babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Hamas leader: non-recognition of Israel 'is decided'

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hamas leader: non-recognition of Israel 'is decided'
Zaklamont
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5106

posted 03 March 2006 11:39 PM      Profile for Zaklamont        Edit/Delete Post
Hamas leader: non-recognition of Israel 'is decided'

The Guardian
Friday March 3, 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1722966,00.html

Hamas today entered talks with Russian officials insisting it was not about to bow to pressure from the international community and recognise Israel.
The exiled Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal, hit hopes that the Moscow talks could persuade Hamas to soften its stance when he said non-recognition was a "decided issue".


From: Ottawa Ontario | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 March 2006 06:03 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not suprising since the ruling party of Israel for the last 5 years decided in 1999, that there would be no recognition of a Palestinian state, and that Israel's soveriegnty extended all the way up to the Jordan river.

quote:
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.


quote:
The Jordan River as a Permanent Border

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.


But what say you Zaklamont: the government of Israel is being reasonable by not recognizing Palestine's "right to exist" and can also claim whatever land it wants but the Palestinians are being intransigents to demand the same?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 06 March 2006 01:40 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball,
What is your point now?

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 06 March 2006 01:48 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:

What is your point now?

I'd have thought it was screamingly obvious--that Hamas is following Israeli precedent very closelym, and that all the commentary attacking them for it is entirely hypocritical.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 06 March 2006 03:06 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Not suprising ...

Cueball, you slithering sneak - it's not surprising to most of us but you spent spent 3 topics trying to downplay the Hamas Charter by distinguishing "Hamas the Party" and "Hamas the glorious new PA Government."

For e.g. you said, "[Hamas] are elcted to a body that recognized Israel's right to exist in 1989, and as such those commitments stand until such a time as the PA officially recinds that recognition. The PA is constituted on agreements between Israel and the PLO and as such is the party with which Israel negotiates, whomever is elected to run the PA."

Is it now safe to say those commitments have been recinded?

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: BC NDPer ]


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 March 2006 04:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My view is that both are unfortunate positions and should by rejected.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 March 2006 07:57 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:
Cueball,
What is your point now?

That when it rains, the streets get wet.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 March 2006 04:00 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:

Cueball, you slithering sneak - it's not surprising to most of us but you spent spent 3 topics trying to downplay the Hamas Charter by distinguishing "Hamas the Party" and "Hamas the glorious new PA Government."

For e.g. you said, "[Hamas] are elcted to a body that recognized Israel's right to exist in 1989, and as such those commitments stand until such a time as the PA officially recinds that recognition. The PA is constituted on agreements between Israel and the PLO and as such is the party with which Israel negotiates, whomever is elected to run the PA."

Is it now safe to say those commitments have been recinded?

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: BC NDPer ]


As you can see, Abbas is asserting my legal arguement:

You heard it from Cueball first -- don't forget it

quote:
JERUSALEM -- The formation of a new Palestinian government remains stalled while Hamas considers how to respond to a demand by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that it accept implicit recognition of Israel, according to Palestinian sources.
Mr. Abbas is reportedly prepared to order new elections if the incoming government has not agreed to abide by agreements negotiated under the defeated Fatah-led administration within "a few months."

quote:
Addressing the new parliament, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said that "the elections have created a new political situation."

He declared that he would ask Hamas to form the new government, but reminded the next prime minister that the Oslo agreement and a series of understandings with Israel are binding, as well as all the commitments accepted by the two sides as part of the Road Map, on the road to an independent Palestinian state living in full and just peace with Israel.


Abbas: Oslo Agreement binding

Unlike you I am actually interested in how the politics and the law play out and what is said and what is not said, rather than engaging in hysterical outbursts. You should try it some time, it is called analysis.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 March 2006 08:27 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:
Cueball, you slithering sneak -

Knock it off.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 07 March 2006 02:06 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:
Is it now safe to say those commitments have been recinded?

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: BC NDPer ]



I see Cueball beat me to it. I would only add that it seems that the shills that keep focussing on Hamas' "non-recognition" of Israel continue to forget to add that Hamas' position is not non-negotiable. It is not a flat-out refusal to admit Israel's existence, but a position accompanied by conditions - e.g. that Israel recognise Palestinian statehood, get the hell out of the West Bank and get back to the 1967 Green Line.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 07 March 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As to Abbas' statements, I'm more interested in the Israeli response than Hamas' response. The Israeli response will go a lot further to determining the future landscape (figuratively, and literally). Israel has already made attempts to discredit and isolate Abbas, if they opt to further isolate him in this case, it will openly signal what some of us have been saying for a long while: that Israel has only been using Oslo as a stepping stone and is perfectly willing to scuttle the deal in practice (if not in theory) in order to continue their expansion.
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 02:12 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would guess that Israel's position is also not non-negotiable. All they have to do is recognize the state of Israel. Easy peasy!

