Anti-Semetism

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain, to summarize, Wigferth Ironwall, if my interpretation is correct, simply believes that there should be no "special treatment" of the Jews based on the Holocaust --

I dont get that from reading his posts. I dont think they deserve "special treatment" at all. But it seems many here are denying that anti semitism exists. Its merely as I said a nomonclature for a specific type of racism.

My point was that the Holocaust was unique in method

Not really as the Romans did an even better job of it than Hitler.

[Byzantine Prince]

My point was that the Holocaust was unique in method, which makes Hitler special, rather than the Jews. Since that's the first thing people bring up it seemed the best to de-bunk.

What else have you got?

If you can prove to me anti-Semetism is truely different then I will concede the point.

How is it different? Hitler himself modelled the idea after the Mongol tactics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just incase you missed it the first time, which I don't think you did, since you quoted it.

I don't see thats its any more unique than the Black "monkey man" prejudice.

Anti-Semetism probably has the longest continual history, which means it has a lot of baggage. That said, it must be acknowledged that Jews have presented themselves as a homogenous racial, religious and cultural group. As such they can be understood as a race and were seen as a threat in Mediaevil Europe.

Islamic anti-Semetism can pretty much be traced back to the founding of modern Isreal. Christian anti-Semetism can be seen to be partly a result of the crucifixion and partly to do with fear of large Jewish comunities in Europe. As I understand it there was actually a Jewish Principality in France in the 8th-9th Centuries AD.

Regardless, I fail to see how anti-Semetism is special and I don't think anyone would see it as such were it not for Hitler and the Holocaust.

Anti-Semetism is no different to any other form of racism.

The Jewish lobby used the Holocaust to get the fledgling UN to found Isreal for them, probably one of the greatest crimes of the 20th Century.

Yes, the Holocaust was terrible but it did not involve exclusively Jews.

How was Hitler different? Industrialisation.

How can you single out anti-Semetism as special. Look at the poor Irish, Britain still has a prejudice against Ginger people, for crying out loud!

[Scurvy]

Anti-Semetism is no different to any other form of racism.

The Jewish lobby used the Holocaust to get the fledgling UN to found Isreal for them, probably one of the greatest crimes of the 20th Century.

Yes, the Holocaust was terrible but it did not involve exclusively Jews.

I agree with the most of that, minus a few things....

the use of the holocaust is hardly unfair, and at the time would seem entirely justified to all, especially as the jewish were the worst of the groups persecuted by the nazis, the crime (and i agree it is wrong) is in the founding of israel, not in the use of the holocaust and anti-jewish racism... (ie, it was the UNs fault, not the jewish lobby - they have every right to try and persuade the UN of anything, its the UNs job to make sure they make the right decisions)

- it is slightly unfair that the holocaust is remebered for the killing of jews, but in terms of numbers they were the majority....

The reason i object to the term "anti-semetism" is because of the conitations it gives of racial hate against jews as being special, or distinguished from other racism, it is the same as all racism, albeit against a specific group.

(im not sure thats well explained, but this is a long post for me :P )

[drone]

the use of the holocaust is hardly unfair, and at the time would seem entirely justified to all, especially as the jewish were the worst of the groups persecuted by the nazis, the crime (and i agree it is wrong) is in the founding of israel, not in the use of the holocaust and anti-jewish racism... (ie, it was the UNs fault, not the jewish lobby - they have every right to try and persuade the UN of anything, its the UNs job to make sure they make the right decisions)

- it is slightly unfair that the holocaust is remebered for the killing of jews, but in terms of numbers they were the majority....

Didn't something like 25 million Soviets die from German action in WWII? Estimates are roughly 10 million uniformed casualties, while the civilians had to deal with planned starvation, forced labor, and the usual pillage and rape in occupied territories, as well as collateral damage from military action. The Nazis planned on eliminating the population in occupied territories for German resettlement, and generally treated the Soviet people as sub-human. Hitler may have had a special little place in his heart for the Jews, but the Sovs suffered more by far. They also had to deal with their own beloved leader, who may have killed more of the population than the Nazis did...

Racism is racism, if people want to give a label to a specific form, they can. Suprised no one has coined the phrase anti-caucasoid yet.

[Conradus]

Wasn't Israel founded without support of the UN?

[Scurvy]

Wasn't Israel founded without support of the UN?

