Hamas makes its case

[Syndyre]

Interesting.

Obviously its Hamas's viewpoint so its not exactly objective but still quite interesting. Would love to know who the lawmaker was.

 

[Xarog]

About as objective as anything else you can find about the middle east, I say.

Edit : Having read it now, I do think it's an interesting piece. At least it shows that what's going on in the middle east, and particularly in the occupied territories, is nowhere near as simple or straightforward as what the western mainstream media makes it out to be.

 

[Syndyre]

About as objective as anything else you can find about the middle east, I say.

Maybe.

Edit : Having read it now, I do think it's an interesting piece. At least it shows that what's going on in the middle east, and particularly in the occupied territories, is nowhere near as simple or straightforward as what the western mainstream media makes it out to be.

Assuming it all can be believed, this guy does seem relatively moderate for Hamas though, unless that's just the image he wants to portray?

 

[Syndyre]

This seems to be a more detailed transcript, it includes the names of those involved etc. too.

 

[Xarog]

Assuming it all can be believed, this guy does seem relatively moderate for Hamas though, unless that's just the image he wants to portray?

To be honest that's more in line with the Hamas I know. Hamas is portrayed as a bunch of mindless frothing lunatics, but they would not have won the palestinian elections if that was the case (and those elections were determined by the Carter foundation to be entirely free and fair).

Hamas probably is portraying the issue with a bias towards their POV, but even so, it would be extremely difficult for any one spokesman to actually make up all those names without the rest of the world catching on. And given that we may reasonably assume that all those people do exist, it becomes pretty hard to doubt that politics in the Occupied Territories is complex, and Hamas' existence is thus also intricate.

As for the conflictsforum, it's my opinion that if there is to just a just and peaceful solution to the middle east, that the west needs to adopt an attitude similar to the one held by that organisation.

 

[Skeptik]

Hammas gets their funding from Iran. They have a similar ideology. They also don't recognise Israel's right to exist. So long as they have this mentality, they will never get anywhere and the coup will be a failure.

 

[Xarog]

Tell me Skeptik, did you actually read the links in this thread or did you just come here to mark your territory by defecating behind the nearest tree?

 

[Skeptik]

Tell me Skeptik, did you actually read the links in this thread or did you just come here to mark your territory by defecating behind the nearest tree?

I read everything, including your mind (yuck )If I got you in the eye, then I'm very happy
Nice of you to acknowledge it's my territory too ...

 

[Xarog]

I read everything, including your mind (yuck )If I got you in the eye, then I'm very happy
Nice of you to acknowledge it's my territory too ...

Something else for you to read then :
http://conflictsforum.org/2007/dancing-with-wolves-the-importance-of-talking-to-your-enemies/

And my mention of 'your' territory was merely a remark regarding your state of mind; No inference can be made upon whose territory I think it is.

And as a nitpick : you DO know that defecation refers specifically to bowel movements, right? Unless you've got a case of explosive diorrhoea, my eyes aren't at risk.

 

[Syndyre]

To be honest that's more in line with the Hamas I know. Hamas is portrayed as a bunch of mindless frothing lunatics, but they would not have won the palestinian elections if that was the case (and those elections were determined by the Carter foundation to be entirely free and fair).

I got the impression the vote for Hamas was more a vote against Fatah and its corruption than support for Hamas, at least partially anyway. Obviously there are some more moderate, rational members and factions but they still endorse and practice violent suicide bombings and refuse to recognise the right of Israel to exist etc. I think a black and white view of Hamas bad, Fatah good is too simplistic though. Fatah's also been linked to terrorist attacks through the Al Aqsa martyrs brigades etc. Hamas does in many ways seem to be more efficient than Fatah, having restored order to Gaza etc. Despite that though the fact remains that they endorse suicide bombings etc.

Hamas probably is portraying the issue with a bias towards their POV, but even so, it would be extremely difficult for any one spokesman to actually make up all those names without the rest of the world catching on. And given that we may reasonably assume that all those people do exist, it becomes pretty hard to doubt that politics in the Occupied Territories is complex, and Hamas' existence is thus also intricate.

Yeah, especially since this wasn't a press release anyway but more a meeting with relatively high level players. It doesn't seem to be majorly disputed by anyone either, including the Conflict Blotter blogger, who IIRC is the Telegraph's correspondent there and said this:

There is plenty to take issue with and question in Hamdan’s account, but all in all I think he makes a very credible case.

As for the conflictsforum, it's my opinion that if there is to just a just and peaceful solution to the middle east, that the west needs to adopt an attitude similar to the one held by that organisation.

I didn't actually look at it beyond that link but I'll take a look.

 

[Alan]

Yeah but Syndyre Hamas's idea of restoring order is shooting dead peace protestors and attacking barber shops......

 

[Xarog]

I got the impression the vote for Hamas was more a vote against Fatah and its corruption than support for Hamas, at least partially anyway.

It was portrayed that way, yes. However, to the Palestinians, Hamas was a viable alternative.

Obviously there are some more moderate, rational members and factions but they still endorse and practice violent suicide bombings

Not inside Israel, at least not for the last two years.

and refuse to recognise the right of Israel to exist etc.

I think the link I posted in my last post would be useful here.

I think a black and white view of Hamas bad, Fatah good is too simplistic though. Fatah's also been linked to terrorist attacks through the Al Aqsa martyrs brigades etc. Hamas does in many ways seem to be more efficient than Fatah, having restored order to Gaza etc. Despite that though the fact remains that they endorse suicide bombings etc.

Even if they do endorse suicide bombings it does not make them mad and mindless idiots.

I didn't actually look at it beyond that link but I'll take a look.

That other link I pasted would be a good start, I believe.

Yeah but Syndyre Hamas's idea of restoring order is shooting dead peace protestors and attacking barber shops......

Then America's idea of law and order is assaulting geriatrics for not having a green enough lawn.

 

[Syndyre]

Yeah but Syndyre Hamas's idea of restoring order is shooting dead peace protestors and attacking barber shops......

Yeah I definitely wasn't referring to that, I suppose we could argue the Taliban imposed order as well. It just seemed like generally they were in some ways more organised than Fatah, not that it in any way justifies the rest of their policies or actions.

 

[Syndyre]

It was portrayed that way, yes. However, to the Palestinians, Hamas was a viable alternative.

Maybe so, although it could also be argued that the Palestinians as a group are more radical than most, for whatever reason.

Not inside Israel, at least not for the last two years.

Is that a stated policy though or just because they couldn't pull it off? And what about Qassam rocket attacks? I presume "not inside Israel" means they still attack settlers?

I think the link I posted in my last post would be useful here.

According to that link they do have a de facto recognition of Israel, which may be true but I don't see how recognising Israel formally is impossible for them to manage politically when Fatah have done so for a while.

Even if they do endorse suicide bombings it does not make them mad and mindless idiots.

Maybe not mindless but mad, radical, extremist, terrorist ideologues yes. There's no justification for the use of suicide bombings against civilians.

 

[Xarog]

Maybe so, although it could also be argued that the Palestinians as a group are more radical than most, for whatever reason.

Would you argue it?

Is that a stated policy though or just because they couldn't pull it off? And what about Qassam rocket attacks? I presume "not inside Israel" means they still attack settlers?

It's a stated policy.

And what about the Qassam rocket attacks? Are they suicide bombings?

According to that link they do have a de facto recognition of Israel, which may be true but I don't see how recognising Israel formally is impossible for them to manage politically when Fatah have done so for a while.

That's a good question.

Maybe not mindless but mad, radical, extremist, terrorist ideologues yes. There's no justification for the use of suicide bombings against civilians.

I think it's far better to simply say there is no justification for bombing civilians.

 

[Syndyre]

Would you argue it?

I would actually, I think war or conflict always radicalises people, its an inevitable part of the process, its much easier to fight your enemy or drum up support if you can demonise them.

And what about the Qassam rocket attacks? Are they suicide bombings?

No but they do still target civilians.

I think it's far better to simply say there is no justification for bombing civilians.

Sure but you have to make a distinction between deliberate and accidental attacks.

 

[Xarog]

I would actually, I think war or conflict always radicalises people, its an inevitable part of the process, its much easier to fight your enemy or drum up support if you can demonise them.

Does that mean your average 'war on terror' supporter is a radical? Because muslims sure have been demonised by the west.

No but they do still target civilians.

That's debatable. The Qassam rockets are basically the only way for Hamas to return fire. They could well be attacking Israel with the civilian casualties being 'regrettable' as the IDF so likes to say. (And I think the Qassam rockets have killed less than a dozen people in their entire history... that they kill *anyone* is a sheer fluke.)

Sure but you have to make a distinction between deliberate and accidental attacks.

It's more complicated than that. You can argue that killing a general with a nuke means that all the civilian casualties are 'accidental' and thus that they were justified, but there comes a point where this kind of claim simply does not hold water.

 

[Skeptik]

I would actually, I think war or conflict always radicalises people, its an inevitable part of the process, its much easier to fight your enemy or drum up support if you can demonise them.



No but they do still target civilians.



Sure but you have to make a distinction between deliberate and accidental attacks.

One more important thing is to distinguish civilians from fighters. In some hotspots, the only difference is the Kalashnikov (readily abandoned behind a wall when it comes to the crunch)

 

[Syndyre]

Does that mean your average 'war on terror' supporter is a radical? Because muslims sure have been demonised by the west.

I'd say people are probably more radical than pre-9/11, I wouldn't call them radical though. If you're responding to the actions of others though then you've got more basis for your views I suppose.

That's debatable. The Qassam rockets are basically the only way for Hamas to return fire. They could well be attacking Israel with the civilian casualties being 'regrettable' as the IDF so likes to say. (And I think the Qassam rockets have killed less than a dozen people in their entire history... that they kill *anyone* is a sheer fluke.)

Just because its the only way doesn't make it justifiable, they shouldn't really be firing in the first place. I don't think the IDF deliberately targets civilians although you'd probably disagree. Just because they don't kill people doesn't mean they don't sow terror, the fact that there aren't that many deaths can probably be attributed to Israel's warning sirens, bomb shelters etc.

It's more complicated than that. You can argue that killing a general with a nuke means that all the civilian casualties are 'accidental' and thus that they were justified, but there comes a point where this kind of claim simply does not hold water.

Nothing's ever totally black and white but the fact is in most normal situations legitimate military actions are very different to attacking civilians with suicide bombs etc.

 

[Syndyre]

One more important thing is to distinguish civilians from fighters. In some hotspots, the only difference is the Kalashnikov (readily abandoned behind a wall when it comes to the crunch)

Exactly, and of course when they are actually killed they're readily portrayed as civilians even if they were lobbing grenades 2 minutes before.