A Hamas Parable

dub · May 11, 2009

By supporting Hamas, fellows like you and dub are supporting the Grand Mufti.

lol. really now?

you're pathetic and a dishonest person.

myata · May 11, 2009

You know this problem isn't only unique to middle east it's human's nature. Unfortunately in the case of Israel/ palestinians they both side of the coin sucks as they both have their propaganda machine.

I agree that both sides did not show themselves from their purely angelic side here, but unlike other more complicated cases, this conflict had a very clear cause and starting point. It isn't unlike other deep troubles created by blazingly arrogant colonizers knowing best what's good for the pygmys they raise and educate and graciously lead to become an accomplished part of humanity.

It's ridiculous to even think that a lasting peace can be achieved without addressing this historic injustice. Of course, unless one happens to be from that glorious cohort of great freedom givers, who're so given to sawing laws, principles, and moral imperatives on others, themselves standing high above any such triffles, responding (perhaps) to none other but those divine calls from "above" (wherever it may actually be found).

DogOnPorch · May 11, 2009

lol. really now?
you're pathetic and a dishonest person.

Indeed. If this was 1968, you'd be raggin' on and on about Viet-Nam and how Uncle Ho is really just a nice farmer.

jbg · May 12, 2009

Not too sure about this Westviking! Are you implying that there were no palestinians in the region before Yassir Arrafat came to power? I mean if you wanna look at it from a palestinian/ arab perspective they would say why doesn't Europe open its doors to jews from Israel and solve the problem overnight! So where do we go from here?

They called themselves "Arab refugees". Palestinianism is one of the world's great marketing ploys, down to raking in the big bucks.

kactus · May 12, 2009

O'really? By making such statements you are basically denying their legitamacy! (palestinians)

Is this some kind of gradual shift of belief in denial of a group of people and their rights by insinuating that palestinians never existed and that's all a fantasy?

kactus · May 12, 2009

I agree that both sides did not show themselves from their purely angelic side here, but unlike other more complicated cases, this conflict had a very clear cause and starting point. It isn't unlike other deep troubles created by blazingly arrogant colonizers knowing best what's good for the pygmys they raise and educate and graciously lead to become an accomplished part of humanity.
It's ridiculous to even think that a lasting peace can be achieved without addressing this historic injustice. Of course, unless one happens to be from that glorious cohort of great freedom givers, who're so given to sawing laws, principles, and moral imperatives on others, themselves standing high above any such triffles, responding (perhaps) to none other but those divine calls from "above" (wherever it may actually be found).

I couldn't agree more Myata! I think you are one of the minority that takes and even handed view on this! Unfortunately as much as one tries to remain unbiased it's very difficult to keep that here on this forum. Certainly if you were a canadian/ american jew its quite plausible that you will not critisize the actions of the israeli government no matter how destructive they may deem just like a palestinian arab may not condone the savagery actions of Hammas against innocent civilians.

This conflict is all about 'the Chosen people' and religion.

So long as both sides pretend it has nothing to do with religion or 'the most righteous to the land', which has everything to do with it then neither garners my sympathy or understanding. Israel is begging (as it has many times in it's history btw) to never live in peace. The groups like Hamas and their supporters are likewise begging for annihilation.

After all the years -- whether it's the past 70 or the past 5000 -- if religion truly wasn't a factor there would've been peace long ago. I have yet to see anything to change that notion with me. Subsequently neither side gets my sympathy and I'm not particularly interested in either of their sufferings or watching their children end up dead.

A perfect example would've been the 'proportional response' propaganda. The best propaganda is based on truth and the "they fired rockets on us" is always going to resonate. Indeed both sides try and fight a war by hitting as hard as they can while pretending they are hitting only as hard as they have to because they are suing for peace. The major thing Israel does well and pulls the wool over the eyes of the West is by pretending it isn't about religion with them or about the holy sites and who has ultimate authority over them.

myata · May 12, 2009

I'm not sure societies (and conflicts between them) can be fully described in simple terms, like "ethnics", "religion" and so on. A lot goes into the way society works, collective psyche and such. E.g. if there's a perception of a great injustice done in the past, people would be much more likely to grow up with a feeling of being victimized. If they also happen to grow up in the atmosphere of despair and poverty, it'd be a natural catalyzer for the bent up anger. Popular anger and a just cause, a recepy for a major upheaval.

Once the vortex is created, there's no simple resolution to it, the ripple has to run its course. As can be seen on examples much closer to home, in our own, European societies. Like Northern Ireland; very much the same type of conflict only on a much smaller scale; is taking centuries, many generations, and massive involvement of outside world to ease and maybe, eventually settle, maybe in the near, rather than more remote future.

So, are there ways to solve the problem, now that the maelstrom has been created? I doubt that. Are there things that can be done to alleviate it, shorten its duration, severity and human impact? Most certainly.

One of the first such things, complete agreement, is to bring up the truth. Try to make amends. Not for the sake of "morality", it's too late for that, but for a simple practical reason, to soften the bent up anger and frustration. The second is to work toward improving living conditions on the ground. In the longer perspective, start working on a fair (for, and from, both sides) and comprehensive settlement.

I don't know, what is it, an illusion, or some deliberate strategy, to pretend (and attempt to convince others, by selective release of information, deliberate ignorance of facts of history, norm and principles of international law, etc) that something, anything positive may come out of selective half truths and severely limited in scope "negotiations" around trading people bits and pieces of their own land, while more of it is being taken on almost daily basis. This has never worked, and sooner or later, somebody will realize that. Till then, we may be destined to observe more of instability and violence and almost certainly, political double speak.

jbg · May 12, 2009

O'really? By making such statements you are basically denying their legitamacy! (palestinians)
Is this some kind of gradual shift of belief in denial of a group of people and their rights by insinuating that palestinians never existed and that's all a fantasy?

The people are quite real. Their identity as a true separate nation is not.

dub · May 12, 2009

The people are quite real. Their identity as a true separate nation is not.

Palestine must be built up without violating the legitimate interests of the Arabs.. Palestine is not Rhodesia... 600,0000 Arabs live there, who before the sense of justice of the world have exactly the same rights to their homes as we have to our National Home.

[Chaim Weizmann, addressing the Fourteenth Zionist Congress in Vienna, 1925, quoted in Tessler, Mark, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1994 p. 181]

link

myata · May 12, 2009

Apparently, that "sense of justice" didn't (and doesn't) befit everybody.

Oleg Bach · May 12, 2009

Palestine must be built up without violating the legitimate interests of the Arabs.. Palestine is not Rhodesia... 600,0000 Arabs live there, who before the sense of justice of the world have exactly the same rights to their homes as we have to our National Home.
[Chaim Weizmann, addressing the Fourteenth Zionist Congress in Vienna, 1925, quoted in Tessler, Mark, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1994 p. 181]

link

They state that they can and never will assimulate into any nation on earth - that they will never fit..that they need to have a singular place of their own - Why is is that almost every nation on earth has human members from all over the planet - that the majority of all humans assimulate? I suppose that a group that breed themselves into a race - in effect create their own race through controled breeding CAN create their own nation also...I guess they are special and we that breed with others outside of the extended clan are not special - that we are impure and mutts - and mutts don't need their own dog house but pure breds do - oh I get it now.

jbg · May 19, 2009

Palestine must be built up without violating the legitimate interests of the Arabs.. Palestine is not Rhodesia... 600,0000 Arabs live there, who before the sense of justice of the world have exactly the same rights to their homes as we have to our National Home.
[Chaim Weizmann, addressing the Fourteenth Zionist Congress in Vienna, 1925, quoted in Tessler, Mark, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1994 p. 181]

link

That was before such atrocities as perpetrated by the Mufti of Jerusalem and the entire post-1948 history occurred. It has since become obvious that the Arabs will not, long term, live in peace with the Jews.

dub · May 19, 2009

That was before such atrocities as perpetrated by the Mufti of Jerusalem and the entire post-1948 history occurred. It has since become obvious that the Arabs will not, long term, live in peace with the Jews.

you missed the point.

you said there were no palestinians, when in fact, Chaim Weizmann talks about them and their rights.

jbg · May 19, 2009

you missed the point.
you said there were no palestinians, when in fact, Chaim Weizmann talks about them and their rights.

He said "Arabs", not "Palestinians".

dub · May 20, 2009

He said "Arabs", not "Palestinians".

they're not arabs?

everyone who was an arab in that region was called an arab.

he points to:

...600,0000 Arabs live there, who before the sense of justice of the world have exactly the same rights to their homes as we have to our National Home.

it is obvious that he points to a specific group with the population of 600,000 who "have exactly the same rights to their homes".

it doesn't get any clearer that he recognized the natives of the land. it's counter productive for you to try to re-write history.

JB Globe · May 20, 2009

A Hamas Parable (link)
A Brit, an Italian and an Israeli soldier were kidnapped by Hamas. The Brit is given a cup of tea; the Italian, a bowl of pasta; the Israeli is hog-tied and handcuffed.

The Brit demands sugar and cream; the Italian, a meatball; and the Israeli some water. Hamas grants the Brit and the Italian their wishes; but the Israeli soldier is beaten.

After about an hour of severe beating, the solder suddenly rips off his shackles, pulls out a machine gun from nowhere and blows all the Hamas guys away.

The Brit and the Italian are astonished. "Why didn't you do that at the very beginning," they ask?

"Because then," replies the Israeli solder, "I would have been accused of agression."

Another fine example of the head games hardliner Israeli and Palestinian supporters play in an effort to justify acts of aggression towards one another.

But as a parable on it's own, it's pretty lame.

DogOnPorch · May 20, 2009

Another fine example of the head games hardliner Israeli and Palestinian supporters play in an effort to justify acts of aggression towards one another.
But as a parable on it's own, it's pretty lame.

It fits perfectly, actually.

This joke alludes to the Yom Kippur War and the discussion Kissenger and Golda Meir had pre-war. I believe Kissenger said that the US wouldn't support Israel if they pulled the same strategy as they did with the Six Day War and did a pre-emptive attack on massing Arab armies. Thus the Israelis had to wait for the Arabs to attack first...which they did...which nearly took Israel down n' out.

Superior battle tactics on the Israeli's part saved the day and turned initial disaster into another stunning Arab defeat.

Rue · May 23, 2009

Bah, me really? Oops, how could we not see it? It's even easier than "mufti", don't even have to go far.
OK you know what, now that you opened my eyes, and only for the sake of greater peace, I'll contribute my part and say all what you want to hear: 1) there's absolutely nothing wrong with colonizing, then splitting then creating a new state on lands already populated by other people. And of course, 2) any state can seize (procure, secure, whatever) any territory it likes and build its fully and absolutely legal settlements in it.

There you go. Now, please go and check back in the Middle East, all their problems should now be solved. That was easy! It's OK, no thanks needed.

Misrepresenting what I stated won't help you Myata. By the way I love your selectivity. Its interesting you conveniently ignore that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, egypt, Sudan, Morrocco, Tunisia, Algeria, all the Gulf states-all colonial created borders and yet in your world, you ignore that but then try twist what I said on the inference that Israel's borders were defined by colonialists.

Unlike the Arab League of Nations' borders, Israels were not defined by the British or French as you are well aware-they came about because of the Arab League decision to try wipe out the Jews of Palestine-the borders came about out of default, i.e., de facto when the Arab League fled.

Ever since then you and the Arab League sit and have a prolonged temper tantrum that you lost the war.

Rue · May 23, 2009

And of course, it's veeeeeeeeeeeeeery objective and impartial (by any stretch - of imagination). Still does not change the fact that nobody has neither legal nor "moral" right, or authority, to "create" a new state in an area already populated by other people. Without their consent that is.

So let me get this straight. You want Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, the U.S., Canada, all the nations of Central and South America disbanded.

Dang that is one ambitious agenda you have.

Now I know the above is true because Myata you would never be subjective and impartial and single out only one nation you don't think should exist when applying this criteria. No not you. You are completely objective and impartial.

You are veeeeeeeery objective and impartial (by any strench-of imagination).

myata · May 25, 2009

That other minor issue, of mass foreign immigration, eventually appropriating the land they settled upon from the indigenous population, of couse, isn't even worth mentioning (or noticing), correct Rue? I mean did it even happen, maybe not? In my objective vision. All depends on where and how we set the point of reference, that Day 1. I set it before my somewhat questionnable acts, I have to worry and have uncomfortable feelings; I move it a few (decades, years, days) over, and voila - I'm in full moral right, protecting, defending and so on.

That's the easy part, Rue! We hear at all the time, x,000 times a day, no need to repeat it. The only question is, if and how it's going to help you find peace with those people who felt great injustice and offence in that event that haven't even happened in your framework of historic reference?

Oleg Bach · May 25, 2009

The lousy U N - just loves the idea of "internal displacement" - I can not stand it when people quote from UN documents as if it is the law of the world - The agenda of the UN is to destroy the tibal system - the family...and create the worst kind of racism - where no race is allowed to be a race!

DogOnPorch · May 25, 2009

That other minor issue, of mass foreign immigration, eventually appropriating the land they settled upon from the indigenous population, of couse, isn't even worth mentioning (or noticing), correct Rue? I mean did it even happen, maybe not? In my objective vision. All depends on where and how we set the point of reference, that Day 1. I set it before my somewhat questionnable acts, I have to worry and have uncomfortable feelings; I move it a few (decades, years, days) over, and voila - I'm in full moral right, protecting, defending and so on.
That's the easy part, Rue! We hear at all the time, x,000 times a day, no need to repeat it. The only question is, if and how it's going to help you find peace with those people who felt great injustice and offence in that event that haven't even happened in your framework of historic reference?

Indigenous population...lol. Keep in mind that the Grand Mufti was playing the exact same game as the Zionists.

jbg · May 27, 2009

Indigenous population...lol. Keep in mind that the Grand Mufti was playing the exact same game as the Zionists.

And of course during September 1970 Jordan did not murderously displace thousands of what are now called "Palestinians". Or worse.

myata · May 27, 2009

Of course, those later "sins" completely exonerate our earlier ummmm dubious "affair" around populating and creating the "new state". Like we knew who we're dealing with from the start. And they didn't deserve any better.

DogOnPorch · May 27, 2009

Of course, those later "sins" completely exonerate our earlier ummmm dubious "affair" around populating and creating the "new state". Like we knew who we're dealing with from the start. And they didn't deserve any better.

Well...many Arabs fought for the Nazis in Yugoslavia. The Arab's leader (The Grand Mufti) never saw trial. Went on to call for war in 1948...a general in the SS...a key figure in the Holocaust. Did he really deserve better? He was the one behind a 'Palestinian State', afterall. The Jews of Palestine (natives) formed the Jewish Brigade which fought with honors during the Italian campaign.

Had the Mufti joined the Allies rather than the Nazis...and not had the blood of every Jew in the Balkans on his hands (500-750,000 dead) things might be different. But if you ask me, being one of the most notorious Nazis ever disqualifies you from getting any prizes after the war ends. Ask Goering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade