America should change sides and support Palestine.

[sealadaigh]

When Hamas is ready to sit on the table, Israel will. Israel will not sit down with any entity whose goal is Israel's annihilation.

From the Hamas platform:

Article Thirteen

[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the

international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all

contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing

any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the

nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the

movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the

banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is

the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."

So I ask you, why would Israel bother?

there is an implicit nullification of that portion of the charter in the fact that HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate.

haniyeh has distanced himself from the charter, as have other leading HAMAS figures, to include the recently assassinated al-jabari.

i would never ever suggest we change our declaration of independence to accomodate our current relationship with great britain.

here is what wiki says about the charter...

Relevance of the Charter in the 21st centuryBritish diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006 as part of their political program".[8] Mohammed Nimer of American University comments on the Charter, “It’s a tract meant to mobilize support and it should be amended... It projects anger, not vision.”[14] Pastor states that those who quote the charter rather than more recent Hamas statements may be using the Charter as an excuse to ignore Hamas.[6]

Dr. Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh (the senior political leader of Hamas) has questioned the use of the charter by Israel and its supporters to brand Hamas as a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization and claims that they have taken parts of the charter out of context for propaganda purposes. He claims that they dwell on the charter and ignore that Hamas has changed its views with time.He further states that "the Israelis have, for example, translated the charter to several languages, English and French included, intentionally perverting the substance of its tenets to suit their purposes. Those aims were to market its fraudulent translation to as many Western politicians, academics and media channels as possible; and therefore make it easier to claim security concerns as the basis for their legal infractions. The fear-mongering is designed to horrify the West so much that it turns a blind eye to Israels crimes against humanity which contravene international law".[13]

In a further move away from their charter Hamas have stated according to Agence France-Presse and Al Jazeera "the question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people."[15][16] However many remain sceptical of Hamas's new stance, and view at as a ploy to hide its true agenda, "but it is equally true that the “new” discourse of diluted religious content—to say nothing of the movement’s increasing pragmatism and flexibility in the political domain—reflects genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas."[7]

Hamas Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a peace is not achieved by people dragging their feet. it is only achieved by negotiation with ALL interested parties.

While lately I've stopped using Hamas's Charter as a talking point, if they were sincerely interested in ending the carnage they would EXPLICITLY renounce it. Just sayin'.

first of all, it actually is a covenant, which is different. secondly, it has a historical significance to the palestinian people.

HAMAS has said they would recognise the '67 borders.

HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate. israel isn't. if israel were truly interested in peace, they wouldn't let a piece of paper that HAMAS leaders have rejected some portions of. this is ridiculous.

how would you feel if israel were asked to amend "the basic law". what about the hariri decision. papers come and go.

the bottom line, too, is that israel woulf not be exactly negotiatiing with HAMAS. they would be negotiating with the palestinian authority. HAMAS would fall under that umbrella.

 

[SAYIT]

what america should do is support a just and peaceful settlement or get out of the picture and that peaceful settlement should begin with UN resolution 181 as a starting point in negotiating borders.

HAMAS will not be defeated and they are not going anywhere so america should bring them to the negotiating table with no preconditions. there will be no solution without HAMAS. israel knows this and reuses to negotiate with them which, coincidentally, allows them to continue their illegal settlement building.

israel should release marwan barghouti to lead the palestinian negotiating team, provided HAMAS and the PLO agree, which i am sure they would. of course, israel won't do that because, coincidentally, it would mean a cessation of illegal settlement building which is contrary to israel's intentions.

the downside is that american jews, who have been putting their nickels and dimes in those little blue cans since maybe forever, have an unrealistic idea that israel need include judea and samaria, or the west bank which is a necessity for a viable palestinian homeland, and yhey are willing to sacrifice untold jewish and palestinian lives so that they can have their perect little paradise, complete with a ski resort on stolen syrian land.

not much of a downside if you ask me.

one may also want to comsider the fact that, as the surrounding arab countries rise up and struggle for a democracy, we are going to look awfully foolish supporting a failed colonial enterprise.

america should embrace the principles that made us great, and cunduct ourselves in such a manner in the mideast. it is about time.

I will cleanly address two of your points,
1) UN 181, a non-binding Gen Ass res, is a dead issue (although the Arabs, who violently rejected it in 1947, now regularly ask for a do-over).
2) What Jews in America want - as if one could get a monolithic opinion on this subject - is for the Arabs and Israelis to find a peaceful solution to their conflict.
Oh, and have a nice day.

and i did not say that israel need accept UN resolution 181 (although they have twice). what i said is that the negotiations about borders should begin with those defined in 181. and yes, 181 is non-binding, but as a condition of UNGA resolution 273, where the conditions by which israel was to gain acceptance as a member state to the UN are defined, israel agree to abide by 181...and yes, 273 is also nonbinding as a resolution but it has validity as an agreement.

this agreement was made after the arab israeli war also, negating all the assertions about israel agreed and "the arabs didn't". resolution 273 was an agreement between the UN and israel.

if you are saying that israel cannot be trusted to honour their agreements, well, of course i agree.

yes, some jews in america want a just peaceful solution, but they are few and far between. i donate to their cause. other jews think a peaceful solution is for the west bank to be ethnically cleansed. those are the ones i encounter most often.

i think the world has heard too many times that israel wants peace and have seen very little genuine efforts to achieve that end. the arab peace initiative gave israel everything they said they wanted, and when it was offered, israel wanted more.

but, why don't you tell me, specifically, what you think a just peace would involve. perhaps you would even be willing to show a map as to where the borders would be and discuss east al quds.

we can start at 181 as a reference point.

It doesn't matter where I believe the lines should be drawn ... it is up to the Arabs and Israelis to sort that out without external interference and the "Peace Initiative" has not found enthusiastic support amongst "Palestinians" either.
"Islamist political party Hamas, the elected government of the Gaza Strip, is deeply divided with most factions rejecting the plan"
Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sealadaigh]

I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.

al-queda represents whom? al-queda.

sinn fein was a proscribed organisation and the UK sat down with them. and we ended up with the good friday/belfast agreement.

but that is fine. the conflict will continue in a war where israel cannot even afford one defeat, and they will be fighting an enemy that cannot be defeated.

israel's intransience on negotiating will lead to one or the other peoples being pushed into the sea, and either way, israel loses.

another thing to consider is that, if israel continues as they are doing, there is probably going to be a backlash against jewish people world wide.

israel can negotiate from a position of strength now, or they can negotiate from a poition of weakness later.

Woo. I agree with that assessment also.

the operative word in all of the above is "negotiate".

so, we agree on something. good.

 

[SAYIT]

there is an implicit nullification of that portion of the charter in the fact that HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate.

haniyeh has distanced himself from the charter, as have other leading HAMAS figures, to include the recently assassinated al-jabari.

i would never ever suggest we change our declaration of independence to accomodate our current relationship with great britain.

here is what wiki says about the charter...

Relevance of the Charter in the 21st centuryBritish diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006 as part of their political program".[8] Mohammed Nimer of American University comments on the Charter, “It’s a tract meant to mobilize support and it should be amended... It projects anger, not vision.”[14] Pastor states that those who quote the charter rather than more recent Hamas statements may be using the Charter as an excuse to ignore Hamas.[6]

Dr. Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh (the senior political leader of Hamas) has questioned the use of the charter by Israel and its supporters to brand Hamas as a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization and claims that they have taken parts of the charter out of context for propaganda purposes. He claims that they dwell on the charter and ignore that Hamas has changed its views with time.He further states that "the Israelis have, for example, translated the charter to several languages, English and French included, intentionally perverting the substance of its tenets to suit their purposes. Those aims were to market its fraudulent translation to as many Western politicians, academics and media channels as possible; and therefore make it easier to claim security concerns as the basis for their legal infractions. The fear-mongering is designed to horrify the West so much that it turns a blind eye to Israels crimes against humanity which contravene international law".[13]

In a further move away from their charter Hamas have stated according to Agence France-Presse and Al Jazeera "the question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people."[15][16] However many remain sceptical of Hamas's new stance, and view at as a ploy to hide its true agenda, "but it is equally true that the “new” discourse of diluted religious content—to say nothing of the movement’s increasing pragmatism and flexibility in the political domain—reflects genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas."[7]

Hamas Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a peace is not achieved by people dragging their feet. it is only achieved by negotiation with ALL interested parties.

While lately I've stopped using Hamas's Charter as a talking point, if they were sincerely interested in ending the carnage they would EXPLICITLY renounce it. Just sayin'.

first of all, it actually is a covenant, which is different. secondly, it has a historical significance to the palestinian people.

HAMAS has said they would recognise the '67 borders.

HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate. israel isn't. if israel were truly interested in peace, they wouldn't let a piece of paper that HAMAS leaders have rejected some portions of. this is ridiculous.

how would you feel if israel were asked to amend "the basic law". what about the hariri decision. papers come and go.

the bottom line, too, is that israel woulf not be exactly negotiatiing with HAMAS. they would be negotiating with the palestinian authority. HAMAS would fall under that umbrella.

You say potaytoes, I say potatoes. The Covenant is also referred to as their Charter.
Historical my butt and while Israel indeed should not let it stand in the way, "Palestinians" also should not.
I'm not certain the PA still has the authority to negotiate. They were recognized at Oslo but Hamas is now the gov't. The devil, as always, is in the details.

 

[sealadaigh]

I will cleanly address two of your points,
1) UN 181, a non-binding Gen Ass res, is a dead issue (although the Arabs, who violently rejected it in 1947, now regularly ask for a do-over).
2) What Jews in America want - as if one could get a monolithic opinion on this subject - is for the Arabs and Israelis to find a peaceful solution to their conflict.
Oh, and have a nice day.

and i did not say that israel need accept UN resolution 181 (although they have twice). what i said is that the negotiations about borders should begin with those defined in 181. and yes, 181 is non-binding, but as a condition of UNGA resolution 273, where the conditions by which israel was to gain acceptance as a member state to the UN are defined, israel agree to abide by 181...and yes, 273 is also nonbinding as a resolution but it has validity as an agreement.

this agreement was made after the arab israeli war also, negating all the assertions about israel agreed and "the arabs didn't". resolution 273 was an agreement between the UN and israel.

if you are saying that israel cannot be trusted to honour their agreements, well, of course i agree.

yes, some jews in america want a just peaceful solution, but they are few and far between. i donate to their cause. other jews think a peaceful solution is for the west bank to be ethnically cleansed. those are the ones i encounter most often.

i think the world has heard too many times that israel wants peace and have seen very little genuine efforts to achieve that end. the arab peace initiative gave israel everything they said they wanted, and when it was offered, israel wanted more.

but, why don't you tell me, specifically, what you think a just peace would involve. perhaps you would even be willing to show a map as to where the borders would be and discuss east al quds.

we can start at 181 as a reference point.

It doesn't matter where I believe the lines should be drawn ... it is up to the Arabs and Israelis to sort that out without external interference and the "Peace Initiative" has not found enthusiastic support amongst "Palestinians" either.
"Islamist political party Hamas, the elected government of the Gaza Strip, is deeply divided with most factions rejecting the plan"
Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the vast maority of palestinians approve of the initiative, even though that is less after the last war in gaza.

it should be epected that a group like HAMAS would be divided. i think such a division should be viewed as a positive. there is disccussion.

people can see that if they read your link.

they can also see israel's intransigence..

i just asked a question about where you thought the lines should be drawn. that is important and perhaps highlights the problem. zionists and the israeli government are not very forthcoming with what they actually want and try to conceal it. as for borders, what they say they want always changes from time to time, and always to israel's advantage.

do think judea and samaria belong to the jewish people and the state of israel? if that is the case, do you think the palestinians in the west bank should become israeli citisens or, if not, what should happen to them? if you think that a viable state is created in the west bank, do you think east al quds should be the future capital of that state?

 

[sealadaigh]

While lately I've stopped using Hamas's Charter as a talking point, if they were sincerely interested in ending the carnage they would EXPLICITLY renounce it. Just sayin'.

first of all, it actually is a covenant, which is different. secondly, it has a historical significance to the palestinian people.

HAMAS has said they would recognise the '67 borders.

HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate. israel isn't. if israel were truly interested in peace, they wouldn't let a piece of paper that HAMAS leaders have rejected some portions of. this is ridiculous.

how would you feel if israel were asked to amend "the basic law". what about the hariri decision. papers come and go.

the bottom line, too, is that israel woulf not be exactly negotiatiing with HAMAS. they would be negotiating with the palestinian authority. HAMAS would fall under that umbrella.

You say potaytoes, I say potatoes. The Covenant is also referred to as their Charter.
Historical my butt and while Israel indeed should not let it stand in the way, "Palestinians" also should not.
I'm not certain the PA still has the authority to negotiate. They were recognized at Oslo but Hamas is now the gov't. The devil, as always, is in the details.

i think the PA is still the body to negotiate with, and HAMAS would be at the table under their umbrella. complicated, sure, but israel is the one who won't negotiate.

israel, if they truly wanted to negotiate, would release marwan barghouti. he is the only one who can bring the various factions together.

 

[MHunterB]

Well, there is that small matter of Israeli nuclear weapons but Obama might be just stupid enough to try it anyway.

So, are you saying Israel's US supplied nuclear weapons would be a threat to America if the US stopped support for Israel?

Your sig line is far from historically accurate. Have you no idea why the Marines sing about 'the shores of Tripoli'?

 

[MHunterB]

Well, guidance systems are so poor, most fall onto fields or in the sea but they can target a pizza queue.
So, excluding the emotive lies, can you explain why support for Palestine instead of Israel would hurt the US?

I am sure one could have made a similar argument about Japan in 1941. I mean we were making a lot of money off selling Oil and metal to Japan.

As for pizza parlors Hamas used suicide bombers on buses and pizza parlors full of teenagers.

and israel and/or israelis drops bombs on apartment buildings full of children, commits war crimes by using certain weapons illegally violates international law constantly, and commits acts of genocide as defined by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide...

and where does this two sidedd litany of sins get us. nowhere.

HAMAS is not defeated and they represent a lot of people. to exclude them from any part in negotiating and planning a future palestinian state is folly.

The unsupported - and inaccurate - allegations are duly noted. As is the ' ... but let's not discuss the topic' after the allegations are made AND before any response can be given.

Some would suggest the above is a cynical tactic to stifle true debate.

 

[FckingAmazing]

i cannot say i like Iran , i like Syria or Iraq just becoz of they are muslim becoz i dont like dictatorships... but i am sure i cannot say that i like Israel too .. becoz Israel behaving like terrorist state .. so i hope democrat American people will be with Justice and they will stop this war.. without any fear losing some interests ..

 

[Staidhup]

Lets look at the record, Israel negotiates and capitulates to US strong arm demands, rockets continue to fly, terrorist activities continue, media and the liberal left blame Israel. The fact is, regardless of Israeli policies, there is no end, the Palestinians will never accept a peace accord, Hamas has made it clear as to their objectives and intentions. Reminds me of the nevi-tae beliefs and actions of Neville Chamberlain.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.

America should change sides and support Palestine.

Imagine the advantages:

Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
Only one enemy in the middle east
No worries about oil supply.

Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?

Indofred,

Just imagine, if the US changes sides and supports Palestine instead of Israel, our weapons and tax dollars would not be spent funding the killings of the children in Gaza depicted in the photos below. Each child killed here in these photos was killed by Israel in operations in Gaza in the past week.

http://mondoweiss.net/images/2012/11/TWu4N.jpg

The second photo, BBC journalist Jihad Masharawi carries his son’s body at a Gaza hospital. (Photo: AP)

Sherri

 

[FckingAmazing]

The child in this picture i think represent Palestinian innocent children..
will you save that child or leave alone ?



Paris people for Palestina

 

[FckingAmazing]

why this double standard ? these chilren are not human ?

 

[sealadaigh]

I am sure one could have made a similar argument about Japan in 1941. I mean we were making a lot of money off selling Oil and metal to Japan.

As for pizza parlors Hamas used suicide bombers on buses and pizza parlors full of teenagers.

and israel and/or israelis drops bombs on apartment buildings full of children, commits war crimes by using certain weapons illegally violates international law constantly, and commits acts of genocide as defined by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide...

and where does this two sidedd litany of sins get us. nowhere.

HAMAS is not defeated and they represent a lot of people. to exclude them from any part in negotiating and planning a future palestinian state is folly.

The unsupported - and inaccurate - allegations are duly noted. As is the ' ... but let's not discuss the topic' after the allegations are made AND before any response can be given.

Some would suggest the above is a cynical tactic to stifle true debate.

on the contrary. i was responding to a simple comment made by the marine. what eactly would you like me to substantiate.

where exactly did i say "let's not discuss the topic."

what would you like to discuss, maggie?

i hope you wouldn't be one of those suggesting that i am employing such a tactic?

 

[sealadaigh]

Lets look at the record, Israel negotiates and capitulates to US strong arm demands, rockets continue to fly, terrorist activities continue, media and the liberal left blame Israel. The fact is, regardless of Israeli policies, there is no end, the Palestinians will never accept a peace accord, Hamas has made it clear as to their objectives and intentions. Reminds me of the nevi-tae beliefs and actions of Neville Chamberlain.

fine, let's look at the record?

and after that, i would like to look at the record of the USA lone vetoes against UNSC resolutions regarding israel.

oh, and when you produce this "record", please use a reliable and main stream source, if possible.

thank you.

 

[FckingAmazing]

 

[MHunterB]

" israel and/or israelis drops bombs on apartment buildings full of children, commits war crimes by using certain weapons illegally violates international law constantly, and commits acts of genocide as defined by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide..."

I do not think it's possible to substantiate the above, because I know of no instance where Israel knew there were "apartment buildings full of children" and chose to violate the GC by dropping bombs. I know of the LEGAL use of WP and such IN LEGAL WAYS during Cast Lead - which did NOT violate international law (WP isn't totally completely outlawed). And I do not see the committing of acts of genocide by Israel AS CLAIMED. There are certainly unlawful and simply wrong actions by assorted individuals with Israeli citizenship, and even 'official' acts by government which are wrong (and often protested vigorously by Israelis and Jews in other nations)

All of the allegations claimed against Israel, have many times been proven true of "Palestinian freedom fighters" - the deliberate seeking of civilian targets, particularly children (schoolbus abduction, Purim bombing, etc) The call for genocide is clear in the HAMAS Charter, the use of 'suicide' bombings against civilians is well-documented - as are the BIG LIES of faked 'atrocities' (Jenin, Mohammed al-dura, the 'ambulance hit by a bomb'....)

And then of course there are the very real atrocities - the murders of the Fogel family, the lynching and murder of two Israelis *in police custody* complete with 'triumphant' song and dance as the muderers displayed their bloody hands to the mob - and other such incidents which somehow are always forgotten and excused by the so-claimed 'peace activists'.

The quote above IMPLIES that all or 'most' or 'more' of the intolerable violence is from the Israelis. That is hardly accurate - unless, of course, one believes that the Palestinians are always 'justified' and the Israelis are always wrong.

If that IS anyone's position here - intellectual honesty demands they disclose their view.

My apologies: I thought I'd made it clear what I was asking to be substantiated. Of course, I've also previously mentioned that I do NOT like being addressed as 'Maggie' - but that also seems to have gone unnoticed.

 

[georgephillip]

Change sides? Am I the only person who recognizes that taking sides in a religious war is what got us into trouble in the first place?

Religious war has been deliberately stoked in Palestine, largely to the advantage of western imperial ambitions:

"Following the absorption of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the British set about shoring up their rule by the tried and true strategy of pitting ethnic group against ethnic group, tribe against tribe, and religion against religion.

"When British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour issued his famous 1917 Declaration guaranteeing a 'homeland' for the Jewish people in Palestine, he was less concerned with righting a two thousand year old wrong than creating divisions that would serve growing British interests in the Middle East."

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

 

[MHunterB]

From the Wiki article on the 'Institute for Policy Study', which is a (?how far)left-leaning 'independent think tank'

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

The IPS opposed the Iraqi no-fly-zone that was set up to protect Kurds and Shias after the Gulf War.[18]
The IPS opposed the NATO war undertaken to stop Slobodan Milošević's alleged ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo.[18]


Care to comment on those views ? The IPS is the parent group for the article GP cited. I fail to see where it matters so much what the British wanted or were trying to do- particularly as it appears to be the radical Islamists of HAMAS who are seeking a religious war. The US and the UK usually have goals quite similar, so if anything that'd be a recommendation to NOT change policy.

 

[Rozman]

I think the President really needs to step up big time and make it perfectly clear that we are 100%
behind the survival of Israel.