Best,

A "shill".


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 March 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If that were true Israel could have recognized the right of Palestinians to a state - and even pre-empted Hamas rise to power - when Palestinians officially recognized Israel. They didn't.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 02:24 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My understanding was that Israel refused to negotiate with Hamas if they would not recognize Israel. I'm suggesting that if they'd recognize Israel, they'd be in a position to negotiate. I'm not promising them their own state if they do, but if they can't negotiate then I think pretty much anyone could promise them no state and no hope.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 07 March 2006 02:28 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
The Palestinians have fallen for this con once already, and they're not going to again.

If Israel wants peace--and there's no evidence of this--then it will have to come in the form of a comprehensive settlement in which all issues are determined at once.

Conceding Israel's only interest up front, the Palestinians have learned, is a recipe for immediate stacis.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 02:35 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Give us our own state, that we may destroy you with it!!"

Hard to imagine what kind of stingy bastards would say no to a sweetheart offer like that.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 07 March 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Israelis, who aided in the formation of Hamas, made that same argument for years regarding the PLO. Which allowed them to forestall any discussion of a Palestinian state. Now, they are trying the same with Hamas for the same reason. Hey, if you believe in democracy, you've got to acknowledge the results. And considering that Israel has been occupying and illegally settling Palestinian land for over three decades, you have to wonder who is trying to destroy whom.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 March 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would suggest you, Mr. Magoo, lack a rudimentary knowledge of history in the middle-east. The PA, prior to Hamas, had already recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist. And what did it get them? Continued occupation and continued colonization. And meanwhile Israel never reciprocated by acknowledging the Palestinian right to a state.

So the lesson learned by Palestinians ought to be that ceding anything to Israel prior to obtaining a concession is purely foolish and counterproductive.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 07 March 2006 02:47 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
"Give us our own state, that we may destroy you with it!!"

That's a unilateral deal, the other way round. You're right, it's an unattractive offer, but that's exactly what you're insisting the Palestinians accept as a precondition, earning them the right to be told "no" face to face.

In contrast, I'm suggesting that any deal will have to be mutual--mutual peace, mutually agreed borders, and mutual recognition of two soveriegn nations. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Insisting on preconditions is a way to ensure that no negotiations occur, which is exactly what Israel is interested in having happen.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 March 2006 04:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I would suggest you, Mr. Magoo, lack a rudimentary knowledge of history in the middle-east. The PA, prior to Hamas, had already recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist. And what did it get them?

It got Yasser Arafat 3% of 14% of 64% of 94% of the 22% of what was originally taken.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 04:58 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So the lesson learned by Palestinians ought to be that ceding anything to Israel prior to obtaining a concession is purely foolish and counterproductive.

Well I suppose this could serve as a "control" to that experiment then. Let's see where this attitude gets them, both in Israel and in the eyes of the rest of the world.

I would think that most people, even those who sympathize more with the Palestinian side than the Israeli, are going to spot the absurdity of denying the validity of Israel prior to making demands of it, and vowing to destroy Israel even as it insists Israel should drop weapons and remove the 'security' wall.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 07 March 2006 05:05 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
The whole question is moot, in any case, as Israel has no intention of negotiating with anyone over anything, regardless of what they recognise or don't recognise.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 March 2006 05:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel is finished, historically speaking.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 05:28 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps we could finally get rid of this forum then. Nothing to see here folks.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 March 2006 05:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. Magoo. My eyes are popping out of my head at the thought. I have always defended the rights of the Israelis now that they are there. I did not think it was a good idea, but there you go Israel was there, and there is nothing to be done about it in the large scale.

But this is a big picture issue as well. I felt that the only real way for the imported Jewish population of Israel to survive was to make peace with their neighbours, and someone fashion either a two state solution or a bi-national state. I had hoped that Oslo would lead the wau for this, but Israel has rejected it.

In my view once the Asian war compltete and the US is run out of Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, and the Iranian army is perched outside of Mecca and Tehran is a nuclear wasteland their will be a big pogrom in Israel, and many Jews will be driven out and killed.

