Hamas and democracy

[ScottSA]

"They stole almost everything inside the house, including Arafat's Nobel Peace Prize medal," said Ramallah-based Fatah spokesman Ahmed Abdel Rahman. "Hamas militiamen and gangsters blew up the main entrance to the house before storming it. They stole many of Arafat's documents and files, gifts he had received from world leaders and even his military outfits."

...

"Most of the looters were just ordinary citizens," they said. "They stole almost everything, including furniture, tiles, water pipes, closets and beds."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Oh well, it saves the Nobel Committee having to issue one to Hamas.

[sharkman]

Yeah, I heard about this in the evening news, beyond bizzare.

[August1991]

Arafat was a despot but Hamas is arguably worse.

Anyway, Hamas rules Gaza now, for what that's worth. And Palestine has become another Pakistan/Bangladesh.

[Figleaf]

Oh well, it saves the Nobel Committee having to issue one to Hamas.

Alright, that was funny.

[scribblet]

The big question is, what Hamas will do next and what decisions can Hamas make to improve lives, or will there be the usual finger-pointing at Israel by the usual suspects?

Just think, if Arafat hadaccepted the Barak deal in 2000 they would have their own State and thousands of lives would have been saved.

[Figleaf]

Just think, if Arafat hadaccepted the Barak deal in 2000 they would have their own State and thousands of lives would have been saved.

The conditions proposed were utterly unjust to the Palestinians and rightly unacceptable.

[buffycat]

Just think, if Arafat hadaccepted the Barak deal in 2000 they would have their own State and thousands of lives would have been saved.

The conditions proposed were utterly unjust to the Palestinians and rightly unacceptable.

It really too bad that just when a real discussion was being attempted wrt the Saudi Initiative all this violence broke out. I guess funding and training a whack of Fatah Presidential Guard in Egypt then shipping them into Gaza was suppose to help the situation eh?

Thank Elliot. Great timing.

As usual poor little Israel is now left with no one to talk to!! So, she may as well contribute to the destruction of anyone left with a voice.

Nice and convenient.

Oh- and Scribblet - exactly WHAT kind of state would they have had? Would it have been contingenous throughout the West Bank? Would Israel had given up the land she has illegally settled? (BTW I don't expect you to answer the questions - as you never do address the reality on the ground).

[Figleaf]

Oh- and Scribblet - exactly WHAT kind of state would they have had? Would it have been contingenous throughout the West Bank? Would Israel had given up the land she has illegally settled? (BTW I don't expect you to answer the questions - as you never do address the reality on the ground).

Actually, this is a very notable propensity shared by many of our Israel-supporting interlocutors on this forum -- a characteristic avoidance of straightforward responses to simple and direct interogatories.

Any basic question whose answer might shed real light on the issue is quickly buried in non-sequiturs, imputations, and emotive outbursts.

[buffycat]

Oh- and Scribblet - exactly WHAT kind of state would they have had? Would it have been contingenous throughout the West Bank? Would Israel had given up the land she has illegally settled? (BTW I don't expect you to answer the questions - as you never do address the reality on the ground).

Actually, this is a very notable propensity shared by many of our Israel-supporting interlocutors on this forum -- a characteristic avoidance of straightforward responses to simple and direct interogatories.

Any basic question whose answer might shed real light on the issue is quickly buried in non-sequiturs, imputations, and emotive outbursts.

Yeah, I know - but I couldn't resist sending her a kiss and a hug on the other thread, afterall - she tries so hard!!

Edited to add: WRT Hamas and democracy - what democracy has ever existed in Occupied Palestine? Me - can't think of hardly any - since even if they do elect, democratically, their own leaders - it makes NO difference since Israel guards all the gates. Thus any talk of Democracy in Palestine is moot until Israel leaves her territory!

[sharkman]

The big question is, what Hamas will do next and what decisions can Hamas make to improve lives, or will there be the usual finger-pointing at Israel by the usual suspects?

Just think, if Arafat hadaccepted the Barak deal in 2000 they would have their own State and thousands of lives would have been saved.

They would have given away far too much to Arafat. Barak was wrong, the PLO never wanted peace, they wanted Israel a piece at a time, as history has shown.

[Guest chilipeppers]

Actually, this is a very notable propensity shared by many of our Israel-supporting interlocutors on this forum -- a characteristic avoidance of straightforward responses to simple and direct interogatories.

Any basic question whose answer might shed real light on the issue is quickly buried in non-sequiturs, imputations, and emotive outbursts.

Doing a bit of that yourself aren't you, but hey don't let the propensity of the terrorist supporting interlocutors on this forum get to you with their ad hominems and direct attacks on anyone they don't agree with.

Where in 'ell is the moderator does he ever surface on here?

[Figleaf]

Actually, this is a very notable propensity shared by many of our Israel-supporting interlocutors on this forum -- a characteristic avoidance of straightforward responses to simple and direct interogatories.

Any basic question whose answer might shed real light on the issue is quickly buried in non-sequiturs, imputations, and emotive outbursts.

Doing a bit of that yourself aren't you, ...

Not that I'm aware of.

[Guest chilipeppers]

Actually, this is a very notable propensity shared by many of our Israel-supporting interlocutors on this forum -- a characteristic avoidance of straightforward responses to simple and direct interogatories.

Any basic question whose answer might shed real light on the issue is quickly buried in non-sequiturs, imputations, and emotive outbursts.

Doing a bit of that yourself aren't you, ...

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay, not so much but bcat has some double standards. I will try to ignore her but it's hard LOL anyway have a great summer, I'm going away to enjoy it without the internet (well maybe now and then) -

[myata]

I agree with someone I heard on CBC radio this morning: for anyone serioulsy interested in seeing democracy and peace in Palestine and the region in general, the priorities must be:

1. End the illegal occupation;

2. Assist people who spent at least two generations under illegal occupation build a functioning state.

Not the other way around. And until this happens all talk about "peace efforts" is just hot air. There're many independent states that failed to create or maintain functioning democracy. I know of none that succeded while being occupied. It's another oxymoron, in the line of "installed democracy" or "forced liberation".

[ScottSA]

There're many independent states that failed to create or maintain functioning democracy. I know of none that succeded while being occupied. It's another oxymoron, in the line of "installed democracy" or "forced liberation".

Really? Japan and West Germany don't ring a bell? Then of course there's the British Raj, which took a collection of decaying empires, satrapies and kingdoms, and built a functioning democracy out of them before leaving. No doubt the allies should have left Germany and Japan as glowing remnants of sound and fury rather than "installing" a democracy or any of those other nasty rightwing things. No doubt the british should have left India to revert to the squalor, mass brutalities and regional anarchies it was prone to before they showed up, instead of "installing" a democracy there, but I can't help thinking that what they left instead can't be all bad. What do you think?

[Argus]

Oh- and Scribblet - exactly WHAT kind of state would they have had? Would it have been contingenous throughout the West Bank? Would Israel had given up the land she has illegally settled? (BTW I don't expect you to answer the questions - as you never do address the reality on the ground).

Actually, this is a very notable propensity shared by many of our Israel-supporting interlocutors on this forum -- a characteristic avoidance of straightforward responses to simple and direct interogatories.

Any basic question whose answer might shed real light on the issue is quickly buried in non-sequiturs, imputations, and emotive outbursts.

Israel should give up the west bank and all other territories except Jerusalem. I have little sympathy for the Arabs wrt Jerusalem and their treatment of other religions' holy site while they were in control.

I don't think this will bring peace, though. The territory currently thought of as "palestine" does not have any economic basis for existence and would be a perpetual world welfare state awash in poverty and anger directed at the nearest enemy - Israel.

[Mad_Michael]

Oh- and Scribblet - exactly WHAT kind of state would they have had? Would it have been contingenous throughout the West Bank? Would Israel had given up the land she has illegally settled? (BTW I don't expect you to answer the questions - as you never do address the reality on the ground).

Actually, this is a very notable propensity shared by many of our Israel-supporting interlocutors on this forum -- a characteristic avoidance of straightforward responses to simple and direct interogatories.

Any basic question whose answer might shed real light on the issue is quickly buried in non-sequiturs, imputations, and emotive outbursts.

Israel should give up the west bank and all other territories except Jerusalem. I have little sympathy for the Arabs wrt Jerusalem and their treatment of other religions' holy site while they were in control.

Interesting to note that the only religious group that has forcefully exterminated all other religions in the city when they were in control was the Christians. I don't believe either the Jews or the Muslims have ever gone that far in Jerusalem.

I don't think this will bring peace, though. The territory currently thought of as "palestine" does not have any economic basis for existence and would be a perpetual world welfare state awash in poverty and anger directed at the nearest enemy - Israel.

Israel could not have it any other way. They are very responsible for making Palestine what it is today. We must assume that a basket-case Palestine is Israeli policy.

[Rue]

Just think, if Arafat hadaccepted the Barak deal in 2000 they would have their own State and thousands of lives would have been saved.

The conditions proposed were utterly unjust to the Palestinians and rightly unacceptable.

Again Figleaf right on cue and of course not a clue what you are talking about.

In fact Arafat was given everything he asked for and stated this. He in fact did not say it was utterly unjust and in fact said the exact opposite and welcomed it. Why don't you read what was offered Arafat and what he agreed to and read Bill Cliton's essays as to what Arafat said to him and what was arrived on before you as usual, simply make statements for the sale of making noise and being anti-israel. Its tiresome.

The reason wby the Oslo Accord unravelled has nothing to do with it being unfair and everything to do with

the majority of factions in the PLO and Hamas not wanting any kind of settlement with Israel and wanting it

eradicated.

You shoot off at the mouth because you ignore what was actually stated by Arafat, what was given to him in the agreement as per his request, and of course as you shoot off at the mouth and engage in the fiction the proposed agreement was unjust you ignore the fact that Arafat and Hamas never said the agreement was unjust but in fact said it would only leave Palestinians with the West Bank and Gaza and they were only interested in a solution that disbanded Israel and gave the entire country back to Muslims to install a Muslim theocracy.

Why I even bother to respond to you is beyond me given of course you will respond with the usual, oh no Israel never offered anything and oh no Arafat and Hamas never said they wanted Israel destroyed and the only solution they could accept was the complete destruction of Israel.

In your world, we pretend such things do not exist and we engage in the fiction that Israel was unfair bad bad bad.

[Rue]

[israel could not have it any other way. They are very responsible for making Palestine what it is today. We must assume that a basket-case Palestine is Israeli policy.

In fact Israel employed 14,000 Palestinians in their government and paid their salaries, and spent millions funding its schools, mosques, community centres, roads, and an elaborate greenhouse system to feed its people not to mention providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians within Israel proper while the Arab League has done NOTHING for Palestinians.

Israel did so even knowing many of these organizatoons and people and entities hated them and wanted them eradicated. It did so precisely because at that time, in the 1980's Hamas denounced terror and advised its people not to engage in any terror.

When a violent faction wrestled control of Hamas and insisted on engaging in terror, they ordered the roads to Israel blown up, destroyed all Israel funded servcies including the green houses and threatened any Palestinian who chose to work or get along with Israelis. Israel did not withdraw its help Hamas told its people not to accept it and they threatened to kill anyone who went to Israel to work. They then deliberately sent suicide bombers into Israel proper knowing this would incite distrust among Israeli civilians towards Palestinians.

Unlike the Arab League Israel has in fact spent money directly on Palestinians to help them and build their economy while the Arab League and entire Muslim world has refused to.

In fact the poverty and state of Palestinians today is the direct result of the Arab League refusing to settle Palestinioans in other Muslim countries or openly denounce terror and assist in funding its economy. It has never fundedsocial workers, teachers, community developers, to help Palestinians build a country in the West Bankl and Gaza.

If the Arab League really cared about Palestinians it would have settled those Palestinians who asked to resettle in their countries and told the remaining Palestinians to stop with the terror and help them create a second Palestine state. Instead it deliberately left them to rot in cmaps as a pawn to pressure the world to end Israel and stated this was the reason they left these people in camps.

Israel had to absorb 700,000 Jews from the Muslim world after the same Arab League countries threw these Jews out and stole their property to punish them for starting Isael, but to this day the Arab world will not do the same for Palestinians.

Why don't you ask yourselves how it is the Gulf Oil states with all their finances, could not afford to spend a penny on Palestines.

Your bias and assumption Israel wants Palestinians to suffer and remain poor projects your personal bias onto Israelis and presumes that is how they think. I

It also completely ignores the obvious and what has now been proven but people like you conveniently ignore in your selective analysis and that is that since the PLO came into power, Arafat and his corupt leaders stole billions upon billions of the aid that was sent to the Palestinians ( by the US, Europe and the UN but NO Muslim countries) and stock-piled it in Swiss and French bank accounts when it wasn't spending it on its organized syndicate which smuggled heroin and hash hish from Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon and Syria through to Marseilles, France using the pretext of being a Palestinian political national group when all along its real business agenda was drugs.

That of course we ignore. we of course blame Israel not the coruption of the PLO and then the decision of Arafat and Hamas NOT Israel to decide the only solution for its people was to forfeit all their economic rights and personal rights and deem all Palestinians expendable until Israel is destroyed.

If you want to know where all the aid money that was sent to build Palestine went to, read what Arafat and Hamas did with it before you simply pull a Figleaf and blame Israel.

The fact is Hamas which was elected precisely because it claimed it was not corupt and would not do this then took the same money and used it for weapons, bombs and missiles.

Ask yourself how it is possible for Palestinians to ever build an economy when the leaders who hold them hostage state they must forfeit all their rights and their lives until Israel is destroyed.

[sharkman]

Very revealing posts Rue. All of this information is readily available, and yet most of the Western press ignore it and continue with their anti-Israel screeching, much like what some do here. It is sickening to think that, by and large, the Western media have an agenda that includes Israel give up more and more land even after Palestine has demonstrated what kind of peace they give for land. They don't want peace, they want Israel, one piece at a time.

Edit: by the way, don't expect response from figleaf, he just got a 30 day ban for his ladies of Mapleleaf challenge thread.

[myata]

Then of course there's the British Raj ...

You mean, this "British Raj" (wikipedia)? Doesn't mention much about democracy, functioning or otherwise. One can argue another time, whether Germany has become a functioning democracy while under occupation. I concede that Japan could be the one exception to the rule, but such are far and wide in between.

In any case, in both Germany and Japan cases, the occupying powers were interested to see the occupied nation recover with a strong national identity. Which seem to be opposite to the cause of Israel in the occupied Palestine. So the statement stands: the main problem of Palestine is the illegal occupation.

[Rue]

Very revealing posts Rue. All of this information is readily available, and yet most of the Western press ignore it and continue with their anti-Israel screeching, much like what some do here. It is sickening to think that, by and large, the Western media have an agenda that includes Israel give up more and more land even after Palestine has demonstrated what kind of peace they give for land. They don't want peace, they want Israel, one piece at a time.

Edit: by the way, don't expect response from figleaf, he just got a 30 day ban for his ladies of Mapleleaf challenge thread.

Thanks for the heads up Sharkdude. I guess I can take a rest! Lol. Ladies of..what? Sounds like a Vince McMahon WWE concept.

[M.Dancer]

Arafat was a despot but Hamas is arguably worse.

Anyway, Hamas rules Gaza now, for what that's worth. And Palestine has become another Pakistan/Bangladesh.

The much hoped for two state solution.

[scribblet]

They are reaping the bitter fruits of terrorism.

[ScottSA]

Then of course there's the British Raj ...

You mean, this "British Raj" (wikipedia)? Doesn't mention much about democracy, functioning or otherwise. One can argue another time, whether Germany has become a functioning democracy while under occupation. I concede that Japan could be the one exception to the rule, but such are far and wide in between.

In any case, in both Germany and Japan cases, the occupying powers were interested to see the occupied nation recover with a strong national identity. Which seem to be opposite to the cause of Israel in the occupied Palestine. So the statement stands: the main problem of Palestine is the illegal occupation.

No, the statement is farcical. You're trying to make a general truism out of a tenuous single example, and even THAT falls flat on its face.

Lets start with the Raj. Do you know what took over after the British left? Exactly the same democratic regime that runs the place now. Did you imagine that is sprung up of its own accord when the British left, or that it perhaps had a little help from the British? I have no idea what Wiki has to say about the British Raj and its legacy, but I suggest you look up Lord Mountbatten and read up on his involvement with Nehru and Jinnah and just how democracy came to be in India. Naturally, the Muslims couldn't keep democracy working, but India managed just fine. Oh, and don't believe the mythology that Gandhi somehow formed it all himself. He was a moral figurehead with no power and a limited amount of moral suasion.

You're trying to squirm out of your blanket statement that occupied countries can't form democracies, and in fact in many cases exactly the opposite is true. In spite of the mess Africans have made of post-colonial Africa, they were left with functioning democracies...at least the former British colonies were, and it's a fair bet that they wouldn't have developed them out of tribalism had the British not been there. As politically incorrect as the "White Man's Burden" has become in hindsight, it is solely responsible for much of Asia emerging from tyranny and all of Africa emerging from political tribalism, all of which required an "occupation."

As for Palestine, it doesn't have a strong national identity because it has never been a nation. Such national identity as it may have developed under Arafat was entirely bound up in loudly advertized victimhood and didn't survive the first internal challenge to it in the form of Islam. The main problem with Palestine is the Palestinians, not Israel. I'm sure Israel would like nothing better than to wash its hands of these morons, except that every time it tries, the morons start blowing up Israelis, so it can't. Give then money and they buy weapons. Give them autonomy and they take hostages. Give them democracy and they elect 6th century thugs. Give them an inch and they take a mile. Leave them alone and they fling themselves at each other's throats. Israel is trying to survive as a modern democracy while living next door to 'Return to New York.'