Hamas makes its case

[Syndyre]

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

Law and order Hamas style:

And they have their own style of traffic policing as well. They do it with a sort of Islamic flare. We double parked so my fixer could get cigarettes today and a Hamas traffic cop in a yellow vest came up to the window. He wanted us to move our car, but said simply: “Bow to God.”

 

[Xarog]

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.

So then the question becomes : who started it?

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.

Aye. The IDF has been accused of plenty of warcrimes.

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.

Or the rockets are just woefully inaccurate.

But you're right, one doesn't need to kill people to 'sow terror'. The IDF has mastered that art. For quite a while now, Gaza has been subjected to repeated sonic booms. They're much louder than the sounds of exploding Qassams I'll wager. The psychological toll, particularly on children is quite significant.

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.

If two regular armies are fighting each other then I'd agree.

 

[Skeptik]

For quite a while now, Gaza has been subjected to repeated sonic booms. They're much louder than the sounds of exploding Qassams I'll wager. The psychological toll, particularly on children is quite significant.

*Reminder to oneself. Pack earplugs when visiting Gaza*

 

[Xarog]

I don't think you'd be laughing if your kids were all suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, Skeptik.

 

[Syndyre]

So then the question becomes : who started it?

Its not only about that, holding radical views is one thing, acting on them quite another.

Aye. The IDF has been accused of plenty of warcrimes.

Accusations mean nothing unless proven.

Or the rockets are just woefully inaccurate.

Either way it doesn't make Hamas's intentions any more benign.

*Reminder to oneself. Pack earplugs when visiting Gaza*

LOL

 

[Xarog]

Accusations mean nothing unless proven.

Ok, Sorry. They've committed warcrimes. Repeatedly. Just one example of a warcrime : mass punishment. Israel routinely bulldozes the houses of the extended family of anyone they catch attacking Israel in an attempt to discourage such attacks.

Either way it doesn't make Hamas's intentions any more benign.

Niether does it make them any more malicious.

 

[Syndyre]

Ok, Sorry. They've committed warcrimes. Repeatedly. Just one example of a warcrime : mass punishment. Israel routinely bulldozes the houses of the extended family of anyone they catch attacking Israel in an attempt to discourage such attacks.

Who defines that as a war crime, the UN? Its definitely not an ideal policy but they are in quite a difficult position, I mean its hard to punish the suicide bomber.

 

[Xarog]

Who defines that as a war crime, the UN? Its definitely not an ideal policy but they are in quite a difficult position, I mean its hard to punish the suicide bomber.

It's a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, specifically what you may and may not do in land of someone else's that you occupy/are in control of.

And hey, niether side is an 'ideal' position, if that's the central factor by which you judge someone's actions then I dare say that you aren't applying your standards equitably.

 

[McSack]

It's a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, specifically what you may and may not do in land of someone else's that you occupy/are in control of.

And hey, niether side is an 'ideal' position, if that's the central factor by which you judge someone's actions then I dare say that you aren't applying your standards equitably.

That of course depends on your opinion regarding the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine.

Because

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention

Now in 1989 some time the PLO sent a letter to Swiss Foreign Affairs stating that Palestine would adhere to all the conventions as well as additional protocols.

So does the letter constituted an instrument of accession considering the uncertainty surrounding the "State of Palestine"?

 

[Xarog]

I don't see the point of your argument. If there is a state of palestine, then apparently they've declared themselves bound by the protocols.

If there is no state of Palestine, then the Palestinians cannot be nationals of the state of Palestine. Essentially they are not Nationals of any state at all.

Either way, it would seem the Geneva Conventions apply.

 

[Syndyre]

And hey, niether side is an 'ideal' position, if that's the central factor by which you judge someone's actions then I dare say that you aren't applying your standards equitably.

I never said the Israelis were infallible or every action of theirs was perfect. But lets look at who initiated the whole situation? Israel didn't start the 1967 war which left them with the occupied territories. Interesting how there wasn't a major Palestinian state movement in those areas when they were under Egyptian and Jordanian control. Also bulldozing houses is a far cry from walking into a restaurant or getting on to a bus and blowing oneself up.

 

[Xarog]

I never said the Israelis were infallible or every action of theirs was perfect. But lets look at who initiated the whole situation?

That's what I asked. Who started this?

Israel didn't start the 1967 war which left them with the occupied territories.

Niether did the Palestinians. They didn't start the 1948 war either.

Interesting how there wasn't a major Palestinian state movement in those areas when they were under Egyptian and Jordanian control.

That's because from the looks of it, Egypt and Jordan considered those territories part of Egypt and Jordan. During that time they were Egyptian and Jordanian nationals respectively.

Having the entire Occupied territories incorporated into Israel, and all the inhabitants given citizenship, would be an entirely acceptable solution to the current problem as far as I'm concerned. It's referred to as the one-state solution, btw.

Also bulldozing houses is a far cry from walking into a restaurant or getting on to a bus and blowing oneself up.

It's just one example, and there are many others. But if you really want to compare apples and apples, try the 1 million landmines the IDF effectively, and *purposefully* sowed in Lebanon last year.

My point is that Hamas is hardly any different from any of the other regional players, on both sides. For anyone to demonise them when they're really not very different from anyone else is just pure stupidity.

 

[Syndyre]

Niether did the Palestinians. They didn't start the 1948 war either.

Maybe not directly but the countries they were initially citizens of and that claimed to represent their interests did.

That's because from the looks of it, Egypt and Jordan considered those territories part of Egypt and Jordan. During that time they were Egyptian and Jordanian nationals respectively.

I'm just saying they claim they're a nation etc. but it wasn't such an issue before.

Having the entire Occupied territories incorporated into Israel, and all the inhabitants given citizenship, would be an entirely acceptable solution to the current problem as far as I'm concerned. It's referred to as the one-state solution, btw.

Realistically its not being seriously considered by anyone though.

It's just one example, and there are many others. But if you really want to compare apples and apples, try the 1 million landmines the IDF effectively, and *purposefully* sowed in Lebanon last year.

Are those actually landmines or cluster bombs that you're calling landmines?

My point is that Hamas is hardly any different from any of the other regional players, on both sides. For anyone to demonise them when they're really not very different from anyone else is just pure stupidity.

Assuming that's true, why do you think they are demonised then? Its hard for them to be considered seriously when they won't recognise the right of Israel to be exist and have repeatedly sent suicide bombers into Israel and AFAIK haven't renounced this practice.

 

[Xarog]

Maybe not directly but the countries they were initially citizens of and that claimed to represent their interests did.

Which countries would that be?

I'm just saying they claim they're a nation etc. but it wasn't such an issue before.

Well people tend to get sensitive about such things when they're discriminated against.

Let me put it into context for you : I live in South Africa. My rights are reasonably well protected and for the most part I'm not treated differently to any other citizen of this country. I'm thus content to call myself a "South African", despite the fact that technically I'm half Afrikaans. But now let's assume that suddenly all Afrikaners are robbed of their citizenship and effectively treated as something more or less like an immigrant. Do you think the Afrikaners at a whole would start calling themselves the Afrikaner nation and band together so as to improve their chances of protecting their own interests, or would they just go on about their business? Speaking for myself, if I was put into that situation I'd damn well do something to correct that injustice.

Realistically its not being seriously considered by anyone though.

Not yet.

Are those actually landmines or cluster bombs that you're calling landmines?

In this particular case there's no real difference between them. They may not have been designed as landmines, but because of the fact that they were used in such a way as to maximise the dud rate, they are effectively landmines. And there's no alternative explanation as to why the IDF would purposefully choose detonation angles that would maximise the dud rate.

Assuming that's true, why do you think they are demonised then? Its hard for them to be considered seriously when they won't recognise the right of Israel to be exist and have repeatedly sent suicide bombers into Israel and AFAIK haven't renounced this practice.

The reason they're demonised is complicated, so I'll get to that second. As for their refusal to recognise Israel, Israel has never officially declared their borders. How on earth do you recognise a state with no official borders? Then there's the fact that no other nation on earth demands to be recognised. There's a handful of other plausable reasons as for why Hamas does not and should not recognise Israel's existence.

As for why Hamas is demonised : You said it yourself, it's easier to attack someone you've demonised. The west and particular the United States has vested strategic interests in the Middle East, most notably access to finite oil reserves. For reasons I don't feel like going into right now, America decided it would be better to support Israel over everyone else in the middle east as that would give them a measure of leverage in the region. This in turn entwined Israeli and American interests, to the point that today that their respective foreign policies are almost identical.

Israel was borne out of the Zionism movement. The Zionist movement is a nationalist Jewish movement which ultimately believes that the Jews as a whole are entitled to the promised land. This puts them more or less at loggerheads with Arab nationalism especially with regard to the Occupied Territories. There's no shortage of Zionists who believe, religiously (and otherwise), in Greater Israel, and who believe that any arabs within the promised land deserve to be exterminated like dogs. In Israeli politics this bloc may as well be called 'democrats' or 'republicans' (to put it into an American context) because that's how large their influence is - the point of this is that any Israeli politician has to be very careful of raising their ire.

Thus Israel (and by extension the US and by extension the west as a whole) seeks to undermine and prevent any expression of Palestinian self-determination. This is also why Israel originally helped prop up Hamas as an attempt to weaken the PLO, and now why they're trying to prop up Abu Mazen and co in favour of Hamas.

 

[Slooth]

People who kill innocent people certainly ain't saints.

 

[Syndyre]

Which countries would that be?

Jordan and Egypt specifically.

Well people tend to get sensitive about such things when they're discriminated against.

Fair enough but AFAIK, and I may be wrong, most of the Arab countries refuse to grant the Palestinians citizenship, wonder why that is, maybe so they can carry on using them as politicial pawns? Probably the same reason they still live in refugee camps 50 years later?

In this particular case there's no real difference between them. They may not have been designed as landmines, but because of the fact that they were used in such a way as to maximise the dud rate, they are effectively landmines. And there's no alternative explanation as to why the IDF would purposefully choose detonation angles that would maximise the dud rate.

Even if that's true calling them landmines when they're not is disingenuous and inflammatory. I haven't seen any evidence yet that they did choose such detonation angles, lets just remember anyway who started that war, after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon.

The reason they're demonised is complicated, so I'll get to that second. As for their refusal to recognise Israel, Israel has never officially declared their borders. How on earth do you recognise a state with no official borders? Then there's the fact that no other nation on earth demands to be recognised. There's a handful of other plausable reasons as for why Hamas does not and should not recognise Israel's existence.

Most countries don't need to demand recognition, they're just recognised. The very fact they need to demand recognition says a lot. I'd also say its quite important when most of your neighbours are against you and have attacked you in the past.

Israel was borne out of the Zionism movement. The Zionist movement is a nationalist Jewish movement which ultimately believes that the Jews as a whole are entitled to the promised land. This puts them more or less at loggerheads with Arab nationalism especially with regard to the Occupied Territories. There's no shortage of Zionists who believe, religiously (and otherwise), in Greater Israel, and who believe that any arabs within the promised land deserve to be exterminated like dogs. In Israeli politics this bloc may as well be called 'democrats' or 'republicans' (to put it into an American context) because that's how large their influence is - the point of this is that any Israeli politician has to be very careful of raising their ire.

I wouldn't say they're that influential, the 2 Israeli equivalents to Democrats and Republicans would probably be Labour and Kadima, neither of which support this policy. Likud may to an extent but then again it was Sharon who unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and I doubt you'd find any mainstream politician that thinks "Arabs should be exterminated like dogs".

Thus Israel (and by extension the US and by extension the west as a whole) seeks to undermine and prevent any expression of Palestinian self-determination. This is also why Israel originally helped prop up Hamas as an attempt to weaken the PLO, and now why they're trying to prop up Abu Mazen and co in favour of Hamas.

How does the lack of a Palestinian state improve US access to oil reserves? I'd say it probably worsens the US situation, there's a lot of hostility in the region towards the US for their support of Israel.

 

[Xarog]

Jordan and Egypt specifically.

Well you're wrong. They only became citizens of Egypt and Jordan after 1948.

Fair enough but AFAIK, and I may be wrong, most of the Arab countries refuse to grant the Palestinians citizenship, wonder why that is, maybe so they can carry on using them as politicial pawns? Probably the same reason they still live in refugee camps 50 years later?

The refugess, as far as I understand it, refuse to be absorbed into the countries they fled to.

Even if that's true calling them landmines when they're not is disingenuous and inflammatory.

I said they were effectively landmines, which is exactly what they are.

I haven't seen any evidence yet that they did choose such detonation angles,

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=761781
http://www.counterpunch.org/brooks10172006.html

Even if they didn't, they still used those bombs when they didn't serve any purpose in the conflict itself (a cease-fire agreement was already coming into effect)

lets just remember anyway who started that war, after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon.

Strawman. You're implying that their behaviour is exscusable because they were attacked.

Most countries don't need to demand recognition, they're just recognised.

I do not know of any other country on the planet which has had its right to exist recognised.

I wouldn't say they're that influential, the 2 Israeli equivalents to Democrats and Republicans would probably be Labour and Kadima, neither of which support this policy.

The point is that they are a power bloc, and they aren't marginal.

Likud may to an extent but then again it was Sharon who unilaterally withdrew from Gaza

Only to avoid the 'demographic problem'.

and I doubt you'd find any mainstream politician that thinks "Arabs should be exterminated like dogs".

Really? Well I guess you should examine Israeli politicians, present and past, more closely.

How does the lack of a Palestinian state improve US access to oil reserves?

It doesn't. But supporting Israel does give them leverage in the region. Supporting Israel means supporting Zionism, which in turn means opposing the national aspirations of Palestinians.

I'd say it probably worsens the US situation, there's a lot of hostility in the region towards the US for their support of Israel.

I didn't say that it was the wisest choice. But that's the choice that was made (decades ago), and it's the choice that the US is now basically stuck with.

 

[Skeptik]

Well you're wrong. They only became citizens of Egypt and Jordan after 1948.


The refugess, as far as I understand it, refuse to be absorbed into the countries they fled to.
.

More like they have been isolated by their host countries, who refuse to issue them with passports or absorb their children into local schools etc. In fact in some host countries, their movement is restricted too.

In a way you can see why that happened. If they found their Jordanian roots again and became citizens, then there would be no Palestinians left to fight for their cause. Problem solved, but not politically convenient.

I said they were effectively landmines, which is exactly what they are.

Even if they didn't, they still used those bombs when they didn't serve any purpose in the conflict itself (a cease-fire agreement was already coming into effect)
.

True, an agreement was within reach, however they tried to deny the use of those zones (near the border) like an insurance against further attacks from Hezbollocks. Israel spent considerable time gaining ground and would have to give it up just onthe word of the agreement. Are you surprised they anticipated a breakdown? I'm not!

 

[Xarog]

More like they have been isolated by their host countries, who refuse to issue them with passports or absorb their children into local schools etc. In fact in some host countries, their movement is restricted too.

What I mean is, they want to return to their homes which are now within Israel, and have said as much, which is why their predicament is handled by a different division of the UN as opposed to the division which normally deals with refugees.

True, an agreement was within reach, however they tried to deny the use of those zones (near the border) like an insurance against further attacks from Hezbollocks.

A gamble which didn't really work, seeing as the UN ordered Israel to help with the cleanup.

Israel spent considerable time gaining ground and would have to give it up just on the word of the agreement.

Wrong. First of all they didn't gain any ground, because they weren't able to hold the ground. If they were, Israel could have reasonably ensured that the cease-fire included a peace-keeping force in the region. They didn't and so they couldn't.

 

[McSack]

I don't see the point of your argument. If there is a state of palestine, then apparently they've declared themselves bound by the protocols.

If there is no state of Palestine, then the Palestinians cannot be nationals of the state of Palestine. Essentially they are not Nationals of any state at all.

Either way, it would seem the Geneva Conventions apply.

Geneva conventions only apply to / protect people who are from states who have ratified said conventions.

Here's a link to the list of countries - Palestine is not one of them
Link

Article 4 defines who is a Protected person. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention

Strictly speaking Geneva conventions don't apply to Palestinians.

* check the specific note on Palestine at the end of the list though *