This will all take place in the next 20 years.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 07 March 2006 05:57 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The end is nigh
From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 March 2006 07:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do know that WW2 happened. It was a conflict that touched almost the whole world. 50 million people were killed. The atom bomb was dropped on two Japanese citites. 11 Million people died in death camps. These things happened. It can happen again.

I really don't like the way things are shaping up in the mid-east. If the US moves against Iran there will be war from Karachi to Lebanon.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 07 March 2006 07:50 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I really don't like the way things are shaping up in the mid-east. If the US moves against Iran there will be war from Karachi to Lebanon.

Me neither, and I too worry about the consequences of US aggression against Iran. But I refuse to believe that it is
inevitable. If that were true, then what would be the point?

So I hope you're wrong in your prediction, and I hope you hope you're wrong, too.


From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 March 2006 08:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nah. I think the cards are on the table.

If the US withdraws from Iraq, the power vaccum will be filled by Iran. This Shia expansion will be trouble for Suadi Arabia, and they simply will not have it. Very much they will feel compelled to go to war. And the US will back Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Arab states against Iran as they have before.

There is too much at stake.

The wounds are deep from the first Gulf War (Iran Iraq) when all the Sunni Arab states (except Syria) bankrolled Iran. The Ayatollah accepted the peace, as "the poisoned challice" because they were so close to making it all the way to Najaf, they were stopped by the support of the US Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan for Saddam, and the Iranians simply ran out of money.

So, the US can not leave Iraq. However, they can not win the war their either, and the tensions will mount, eventually in order to staunch the flow they will have to confront Iran directly.

Iran will win the conventional war in the long run and when this happen, bereft of the protection of US power, Israel will feel compelled to respond.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 07 March 2006 09:19 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scary.
From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 March 2006 09:25 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Perhaps we could finally get rid of this forum then. Nothing to see here folks.

An accurate summation of your contributions here. On the other hand, you could always leave.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 09:29 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, but I do. For long stretches at a time.

It doesn't improve.

So where's your theory now Smart Guy?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 March 2006 10:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Patience Magoo! You must show more patience.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 08 March 2006 01:41 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
In the thread, “Hamas Win Continues” Cueball stated that,
quote:
The point is not to defend Hamas. The point is to not misrepresent them.
Some twelve days later, after reading this, from The Guardian provided by Zaklamont,
quote:
Hamas today entered talks with Russian officials insisting it was not about to bow to pressure from the international community and recognise Israel.The exiled Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal, hit hopes that the Moscow talks could persuade Hamas to soften its stance when he said non-recognition was a "decided issue".
Cueball’s response was,
quote:
Not suprising since the ruling party of Israel for the last 5 years decided in 1999, that there would be no recognition of a Palestinian state, and that Israel's soveriegnty extended all the way up to the Jordan river.
Which is a clear defense of Hamas and its charter given that he provides us with the Likud platform (Peace and Security chapter) from 1999 to point out, as your reply to me attempts, screamingly obvious hypocrisy.
I don’t buy any of what you and Cueball are selling. Sorry. A document from Likud in the late nineties does not, in anyway, expose the hypocrisy you are claiming it does, from one simple fact that the Gaza withdrawal occurred. As Cueball stated,
quote:
And you presume the immutability of position, which is only hardened by overt persecution, as if to say Ariel Sharon would never openly state the possibility of a Palestinian state. Well he said he never would, and then he did, when the political environment changed
Likud changed. Israel changed. Much has changed from 1999 to today. Furthermore, if you read both the Likud platform and the Hamas charter, it should become extremely obvious how the two are different. Much of the Hamas charter speaks of submitting to a conservative, fanatical religious movement and their jihad against just about anything their hearts desire. Its speaks often of ‘the enemy’ and ‘fighting’ , ‘defeating’ and ‘vanquishing’. The tone of the Likud document is very different, No?
Cueball goes on to provide a Washington Times article, dated March 6, that supports his argument that Hamas is bound to PA/PLO agreements with Isreal noting that Abbas remains the head of the PA and can politically massage Hamas on recognition of Isreal.
quote:
JERUSALEM -- The formation of a new Palestinian government remains stalled while Hamas considers how to respond to a demand by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that it accept implicit recognition of Israel, according to Palestinian sources. Mr. Abbas is reportedly prepared to order new elections if the incoming government has not agreed to abide by agreements negotiated under the defeated Fatah-led administration within "a few months."
An article the following day in the Washington Times, ‘Hamas strips Abbas’ powers tells us,
quote:
Hamas headed into a full-blown confrontation with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas yesterday, voting to strip him of powers that he was awarded hastily by his Fatah party in the last session of the outgoing parliament...........With its absolute majority, Hamas can set up a government by itself, but Hamas leaders prefer to bring in other parties, partly to deflect international criticism and threatened economic sanctions because of Hamas' record of violence and refusal to recognize Israel.
I can’t find it now, but apparently, later that day, Fatah gunmen threatened to kill any Fatah parliamentarian if they joined a hamas government. Perhaps this is the ‘complete disaster’ the poster Andrew_Jay was alluding to?
I am also not going to buy any of the conditions set by the PA, now under the leadership of Hamas, on what Israel needs to do to create a ripe environment to bring the two together and negotiate. This thread, and many others just like it, puncuates the gross indifference to the double standard Israel must contend with. I find that disgusting.
However, If you want to find real, hard-core hypocricy, From Cueball to me in ‘Hamas Win Continues’,
quote:
Thanks! And to think I avoided calling you out that "Arabs always lie" trope, because I actually thought maybe you had a point.
From Rabble,
quote:
Due to the contentious nature of this forum, there is a rule in addition to the usual babble forum rules that will be applied stringently. Any poster who calls another poster “anti-semitic” or “racist”, whether directly or indirectly, will receive a warning.

