Hamas Victory

[Slammed 5,000+ posts]

yes..you are right

conflict wouldnt have been as bad...I shouldve said

doh!

 

[Hundreth 10+ year member]

I do not agree with their methods, never have. Both sides have not been handling this conflict well, especially the the so-called 'freedom fighters".

Just wondering, what would you do different if you were in Israel's position?

Of course I would feel threatened and worried about my life. And no, I wouldnt want to give my land back.

What I am in conflict with is that the Jews shouldnt have been there in the first place.

Maybe, it doesn't change what history wrote though. If everyone complained about a land they believe belongs to them, the only fair solution would be to give all land on this planet to those who discovered it first.. something impossible. If you are arguing that the Jews shouldn't be there based on their religious belief, thats impossible to validate. And if you are arguing that it was a bad political move to put them there, I'd have to agree with you to some extent. Of course its impossible to tell what would have happened if Israel was placed in a different land.

Your analogy is unsuccessful with proving your point though. The Jews were placed in Palestine by a world power. The indians were basically wiped out by fronteirmen.......especially Andrew Jackson (grrrr...thats a whole new story).

...but I do see where your going with it.

Placed in by a world power or wiped out, it was still taken by force.. ie war. There is no way around that.

I believe that there would be conflict in Iraq, but not as bad as we have it in Palestine. Palestine is more holy to them than Iraq is. But, yes there would be conflict.

Perhaps...

I do realize that after the holocaust a decision had to be made with all of the displaced people.

We must see it with their eyes. They believe the land belongs to them....and they believe that they have the right to expel anyone who doesnt belong there. I wish that they would co-exist, but its never going to happen.

Why must we see it with their eyes? What they see doesn't influence what is true. I do agree with you that it will not happen though...

Question for you...what do you think would happen if all the Arab countries united? King Feisal was close with acheiving this goal.....Arab tribe disagreements and Imperialism ruined his dream.

I honestly don't know... but they are for the most part united against Israel. You can see that just by looking at Israel's war history.

Its not going to happen.....I wish it would

Im not agreeing with the ******* bombers or the terrorists. I believe what they do is extreme and uncalled for. They have been consumed by the "righteousness" of their jihad. Its sad, the way they interpret the Qu'ran. Its such a beautiful religion.

I do sympathize with the Jews. And I do realize Truman was pressured to act upon the many displaced people after the Holocaust. If he wouldve known what FDR knew, I think things wouldve been different. Creating a Jewish State in Palestine was a huge mistake.

Thats where I have to agree with you again to some degree, it was a bad idea politically. Dwelling on the past aside though, what do you believe Israel should do? How do you believe the rest of the world should act?

BTW... nice to have this argument without flaming, I enjoy seeing other's perspectives. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[Heresy 10+ year member]

I see two possibilities. One hamas starts another wave of violence, brings Israeli retribution and loss of aid from the rest of the world. This will make life even harder for the average Palestinian and hamas will lose control. Two, hamas continues its anti Israeli rhetoric but in reality softens its actions over time. Now they also have to worry about running a nation and providing services for their citizens. Granted they have implemented social services programs in Palestine but this has to be on a much larger scale and prove reliable over time. Winning really took away hamas's biggest weapon, its clandestine unaccountable nature.

I would have to agree that both of those are quite possible but even if Hamas lost control of the gov't then who is to say that some other organization will not come up who preaches the same general rhetoric but with a different name? There is no real shortage of anti-Israeli groups who want to try their hand at running and could appeal to the general sentiment of the people in the right conditions. On the other hand if Hamas continued its hardline stance and the people suffered for it then there would be a much wider oppurtunity for the people to shift back to a more moderate party that is more effective than the former Fatah party.

The second possibility seems more feasible, but it will also fragment the party similar to what happened when Sharon left the Likud except that Hamas has no real stand out leader since Arafat died. The inevitability would be that the people would suffer while the Hamas factions quarrelled with each other. Even if they somehow managed to gravitate towards moderation and compromise without seperating they would still need to pacify Al-Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, and everyone else who is still fighting for the eradication of Israel.

I don't think a party change or an election will do much to change the underlying motivation that feeds the conflict. There needs to be a long term struggle to not necessarily accept, but tolerate, the other country and its people which is a much harder task than simply bombing or calling in airstrikes.

 

[DBfan187 5,000+ posts]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/25/iran.russiaplan/index.html

looks like a missle silo to me.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I would have to agree that both of those are quite possible but even if Hamas lost control of the gov't then who is to say that some other organization will not come up who preaches the same general rhetoric but with a different name? There is no real shortage of anti-Israeli groups who want to try their hand at running and could appeal to the general sentiment of the people in the right conditions. On the other hand if Hamas continued its hardline stance and the people suffered for it then there would be a much wider oppurtunity for the people to shift back to a more moderate party that is more effective than the former Fatah party.
The second possibility seems more feasible, but it will also fragment the party similar to what happened when Sharon left the Likud except that Hamas has no real stand out leader since Arafat died. The inevitability would be that the people would suffer while the Hamas factions quarrelled with each other. Even if they somehow managed to gravitate towards moderation and compromise without seperating they would still need to pacify Al-Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, and everyone else who is still fighting for the eradication of Israel.

I don't think a party change or an election will do much to change the underlying motivation that feeds the conflict. There needs to be a long term struggle to not necessarily accept, but tolerate, the other country and its people which is a much harder task than simply bombing or calling in airstrikes.

I agree. I dont think that it will have any real impact on the long term situation, except faces will change. Seems like a changing of the guard. Hamas will either moderate or die and another group will likely take its place as the underground ultra religious terrorist type group. But i dont really know anything about it, I'm just some gentile from south dakota.

 

[Slammed 5,000+ posts]

In some ways you are right, but lets be realistic... People obtain land through wars. The Jews once had it, it was taken away by war... when the Palestinians had it, they took it by war... it was taken away by the Palestinians through war, etc.

Do you suggest Palestine and Israel have a war for the land? What do you think should be done?

Also consider that if the United States stayed out of Middle Eastern affairs AS IT STANDS and even in the past, Israel would have a MUCH greater advantage than they already do. It usually comes down to the U.S. telling Israel to back off and be nice.

United States supplied Israel with weapons...thats why they have the advantage

if it wouldnt have been for US intervention during the 60s and the 70s....the land wouldve belong to Palestine.

Maybe, it doesn't change what history wrote though. If everyone complained about a land they believe belongs to them, the only fair solution would be to give all land on this planet to those who discovered it first.. something impossible. If you are arguing that the Jews shouldn't be there based on their religious belief, thats impossible to validate. And if you are arguing that it was a bad political move to put them there, I'd have to agree with you to some extent. Of course its impossible to tell what would have happened if Israel was placed in a different land.

What gave Truman the right to establish the Jewish State where Arabs resided? Its a horrible political move! Yes the land is sacred to the Jews..but its holy to Muslims as well. Its a neverending discussion....without a solution. I just think the US shouldnt have butted in in the first place.

The Arabs were there already.....and were there for centuries. Truman shouldve thought about this more.

Why must we see it with their eyes? What they see doesn't influence what is true.

You must always see both sides of the story. And see what they perceive to understand why they think that way. If you were born in Palestine, you would (most likely) have a different opinion. Like I said, I dont agree with their methods, but I do understand why they are like this.

BTW.....what is truth? (now thats getting deep LOL)

Thats where I have to agree with you again to some degree, it was a bad idea politically. Dwelling on the past aside though, what do you believe Israel should do? How do you believe the rest of the world should act?

I honestly do not know what can be done. The Palestinians want the whole land to themselves...and I understand their point. Its their holy land and the U.S. took it away from them. I also see the Jews' perspective. The land was promised to them by god and its their destiny to inherit it. At least the Jews are willing to co-exist with the Palestinians //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif

BTW... nice to have this argument without flaming, I enjoy seeing other's perspectives. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Same here bro.....I usually hear ignorant and biased remarks from people.

I see both sides...I was just trying to make a point how Truman screwed shyt up in the Middle East.

 

[DBfan187 5,000+ posts]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4665086.stm

 

[Slammed 5,000+ posts]

Monoimus, says:

Abandon the search for God and the creation and other matters of a similar sort. Look for him by taking yourself as the starting point. Learn who it is within you who makes everything his own and says, "My God, my mind, my thought, my soul, my body." Learn the sources of sorrow:, joy, love, hate . . . If you carefully investigate these matters you will find him in yourself

why does religion have to be so complicated?

why does religion take away so many lives?

religion should be a path of righteousness........we are all brothers.

 

[Slammed 5,000+ posts]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060217/wl_nm/mideast_russia_dc

interesting....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/china_iran_oil