One year since the attacks on the Gaza strip

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Airtime&Gravity

Originally posted by: Meg

Perhaps someone could explain the Hamas charter to me.

[PhilsCafe 8]

My opinion on this is very neutral (yeah, bring on the jokes ). It can be narrowed down to: what Hamas does is wrong. What Israel does is wrong. As long as both sides will not agree on the slightest compromise, this conflict can't be solved. Sadly.

Maybe I can explain what I mean by the example of the tunnels: Your idea of them sounds rather romantic. But let's not forget that this also is a business, it's capitalism at it's best actually. Someone is making a load of money with those tunnels, at the expense of the people. Of course they're important supply lines for food and stuff, but it's also how Hamas is "importing" weapons, feeding the conflict. Hamas is not "on the people's side", they're only seeking power and money and they need the people for that. Therefore they're making it appear that they're on the people's side. And people are so desperate that they believe them, and trust them, and vote for them. Because what's the alternative? There isn't any.

However, it's clearly Israel's fault that those tunnels have become such an important life line. The barriers and check-points as well as the aggressive settlement policy from the recent past among others  have lead to a very desperate situation for Palestinians. Especially in the Gaza strip which is pretty much cut off. But also in other regions, where agriculture and trade were made impossible. And there's no end in sight, especially since the far-right won the elections.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Hamas has a parallel in the IRA/Sein Fein. As for a charter, I doubt that there is anything in writing.

quote>

It was issued in 1988.   Here is a supposedly unabridged version from a theoretically neutral site.

Article 13 basically says that no peaceful solution is acceptable.

Some of it gets very strange. 

Article 17 claims that the Freemasons and the Rotary Club are Zionist organizations that have the goal of distancing Muslim women from Islam.

Article 18 claims the goal of Muslim women is to raise Jihadists.

Article 20 talks about "the Nazism of the Jews"

Article 31 says Hamas is a humane movement.  It also says safety and security can only prevail when Christianity and Judaisam are under the shadow of Islam.  It also mentions "Nazi Zionist practices".

Article 32 talks about the "treacherous Camp David Accords"

I readily admit that I do not understand all of the references in this document.   For instance, Article 35 says

Hamas takes a serious look at the defeat of the Crusades at the hand of Saladin the Ayyubid and the rescue of Palestine from their domination; at the defeat of the Tatars at Ein Jalut where their spine was broken by Qutuz and Al-Dhahir Baibars, and the Arab world was rescued from the sweep of the Tatars which ruined all aspects of human civilization. quote>

All aspects of human civilization were ruined?   I missed that. 

But, as the saying goes, many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Thanks, Meg; Most enlightening.

You can see what kind of a group they are from this. If a peaceful solution is not possible, what would they do it they won? Maybe they would start another civil war?

It is clear that, if this is a statement of their principles, they are as bad as the Nazis and deserve a similar fate. The mid-twentieth-century hates continue through them. I suppose they favour concentration camps and crematoria as well.

This nonsense has gone on long enough. It is time for the world to rise up and stamp out Hamas and all similar organizations. We can never have a safe and sane world with such madmen in it.

[Meg 368]

I'm still trying to figure out where they are coming from and why.

According to wiki:

The Battle of Ain Jalut (or Ayn Jalut, in Arabic: ??? ?????, the "Spring of Goliath") took place on 3 September 1260 between the Egyptian Mamluks and the Mongols in Palestine, in the Jezreel Valley, not far from Ein Harod.  quote>

Which would explain some of my confusion.  I know nothing about the year 1260.  or that whole century for that matter.  

Yes, the Crusades were stupid.  One of the most boneheaded ideas that anyone ever came up with.   But it also happened a very long time ago.

I do not understand the concept of holding a grudge for 750 years.   Isn't it time to move on?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Thanks, Meg; Most enlightening.

You can see what kind of a group they are from this. If a peaceful solution is not possible, what would they do it they won? Maybe they would start another civil war? quote>

Totaly won? achived all their goals? Theres alway more "unbelivers" or They would then start to find

the less " perfect' among their own members.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

I do not understand the concept of holding a grudge for 750 years.quote>

Well, of course not. America hasn't had 750 years of history to hold a grudge for. But that sort of thing is not uncommon in the "old world", where they do.

Immigration, actually, prevents long grudges from developing in mainstream America. New people come in fast, the old people get crowded out, things change. Used to be that most Americans were of English origin. Then the Irish started coming in. Then the Italians, Russians, Germans, Polish, etc. Now it's Latinos and Asians. There's too much demographic shift going on for grudges of this group versus that group to take any lasting hold.

The only quasi-grudge sort of thing you really see is with regard to groups of people who were historically not treated equally. People still complain about racism, sexism, etc. Fortunately, there's rarely violence involved.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Meg

I do not understand the concept of holding a grudge for 750 years.quote>

Well, of course not. America hasn't had 750 years of history to hold a grudge for. But that sort of thing is not uncommon in the "old world", where they do.  quote>

True.  A British friend was trying to explain some problem to me.  She lost me when she started out "Well, you see, four hundred years ago . . ."

Immigration, actually, prevents long grudges from developing in mainstream America. New people come in fast, the old people get crowded out, things change. Used to be that most Americans were of English origin. Then the Irish started coming in. Then the Italians, Russians, Germans, Polish, etc. Now it's Latinos and Asians. There's too much demographic shift going on for grudges of this group versus that group to take any lasting hold. quote>

Indeed.   That's one of the things I like about it.   Lots of variety keeps things from getting stale.  Being a Washington DC area native, I suspect I see more demographic shift than most.   I have been asked, as a get-to-know-you kind of question, "How old were you when you moved to this area?"   People are always surprised when I say that I was born here. 

The only quasi-grudge sort of thing you really see is with regard to groups of people who were historically not treated equally. People still complain about racism, sexism, etc. Fortunately, there's rarely violence involved.quote>

Well, there are those who like to carry about about how "the south will rise again".   Whatever that means.  Still, I don't hear that as much these days as I used when I was a kid.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"The south will rise again" implies a restoration of the Confederacy with all its warts. I think if anyone tried that you would have a new civil war. Something tells me that the United States of America is not subject to any kind of Balkanization.

Here in Canada we actually have a sitting party in Parliament that advocates splitting the country into three parts, namely The Parti Quebecois. If Quebec left Confederation, we would have the maritime provinces isolated with oil-rich Newfoundland and Labrador as its leader, and TROC (The Rest of Canada) holding the bag.

Quebec would soon have more on its hands than they can imagine. A big slice of the Saint Laurence Seaway runs though Quebec, and they would try to control it. Both the U.S. and TROC would try to seize control of that important trade artery. Then there is the integrated power grid, and the lines that cross Quebec from the Maritimes to the United States, which would fall under Quebec's national purview.

Much as I love Quebec, I would fight to not allow this. I have no doubt that the U.S. would do the same with regard to the "new" Confederacy.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

"The south will rise again" implies a restoration of the Confederacy with all its warts. quote>

and how would that work exactly?  Hundreds of thousands of people would be expected to sign up for slavery?  They would go import more people against their will? 

(yeah, yeah, it was supposedly all about states rights, not slavery.  But if you read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, it's all about the rights to own slaves.  It actually reduces the autonomy of the states, giving them no choice in matters where there was choice before.  But that's a dicussion for another thread.)

I think if anyone tried that you would have a new civil war. Something tells me that the United States of America is not subject to any kind of Balkanization. quote>

I hope you are right.  It would be difficult to do that by ethnic group since most of us are ethnically mixed.  The real cultural divide in the country is urban vs rural.  The traditional rural way of life is slowly being lost as the cities expand.

Here in Canada we actually have a sitting party in Parliament that advocates splitting the country into three parts, namely The Parti Quebecois. If Quebec left Confederation, we would have the maritime provinces isolated with oil-rich Newfoundland and Labrador as its leader, and TROC (The Rest of Canada) holding the bag.

Quebec would soon have more on its hands than they can imagine. A big slice of the Saint Laurence Seaway runs though Quebec, and they would try to control it. Both the U.S. and TROC would try to seize control of that important trade artery. Then there is the integrated power grid, and the lines that cross Quebec from the Maritimes to the United States, which would fall under Quebec's national purview. quote>

That sounds like a mess.  I can see why Quebec might think it is in their best interest and TROC would not.

Much as I love Quebec, I would fight to not allow this. I have no doubt that the U.S. would do the same with regard to the "new" Confederacy.quote>

I would like to believe that we have better things to do than to fight each other.  One delusion that our political parties have is that the other party is "the opposition".   News flash:  the real opposition comes from outside the country.

But we are straying way off topic here.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Meg

All aspects of human civilization were ruined?   I missed that. 

quote>

There is actually some truth to that. They are longing to the good ol' days up until c. the twelfth century, which is when about the time the Arabs won a decisive victory in the Holy Land and would keep Westerners out of the area until the age of colonisation.

However, it is an irrational longing when you take a look at how the times really were. Comparing the Arab and Western world, they were the complete opposite of what they are today. The Western world was well into what was coined the "Dark Ages". It was the Arabs who experienced the liberalism, the freedom of thought and produced the great scientists of the day, while the Western world suffered under the firm grip of the church. The Western world did not take a leading role in the in these disciplines before the 18th century; even the father of modern science, Galileo Galilei was tried and convicted by the Inquisition in the 1600s. One should also remember that the Golden Age of the Spanish Jews were during Arab reign, and that the Christians expelled them when they conquered the country.

The great hero of the for most of the nasty nationalists roaming the Arab world is Saladin, the man who crushed the Pope's crusades in the Holy Land. Despite the differences between the Islamist movements and the "Christian" West today, Saladin, a practicing Muslim, was highly respected in Europe. It was the Europeans, not the Arabs that kept the memories of Saladin alive, and nationalists movements became aware of Saladin during the 19th century, at which point they hijacked his ends—victory over the West—but not his means.

ARTICLE 35, Charter of Hamas

Hamas takes a serious look at the defeat of the Crusades at the hand of Saladin the Ayyubid and the rescue of Palestine from their domination; at the defeat of the Tatars at Ein Jalut where their spine was broken by Qutuz and Al-Dhahir Baibars, and the Arab world was rescued from the sweep of the Tatars which ruined all aspects of human civilization. Hamas has learned from these lessons and examples, that the current Zionist invasion had been preceded by a Crusader invasion from the West; and another one, the Tatars, from the East. And exactly as the Muslims had faced those invasions and planned their removal and defeat, they are able to face the Zionist invasion and defeat it.quote>

Part of Saladin's respect were earned by the way he treated the (Christian) prisoners of war that was captured during the crusades. And Jews in Saladin's empire are not thought to have been affected by Saladin's strict Islamic regime; yet still Hamas proudly proclaims "[…] Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them) […]". Later in the same document the nazi-comparison is with the Jews (Nazi-like enemy, the Nazism of the Jews, Nazi Zionist practices, this despicable Nazi Tartar invasion).

Originally posted by: Meg

True.  A British friend was trying to explain some problem to me.  She lost me when she started out "Well, you see, four hundred years ago . . ."quote>

Then again, she's from Europe, where history's from.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Current radical Islam, especially Hamas, have a lot of nerve using Saladin as a role model. He was of the Islamic enlightenment at the time, when the highest civilization was theirs. Their science and mathematics were better than the Greeks, and most Europeans were either peasants or surfs with short, dark, and ugly lives.

The golden age of Islam came apart partly due to the conquests by the Christians in the late 1400's, particularly the defeat at Granada in 1492 (does that year sound familiar, somehow?). As the Moorish civilization retreated from Spain, things went from bad to worse in the empire. The Moorish influence waned, and Islam fell into barbarism from which it is now being prevented from emerging by the fundamentalist screeching.

EDIT: And if Israel didn't have enough trouble, they also have to pussy foot with Muslim allies (which are few and far between). Link

[chicah 20]

1492 - Columbus, and all that jazz.

And to whoever was writing the tunnels Hamas are making are solely to import weapons: you've misunderstood. Those tunnels mostly import stuff the population of Gaza needs, but of course weapons too, they're being occupied after all. If I had the opportunity, I would go there to dig tunnels. Because the tunnels are also a way to smuggle in food, drink, medicine - build it now. The tunnels are a lifeline, and saying they are wrong is the same as dooming the Palestinian people.

[Airtime&Gravity 0]

^I think you misunderstood my comment on the tunnels. I know the tunnels are to bring in food, medicine, building supplies and other essential materials. Sadly, Hamas has to ruin it for the good citizens of Gaza by bring in weapons.

The current Israeli government scares me, and the rise in attacks against Palestinians (there have been quite a few attacks against them lately) and left wing Israelis (right wing extremist killed some people at a gay bar) is an alarming trend. I want there to be a Palestinian state, but I don't see that happening if Hamas and the current Israeli government are in power.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: chicah

If I had the opportunity, I would go there to dig tunnels.quote>

Getting involved in an often violent conflict that does not concern oneself personally is generally threatening to one's safety and well being. So I wouldn't recommend it.

But I get the sentiment.

[Wrightguy0 40]

The thing is, i recognize where both sides are coming from, gaza brings in food supplies, and weapons, we do the same, we do it by legal channels, but of course Hamas doesn't have that luxury. There are two sides to every coin though, and Hamas is extreme in it's goals, but then again, have the israelies given them any reason to change their minds? extreme actions breed extreme reaction, and i don't think we understand just how dire the situation is over there.

I still think they all need to be locked in a room and forced to talk, while the UN comes in and holds everyone's guns.

BTW, how do you mistakea UN HQ for anything else, it would be one of the few lit buildings at night, and it has big blue flags during the day :\ something about that never sat right with me, when they shelled the un headquarters in gaza. (sorry about going off on that tangent just wanting to inspire thought)

[PhilsCafe 8]

Originally posted by: chicah

And to whoever was writing the tunnels Hamas are making are solely to import weapons: you've misunderstood. Those tunnels mostly import stuff the population of Gaza needs, but of course weapons too, they're being occupied after all. If I had the opportunity, I would go there to dig tunnels. Because the tunnels are also a way to smuggle in food, drink, medicine - build it now. The tunnels are a lifeline, and saying they are wrong is the same as dooming the Palestinian people.quote>

I don't think the primary purpose of those tunnels were to bring in food and medical supplies. They became a lifeline after Israel pretty much locked down the Gaza strip sure, but those tunnels also exist in other Palestinian areas and were meant for a different purpose (smuggling weapons), and still are used for that. And as I said, someone is making a load of money with them. And who pays for it? The Palestinians.

Originally posted by: Wrightguy0

[...] BTW, how do you mistakea UN HQ for anything else, it would be one of the few lit buildings at night, and it has big blue flags during the day :\ something about that never sat right with me, when they shelled the un headquarters in gaza. (sorry about going off on that tangent just wanting to inspire thought)quote>

Or the UN observation post on the Isreal-Lebanon border... that always bothered me too. It's no secret that Israel doesn't trust the UN however. They think they're treated unfairly because they "always get all the blame". Fact is though, Israel is a regular country and UN member and therefore has to respect international law. Hamas however isn't a country, they're not regular armed forces and therefore don't fall under that law. And it's part of UN's responsibility to point out infringements by its members. IMO, that problem could be solved if Palestininas would get their own country.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: PhilsCafe

They became a lifeline after Israel pretty much locked down the Gaza strip […]

quote>

Don't forget that Egypt too has fenced in Gaza. They didn't seem too happy with the Palestinians invading Egypt last year, either.

[morriswalters 16]

I sometimes wish the UN had not partitioned Palestine.  This conflict has long since passed the point where  logic or common sense can prevail.  Neither side is pure in motive.  Both sides are theocracies passing themselves off as democracies. Neither side has any reason to trust anyone, the historical background of both sides has framed the conflict in a manner detrimental to both.  The scary truth is  that there is a very real possibility of the rest of the world being drawn into a general conflict over this.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Thanks to the intractible attitude of Hamas, mostly, the Palestinians are becoming the Pariah Dogs of the Middle East. To put the frosting on the cake, why not have the Gaza area declared the Palestinian Homeland and recognized as a country. This will have the same effect as the Balfour Declaration. The whole mess can then be a U.N. problem.

Hamas need not be recognized as the government of the new Palestine.

This would have to be done with the agreement of the main members of the Security Council, and it could be the redemption of that useless body.

Now that we have a proposed solution instead of hand-wringing, what next?

[morriswalters 16]

Any declaration by a head of state would be ingnored by Isreal, any declaration from the UN would be vetoed by the US and ignored by Isreal.  Hamas would call it a Zionist plot.    Zero sum.  Any attempt to enforce it, if it was tried, would run the real risk of war, or worse that Isreal would enter again with the thought of pushing Hamas out of rocket range of Tel Aviv permanately before the UN could put boots on the ground.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Any declaration by a head of state would be ingnored by Isreal, any declaration from the UN would be vetoed by the US and ignored by Isreal.

[morriswalters 16]

My pardon N_O_Body,

This area of the world depresses me.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[morriswalters 16]

Peoples reaction to  Hamas is understandable.  However it allows the Palestinians to effectively claim we live by a double standard.  Like it or no they were Elected in a fair supervised election.  The point being we managed to exist with the USSR even when it's stated goal was to "bury" us.  We simply let them know that they could try at any time and we would be ready.  It might be easier to deal with a government with more to lose the the Palestinians currently have.  It's certainly easy to argue that a man with a nice house, a good job, and a happy family will be much less inclined to try to wreak havoc on someone else if it may cause him to lose those things.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

They really don't have much to lose, do they? How about reviving the Marshall Plan for them. I fail to see how they could refuse if it were administered by a Shia Muslim country. How about Turkey? (or are they Sunni?).

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

The problem I have with cutting Jerusalem in two is that it's just too eerily reminiscent of what happened with Berlin.

Completely different set of circumstances, obviously, but the idea of dividing any city in half (particularly into east and west) for any reason is going to invoke that same uncomfortable feeling...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa