Understanding Hamas

[ExpandMyMind]

An interesting analysis of Hamas.

Hamas is a central player in the Middle East conflict. The war in the Gaza Strip earlier this year underscored the difficulty that Western observers have grasping its complexity. All too often, Hamas is seen as a static, dogmatic, militant phenomenon. In fact, it is slowly transforming into a pragmatic actor that the West can engage with.

The use of categories like “moderate” or “radical” to assess Palestine’s Hamas ignores important factors. Ever since it assumed political responsibility in the Gaza Strip in 2007 and a number of towns on the West Bank in municipal elections, it has undergone a transformation from a sociopolitical terrorist movement to a more pragmatic state actor. Recognition of this transformation would not only provide Western decision makers with significantly greater scope for political action, but would also allow Israel to enter into negotiations with Hamas.

State-Building Instead of Liberation

For more than twenty years, observers have cited Hamas’s charter as proof of the movement’s terrorist character. According to its Article 9, the organization’s goal is not only the liberation of historical Palestine, but also the “reinstitution of the Muslim state” and thus the destruction of Israel. The charter categorically rejects negotiations. With ideological foundations in a self-contained Islamist worldview, the charter makes repeated references to primitive anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. It is therefore no surprise that the document gives ample evidence of Hamas’s inevitable unwillingness to compromise and its static anti-Semitism.

Nevertheless, such arguments overlook the fact that the charter, which was issued in 1988, is no longer of any significance to the movement today. It was written by a single representative of the Muslim Brotherhood and was never publicly confirmed or debated.

Furthermore, it has been years since Hamas has publicly embraced it. As early as 2003, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal pointed out that the charter “should not be regarded as the fundamental ideological frame of reference” for the movement.1 When it comes to understanding Hamas, current Hamas policy papers are much more revealing than documents from the period of the first Intifada. These include Hamas’s 2005 electoral platform, its draft program for a Palestinian coalition government, as well as its March 2006 cabinet platform. These documents, largely unknown in the West, demonstrate that Hamas is much more pragmatic than its charter would lead us to believe.

The transformation process that Hamas has undergone began with its participation in the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council. It thereby recognized the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which it had boycotted during the 1996 elections. Unlike the charter, Hamas’s electoral platform, which covers approximately 20 pages, mentions violent resistance in just two places, while it devotes a total of 16 paragraphs to administrative reforms and civil rights. In addition to a discussion of fundamental principles, the document contains detailed policy recommendations on such matters as the need to “keep Gaza’s beaches clean, beautiful, and attractive to tourists.”

In a separate section on domestic policy, Hamas explicitly commits itself to “political freedoms, pluralism, the freedom to form parties [and] hold elections” and to the “peaceful rotation of power.” At the same time, though, emphasis is placed on Islamist principles: sharia law is seen as the principal source of legislation in Palestine. The 2006 electoral platform marked the start of Hamas’s reorientation toward a process of state-building. However, Hamas has remained a movement that grants opponents hardly any political freedom or protection. During the war in Gaza, it used brutal force against Fatah followers in Gaza.

Hamas might not yet be able or willing to abandon its role as a “resistance movement” in favor of a political existence as a party, but an even more pronounced trend toward state-building can be found in the 2006 draft program for a Palestinian coalition government. With the 40 articles in the program, Hamas attempted—ultimately in vain—to persuade the defeated Fatah to participate in a joint government. Presented by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, this draft illustrates how Hamas has evolved in a number of different policy areas. For instance, the document not only calls for the establishment of an office to deal with political complaints but also stresses Hamas’s commitment to supporting the development of civil society and to activating and bolstering the role of professional associations and trade unions. Fundamentalist religious statements are largely absent. But so far, observers have paid little attention to the program’s focus on a de facto two-state solution and its clear emphasis on administrative and social reforms rather than military operations against Israel.

Continued http://www.ip-global.org/ip/dossiers/middle-east-/understanding-hamas.html

For anyone who's interested in understanding an ever changing Hamas government.

[MichaelW]

I'm seeing some contradicting statements in there. They claim to be a "resistance movement" and yet still target civilian buildings and installations regardless of what anyone says. They used brutal force and torture against Fatah supporters and yet they claim they are willing to share power. How can we trust them? They say that their first charter ultimately defines their goal is to destroy Israel, so who's stopping a bunch of hardcore extremists still continuing the fight? Israel gave them the land on which the so-called nation was re-born, so the ball's been in Hamas' court ever since and so far, they've been quite reluctant to play with it.

[ExpandMyMind]

I'm seeing some contradicting statements in there. They claim to be a "resistance movement" and yet still target civilian buildings and installations regardless of what anyone says.

Israel targeted civilian structures during the past two wars, not to mention practically every time they drop a bomb. Are you claiming that they are also terrorists? Applying only the same logic you have, that is exactly what you have just claimed.

Hamas will continue to fire rockets as long as Israel continues to occupy them.

They used brutal force and torture against Fatah supporters and yet they claim they are willing to share power.

Fatah were equally as brutal with Hamas and indeed had been for years while they did the US/Israel's dirty work - and the treatment from Hamas was largely only during and after the war between the two. After winning the election they recognised that they needed to work with Fatah and offered to join with Fatah/PLO in a unified government. Fatah, fearful of losing power to the ever strengthening Hamas, would have none of it. Leading directly to the war.

To look at only one side isn't very honest.

How can we trust them?** They say that their first charter ultimately defines their goal is to destroy Israel, so who's stopping a bunch of hardcore extremists still continuing the fight?

Hamas. Hamas are stopping more hardcore extremists but they have been forced to crackdown recently in an attempt to save face. Why? Because with Israel's non-recognition, sanctions and finally, truly crippling blockade there has been a rise in splinter groups FAR more hardcore than Hamas (especially after the Gaza slaughter as you can imagine) ever were and Hamas don't have the means to suppress them - they can't even move without fear of being targeted, never mind police or govern properly.

The sad thing is that if one of these groups manages to break through - goodbye peace. Probably forever after the violence that will ensue.

Hamas are the best chance for peace and Israel must already know this.

Israel gave them the land on which the so-called nation was re-born, so the ball's been in Hamas' court ever since and so far, they've been quite reluctant to play with it.

Israel haven't given the Palestinians any land - the land was already theirs. And when Hamas won the election they were immediately sanctioned to the high hills. There has been no kicking of the ball by Israel and indeed the situation is actually the reverse.

Israel still occupy Gaza, by definition (read the report of the flotilla or my post on the legalities of the blockade).

The ball has clearly never been in their court. Israel still occupy them, and indeed when Hamas ousted Fatah, preempting a coup, they were immediately blockaded. Their people are suffering horribly with only 5% of their water drinkable. Their people are killed on a weekly (more often actually) basis, cannot fish their waters, are being denied their fundamental human right of freedom of movement, have no economy and no infrastructure (Israel will not allow cement to fix the place).

They have called for peace (don't you read the links I provide you in posts? I'm guessing no) in accordance with international law. They have offered a long term truce for the lifting of the blockade. They have said they would agree to ANY peace deal as long as the Palestinians also agreed to it in a referendum.

It is then to truly turn reality on its head to adopt your stance. This is such a completely warped opinion, void of reality.

There is more I'm not thinking of, it's hard to keep track of Israel's brutality and the Hasbara. I suggest you start looking at this subject for what it is, one of the worst and most horrible and immoral crimes in modern history carried out by a state, while the entire world sits by and watches - Israel ignoring all calls to give them what is rightfully theirs, ignoring resolutions, breaking laws set up in the wake of the Nazi brutality of WW2, and indeed, rewriting the laws to suit their colonial enterprise.

And just for the record, their charter was written not by one of their members but someone known to the early founders. It has never been officially adopted since they came to power. Of course, I think you already recognise that it has not as you have read the article.

[MichaelW]

Hamas will continue to fire rockets as long as Israel continues to occupy them.

Gaza isn't occupied, so I don't know where you got that idea from.

Israel haven't given the Palestinians any land - the land was already theirs.

Technically, the land was Egyptian before the Israelis took over. The Palestinians merely lived on it.

Israel still occupy Gaza, by definition (read the report of the flotilla or my post on the legalities of the blockade).

Again, no they aren't. Unless Israel physically has military personnel on Gazan land, then it isn't an occupation. Illegal or not, the Gaza blockade isn't a form of occupation. The Egyptian blockade of Israeli merchant vessels before the Six Day War or the American sanction on Iran , by your definition, are examples of an occupation then?

[ExpandMyMind]

Gaza isn't occupied, so I don't know where you got that idea from.

Again, no they aren't. Unless Israel physically has military personnel on Gazan land, then it isn't an occupation. Illegal or not, the Gaza blockade isn't a form of occupation. The Egyptian blockade of Israeli merchant vessels before the Six Day War or the American sanction on Iran , by your definition, are examples of an occupation then?

I have researched this quite extensively Michael. It's not just something I'm claiming, nor is it something that I am the only one to claim. Human rights organisations have stated so many times before. International lawyers have stated so many times before. The UNHRC with an extremely respected judge and expert on international law has recently just declared so. And, indeed, there is already precedent in history for the situation with Israel and Gaza. The fact is that the blockade is actually illegal for many reasons - It's not even deniable.

Here, first check out this: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=187779&st=0&p=3554116&hl=blockade&fromsearch=1entry3554116

Check out 4. - Blockade of Gaza.

Then you can read this: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf

Check out .46 - 58. The summary:

Blockade

51. Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with

a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled

to enforce that blockade on the high seas.41 A blockade must satisfy a number of legal

requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and

proportionality.42 In particular a blockade is illegal if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other

objects essential for its survival; or

( the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in

relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.43

52. A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate

damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian

population” in LOAC refers to deaths, injuries and property damage. Here the damage may

be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction of

past damage. One might also note, insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the

means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under LOAC is simply to cause

hunger.44

53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by the Office for the

Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory, confirming the

severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of

reconstruction (as detailed above), the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting

disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and as such the

interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.

54. Moreover, the Mission emphasizes that according to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva

Convention, collective punishment of civilians under occupation is prohibited. “No

protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed.

Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism, are

prohibited.” The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition

of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected

Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip

leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined

by international law. In this connection, the Mission supports the findings of the Special

Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since

1967, Richard Falk,45 the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza

Conflict46 and most recently the ICRC47 that the blockade amounts to collective punishment

in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law

Ycan see it defines the blockade quite clearly as illegal - and the man declaring it so was an international law judge who previously served on the Yugoslavia war-crimes trial. For the Occupation see below.

And the above was only released a few days ago so it's a nice fresh decision; based on logic and law that cannot be denied.

Occupation.

Then there is this, and this is the one that really seals it because this is the precedent in the law: http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0145a8233e14d2b585256cbf005af141/f7c5f26122c733598525707b006097a9?OpenDocument

B. Israel Will Remain the Occupying Power of the Gaza Strip so long as Israel Retains

the Ability to Exercise Authority over the Strip

In The Hostages Case, the Nuremburg Tribunal expounded upon The Hague Regulations’ basic definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends.[34] It held that “[t]he test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power.”[35] In that case, the Tribunal had to decide whether Germany’s occupation of Greece and Yugoslavia had ended when Germany had ceded de facto control to non-German forces of certain territories. Even though Germany did not actually control those areas, the Tribunal held that Germany indeed remained the “occupying power”—both in Greece and Yugoslavia generally and in the territories to which it had ceded control—since it could have reentered and controlled those territories at will.

Similarly, Israel will retain ultimate authority over Gaza and to a much greater degree than Germany in The Hostages Case: The Israeli military expressly reserves itself the right to enter the Gaza Strip at will. Further, Israel will not just retain the ability to exercise control over Gaza, but it will also retain effective control over Gaza’s borders, air and sea space, overall security, and international relations.

Moreover, even if Israel should devolve some of its duties to third parties—either as co-occupying powers or as designees—Israel will remain an occupying power so long as it retains the ability to effectively control the Gaza Strip at will, whether with Israel’s own troops or those of its agents or partners.

It is clearly defined in so many respects under international law. It's not even funny now to hear someone try to deny it.

Gaza is occupied. The only country in the world who doesn't think so is Israel.

And all this is to justify the most horrendous blockade. While they have people like yourself defending these inhumane actions.

You were equating a simple blockade with an occupation but the two, as I have shown, are very separate.

Technically, the land was Egyptian before the Israelis took over. The Palestinians merely lived on it.

This is simply one of the most immoral things I have ever heard. You are claiming that this people should be denied their land, after being kicked out by Israel, due to a technicality? Really?

Besides the fact that this doesn't even slightly hold up to scrutiny, that is: International law has laid this out clear as day on numerous occasions.

The Arab nations were merely caretakers for the Palestinians and there had been numerous resolutions calling for Israel to address the refugee problem as they are required to by international law but all were ignored. There was no intentions by Egypt to keep the land. It was always known that it would be given back - hell, the Arab nations formed the Palestinian Liberation Organisation... you don't create the resistance of the people you occupy! That's mental to even suggest. And they probably thought they would get most of the half of Palestine lost or possibly even all of Palestine.

So it was never Egypt's land in the way you describe. You're repeating the same old chestnut Moonmonkey used to throw at me before I actually read up on the subject and realised his arguments were deeply flawed and indeed mostly based on lies and distorted truths.

Ever since Israel's occupation they have continuously been told to give the land back and this has never happened. It is laid out clear in international law as it has been for over forty years. Not to mention that the highest court in the world made a decision in 2004 that declared all settlements in the land occupied since '67 illegal. Israel have literally NO RIGHT TO BE THERE.

Egypt and Jordan had by this time long relinquished their 'ownership' to the land's rightful owners, those who had lived in Palestine for hundreds of years (most actually have ties going back to before the time of Jesus) - it was handed down, as it should be, to the Palestinians to which Israel did not even dispute; it was part of the peace deal between Egypt, Jordan and Israel.

You facilitating the land theft of the last century (maybe even two) to the detriment of an entire people

Sorry, it seems I'm overly tired. I kept getting mixed up. I've given you both the laws for the blockade's illegitimacy and proof of the occupation. But when I think about it, the occupation is actually addressed in all of the links I provided in addition to the blockade being defined.

Occupation:

64. The Mission agrees with the assessment presented in the Goldstone Report as

follows:

Given the specific geopolitical configuration of the Gaza Strip, the powers that Israel

exercises from the borders enable it to determine the conditions of life within the

Gaza Strip. Israel controls the border crossings (including to a significant degree the

Rafah crossing to Egypt, under the terms of the Agreement on Movement and

Access) and decides what and who gets in or out of the Gaza Strip. It also controls

the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip and has declared a virtual blockade and

limits to the fishing zone, thereby regulating economic activity in that zone. It also

keeps complete control of the airspace of the Gaza Strip, inter alia, through

continuous surveillance by aircraft and unmanned aviation vehicles (UAVs) or

drones. It makes military incursions and from time to time hit targets within the

Gaza Strip. No-go areas are declared within the Gaza Strip near the border where

Israeli settlements used to be and enforced by the Israeli armed forces. Furthermore,

Israel regulates the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency (the new

sheqel) and controls taxes and custom duties.53

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf

Occupation from the first link provided.

Israel claims under Art 6 GCIV its obligations as an occupying power terminate 1 year after the close of military operations. The problem with this claim, aside of the fact that Israel claims at the same time that it is engaged in a conflict with Hamas, is that such military operations have not closed. What is a blockade if not a military operation? The effective military control which Israel exercises of Gazan airspace and territorial waters, as well as over all its land border except that with Egypt, where Israeli control is exercised indirectly through an agreement with Egypt, makes the claim that occupation has ended extremely difficult to defend. The UN regards Israel as the occupying power of Gaza, as is easily deduced from the continued operation of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs–occupied Palestinian territory. If Israel claims that it is not an occupying power, that it exercises no effective control over Gaza, and that military operations have closed, it cannot at the same time claim that a conflict exists against Hamas, that a naval blockade is in place against Gaza, that cement may not go into Gaza, and that such provisions are an exercise of the right to self-defence of Art 51 UNC. These things are incompatible.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1

Sorry for the mix-up and the messy post but I thought I was as well keeping it all in there because it's all good info. NN.

Edited September 26, 2010 by expandmymind

[MichaelW]

This is simply one of the most immoral things I have ever heard. You are claiming that this people should be denied their land, after being kicked out by Israel, due to a technicality? Really?

With stuff like this, you could be their chief public relations advisor. These people weren't kicked out of Israel like you claim, they left on their own accord, simply because they didn't want a Jewish state. So whatever you've been reading must've come straight from the Arabs mouths because it is certainly not what is commonly regarded as "fact" here in our imperialistic, decadent western civilization. And to be honest, after seeing some of your other posts in other threads, one might say you were the one with the distorted world view.

[Knight Of Shadows]

lol as always .. indenial

or well aware of what he's saying and keeps saying it

eaither way michael your empty and flawed posts don't change the

facts .. the facts of palestine ownership of the whole land

the facts of israel terroism acts against civilians

and the facts that your ignorant of the whole situation

and the facts that you were just taught to say what you saying

without actually understanding it

sorry but you need to hear it .. your whole posts are based on

lies ... lies ... lies .. and more lies .. plus ignorance

and lack of knowledge about middle east

it gives me a nice laugh though .. i never seen some one

so determind on believe in lies

[Doc Socks Junior]

Simply proclaiming that someone is lying doesn't make it so. Contrary to what you apparently believe. I'm not agreeing with Michael, but you're being abrasive, grating, acidulous, and plain annoying.

expand is actually arguing with substance. Watch and learn.

[ExpandMyMind]

With stuff like this, you could be their chief public relations advisor. These people weren't kicked out of Israel like you claim, they left on their own accord, simply because they didn't want a Jewish state. So whatever you've been reading must've come straight from the Arabs mouths because it is certainly not what is commonly regarded as "fact" here in our imperialistic, decadent western civilization. And to be honest, after seeing some of your other posts in other threads, one might say you were the one with the distorted world view.

Michael, I agree, not all were technically 'kicked out' in the way you are describing (Masses of them were though).. But you have to ask yourself, when the Israelis start massacring entire villages, how would any unarmed, helpless, peasant, civilians react? This was part of a plan instigated by the Israeli forces. There are ample quotes from Ben Gurion and the likes that support this but if that wasn't enough take this little tid-bit: when the partition plan was offered to the Jews and Palestinians, the way the land was to be split, because there were so many Arabs compared to Jews all over Palestine (Jews only legally owned around 7% of the land), meant that there was roughly a 60/40 ratio of Jews to Arabs in the planned state of Israel. In ten years, due to Arab demographics, there would have been no Jewish State without expulsions! See? There had to be expulsions for there to be an Jewish state with a Jewish majority in Palestine, which is what Zionism is all about when it comes down to it.

And just to tackle your 'kicked out' claim. A man goes out to get lashed with his mates. He stays out with them nearly all weekend only to come home on the Sunday morning to find his wife has thrown all his clothes out on the front garden and the locks have been changed. Then the man phones his mate, what does he say? Does he say, "hey look guys, I've just been kicked out"? Or does he say, "hey look guys, I left by my own free will on Friday night", as you seem to be claiming? Israel not letting them back in, especially when on December of '48 there was a resolution specifically directed towards them to allow this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_194 ), means simply that they were kicked out. There is no getting around this.

I can't explain it any better for you.

Israeli 'new historians' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians basing their material off internal, declassified Israeli documents that showed the extent of the massacres is who anyone learned this from, because, as there were Arab authors and others who wrote about it, Israel denied there even was any Palestinians! (Golda Meir, to name but one of the horrible liars). Also, Israel have just recently (I started a thread about it here) enacted a law to prevent the declassification of more documents from that time, for..? Well, one can only guess! But it doesn't take much of an imagination to conjure up what must be in them, considering the last lot completely revolutionised Israel's history (until then, they had claimed the Arabs left of their own free will after Arabv raadio broadcasts.. a long shattered myth).

Tell me I'm a Hamas spokesman all you want, but as anyone can clearly see, I deal with facts and use a rational thought process. Why? Because Hasbara is washed away by doing so.

Edited September 26, 2010 by expandmymind

[Erikl]

It's funny how expandmymind immidietly attacks Israel, when the first poster in this thread didn't mention Israel but simply tackled ex on what he posted... hidden agenda anyone?

P.S

Ex, I dunno if "my enemy's enemy is my friend" is your tactic, but I wouldn't rush into defending Hamas or trying to present them in a good way, as it now seems you are trying to do here. Before you take this road, I must warn you it can raise deep, moral issues concenring the way you look at things, and also pretty much discredit you among normal, sane westeners. Heck, even the pro-flotilla guys among the hard core left wingers don't "dare" to support Hamas outright, because they are well aware the first people to be persecuted under such a regime would be, well... themselves.

[ExpandMyMind]

It's funny how expandmymind immidietly attacks Israel, when the first poster in this thread didn't mention Israel but simply tackled ex on what he posted... hidden agenda anyone?

P.S

Ex, I dunno if "my enemy's enemy is my friend" is your tactic, but I wouldn't rush into defending Hamas or trying to present them in a good way, as it now seems you are trying to do here. Before you take this road, I must warn you it can raise deep, moral issues concenring the way you look at things, and also pretty much discredit you among normal, sane westeners. Heck, even the pro-flotilla guys among the hard core left wingers don't "dare" to support Hamas outright, because they are well aware the first people to be persecuted under such a regime would be, well... themselves.

Well thanks for not disputing any of the content of my posts (you can't), instead opting for a personal attack (your claim of "hidden agenda"), for it shows how weak your position is when you not so subtly try to label me... No, I'll wait for you to use the only tactic that you have, when debating someone informed.. I wouldn't take what little you have away from you

And I just understand a bit about Hamas, that's what happens when you read more than newspaper propaganda. They were a resistance born through a brutal occupation in which Israel have killed anywhere between 10 times, to 100 times more civilians in any given conflict. Hell, there have been over 70 innocent Palestinian civilians killed this year alone... How many have been killed by this horrendous rocket fire we keep hearing about? I'll tell you: less than 40 in the full ten years since it was started! Actually, after a quick search as I wasn't sure on the exact figure, it's actually 28 deaths from rocket fire.

And I clearly addressed the content of Michael's post (separate claims), as anyone can see.

Edited September 26, 2010 by expandmymind

[acidhead]

It's funny how expandmymind immidietly attacks Israel, when the first poster in this thread didn't mention Israel but simply tackled ex on what he posted... hidden agenda anyone?

P.S

Ex, I dunno if "my enemy's enemy is my friend" is your tactic, but I wouldn't rush into defending Hamas or trying to present them in a good way, as it now seems you are trying to do here. Before you take this road, I must warn you it can raise deep, moral issues concenring the way you look at things, and also pretty much discredit you among normal, sane westeners. Heck, even the pro-flotilla guys among the hard core left wingers don't "dare" to support Hamas outright, because they are well aware the first people to be persecuted under such a regime would be, well... themselves.

Just curious.... Are you threatening Expand or warning him or both?

[ExpandMyMind]

Just curious.... Are you threatening Expand or warning him or both?

Nah, I don't think he would try that. It just happens to be the only form of debate he can employ, and in fact, I could give links to other sites I post and you'll see that it's pretty much the norm across the board for Israel apologists.

It's the same way they attack the UN criticism, or any critcism for that matter. For anyone who is interested in this tactic I suggest reading this book.

BEYOND CHUTZPAH : ON THE MISUSE OF ANTI-SEMITISM AND THE ABUSE OF HISTORY

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/category/beyond-chutzpah/

I own it so there's not much in that respect getting past me. I know all the underhanded tactics used to deflect criticism.

Want to know something funny Acid? Every time I debate this subject online (and at no other time) I have the worst internet trouble.

Edited September 26, 2010 by expandmymind

[acidhead]

Gaza isn't occupied, so I don't know where you got that idea from.

Gaza isn't occupied MichaelW?

If I surrounded your house with my gang of friends and stood, myself at the entrance and denied any access to anybody other than whom I allowed based on my own personal interests......... what would you call this?

[Erikl]

Just curious.... Are you threatening Expand or warning him or both?

LOL ofcourse not. It's just the ex believes he has the higher moral grounds here, or atleast presumes that way, and so I simply didn't want him to humaliate himself by becoming a proponent of Hamas, then claiming to be a moral person. Just to shield him from his own inevitible hypocrisy....

As for your own comment ex - as usual, charming as ever .

[ExpandMyMind]

Care to address even one part of any of my posts?

[Doc Socks Junior]

Of course he doesn't. What do you expect though?

[MichaelW]

Give me one reason why I should.

[danielost]

there have been two truths stated above. hamas targets civilians. isreal targets civilian structures. i think it is slightly better to destroy a building than kill an innocent.

[ExpandMyMind]

Give me one reason why I should.

Sorry, I wasn't actually referring to you. But seeing as you bring it up, common courtesy? I took the time to offer a substantial amount of information, the least you could do would be to offer me a reply.

there have been two truths stated above. hamas targets civilians. isreal targets civilian structures. i think it is slightly better to destroy a building than kill an innocent.

Actually they both target civilian structures (Hamas's rockets do this). The difference being that Hamas's rockets are largely symbolic, Israel's attacks kill large amounts of civilians.

You would be better off campaigning horse riding in Britain. It kills more people in a year than Hamas has killed in the 10 years since rockets started. (roughly 30 people a year die in Britain from horse riding accidents while 28 people have been killed over the course of 10 years since Hamas's rocket fire).

Edited September 27, 2010 by expandmymind

[Corp]

Gaza isn't occupied MichaelW?

If I surrounded your house with my gang of friends and stood, myself at the entrance and denied any access to anybody other than whom I allowed based on my own personal interests......... what would you call this?

A blockade, not an occupation.

As for the OP however much Hamas spins things they're still seen as a terrorist group. The sooner they put in serious reforms like the IRA did, or get ditched all together the better.

[ExpandMyMind]

A blockade, not an occupation.

Actually, it is both. And both are illegal. Why don't you read the thread. Then you will clearly see I have shown beyond doubt that it is an occupation.

Or you can continue to throw around uninformed opinions if you'd prefer.

As for the OP however much Hamas spins things they're still seen as a terrorist group. The sooner they put in serious reforms like the IRA did, or get ditched all together the better.

More on Hamas below. I suggest you read these and actually learn about who it is you're talking of. And for the record, the statement "they are still seen as a terrorist organisation" is simply not true. The vast majority of the World does not view Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

No Peace Without Hamas

GAZA -- President Jimmy Carter's sensible plan to visit the Hamas leadership this week brings honesty and pragmatism to the Middle East while underscoring the fact that American policy has reached its dead end. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acts as if a few alterations here and there would make the hideous straitjacket of apartheid fit better. While Rice persuades Israeli occupation forces to cut a few dozen meaningless roadblocks from among the more than 500 West Bank control points, these forces simultaneously choke off fuel supplies to Gaza; blockade its 1.5 million people; approve illegal housing projects on West Bank land; and attack Gaza City with F-16s, killing men, women and children. Sadly, this is "business as usual" for the Palestinians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602899.html

Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders

The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915

Hamas: Political Thought and Practice

Hamas came into existence in 1987 during the first Palestinian intifada, but its roots go back to the Muslim Brotherhood, created in Egypt in the 1920s and extending from there to Palestine and other Arab countries. Hamas appears differently here than in most Western accounts, which see it as a fanatic body that must be neutralized to realize Israeli-Palestinian peace. Drawing on the wealth of Hamas writings and interviews with Hamas representatives, Hroub depicts an ideology and modus operandi that are coherent and flexible. Hamas has managed to distance itself from the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority while maintaining Palestinian unity. Not only is it prudent in its relations with the Arab states, but it reaches out to Palestinian Christians. Even the long-term goal of eliminating Israel is encased in a sophisticated concept accepting the possibility of a staged and peaceful transition. Hroub provides limited coverage of Hamas' organization, its members, and even the leadership -- but his in-depth and dispassionate presentation of Hamas doctrine as it has developed since the 1980s is masterful. A useful appendix offers translations of representative Hamas documents.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/56680/l-carl-brown/hamas-political-thought-and-practice

Hamas in call to end suicide bombings

Hamas is to abandon its use of suicide bombers, who have killed almost 300 Israelis, in any future confrontations with Israel, its activists have told The Observer.

The Islamic group, which leads the Palestinian Authority, says, however, that it may resort to other forms of violence if there is no progress towards Palestinian statehood.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/09/israel

Hamas acted on a very real fear of a US-sponsored coup**

Did they jump or were they pushed? Was Hamas's seizure of Fatah security offices in Gaza unprovoked, or a pre-emptive strike to forestall a coup by Fatah? After last week's turmoil, it becomes increasingly important to uncover its origins.

The fundamental cause is, of course, well known. Israel, aided by the US, was not prepared to accept Hamas's victory in last year's Palestinian elections. Backed by a supine EU, the two governments decided to boycott their new Palestinian counterparts politically and punish Palestinian voters by blocking economic aid. Their policies had a dramatic effect, turning Gaza even more starkly into an open prison and creating human misery on a massive scale. The aim was to turn voters against Hamas - a strategy of stupidity as well as cynicism, since outside pressure usually produces resistance rather than surrender.

-------------

It is also well known that Hamas was as surprised by its election victory as everyone else and that it offered its rival, Fatah, a coalition government of national unity. The offer was refused. If this was done initially out of wounded pride, Fatah's rejection of Hamas's regularly repeated overtures increasingly appeared to be coordinated with Washington as part of the boycott strategy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/22/israel.comment

Khaled Meshaal

The head of Hamas's political bureau discusses the leaked US plan to arm Fatah.** Again, the US undermines democracy as and when it suits their 'interests'.

A report released this week by the American magazine Vanity Fair disclosed a plan by the US administration to overthrow the democratically-elected Hamas by arming rival Fatah forces through millions of dollars worth of weapons.

This as Israel waged its deadliest round of attacks on Gaza since 2000.

Al Jazeera's Hashim Ahlbarra meets with Hamas' Khaled Meshaal – head of the group's political bureau, and asks him about the report.

In this episode of Talk to Jazeera, Meshaal, talks about the leaked US plan of arming Fatah and instigating a civil war in Gaza.

He also talks about rocket fire from the coastal strip and answers questions about a possible truce with Israel.

Khaled Mesh’al lays out new Hamas policy direction

This is the most recent interview with Khaled Mesh'al who, since 1996, has been the Chairman of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) Political Bureau. After the assassination of Hamas leader Abdul ‘Aziz Rantisi in 2004, Mesh'al became the overall leader of the movement.

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/middle-east/1491-khaled-meshal-lays-out-new-hamas-policy-direction

Hamas have clearly tried. Changed their approach to the whole situation in a fundamental way.

Israel and the US have done nothing but constantly undermine any progress they have made.

The fact remains: there will always be a resistance, a Hamas in one form or another, as long as Israel actively occupies and colonises another peoples' land.

Edited September 27, 2010 by expandmymind

[danielost]

Sorry, I wasn't actually referring to you. But seeing as you bring it up, common courtesy? I took the time to offer a substantial amount of information, the least you could do would be to offer me a reply.

Actually they both target civilian structures (Hamas's rockets do this). The difference being that Hamas's rockets are largely symbolic, Israel's attacks kill large amounts of civilians.

You would be better off campaigning horse riding in Britain. It kills more people in a year than Hamas has killed in the 10 years since rockets started. (roughly 30 people a year die in Britain from horse riding accidents while 28 people have been killed over the course of 10 years since Hamas's rocket fire).

sorry i dont consider an elementary school full of kids as an attack on the building but on the kids. not talking rockets here but a murder bomber.

[danielost]

Actually, it is both. And both are illegal. Why don't you read the thread. Then you will clearly see I have shown beyond doubt that it is an occupation.

Or you can continue to throw around uninformed opinions if you'd prefer.

More on Hamas below. I suggest you read these and actually learn about who it is you're talking of. And for the record, the statement "they are still seen as a terrorist organisation" is simply not true. The vast majority of the World does not view Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

No Peace Without Hamas

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602899.html

Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders

http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915

Hamas: Political Thought and Practice

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/56680/l-carl-brown/hamas-political-thought-and-practice

Hamas in call to end suicide bombings

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/09/israel

Hamas acted on a very real fear of a US-sponsored coup**

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/22/israel.comment

Khaled Meshaal

The head of Hamas's political bureau discusses the leaked US plan to arm Fatah.** Again, the US undermines democracy as and when it suits their 'interests'.

Khaled Mesh’al lays out new Hamas policy direction

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/middle-east/1491-khaled-meshal-lays-out-new-hamas-policy-direction

Hamas have clearly tried. Changed their approach to the whole situation in a fundamental way.

Israel and the US have done nothing but constantly undermine any progress they have made.

The fact remains: there will always be a resistance, a Hamas in one form or another, as long as Israel actively occupies and colonises another peoples' land.

if the occupation of gaza is illegal they should give it back to the nation they got it from, egypt. but egypt doesnt want it. hamas does so they can make illegal attacks on civilians inside of isreal.

[Corp]

In my view occupation means you're controling another country. You have boots on the ground. This is not the case in Gaza. Yes Israel has control over the Gaza border but it's also their border as well. Likewise Egpyt has control over the Gaza border. Does that make Egypt an occupying power? Will Hamas be striking at Egpyt as well? As far as I can tell Hamas has control over Gaza not Israel, which means it's not an occupation. After all Iraq wasn't an occupied country after the Gulf War and they had limits placed on their borders and airspace.

As for Hamas yes they've been quiet the last few years, though you still hear stories of them stealing UN relief goods and brainwashing their children. After being flat out murderers for so long it's going to take years of good behavour to change public option of them.