Patience indeed.

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 March 2006 05:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:
Which is a clear defense of Hamas and its charter given that he provides us with the Likud platform (Peace and Security chapter) from 1999 to point out, as your reply to me attempts, screamingly obvious hypocrisy.

I don’t buy any of what you and Cueball are selling. Sorry. A document from Likud in the late nineties does not, in anyway, expose the hypocrisy you are claiming it does, from one simple fact that the Gaza withdrawal occurred. As Cueball stated,


I am glad you see my point. Arguing that the Likud charter from 1999 is immuttable and not impacted by the evolution of the protagonists is of course thick headed. As I pointed out (thanks for qouting my precise words for me to replicate here without bothering looking them up: )

quote:
And you presume the immutability of position, which is only hardened by overt persecution, as if to say Ariel Sharon would never openly state the possibility of a Palestinian state. Well he said he never would, and then he did, when the political environment changed

I am really having problems understanding what your problem here is, it seems that we are in complete agreement.

Oh yes, I see, the problem is that I am applying the same principle to the Arab organization Hamas, and its charter, a document not ammended since the late 80's, which according to some here must be held up as solid and immutable proof of Hamas' intransigence. But why not:

quote:
And you presume the immutability of position, which is only hardened by overt persecution, as if to say Hamas would never openly take part in the elections for a Palestinian state. Well they said they never would, because that would be appeasement under Oslo, and then they did, when the political environment changed

However, the Arab document is frozen in time for you, the Israeli document is coloured by events and the humanity of those who use it as their mandate.

Making documents change is not so easy, my friend. Usually, particularly in the case of constitutional ones, they often fall many decades behind the times.

How simple it would be for me to assert that Netanyahu's clique in Likud holds the floor as far as the Likud's racist charter is concerned, given that while Sharon may have broken ranks with Likud on the issue of Palestinian statehood, (in appearance if not in fact) and the fact that despite repeated attempts to change Likud's stated policy it has not been able to do so practically, as far as the written policy stands and that is all that counts.

But that would be unreasonable of me wouldn't it? To suggest that Israelis have their own internal divisions in their parties and that they are not a unified whole, but a diverse polyglot of human opinion, fears and concerns, not some immutable and timeless enemy.

For me to suggest such, and to assert that all Israeli intitatives are merely the political manouvering founded on cynical lies, and then pick through the evidence to find proof for my beliefs (such as asserting the primacy of the discourse of Likud as represented by Netanyahu, as opposed to that of the 'reformed' Sharon) would smack of racist vilification, no?

But this I have not done.

It was I who duly noted the apparent shifts in the political discourse within Likud over statehood, and I was quite fair in representing that fact. It was others who rejected my similar assertion about Hamas, as I evidenced by its acceptance of an Israeli/US/Fatah sponsored national election. Instead it was you and other who preferred the immutable pastiche of Hamas as defined in it 2nd Charter, ignoring any evidence of politcal diversity and reform.

[ 08 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 March 2006 05:32 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the problem is that I am applying the same principle to the Arab organization Hamas, and its charter, a document not ammended since the late 80's, which according to some here must be held up as solid and immutable proof of Hamas' intransigence.

Have they not, very recently, spoken to say that they stand by the document?

You're saying that movements change, but Hamas had plenty of opportunity to say "Oh, that old document? No, we've changed", and they haven't. Do we have any real reason to believe they don't stand by every word of it?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 March 2006 05:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Netanyahu stands by the 1999 Likud document today, and has reaffirmed it repeatedly during various quite public brawls between Sharon and Netanyahu and it has never been ammended.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 March 2006 05:52 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And neither of them has ever broken ranks with the document? Or Netanyahu didn't, then Sharon did, and now Netanyahu won't?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 March 2006 06:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The problem is, and I will risk taking you seriously here for a minute, is that the kind of discourse which revolves around Hamas ignores obvious moves towards reform, which are taken by Hamas, and the variance of opinions within Hamas, so much to say that their are moderates within Hamas. I qouted one for you on another thread Abu Shanab:

quote:
Q: Which ideally would be neither a Jewish nor an Islamic state.

Abu Shanab: No, let's speak about a democratic state, because an Islamic state is compatible with democracy. In this way, we see the Israelis as part of this community, if they want to live as equals. But if they want to maintain apartheid, they will never join this community. This is the critical issue for the Israelis and the Zionist movement, as well as for those in the West who support this state. Now the Israelis see themselves as Westerners in an Eastern area, and they live here as strangers.


On this thread here.

Obviously if we assert that there are shifts within Likud, which are not represented by its policy documents, then we should be able to do the same with the Hamas.

The difference here, is that numerously people have asserted without reference to the ongoing internal dynamics within Hamas or the Palestinian people the absolute relevance of the Hamas document, while at the same time asserting that the Likud document must be viewed contextually, and is not written in stone, despite the fact that it has not been ammended.

BTWL The troublsomely articulate and reasonable sounding Abu Shanab was blown to pieces in an Israeli rocket attack along with a few bystanders. Ironically, it was at the time that Abu Shanab was negotiating a cease fire with his counterparts in the PA.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 March 2006 06:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now, how difficult would it be for the present goverment in Israel to say:

"We have a standing recognition of Israel by the PA, and as Hamas is the properly elected representative of the PA, we will negotiate with the PA on those terms, if they choose not to negotiate that is up to them."

What is the big fear? That Hamas will negotiate?

There is always time for war.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 08 March 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
"Give us our own state, that we may destroy you with it!!"

Hard to imagine what kind of stingy bastards would say no to a sweetheart offer like that.


A delicious irony.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 March 2006 10:37 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ironic indeed, yet the attitude behind that statement is so blandly commonplace.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 March 2006 11:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bland? Don't you mean "banal."
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 March 2006 12:34 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nah. Ya can't say "banal" any more without someone making a connexion with "evil."
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 09 March 2006 12:47 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And we simply can't say that!

It would be impolite.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 March 2006 01:50 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Regardless, I meant "blandly," like white bread -ordinary, doughy and full of gaseous holes.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 06:53 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who, like the two other candidates for prime minister in Israel's coming election, spoke on a video link from Jerusalem, was cheered enthusiastically when he called for building "an iron wall" around Hamas. Labor leader Amir Peretz and Kadima's candidate, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, were not as warmly received, as they talked about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Olmert spoke about unilaterally redrawing Israel's border in the West Bank through further pullouts, and received polite applause. Former premier Netanyahu, however, was cheered enthusiastically when he spoke about the need to push the West Bank security fence eastward, deeper into the Palestinian territory, to create a broader buffer against Palestinian terrorism.


Pro-Israel Activists Cheer Cheney

From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 10 March 2006 08:58 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
And yet it is the Kadimah party that is the popular choice in Israel.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 09:05 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The issue is the relative merits of the foundational documents of Likud, which has ruled Israel since 2000, and Hamas, and how relevant they are to the actual political trajectory of the organization. In other words, are they moderating, or are they not?

Netanyahu's position seems moderate in comparison to the 1999 Likud position. There is even the sense that the Palestinians might get a strip of land for burial plots along the river Jordan.

Nor is it even true that Kadima can be identified as the popular choice of Israelis as it did not exist at the occassion of the last plebicite.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 04:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
U.S. Mideast envoy threatens to quit

quote:
JERUSALEM, March 12 (UPI) -- Middle East envoy James D. Wolfensohn -- frustrated by the lack of a clear mandate on a policy toward Hamas -- is threatening to quit.

The New York Times says Wolfensohn told his staff on Saturday that he would leave his job at the end of April.

Wolfensohn, former head of the World Bank, was appointed the envoy of the so-called quartet -- the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations -- to oversee Israel's pullout from Gaza and to help the Palestinians make Gaza a success the Times said.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca