comments are actually aimed at not Hamas and Fatah, but the Palestinian Government and the Israeli Government.

IAF101, you need to stop trying to make out as thought there are so many differences between the two. The fact is, people have met between warring factions for thousands of years, never can they be certain that they will not die but they try because they would rather be at peace. If Israel tries and through modern technology, these meetings can take place without the need for them to be in harms way or they can communicate in an external Nation, in Europe or Russia even where both parties can be given safety so that the process can happen. If people try they can communicate, to deny that is a lie and you know it.

The facts are simple, Fatah were once a terrorist organisation and they changed because just like the Irish Republican Army, just like the countless wars before that, people fall into a stalemate a situation where neither could benefit and they were forced to communicate. Israel, will not stop terrorism by the sword that is evident so communication is now the option and to refuse it will result in even more death. If they do communicate and it goes back? What has been lost? People will die, if talks are not initiated and they might not die if talks are initiated.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Odium

Riwka, my comments are actually aimed at not Hamas and Fatah, but the Palestinian Government and the Israeli Government.

Oh, really?

That is sad.

I thought you came to this thread to add something in reagrd to the topic.
Just in case you forgot it:

This topic is: Palestinian PM Steps Down- Gives Job to Hamas

Do you have anything to add here?

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:35 PM
Last I checked, it was about the news article and not just one section of the news article.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who headed the mission to monitor the Palestinian election, concurred with Bush, saying that the U.S. should not negotiate with Hamas unless it "accepts the two-state solution and acknowledges the fact that Israel is a nation deserving of recognition."

"Israel, I believe, could negotiate with a Fatah-led government, could strike a deal with a Fatah-led government. I doubt we could do it with a Hamas-led government," he said.

"We are prepared to work with any Palestinian government, if this government seeks peace, using peaceful means," said Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's external relations commissioner.

"The Americans and the Europeans say to Hamas: Either you have weapons or you enter the legislative council. We say weapons and the legislative council. There is no contradiction between the two," Haniya said.

My posts, are about the communcation and the effects such things have. In fact, about points raised in the article itself. So I do have something to say and it is in relation to the News Article and is on Topic.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:44 PM
There is the next one who will not join a coalition government led by Hamas:

The former PA Finance Minister Salam Fayyad will not join a coalition government led by Hamas. Fayyad is very popular in the PA and there have also been some rumours that he might become the the next Palestinian Prime Minister.

He led the Third Way Party, which received 2 seats in the next Palestinian Legislative Council

Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, also very popular and No. 2 on that party list, said, their party could not join a government led by Hamas, because there is not a minimum degree of agreement with.

The Third Way Party is opposed to instituting Islamic Law and does not support violent resistance to Israel, as does Hamas.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:55 PM
They don't need a coalition, they have a ruling majority - last I checked, they had over 50% of the vote.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Odium
One of these, is the fact Irish Republicanism - which desired to destroy and remove British control from Northern Ireland, never was resolved while we invaded and attacked them,

The IRA stopped fighting because they chose to stop fighting. The british never ceded any territory, outside of the vote which started the whole mess. The IRA went from militant radicals to disarmed patriots recently, because they were getting nowhere as militant radicals.

Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, Congress of Vienna and so on and so fourth.

You sign a peace treaty when war is not worth it to you. So long as you completely dominate the other power, you work for its destruction. The brits made peace with the americans because they did not dominate. In the Vienna Congress France lost all its new territory because it's supreme dictator was defeated in battle. Only Bismark would fight wars in the manner you mention, and I don't think anyone is interested in Realpolitik these days.

That’s a joke, the fact is Israel will end up causing more harm,

Irrelevant. Hamas is institutionally at war with Israel. Whats 'more harm' at this point anyway? The overwhelming majority of palestinians just voted in a party dedicated to the destuction of Israel. The palestinian people are not interested in peace. The only security that the yehudis have is the wall. The stronger that is, the less attacks upon them there will be and the more effective and broad their attacks against the any palestinian militants in their occupied territory can be.

killing more innocent people and giving Hamas even more strength and more members.

Then they'll just have to make sure that their rate of killing outpaces the rate of recruitment.

Unless, of course you think they are not innocent because they voted for Hamas?

Innocence is irrelevant. If civilians who are not members of hamas die in the attacks upon Hamas, what does that matter? War is war. If the palestinians don't want war, then sue for peace.

In which case, the last decade of their attacks are also justified.

Who's? Hamas'? Sure, they have a right to resist the yehudis and go to war with them. Good for them, the yehudis are the reason they have no home country, well, that and the fact that the lost the last few wars they had with israel. I'd tend to think that after that track record that you'd start looking for another way to resist, but thats really up to them.

It can’t be swinging both ways, just because you dislike one group or another

Like and dislike are irrelevant.

the hypocrisy of such things is why Hamas got into power and why the West are disliked so much.

Hypocrisy is being at war with another nation and calling it unfair when they attack. Hypocrisy is voting hamas into power and then being surprised when israel lauches full war.

Peace Processes are a two way thing, both groups have to give and both groups have to take.

The only side that gives and takes in peace negotions are the ones that want peace. If hamas wants peace, then it has to say 'we will stop the war'. And why, precisely, should Isreal want peace, ie, the cessation of war, at this point (keeping in mind that things are in a limbo state of open hostility but no declared war)? What do the yehudis have to gain from peace at this point? A cessation to the attacks? Their wall can stop the majority of the attacks from ever even starting. How much of a reduction in attacks are we really talking about, and in exchange for what, minimally a sovereign state in the west bank and gaza for the palestinians? In exchange for the small number of attacks that would otherwise happen with the wall? Just so the palestinians can re-arm and then mount an actual military attack?
Seems like that'd be a pretty stupid thing for the yehudis to do. Seems like the small number of attacks are a sensible exchange to keep the palestinians in permanent weakness and occupation.

And those are HARDCORE FACTS, Mister.

Those illustrations illustrate nothing, other than that it's a bad idea to be on the loosing side of a war.

Aside from the core issues

Which are all now completely and utterly irrelevant. Settling issues is what two nations at peace do with each other. In war, the only issue is 'who wins'. I suspect that there won't be an arab army marching on jerusalem anytime soon.

and their ILLEGAL Occupation of West Bank and Gaza Strip?

It is not illegal to occupy territory that you have captured in war, nor is it illegal to police the population living under that occupation.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 04:00 PM
Nygdan, Hamas has now stopped for near to a year and they have said they will stick to the cease-fire. They have moved forward, however they are not being met half-way.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in