I have no idea , i took it from Wigferths post

[Bar Kochba]

One example, actually, ethnic cleansing is not new, the fact that sixty years ago one country industrialised it doesn't make one of the groups that country persecuted special.

Remember Gypsies and homosexuals were also sent to death camps.

As a few more cases, Bosnia, practically everyone was at it.

Spain in the 1500s, the Muslims were forcibly ejected.

The mass expulsions and killings following the fragmenting of India in 1946.

The holocaust is unique, but only in method. That doesn't make the one prejudice unique.

Id like to point out that it was not only muslims it was Jews who were kicked out of spain in 1492

Wasn't Israel founded without support of the UN?

Israel was founded with support... There was a vote.. there is a state of israel

Also another thing mentioned about arab "anti semetism" only coming up with the start of the state of isreal... what about the 1929 Hebron massacre

[Conradus]

Yep there was a vote, but the Palestinians didn't acknowledge the results of that vote. Didn't the Israeli's then found their state without support of the UN?

[Scurvy]

Id like to point out that it was not only muslims it was Jews who were kicked out of spain in 1492

Wasn't Israel founded without support of the UN?

Israel was founded with support... There was a vote.. there is a state of israel

Also another thing mentioned about arab "anti semetism" only coming up with the start of the state of isreal... what about the 1929 Hebron massacre

The majority were muslims

thanks for the calrification of UN,

there are many incidents of racism towards many different groups before Israel, its just the Israel is a nice example, because its well known - and it certainly made things worse (i'v never actually heard of Hebron, being the incredibly uneducated person i am )

Conrad: I suspect the fact that there was a vote means that whatever the Palestinians said, the state is still seen as backed (and was) by the UN

[Bar Kochba]

i was just answering to people saying that there werent any arab anti semetic attacks pre state of israel

Hebron = Chevron in Hebrew is a city in the west bank. its where the jewish patiraches and matriarchs are buired a holy site for the jews

The arabs who lived there.. Although im not sure they were considerd Palastinains till 1967 didnt agree to the state which the UN voted for. Ben Gurion declared the state in 1948 and then war was declared on israel

[Pannonian]

Conrad: I suspect the fact that there was a vote means that whatever the Palestinians said, the state is still seen as backed (and was) by the UN

The problem most people have is not that Israel exists under the UN mandate, but that it denies Palestine the right to exist under the same UN mandate. Any suggestion of a return to the 1967 borders draws accusations of anti-semitism from the Israel lobby (mostly Likudniks), but even they were an Israeli encroachment on the UN-drawn borders. Territorial disputes has been the most common cause of war in history, yet no-one decries the Israeli colonisation of Palestinian land as an act of war.

A far-right MK (member of Knesset) has called for the expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank.

Eitam, a member of the right-wing National Union-National Religious Party sparked a political firestorm Monday when he said that the great majority of Palestinians in the West Bank should be expelled, and that Arabs should be ousted from Israeli politics as a fifth column and "a league of traitors."

Arab MK Ahmed Tibi (Ra'am-Ta'al) said Monday that "Eitam's remarks would have been more authentic, had they been delivered in German."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761308.html

Leftist MKs blast Eitam's statements on Arabs, urge AG to investigate
By Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service
11/09/2006

Left-wing lawmakers reacted furiously Monday to statements made by rightist Knesset Member Effi Eitam against Israeli Arab politicians and Palestinians in the West Bank, and called for attorney general Menachem Mazuz to open an investigation into Eitam's comments on grounds of incitement to racism.

Eitam, a member of the right-wing National Union-National Religious Party sparked a political firestorm Monday when he said that the great majority of Palestinians in the West Bank should be expelled, and that Arabs should be ousted from Israeli politics as a fifth column and "a league of traitors."

The remarks, broadcast Monday on Army Radio, were made during a Sunday speech at a memorial service for a soldier killed in Lebanon during the recent war.

It was the first time that Eitam, who heads the Religious Zionism faction within the National Union, has publicly supported deportation of Palestinians, a concept espoused by assassinated National Union founder
Rehavam Ze'evi as "transfer."

"We will have to expel the great majority of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria," Eitam urged, referring to the whole of the West Bank.

