reply to post by SpeachM1litant
Eager to believe Hamas? Not so much and I don't really understand what that means. Politics isn't coloured in shades of black and white for me like it
is for you.
Eager means to ignore evidence that contraindicates the hoped for goal i.e your belief that Hamas could turn out to be a workable partner with Israel.
The evidence being, that despite the picture many Israelis paint of Hamas, it is clear that they are open to negotiation and they have acquiesced into
some of Israel's demands.
So, ignore their past contentions? Ignore their ideological characteristics? And therefore, shine a positive line on their supposed "willingness" to
work with Israel??
Seems like there's a great deal of ignoring, and something about "practical evidence" (which somehow to you excludes ideological basis as evidence)
We see it in this latest round of violence. Hamas has enforced the ceasefire, and despite the recent shooting of a Palestinian man and 10 others,
Hamas has not even blamed it on Israel.
This proves nothing. It only shows Hamas is becoming adept at playing by the rules of the game. Does that obviate their intentions? There's this
enormous jump in your logic from isolated event which contradicts their founding logic (their Jihad against Israel) and a belief that they mean to
permanently live at peace with Israel. Have you ever heard of "one step back, two steps forward"?
I gave you a perfectly sound explanation for what Hamas would be likely to do with political power in a future Palestinian state; look at the Muslim
Brotherhood, who set a practicable precedent in Egypt for Hamas to follow against Fatah.
We've seen Egypt and Jordan change their position on Israel overtime, why not Hamas?
False examples. Egypt's "change of attitude" toward Israel was that of a secular regime; same thing with Jordan.
Islamists and Hamas are unambiguously and incorrigibly in a different category.
Even more pertinently, why was there no settlement from 1993 to 2006 with Fatah at a time where they had renounced violence and proved to be pragmatic
Simply because Israel never trusted Arafat, for good reason. At no point did Arafat give them reason to believe that he could be trusted.
Also, are you not aware that the Al Aqsa Brigades are connected with Fatah?
From 1967 onwards, no Arab country managed to negotiate a peace settlement with Israel that would establish an autonomous Palestinian state where the
Palestinians would live in peace and dignity.
Why wasn't one established by Egypt or Jordan between 1949 to 1967? That's a deeper question that sheds much light on the Arab Leagues agenda against
Israel. If the issue wasn't fixed then - when a state could have been established, why did they dawdle for 19 years, letting the issue go unsolved?
Back then, it was because they considered all of Israel Arab territory. When the Jews took control of Palestinian territories after the 6 day war, the
Arabs - after another military failure in '73 - resorted to propaganda - a much slower route - ultimately with the intention of establishing a
Would you be willing to qualify your language and admit that an Israeli agreement to a Palestinian state along 1967 lines, with a capital in east
Jerusalem, (but without the clause of return) would likely result in a situation that currently exists with Hamas in Gaza? Imagine the temptation for
the Islamists! The proximity to Israel's economic heartland. The geographical altitude of the central hills in the west bank relative to the low lying
coastal plains where Israel's population is mostly concentrated.
No worries you say?
Here's where I think Israeli policy is going in the next few years: annexation of Gaza and the West Bank, and rewarding Palestinian Arabs full Israeli
citizenship with it's economic perks.
To just briefly open up another can of worms:
I find it hilariously ironic that Europes attitude towards Israel-Palestine is essentially self contradictory. They oppose the outdated concept of
nationalism, as Tony Judt noted. Hence, the euro-states which de-emphasize nationality contradict themselves by supporting Palestinian nationality
(which is superficial relative to Jewish national claims, which are based in a unique language, history, and religion) yet oppose Israeli nationality.
Explain the logic in that. In European socialist logic, economic well being trumps all other concerns, particularly a sense of tradition and
peoplehood. Yet, if Palestinians were incorporated into Israel's nation-body, they would be economically benefited, would live far better than most if
not all other Middle Eastern peoples.. So whats the complaints? Why are the Irish, Portuguese, etc, who oppose the Euro on nationalistic grounds,
forced to accept it on grounds of economic well-being (when it often does the exact opposite), yet Palestinians are supported on grounds of
nationalism, yet, a one state solution which would benefit them economically, is opposed?
edit on 24-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason