How is it irrelevant? How is Hamas supposed to pass themselves off as a reasonable and responsible organization when they can't even get their founding documents organized?
Oh, I don't know. Probably by devoting 90% of their efforts on the wellbeing of the Palestinian people, by making reasonable demands of Israel with regard to peace, and being willing to enter into dialogue to come to a peaceful solution.
Where did I say anything about South Africa? I said "constitutional and parliamentary law". Wait, you are surely not so ignorant as to assume that "constitutional and parliamentary law" only applies to one country in the world? Are you?
Not at all.
Constitutional law is the study of organizations and their articles of incorporation and purpose. Parliamentary law is how they handle those documents and adhere to them. That does not only apply to South Africa. All countries in the world have constitutions and houses of government which handle and live by those documents.
And each country has its own documents, its own rules, its own legal precedents based on them.
Didn't you know that. I'm sorry, you said you were educated, but I see you are actually clueless about things which most of us take for granted. I'm serious, maybe you should really stay out of this thread until you actually know what you are talking about. You are making quite a fool out of yourself and I am embarrassed for you.
You should be embarrased for yourself. Within South Africa, law courses teach *South African* law. By suggesting that I go and study it, you can only reasonably mean that I should study *South African* law. Each constitution and each parliamentary structure is unique (although there do tend to be some similarities among civil law legel systems and similarities with common law legal systems).
But even so, let's for the sake of argument assume that there is only one kind of constitutional law, and only one kind of parliamentary law. What on EARTH does it have to do with this discussion?
I am fine with Israel defending themselves against Hamas the murderers.
That's not what I asked. You claimed that because Hamas exhibited certain behaviours, that attacks against them were justified. I pointed out that Israel was no less guilty of such behaviours, and asked you whether or not you thought this meant that the attacks you justify against Hamas are also justifiable against Israel. Your answer does not answer my question. In other words, you are evading the question.
I am fine with Israel defending themselves against Hamas the murderers. I highly doubt that Israel will be wiped out.
See above. This has nothing to do with whether or not Israel is defending itself, but whether or not your judgement against Hamas is applicable to Israel seeing as Israel engages in the same actions that you used to justify violence against Hamas.
In a month or two, most of Hamas will be gone and rotting in their graves as they deserve. Israel will then be able to live peacefully and negotiate with those who are more sane among the Palestinian people.
History does not agree with you, and niether does the IDF. Even at the outset of the war, Israel has expressed its scepticism at even
making sure the rocket attacks cease.
Um, where did I say anything about oppression. I was talking about foreign policy mistakes.
The foreign policy mistakes you are referring to would be propping up brutal despots that oppress the people they rule over.
You read too much into my words. You only read what you want to hear. I am fully in agreement with the US policy on the military destruction of known terrorist groups.
And yet you have voiced criticism at the behaviour by the US which has led to the creation of those groups. Thus, your criticism also applies to similar behaviour comitted by Israel. There really is no other way around it, your own words refutes what you are claiming in this thread.
How are the Palestinians Israel's problem? Let them govern themselves.
Israel occupies the West Bank, and until very recently has occupied Gaza. The occupation and the Israeli belief of the right to own Gaza and the West Bank is so rife that you will *struggle* to find an Israeli politician that will actually have the gall to refer to the West Bank AS the West Bank, instead of calling it "Judea and Samaria".
Let them pick leaders who are credible and who can take their people into the twenty-first century instead of getting them bombed over and over again for their stupid terrorist activities. How is that so hard to understand?
Well, 40 years of occupation tends to make people vote for those
who oppose the occupation
Then let them choose a president who will speak for them, who can negotiate with people over a table instead of telling his followers to strap bombs to themselves and to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth".
That would first require that Israel stopped trying to steal their land, that Israel recognise their right to exist, and that Israel recognise their right to self-determination. Until that happens, if the Palestinians choose to elect a moderate group, all that will happen is that the occupation will continue and that Palestinians will have their basic human rights violated by the occupying power. Such oppresion is unnacceptable in a modern world and the twenty-first century you seem to be so besotted with.
I really think that until you... and the Palestinians get some idea of how diplomacy and foreign relations work, they are going to be stuck forever under the heel of those who would just use them as cannon fodder.
I think my understanding is quite reasonable, thankyou. It is you who seems to have trouble understanding how people react to having their human rights trampled on for 40 successive years.
Their plight is on their own heads.
Bull.
Let them start acting like responsible citizens of the world and people might just start listening to them and taking them seriously.
Sorry, but first the world has to recognise their right to self-determination, before that can happen. While their right to self-determination is being denied, violent resistance is their only effective recourse.
As I have pointed out, the Palestinians were innocent bystanders in both the 1948 and 1967 wars. Israel had no justification for denying them the opportunity to develop the neccessary governmental structures so that they could become an autonomous state. And yet they did, because Zionism as a creed demands that the borders of Israel be no less than the borders as described by the biblical kingdom. The result of this denial is what *eventually* led to violent resistance. For there to be peace, this denial has to end.
And to repeat yet again, FOR the record, It is only the and Israel that have a problem with a Palestinian state existing alongside Israel according to the 1967 borders. Hamas is OK with it, the PLO is OK with it, the Palestinians are OK with it, Russia, China, South Africa... everyone is OK with it. Who's really the party in denial here?
Sign up with Google