According to Eitam, experience showed that Israel cannot give up the area of the West Bank. "It is impossible with all of these Arabs, and it is impossible to give up the territory. We've already seen what they're doing there."

Turning to the subject of Israeli Arabs, Eitam said, "We will have to take another decision, and that is to sweep the Israeli Arabs from the political system. Here, too, the issues are clear and simple.

"We've raised a fifth column, a league of traitors of the first rank. Therefore, we cannot continue to enable so large and so hostile a presense within the political system of Israel."

Beilin: Bring Eitam to trial
Yossi Beilin, the leader of the left-wing Meretz party, urged Attorney General Menachem Mazuz Monday to bring Eitam to trial on charges of incitement to racism.

Beilin's call was based on an amendment to the law which grants lawmakers immunity from prosecution. The amendment lifts the immunity from legislators who incite to racism or ethnic prejudice. Earlier in the day, Meretz MK Avshalom Vilan called on Mazuz to open an investigation against Eitam, on suspicion of incitement and sedition.

Arab MK Ahmed Tibi (Ra'am-Ta'al) said Monday that "Eitam's remarks would have been more authentic, had they been delivered in German."

"These are irresponsible statements," Tibi told the radio, "directed at the lowest level of the racism surging within Israeli society."

"A long time ago the racists and fascists moved from the Israeli street to the Israeli government and the halls of power" added Tibi.

Peace Now leader Yariv Oppenheimer said that the words of Eitam "show that the dogma of [slain extreme right-wing Rabbi Meir] Kahane is alive and well. In a moment of candor, the mask was removed from Eitam's face, exposing him as a leader of fantasy and racism."

Arab MK Mohammed Barakeh said that the attack on the representatives of Arab citizens of Israel was an attempt to "delegitimize the Arab population entirely and to negate their right to voice their opinions and participate in the political process."

According to Barakeh, the measures proposed by Eitam are already being implemented, as the Palestinians, "are witness to many steps to push them aside and expel them from their homeland, among them the security fence in Jerusalem and the West Bank. The policies of siege, starvation, and negation of the basic right of human dignity are a means of extremely dangerous ethnic expulsion.

"You don't need trucks to transfer Palestinians."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem most people have is not that Israel exists under the UN mandate, but that it denies Palestine the right to exist under the same UN mandate. Any suggestion of a return to the 1967 borders draws accusations of anti-semitism from the Israel lobby (mostly Likudniks), but even they were an Israeli encroachment on the UN-drawn borders. Territorial disputes has been the most common cause of war in history, yet no-one decries the Israeli colonisation of Palestinian land as an act of war.

A far-right MK (member of Knesset) has called for the expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank.

'67 borders, how about the '47 borders.

Bar Kochba, Hebron in '29 can be traced to the increasing number of Jewish immigrants after WWI, its part of the same problem.

I'm not saying that no Arab was prejudiced against Jews before 1947 but you can see that the blanket hatred is a direct result of the existence and actions of Isreal.

The UN plan for partition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

As you can see that is rather less land than now constitutes Isreal now, also, the whole of Palastine constitutes only ONE QUARTER of Solomon's Kingdom, which is particually relevant when you consider the penchant for holding land occupied.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The problem most people have is not that Israel exists under the UN mandate, but that it denies Palestine the right to exist under the same UN mandate

Baloney. They could have had their state in 48 just like Israel. Even in 48 Palestine was under the control of Jordan (Arab Palestine)until the 67 war. Then Jordan lost the war and Israel occuppied the Westbank (Judea). Now they suddenly became Palestinians and wanted thier own state. The "Palestinians" already had their own state and it was called Jordan who lost territory(Judea) to Israel in the war. Now Israel could have just annexed it like most countries would but it didnt. It has always had the intention of the Palestinians having their own state. I think theve been more than patient in this matter.

I'm not saying that no Arab was prejudiced against Jews before 1947 but you can see that the blanket hatred is a direct result of the existence and actions of Isreal.

Thats like blaming attacks on blacks, because they move into white neighborhoods on the blacks . Israel originaly was supposed to all of Palestine.

[Pannonian]

Baloney. They could have had their state in 48 just like Israel. Even in 48 Palestine was under the control of Jordan (Arab Palestine)until the 67 war. Then Jordan lost the war and Israel occuppied the Westbank (Judea). Now they suddenly became Palestinians and wanted thier own state. The "Palestinians" already had their own state and it was called Jordan who lost territory(Judea) to Israel in the war. Now Israel could have just annexed it like most countries would but it didnt. It has always had the intention of the Palestinians having their own state. I think theve been more than patient in this matter.

If we accept your view of the matter as correct, what do you think should be done about the Arabs/Palestinians who are in the West Bank now? IIRC Arafat favoured the whole of Israel/Palestine being incorporated into one state, whoever ruled it, but the Israelis rejected it because the birth rates would eventually lead to an Arab majority a decade or two down the line (hence the importing of Jews from the USSR to tip the balance their way).

If Israel has been more than patient all this time, and Israel is supposed to include all of Israel and Palestine, would you support incorporating its inhabitants into the state of Israel also? Or would you prefer expelling the Arab inhabitants in these territories and letting them take their chances in the neighbouring countries?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If we accept your view of the matter as correct, what do you think should be done about the Arabs/Palestinians who are in the West Bank now?

You see this is the root of the problem. Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I believe they would like nothing better than for the Palestinians to have their own state. The problem is the Palestinians only in reality want the one state solution as you mentioned. Israel isnt stupid and knows this would be the end of their state as they know it. Once in power whats to stop the Muslims from making the Jews second class citizens or driving them out as theve done in most of the nations in that region. What never gets mentioned is there are as many Israeli refugees as arabs refugees. The difference is almost all of the Jewish refugees have moved to Israel. While the Arabs choose to let their brothers sit in reugee camps. The main cause of the trouble there is the use of terrorism by the Palestinians.

If Israel has been more than patient all this time, and Israel is supposed to include all of Israel and Palestine, would you support incorporating its inhabitants into the state of Israel also? Or would you prefer expelling the Arab inhabitants in these territories and letting them take their chances in the neighbouring countries?

Too late to change much now. I wouldnt incorporate any of those territories. Israel just wants to be left in peace. It has no designs over arab lands. In fact it gives them back hoping to get peace and almost everytime that land is used as a base to launch new attacks upon it.

Israel is stuck in the same predicment as the rest of the west. We are no longer willing to fight Totalwar. In that case if your opponent is ,you are doomed to failure.

If I had the solution to the Arab Israeli problem I wouldnt be sitting here on these boards talking about it. Id be famous.

[Pannonian]

Israel is stuck in the same predicment as the rest of the west. We are no longer willing to fight Totalwar. In that case if your opponent is ,you are doomed to failure.

If I had the solution to the Arab Israeli problem I wouldnt be sitting here on these boards talking about it. Id be famous.

There's always the Northern Ireland solution. I've made numerous comparisons between Israel/Palestine and Northern Ireland in the past, and mostly been borne out by developments. My most cynical/pessimistic predictions of Israeli reactions have also been borne out each time, and in some cases been exceeded.

My general prediction is this: if Israel and their American backers press for what they consider to be the moral argument, they will forever end up being wrong, and there will never be peace and Muslim disaffection will continue to mount. But if Israel will only look at the Northern Ireland model, decide what they want and set out for that course, they will achieve it, and if their course is set for peace, Muslim disaffection will dissipate and Islamic fundamentalism will lose its focus. The set-up is there on the Palestinian side. All Israel needs to do to achieve peace is recognise it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In 48 Palastine WAS a seperate state, NOT part of Jordan. After the 1948 War the Arab states that attacked Isreal divided the remaining free Arab areas between themselves and Jordan got the West Bank. Jordan is actually part of Palastine but the British divided it up, on suspects to temper Isreali expansion. Check the map in my last link, its accurate.

[Scurvy]

You see this is the root of the problem. Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I believe they would like nothing better than for the Palestinians to have their own state. The problem is the Palestinians only in reality want the one state solution as you mentioned. Israel isnt stupid and knows this would be the end of their state as they know it. Once in power whats to stop the Muslims from making the Jews second class citizens or driving them out as theve done in most of the nations in that region. What never gets mentioned is there are as many Israeli refugees as arabs refugees. The difference is almost all of the Jewish refugees have moved to Israel. While the Arabs choose to let their brothers sit in reugee camps. The main cause of the trouble there is the use of terrorism by the Palestinians.

I agree with pretty much the whole post, but what would israel do to the palestinians already living in israeli borders, the recent stuff in ghaza seem doesnt fill you with confidence that palestinians can live within israeli borders (both the terrorism from one side, and the bad treatment from the other)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In 48 Palastine WAS a seperate state, NOT part of Jordan

Palestine was originally promised to be the Jewish homeland. Then they decided to partion it into Arab Palestine(Trans-Jordan) and Jewish Palestine(Israel). Then the arabs still complained and it was further partioned to give the Arabs another state called Palestine on the westbank(Judea).

There's always the Northern Ireland solution. I've made numerous comparisons between Israel/Palestine and Northern Ireland in the past,

You cannot compare the two. The IRA never called for the destruction of Britain or the death of all bristish subjects and protestants.

[Pannonian]

Palestine was originally promised to be the Jewish homeland. Then they decided to partion it into Arab Palestine(Trans-Jordan) and Jewish Palestine(Israel). Then the arabs still complained and it was further partioned to give the Arabs another state called Palestine on the westbank(Judea).

The British promised all things to all people. The Arabs were meant to be given their independence, their co-operation against the Ottomans brokered by TE Lawrence IIRC. This predated the Balfour declaration. The relevant text of said declaration is as follows.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

A typically British non-commital fobbing off of nationalist pressures (of the Jewish nation as envisaged by Zionists). Britain will try its best to establish a Jewish home in Palestine, as long as it does not does not prejudice the rights of existing inhabitants. If the establishment of such a home does prejudice such rights, then the promise is void, as the British will indeed have tried their best in an impossible endeavour. The British promise of a Jewish homeland never contained substance.

You cannot compare the two. The IRA never called for the destruction of Britain or the death of all bristish subjects and protestants.

You may remember a collective of Fatah and Hamas prisoners called for the Hamas government to press for a 2 state solution, the natural consequence of a 2 state solution being that there must be 2 states, therefore leading to the recognition of Israel. Some time before this declaration, I noted that the best prospect for Palestine would be for recognised hardliners to start taking a moderate line, as IRA prisoners did in Britain. What did the British do?

We recognised that unrestricted violence would not be tolerated by our American friends, nor indeed by our own population - in contrast to Palestine, where the IDF are positively encouraged by both their own people and the US to brutalise the Palestinians. Therefore we accepted we had to live with terrorism if the terrorists willed it. What we could do was turn the terrorists' support base against them by pouring investment and political reforms into the province. Of the major regions, Northern Ireland was by far the largest benefactee of government investment per head of population. This normalised the economic situation, and abolition or negation of anti-Catholic laws and a vigorous campaign to rid civil institutions of anti-Catholic prejudice normalised the social situation.

What happened with former IRA hardliners who wished to turn to politics? The British conducted a campaign to marginalise those still militant, by strengthening the hand of advocates of the political way through offering political concessions, and selective assassination of those deemed irreversibly intransigent. Republican hardliners still pushed for periodic shows of strength, but the British government accepted the pressures on McGuinness and co and refused to cut off all links with Sinn Fein, and treated all bombings as civil rather than military matters. Eventually the militants within the IRA lost their support base altogether, Catholics prefering the civil state whatever the creed to their traditional groupings.

But the IRA never called for the destruction of Britain, you say. Does it matter? Sinn Fein, even now, has not renounced its aim of expelling the British from the island of Ireland, the difference being that it now pursues this aim through purely political means. The IRA never had the capability to expel the British from Northern Ireland, as Hamas does not have the capability to destroy Israel. What matters is not what people say they want to do, but what they actually do, and what they are prepared to do. Let Hamas retain their aim of destroying Israel, but draw them into an entente whereby they govern their territories alongside the hated Israelis, but hold their violence for the meanwhile while they sort out their civil affairs. After a reasonable length of time, Palestinians will become too fond of peace to want to resume war. The Palestinian moderates and even the Hamas government were willing to go even further than this, and aim for a formal 2 state arrangement. Then some Hamas militants went off on a jolly (without the knowledge of the government), and the Israeli government predictably went off its rockers, yet again, where in a similar situation a British government would have sent in the negotiators and the police to avoid escalation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As to 1947/1948 borders, consider the following site:

http://www.palestinehistory.com/qtime.htm

Note the relevant years on the timeline and you will see three maps depicting:

1. The UN two-state partition plan boundaries.

2. The same area with color coding denoting the majority population of given portions of the region.

3. The 1948 borders established by Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan as a consequence of 4 UN-brokered cease-fire arrangements.

Please note the source of this website, palestinianhistory.com is an adamantly pro-palestinian forum edited by a UAE citizen of Palestinian arab descent (parents from Gaza). This information should be evaluated with this in mind.

One implicit/explicit assertion is that much of Israel is located on illegally occupied territory.


Pan-man/Gawain: interesting discussion of the parallels.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think anyone would argue that Isreal is at least partially occupied land. As to the idea of annexing terretory, the only other people in a developed country to do so were the Russians and they didn't exactly have a great humaniterian record then either.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As to the idea of annexing terretory, the only other people in a developed country to do so were the Russians and they didn't exactly have a great humaniterian record then either.

How about Britain, Spain , Portugal, France, Belgium and just about every other developed country on the face of the earth. Besides that all of Israels wars were defense wars and Israel has given most of the territory it has conquered back. It only keeps terrirtory as a buffer zone. We have seen the results of what happenes when they give land back. Not peace but a better place for its enemies to launch attacks from.

You may remember a collective of Fatah and Hamas prisoners called for the Hamas government to press for a 2 state solution,

If you rememebr when Hamas won victory in the last election Israel asked them to remove the part of their charter that calls for the destruction of Israel and the one state solution. Hamas told Israel to take a flying leap.

The Palestinian moderates and even the Hamas government were willing to go even further than this, and aim for a formal 2 state arrangement

Read the above. Hamas has never changed its stance on the matter.

[Reenk Roink]

How about Britain, Spain , Portugal, France, Belgium and just about every other developed country on the face of the earth.

I agree. Israel's right by conquest is legitimate. However, it also would apply in the opposite situation, the Arabs can have the land if they can conquer it back...

[Pannonian]

How about Britain, Spain , Portugal, France, Belgium and just about every other developed country on the face of the earth. Besides that all of Israels wars were defense wars and Israel has given most of the territory it has conquered back. It only keeps terrirtory as a buffer zone. We have seen the results of what happenes when they give land back. Not peace but a better place for its enemies to launch attacks from.

If you approach the problem from the wrong angle, your favoured solution will inevitably turn out wrong. The Israeli problem is not just land, but more primarily its penchant for unilateralism, something many Americans share. The longest and most complete period of peace Israel has experienced in the past 2 decades was when Rabin and Arafat were engaged in talks. That broke down when Rabin was assassinated (a unilateral act), and ended when Netanyahu unilaterally advanced the spread of settlements in the West Bank.

It's like a bully repeatedly punching someone in the face, then wondering why the victim is still upset after he's thrown 100 dollar bills to him as compensation. Israel needs to talk, above all else. There are problems beyond land that will not be addressed by unilateral actions, but will require talking to the other side to reach a mutually acceptable compromise. By declaring that you will never talk to terrorists as a matter of principle, you are precluding any chances of reaching a peaceful settlement, and guaranteeing an indefinite continuation of violence.

If you rememebr when Hamas won victory in the last election Israel asked them to remove the part of their charter that calls for the destruction of Israel and the one state solution. Hamas told Israel to take a flying leap.

Read the above. Hamas has never changed its stance on the matter.

Things have changed since the election. The prisoners, whose patriotic legitimacy the hardliners cannot deny, proposed accepting the 2 state solution. After some, prodding the Hamas government followed suit. Hamas PM Haniyeh has even written a WaPo op-ed on the matter decrying Israeli troops crossing the border into Gaza. If you think about this, to cross a border, there must have been a border in the first place, and if there's a border between Israel and Palestine, it must therefore follow that Israel exists. His indignation was that Israel denies Palestine the legitimacy that Israel claims for itself.

After all that, are you still saying that Hamas has never reconsidered its position? From what I can see, Hamas has shifted its fundamentals far more than Sinn Fein ever did.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That broke down when Rabin was assassinated (a unilateral act), and ended when Netanyahu unilaterally advanced the spread of settlements in the West Bank.

It broke down in the middle of the Camp David accords when Araffat launched the latest intafatah.

It's like a bully repeatedly punching someone in the face, then wondering why the victim is still upset after he's thrown 100 dollar bills to him as compensation

More like when a 6 pound weakling keeps kicking Hulk Hogan in the shin and then complaining when the Hulkster finally decides enough is enough and hauls off and belts the twerp.

After all that, are you still saying that Hamas has never reconsidered its position?

Yup. It still wantrs the destruction of Israel. Are you going to tell me theve changed their charter?

His indignation was that Israel denies Palestine the legitimacy that Israel claims for itself.

More like the other way around.

[Pannonian]

It broke down in the middle of the Camp David accords when Araffat launched the latest intafatah.

More like when a 6 pound weakling keeps kicking Hulk Hogan in the shin and then complaining when the Hulkster finally decides enough is enough and hauls off and belts the twerp.

Yup. It still wantrs the destruction of Israel. Are you going to tell me theve changed their charter?

More like the other way around.

This illustrates what I've said earlier. Britain solved the Northern Ireland problem by bending a little while not losing sight of their main goal, recognising Republican changes even when they do not necessarily appear so in our paradigm. By sticking to their moral certainties, by steadfastly refusing to see what developments there have been on the Palestinian side, Israel and America guarantee there will never be peace.

The key to defeating terrorism is understanding them. Not necessarily giving in to them, but understanding them so you will know what gives them strength, and counter that accordingly. Remember the famous Sunzi adage. By refusing to talk to them, you are refusing to know the enemy, and if you can't even recognise this is so, you are also refusing to know yourself.

[Tribesman]

Wasn't Israel founded without support of the UN?

Israel was founded with support... There was a vote.. there is a state of israel

Not quite Son of a Star , Israel declared its existance before the date of its supported creation and included in its declared formation land that was not allocated to it under the agreement of its supported creation .
So since it was in violation of the supported agreement for its foundation it didn't really class as being founded with suport , it took unilateral action despite the promised suport .

Palestine was originally promised to be the Jewish homeland. Then they decided to partion it into Arab Palestine(Trans-Jordan) and Jewish Palestine(Israel).
Absolute rubbish Gawain as usual , has your memory failed you again . It is quite explicit that no part of trans jordan shall be the included in the territory allocated for the creation of either the Isreali state or the Palestinian state .
The "Palestinians" already had their own state and it was called Jordan who lost territory(Judea) to Israel in the war.
See above

How about Britain, Spain , Portugal, France, Belgium and just about every other developed country on the face of the earth.
Now then Gawain , would those examples be from before or after it was written into international law that a state may not annex land through force of arms ?
I agree. Israel's right by conquest is legitimate.
See above Reenk , Israel is a signatory to treaties that state that it is not legitimate .

It only keeps terrirtory as a buffer zone.
Rubbish , setting up isolated settlements in occupied territory is not creating a buffer zone , it is annexing land for the settlement of its civilian population , which is illegal . Creating a further buffer zone round those illegal settlements is not creating a buffer zone since it then builds up to the outermost edges of the so called buffer negating any supposed benefits that a buffer would create .

We have seen the results of what happenes when they give land back. Not peace but a better place for its enemies to launch attacks from.

Rubbish . We have seen the results of what happens when it unilaterally withdraws without an agreement between the other parties involved , it leads to a continuation of the problem .
And we have seen what happens when it withdraws as part of an agreed settlement between the parties involved....surprisingly it appears to work .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Absolute rubbish Gawain as usual , has your memory failed you again . It is quite explicit that no part of trans jordan shall be the included in the territory allocated for the creation of either the Isreali state or the Palestinian state .

I think it must be yours thats failing. Either that or you lack reading comprhension.

It is quite explicit that no part of trans jordan shall be the included in the territory allocated for the creation of either the Isreali state or the Palestinian state .

Yes when they made the second partion and decided to name the westbank Palestine. The orignal partion had Arab Palestine(Jordan) and Jewish Palestine (Israel)

See above

See above

Now then Gawain , would those examples be from before or after it was written into international law that a state may not annex land through force of arms ?

Oh you mean like Kosovo? There is no such thing as International law in reality anyway.

Rubbish . We have seen the results of what happens when it unilaterally withdraws without an agreement between the other parties involved , it leads to a continuation of the problem .
And we have seen what happens when it withdraws as part of an agreed settlement between the parties involved....surprisingly it appears to work

Yes the recent rocket attacks from Lebanon and Gaza prove you are quite correct.