Hamas: Resistance our legitimate right

[oberliner]

Hamas made the remark in a statement, which commemorates the 75th martyrdom anniversary of Ezzedin al-Qassam on Saturday.

The group praised resistance, saying that it should be practiced for as long as Israel occupies Palestinian land.

It also commented on the Israeli settlement issue, which stopped direct talks between Tel Aviv and the Palestinian Authority, saying that any settlement projects that concede rights and bargain over constants would not bind the Palestinian people.

Meanwhile, Hamas spokesman Abu Obaida said earlier on Friday that the Palestinians would continue along the path of Qassam until final victory.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/151833.html

[Turbineguy]

1. Better that millions suffer

than Abu Obaida and friends have to look for a real job.

[oberliner]

2. Peace puts Hamas out of business

What does a resistance organization do when there is nothing to resist?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Usually? Become the natural party of government, and often make a mess of it. N.T.

[oberliner]

4. Do you see that happening in this case?

What do you make of the Hamas/Fatah split and seeming inability to reconcile?

[hayu_lol]

5. Seems as if HAMAS is also...

ticked at the Army Of Islam as well. And, a few dozen other similar groups.

Anyone suppose that HAMAS is squealing on Army Of Islam leaders so that Israel can take them out?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. I'm much less well-up on Palestinian than Israeli politics, because I'm monolingual.

My general impression is that reconcilement isn't on the cards at all. I think that depending on how a putative peace deal between Fatah/the PA and Israel were handled there might well be a good chance of Fatah taking back the Gaza strip, but that without that there isn't much of one, and that a) there is zero chance of such a deal without a massive political sea change in Israel (not just a new election), and b) the longer Hamas control the GS the more difficult it will become to hold elections that Fatah might win there.

[oberliner]

7. Lots of articles available in English on Palestinian politics

Also lots of articles available only in Hebrew on Israeli politics.

No reason why being monolingual would mean that a person would be much less well-up on Palestinian than Israeli politics.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Articles about, yes, but not so much the news sources the people read.

I am unaware of any Palestinian equivalents of ynet, Haaretz and Jpost.

It's much easier for an English-speaker to find out what other people want to tell outsiders about Palestinian politics than is to actually see them from the inside, whereas the above-mentioned English-language websites for three of the main Israeli news organs means that I can read what a lot of Israelis read (not just what they write).

[oberliner]

9. The sources you lsited are not news sources that people read in Israel

The three most widely read newspapers in Israel are all in Hebrew.

If you don't speak/read Hebrew you really have no idea what most Israeli reporters are writing about nor what most Israeli citizens are reading about.

There are several Palestinian news sources available in English, including Ma'an, Wafa, the Palestine Times, and the Palestine Telegraph.

Of course, Al-Jazeera in English also covers Palestinian politics fairly well, often including Palestinian reporters and perspectives.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Yedioth Ahronot is the most widely-circulated paper in Israel.

Haaretz much less so, but it's disproportionately influential.

[shira]

12. The hebrew editions are different than the english, geared to 2 different audiences. n/t

[oberliner]

13. Yes, it's in Hebrew

Here it is:

http://www.ynet.co.il/home/0,7340,L-8,00.html

Haaretz is also in Hebrew:

http://www.haaretz.co.il/

[arcticken]

11. Thanks for injecting reality into the discussion again.

You'd think we'd KNOW that kind of thing by now. But then confirmation bias is fairly rampant in the human endeavor.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. It is, but not against civilians.

The Palestinians have every right to use violence against Israeli military targets, and arguably against other apparatus of the Israeli state, but they don't have the right to target violence against civilians, which is most of what Hamas does.

[shira]

15. And also not by using the Palestinian population as their shield.

[Tripmann]

17. Yeah, who do they think they are, the IDF??

[shira]

20. "Look over there!"

The IDF does nothing comparable to what Hamas has done to its population. What Hamas does is at least 1000x worse than anything the IDF has done WRT shielding.

But it's revealing to see just how little you really care about Hamas' treatment of the Palestinian populace during wartimes, as you have never once specifically condemned Hamas' loathesome practices against the Palestinians.

[azurnoir]

21. that's right the IDF is quite keen on taking a page from Bushes play book

and believes in “Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here”

[shira]

22. Really? Since when did Bush allow thousands of rockets to hit the US mainland years before...

...responding and fighting "over there"?

[azurnoir]

23. Bush did not however it should be noted that IDF brings the war to the Palestinians

which makes the "human shield" charges leveled at the Palestinian's rather questionable considering the small area of Gaza, I would wager that a war actually fought on Israeli ground would also involve IDF's using "human shields" in the same way that Hamas is accused of

[shira]

24. Wow, human shield charges vs. Hamas are questionable? That's not what B'tselem, BTS, Meretz...say.

Hamas actually fires rockets from densely populated areas, schools, hospitals, mosques, neighborhoods....

[azurnoir]

25. Strenger found Israel's retalition in those cases reprehensible

Then there are those of us who feel that the price for being a civilised state is that you cannot fire at schools, even if an inhuman enemy fires from within. We feel that the ground incursion should have been avoided because we believe that the inhumanity of your enemy must not dictate your own deeds. No one can help but be horrified by the pictures of killed, maimed and terrified Palestinian children. And even though we despise an enemy that is not bound by any rules of recognisable civilisation, we must not let them dictate the terms of engagement.

Along with many other Israelis, I am enraged and disappointed by Israel's failure to restrict the use of force according to basic humanitarian values, and by its insufficient use of international help. We feel that Israel should have defined attainable objectives, such as a more durable ceasefire under international auspices and enforcement, and that this could have been achieved after the first few days of air strikes. And we feel horrified by the human price of the escalation of the ground incursion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/united-israel-comment-carlo-strenger

[shira]

30. Strenger still realizes the impossible situation Israel is in WRT Hamas human shielding...

Israel can either do nothing effective to stop Hamas rockets on its own civilians or do what's needed, play Hamas' game, and kill Hamas' human shields in the process of stopping the rockets.

When Hamas does that, are civilian casualties Hamas' fault or Israel's, in your opinion? :shrug:

[azurnoir]

43. so you feel that Israel had no other choices?

no other choices but to bomb a mosque during evening prayers? No other choice but to use WP for "illumination" in a heavily populated civilian area, I find that pathology quite fascinating along with the redefinition of human shield to mean any "enemy civilian" that is in a battle area, rather than someone forced to be used as a defensive by forces engaged in hostile action(s) against that persons state or country

As to Strenger in my reading of the article here is what he said about Israeli military actions

Israel also showed that it has precise intelligence about where explosives are stored. This is where the consensus became problematic: many of the explosives are stored below mosques, in schools and residential buildings. Bombing them results in what is euphemistically called "collateral damage".

Here is where Israeli opinion is no longer unanimous. There are those who say "Hamas can stop this - all they need to do is stop firing. They are responsible for the deaths of their children." They feel that Israel cannot be expected to accept this aggression.

they are the 2 paragraphs above what I already posted

[Tripmann]

26. Howcome you don't mention Goldstones 'lies' about the IDF using human shields anymore??

:rofl:

[shira]

29. I didn't say Goldstone lied WRT the IDF using shields, but....

....I'm certain you can't admit Goldstone did lie throughout his report on other things, including no evidence of Hamas human shields.

Right?

:eyes:

Does that make you proud of Goldstone? Everyone from Israel, from Likud to Meretz, B'tselem, and Breaking-the-Silence knows Goldstone's claims WRT Hamas human shields are absolute lies. It doesn't bother you that Goldstone is giving Hamas carte-blanche to abuse thousands of Palestinians again, right?

[Tripmann]

31. Yes,amazing how what Goldstone lied about changes depending on new info vindicating him, isn't it??

[shira]

35. Find where I said Goldstone lied about the IDF using human shields. I don't recall ever...

...making such a claim.

WHY are you pretending that Goldstone did not lie WRT Hamas using thousands of Palestinians as their human shields, a crime that is magnitudes worse than anything the IDF did?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

18. So you think they have a right to kill Gilad Shalit?

Do you think what happened (and what is continuing to happen) to him is justified?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. "No" and "Mostly", respectively.

I don't think the Palestinians have a right to kill Shalit now that they have him prisoner.

I think that they had every right to capture him, and to keep him prisoner.

My understanding is that not letting the Red Cross have access to him is technically in violation of the Geneva convention, and I think that his captors ought to do so, but given Israel's flagrant disregard for international law and the rules of war I don't think it* is reasonable to demand that its soldiers receive the benefit of it, and given that Israel would almost certainly tear the Gaza strip apart without regard for civilian casualties to get him back if it knew where he was being held, and would have no qualms whatsoever about violating the neutrality of the Red Cross to find out, I can entirely understand why they don't.

I hope Shalit survives, but I care less about his life than I do about any civilian on either side. He is in no way an innocent victim.





*"Your state is doing bad things, so some of your rights are forfeit" is a common line of argument for justifying atrocities, so one has to be *very* careful when resorting to it; I think it's pretty much always unjustifiable when dealing with civilians but often justifiable when dealing with soldiers.

[oberliner]

27. "I think that they had every right to capture him, and to keep him prisoner."

Wow.

Do you feel the same way with respect to American soldiers in Iraq and/or Afghanistan?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. No, I don't.

Because I don't think that those fighting the US or UK in either Afghanistan or Iraq have a legitimate cause.

(The bit about caring more about civilian deaths than the deaths of soldiers still holds, though, because the former didn't have a choice)



Disclaimer: I am out of my skull on codeine; any sentiments in this post may be disclaimed after proper dental work has been performed.

[oberliner]

34. You don't think that those who fought to repel the US/UK invasion of Iraq had a legitimate cause?

Am I misunderstanding your statement or is that, in fact, what you meant?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. No, I think that only governments with a democratic mandate can legitimately use force.

I don't think dictatorships have any right not to be invaded or overthrown (n.b. not "I think it is right to invade dictatorships") unless they command very wide popular support.

My understanding is that before/during the invasion of Iraq, the majority of the populace supported it.

I *don't* think the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do, but I think that purely for pragmatic reasons rather than because it was illegitimate; if there had been a good enough chance of installing a functioning democratic state in place of Saddam then I would have supported it.


Disclaimer: I am out of my skull on codeine; any sentiments in this post may be disclaimed after proper dental work has been performed.

[shaayecanaan]

38. Perhaps this would be a good time to clarify...

what people think the "rules of the game" are/ought to be, as it is something I have been wondering about for quite some time.

There seems to be a belief on the other side of the aisle that any action by Israel to kill or capture Palestinian militiamen is legitimate as long as Israel makes some kind of effort to avoid civilian casualties.

On the other hand, Palestinians are not allowed to kill or capture Israeli soldiers, or apparently (according to a recent article) even clear and cultivate Palestinian land with olive trees in a way that Israeli settlers would find objectionable.

The same logic seems to apply to Lebanon. For some reason, the pro-Israel people seem to think it is beyond the pale for Hezbollah to kill Israeli soldiers whilst they are on Lebanese soil (as was the case in 2006).

I would be genuinely interested to hear from those people as to whether this is indeed their position and on what basis they claim it to be justified.

[shira]

39. I'll answer you, but will you answer my questions too?

There seems to be a belief on the other side of the aisle that any action by Israel to kill or capture Palestinian militiamen is legitimate as long as Israel makes some kind of effort to avoid civilian casualties.

It's not that Israel makes some kind of effort to avoid civilian casualties. Colonel Kemp says Israel is more careful WRT civilians than any other military in the history of warfare. So while not perfect, Israel still does better than other civilized nations WRT civilians.

On the other hand, Palestinians are not allowed to kill or capture Israeli soldiers, or apparently (according to a recent article) even clear and cultivate Palestinian land with olive trees in a way that Israeli settlers would find objectionable.

It's not Palestinians who are not allowed to kill/capture Israeli soldiers but groups recognized as terror organizations by the International community who don't get to do this.

Gush Etzion isn't necessarily Palestinian land. Jimmy Carter recently said this would remain a part of Israel after a peace deal. The 1949 armistice lines are not borders. Here's some history on Gush Etzion...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Gush_Etzion_Massacre.htm

The same logic seems to apply to Lebanon. For some reason, the pro-Israel people seem to think it is beyond the pale for Hezbollah to kill Israeli soldiers whilst they are on Lebanese soil (as was the case in 2006).

Hezbollah is a terror organization and they're occupying Lebanon with the help of Iran and Syria. They have no business acting as legitimate Lebanese resistance.

I have no idea why you don't think "the rules of the game" apply to Hezbollah - why you don't see them as an illegal, extremely Rightwing theocratic occupying force imposed on the people of Lebanon by Syria and Iran. Apparently, they killed Hariri. What's with you and Alamuti Lotus being "cool" with Hezbollah, not minding how they re-arm, attempt to push their extreme religious views on others, use the Lebanese population as unwilling shields, etc...? They're basically the antithesis of all that is considered Liberal. I find your attitude WRT Hezbollah questionable considering your views on Kahanist and Likudnik extremists.

[shaayecanaan]

40. I must confess I was probably more interested in Oberliner's views

as I tend to find that he/she has a great deal more intellectual honesty than you. For example, take this patently stupid statement:-

"Hezbollah is a terror organization and they're occupying Lebanon"

Given that the Lebanese Shia have been living in Lebanon continuously for the last 1000 years I am not sure on what basis you assert they are foreign occupiers, unless this is simply your habit of throwing words around without regard for their meaning.

But in any event there is nothing illegal or immoral about militias (or terrorists, depending on your POV) defending territory against an invading force. The American revolution was largely fought by militias against the British Army. The Philippine American war was fought by militias against the invading US Army.

Indeed the US Constitution provides as follows:-

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I dare say that the leaders of Hezbollah would probably agree with America's founding fathers that a well-regulated militia is indeed necessary for the security of a free state.

[shira]

41. I never claimed Hezbollah were foreign occupiers, but they are fully backed by Iran & Syria...

...and represent Iranian/Syrian interests (via their military, intimidation) that would take Lebanon back to medieval times, away from modernism/secularism and progress. To claim they are there to protect Lebanon from Israel is just typical mideast "look over there" Rightwing propaganda to keep the heat off their oppressive policies. Hezbollah is hardly better than Internationally recognized terror organizations like Al Qaeda or Hamas, who also rule by fear and the gun, sharia law....

They represent the antithesis of everything that is liberal.

I just can't understand why you have little problem with them. They're at least 10x worse than the most repulsive batshit crazy Rightwingers Israel can produce. When thugs like that are in charge, limit the basic freedoms of everyone, rule by fear, and represent the interests of other nations THAT is occupation. And apparently, you're for all that.

Help me understand such a mindset.

[arcticken]

42. Some posters obviously like and support

"the antithesis of everything that is liberal."

Not sure what they are doing here, but there you have it.

[shaayecanaan]

44. The Red Army represented the antithesis of everything liberal...

but my guess is that when they turned up on the doorstep of Auschwitz the inhabitants there were still happy to see them.

It is not that Hezbollah and Iran are benevolent, rather Israel and its main proxy in Lebanon - the South Lebanon Army - were worse. By any objective measure, they were much worse.

[shira]

45. Do you believe that with Hezbollah gone, Israel would invade Lebanon again...

...occupy, try to take territory, etc.?

And if so, why?

I would think you'd want Hezbollah gone so that Lebanon would be more progressive, modern, secular, etc.... rather than live in fear and backwardness under Iranian/Syrian rule.

[shaayecanaan]

46. I certainly think that there's a good chance of it...

I think that the main difference, from Israel's POV, between the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon is that Israel pays a price for occupying the latter but not the former.

Israel built settlements in the Sinai, in Gaza, the West Bank and in the Golan Heights.

Of all the territories that Israel invaded, the only land in which they did not build settlements was Lebanon. Not even the most ardent Zionist was interested in setting up shop there, mainly because if they did they knew there was a good chance that they would die.

When Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon one soldier wrote on his tank "When I die, I am going to heaven, because I have already been to hell." Probably a lot of Israeli soldiers felt like him, and felt a great reluctance to go back there. From the point of view of Lebanon that is undoubtedly a good thing.

It is not so much as wanting to live under Syrian/Hezbollah "rule". Indeed in 2008 when Hezbollah tried to encroach on Druze territory the Druze militias responded stoutly and Hezbollah was forced back to Beirut. Outside of Hezbollah's own territory/community they have absolutely no influence. You can go to nightclubs in west Beirut with barely a care in the world.

It is more so a recognition that Lebanon's militias, not just Hezbollah, are the main reason that it remains a free state today.

[shira]

47. Syria/Hezbollah murdered Hariri and still rule his son, Jumblatt, etc... by fear and intimidation.

They incited the war against Israel in 2006 that led to disaster for many Lebanese.

So I'm not sure why you say they have little to no influence and that Lebanon is "free" today. Do you have the freedom to sharply criticize Hezbollah in any of their major media outlets like Haaretz can do WRT its leaders?

You say there's a good chance without Hezbollah, Israel would invade. WHY? Do you think they invaded 30 years ago for no reason other than to steal land? The PLO had nothing to do with that?

[shaayecanaan]

48. Probably...

Do you have the freedom to sharply criticize Hezbollah in any of their major media outlets like Haaretz can do WRT its leaders?

Im not sure what this question is asking. Hezbollah only has one major media outlet, al-Manar. I doubt that al-Manar would air sharp criticism of Hezbollah, in the same way that Arutz Sheva would not publish criticism of the settler movement.

However, if you mean Lebanese media in general, then major newspapers in Lebanon do criticise Hezbollah, and other militias, quite strongly. Indeed some magazines such as al-Jaras are quite strident in their criticism of Hezbollah.

WHY? Do you think they invaded 30 years ago for no reason other than to steal land?

Well, they stole land in the Sinai, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Gaza. Why do you think Lebanon is so near and dear to Israel\'s heart that they would not steal land there if they could?

[LeftishBrit]

28. Do you feel the same about any soldier - that they are 'not innocent victims'?

I can see that killing an enemy soldier *in battle* could be seen as self-defence; but surely keeping and ill-treating or killing a prisoner is in a different category. Aren't there conventions and codes of war which apply to that?

Does it make no difference to your views that military service is compulsory in Israel?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. In one of the two ways.

I don't think that attacking soldiers is in general legitimate unless you have a legitimate cassus beli against the army they serve in.

I do think that even in an entirely just war the death of civilians is a greater tragedy than the death of soldiers, because the former got a choice.

There may well be conventions of war dealing with capturing enemy soldiers outside of active combat; as I said above, I don't think the IDF or those who choose to join it can sensibly claim the protections of conventions of war. That is emphatically *not* to say that they *shouldn't* be granted them, just that it's legitimate not to do so.

I don't think conscription makes a difference - I think that there is a moral duty for Israelis to refuse conscription, even if it means leaving the country or going to jail. The alternative is to allow a government to gain extra protections for its soldiers by introducing conscription.



Disclaimer: I am out of my skull on codeine; any sentiments in this post may be disclaimed after proper dental work has been performed.

[LeftishBrit]

16. Random violence against civilians is not 'resistance'.