Hamas wins

[PennSkinsFan]

Wow. Hamas has won a clear majority in Palestiania elections. This spells trouble for Israel. Unfortunately, we are again put in a position of hypocrisy to its fullest by not recognizing the new government. Kind fo a ctach 22 for the US. You don't want to recognize a militant organization leading a country, but int he next breath, we preach in Iraq, and all over the world, especially to third world countries that Democracy must ring loud and the people should rule. Well, here the poeple of the Palestinan territories freely elected in deomcratic elections, Hamas. Interesting to see how this will play out.

[thickskin]

Wow. Hamas has won a clear majority in Palestiania elections. This spells trouble for Israel. Unfortunately, we are again put in a position of hypocrisy to its fullest by not recognizing the new government. Kind fo a ctach 22 for the US. You don't want to recognize a militant organization leading a country, but int he next breath, we preach in Iraq, and all over the world, especially to third world countries that Democracy must ring loud and the people should rule. Well, here the poeple of the Palestinan territories freely elected in deomcratic elections, Hamas. Interesting to see how this will play out.

well, it's only a catch22 bc you're a reasonable minded person. we elected bush, they elected hamas, both of whom clearly want a holy war. why not trump up another casus belli and fight it out till there's one less religion in the world?

[Spence]

Hamas had all the momentum and its people were VERY motivated to go out and vote. Most Fatah supporters were not excited about their party, but merely voting against Hamas. It's bad news for peace [and thus the planet] in the short term. However, it could be helpful in the long run, especially if Fatah goes into opposition and starts to rebuild a party exhausted by corruption. Nobody believes in Fatah anymore. The party is too corrupt and failed completely to deliver law and order in the territories.

Now it is incumbent upon Hamas to form a government. Let's see how they do. It's a lot easier to heckle from the cheap seats than to play on the field. The electorate will be looking for Hamas to provide some security and basic services and keep Israeli soldiers out of their neighborhoods. If Hamas can do those things, they deserve government. If they cannot, however, their turn in power will be mercifully brief. Islamic radicals have long promised that they can do a better job running government than the established elites like Fatah. Since the established elites are so rotten, this vow was easy to believe. Now it is put to the test.

Most Palestinians voted for Hamas because they think that party will do a better job of delivering order and services, not because they think suicide bombings in Israeli shopping malls are the top priority. Hamas will be judged, ultimately, by the Palestinian people, on its ability to do the things voters normally want their government to do.

[CNYSkinFan]

This is just bad, because with Sharon's failing health a conservative Prime Minister could be selected to "combat" the Palistinian election. If Netanyahu gets in again it could be very very bad for the middle east.

[akhhorus]

I think we wanted Hamas to win. We openly gave millions to Fatah, which is much like Al Queda donating money to one US political party and we pressured Israel to open East Jerusalem for voting, and thats big Hamas territory. We wanted this result. The question is "why".

[fent]

they're throwing stones already!! literally...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/26/D8FCE9EO7.html

[Ibleedburgundy]

Nobody has asked the obvious question yet. Will the USA and the EU negotiate with Hamas now that they are a democratically-elected terrorist organization?

[fent]

Nobody has asked the obvious question yet. Will the USA and the EU negotiate with Hamas now that they are a democratically-elected terrorist organization?

actually...that question was asked in the initial post...

Originally Posted by PennSkinsFan
Wow. Hamas has won a clear majority in Palestiania elections. This spells trouble for Israel. Unfortunately, we are again put in a position of hypocrisy to its fullest by not recognizing the new government. Kind fo a ctach 22 for the US. You don't want to recognize a militant organization leading a country, but int he next breath, we preach in Iraq, and all over the world, especially to third world countries that Democracy must ring loud and the people should rule. Well, here the poeple of the Palestinan territories freely elected in deomcratic elections, Hamas. Interesting to see how this will play out.

[BurgundyNGold]

Now it is incumbent upon Hamas to form a government. Let's see how they do. It's a lot easier to heckle from the cheap seats than to play on the field. The electorate will be looking for Hamas to provide some security and basic services and keep Israeli soldiers out of their neighborhoods. If Hamas can do those things, they deserve government. If they cannot, however, their turn in power will be mercifully brief. Islamic radicals have long promised that they can do a better job running government than the established elites like Fatah. Since the established elites are so rotten, this vow was easy to believe. Now it is put to the test.
This is precisley what I think. With its newfound political legitimacy, Hamas has not only the opportunity but the responsibility to rule as an actual government. This ups the ante. No more car bombs if things don't go their way.

For this reason, along with the ones that PSF spelled out, I think the US must recognize the new government and help usher them into office. This is a new slate for them. If they continue their past thuggery, then the US can threaten the stick. However, this is an amazing carrot opportunity. The US can sit down with them and try to bring them into the fold for the peace plan. Doing so sends a loud and clear message to terrorists around the world (read Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Iraqi insurgency) that legitimate participation in the political process will be met with a seat at the table, while terrorism and the like will never result in legitimacy -- only isolation, misery and perhaps death.

[Spence]

Poor showing at the Bush presser today. The President reiterated his refusal to talk to Hamas, which was expected. The problem was that none of these well-paid White House correspondents asked any of the obvious follow-up questions. Such as:

1] If we won't talk to the new government of the Palestinian Authority, who do we talk to?

2] Does this mean your administration will support a unilateral settlement imposed by the Israeli government?

3] If the U.S. government maintains relations with governments that do not recognize Israel's right to exist [Saudi Arabia] and governments known to sponsor terror groups [Syria], then why do you refuse to talk to Hamas?

The Bush administration's policy of not talking to Hamas is certainly defensible, but not talking to the government isn't really having a policy. It's more like refusing to have a policy. And in this case, it is defensible. But someone should have asked the obvious follow-up questions. Answers might have been rather interesting and I'm sure Mr Bush didn't want to give those answers. Lucky for him, the White House reporters decided to take the day off -- even the ones who showed up for work.

[Keino]

I don't really understand the dilemna. The People spoke and Hamas won. Why are we now placing conditions on whether on not we recognize them as a legitmiate political party?

Democracy is the about the will of the people, not the will of the US-Israel Partnership.

[akhhorus]

Nobody has asked the obvious question yet. Will the USA and the EU negotiate with Hamas now that they are a democratically-elected terrorist organization?

This might be the exact point of throwing Fatah under the bus.

[BurgundyNGold]

Poor showing at the Bush presser today. The President reiterated his refusal to talk to Hamas, which was expected. The problem was that none of these well-paid White House correspondents asked any of the obvious follow-up questions. Such as:

1] If we won't talk to the new government of the Palestinian Authority, who do we talk to?

2] Does this mean your administration will support a unilateral settlement imposed by the Israeli government?

3] If the U.S. government maintains relations with governments that do not recognize Israel's right to exist [Saudi Arabia] and governments known to sponsor terror groups [Syria], then why do you refuse to talk to Hamas?

The Bush administration's policy of not talking to Hamas is certainly defensible, but not talking to the government isn't really having a policy. It's more like refusing to have a policy. And in this case, it is defensible. But someone should have asked the obvious follow-up questions. Answers might have been rather interesting and I'm sure Mr Bush didn't want to give those answers. Lucky for him, the White House reporters decided to take the day off -- even the ones who showed up for work.
I don't see the defensibility of this "policy" Spence. Hamas didn't take power in a coup, they were democratically elected. What kind of message does that send tothe world that the self proclaimed beacon of democracy only supports democracy when it agrees with who got elected? That's not defensible in the least.

[Keino]

I don't see the defensibility of this "policy" Spence. Hamas didn't take power in a coup, they were democratically elected. What kind of message does that send tothe world that the self proclaimed beacon of democracy only supports democracy when it agrees with who got elected? That's not defensible in the least.

DING DING DING!!!!!

Hypocrisy is not Defensible. Period.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Poor showing at the Bush presser today. The President reiterated his refusal to talk to Hamas, which was expected. The problem was that none of these well-paid White House correspondents asked any of the obvious follow-up questions. Such as:

1] If we won't talk to the new government of the Palestinian Authority, who do we talk to?

2] Does this mean your administration will support a unilateral settlement imposed by the Israeli government?

3] If the U.S. government maintains relations with governments that do not recognize Israel's right to exist [Saudi Arabia] and governments known to sponsor terror groups [Syria], then why do you refuse to talk to Hamas?

The Bush administration's policy of not talking to Hamas is certainly defensible, but not talking to the government isn't really having a policy. It's more like refusing to have a policy. And in this case, it is defensible. But someone should have asked the obvious follow-up questions. Answers might have been rather interesting and I'm sure Mr Bush didn't want to give those answers. Lucky for him, the White House reporters decided to take the day off -- even the ones who showed up for work.


Even if they did ask those questions do you think they would have gotten a substantive answer?

[PennSkinsFan]

I don't really understand the dilemna. The People spoke and Hamas won. Why are we now placing conditions on whether on not we recognize them as a legitmiate political party?

Democracy is the about the will of the people, not the will of the US-Israel Partnership.

I agree. I remember reading in history of the words 'terrorist' as a frequent definition of John Hancock and Geroge Washington in England. The colonists were labeled rebel terrorist, where we saw them as freedom fighters. Even the action were similar for different times. Today they use bombings, yesteryear in colonial America we used hide and shoot tactics, abhorred and seen as uncivilized in Europe.

Now, in no way would i ever see Hamas like the colonists of the mid to late 1700's, but I can see how people in the occupied territories may draw comparisons.

The bottom line is, after the Bush administration gave up on the WMD argument for Iraq and eventually realize the Al Queda/Iraq link was a fabrication as well, they laid on the cards on demopcracy and that democracy must ring through the Middle East and they even put a plan together to bring democracy throughout the middle east. Our model of democracy is the people, free elections, fair candidates, let the people decide. Palestians have decided. Just because we do not like the results doe snot make it less Democratic.

[BurgundyNGold]

I agree. I remember reading in history of the words 'terrorist' as a frequent definition of John Hancock and Geroge Washington in England. The colonists were labeled rebel terrorist, where we saw them as freedom fighters. Even the action were similar for different times. Today they use bombings, yesteryear in colonial America we used hide and shoot tactics, abhorred and seen as uncivilized in Europe.

Now, in no way would i ever see Hamas like the colonists of the mid to late 1700's, but I can see how people in the occupied territories may draw comparisons.

The bottom line is, after the Bush administration gave up on the WMD argument for Iraq and eventually realize the Al Queda/Iraq link was a fabrication as well, they laid on the cards on demopcracy and that democracy must ring through the Middle East and they even put a plan together to bring democracy throughout the middle east. Our model of democracy is the people, free elections, fair candidates, let the people decide. Palestians have decided. Just because we do not like the results doe snot make it less Democratic.
That term "terrorist" as such does not directly apply to the colonial experience against the British. John Hancock & Co. never indisciminately slaughtered English women and children. They saved that for the Native Americans.

The "terrorist" label was more a propoganda tag in England because the guerilla tactics employed by the colonists weren't particularly "sporting". The British were so appauled at the American tactics because they and the other contintental powers were used to the agreed upon rules of engangement. The British were used to marching in straight lines unfettered into and out of an orderly "battle" in which ranks of men from two opposing armies would alternate firing their muskets and reloading, stepping towards each other as they did. When they ran out of rounds, out came the bayonets. Since the colonists largely chose to avoid such direct conflict, choosing to attack the flanks of British columns instead, they were viewed by the British more as cowards than as "terrorists" in the modern vernacular.

[Spence]

I don't see the defensibility of this "policy" Spence. Hamas didn't take power in a coup, they were democratically elected. What kind of message does that send tothe world that the self proclaimed beacon of democracy only supports democracy when it agrees with who got elected? That's not defensible in the least.It is defensible because Hamas is loudly committed to the violent destruction of Israel and has waged a murderous campaign of suicide bombings against Israel for many years. Should the U.S. government talk to a government run by men who think sending a suicide bomber into a Sbarro's pizza to murder dozens of Israeli teenagers is a swell idea? I don't think that's such an easy question to answer. Hamas has been to Israel what Al Qaeda is to the United States. If the people of Saudi Arabia voted for an Al Qaeda government, I wouldn't feel compelled to talk to them. I might communicate with them in another, less vocal, manner.

[Spence]

Even if they did ask those questions do you think they would have gotten a substantive answer?We'll never know, but a good journalist does not ask questions based on his or her estimation of what answer will be forthcoming. The right questions must be asked because that's the job of a journalist. If you're not going to ask the right questions you might as well send a stenographer to the White House.

[BurgundyNGold]

It is defensible because Hamas is loudly committed to the violent destruction of Israel and has waged a murderous campaign of suicide bombings against Israel for many years. Should the U.S. government talk to a government run by men who think sending a suicide bomber into a Sbarro's pizza to murder dozens of Israeli teenagers is a swell idea? I don't think that's such an easy question to answer. Hamas has been to Israel what Al Qaeda is to the United States. If the people of Saudi Arabia voted for an Al Qaeda government, I wouldn't feel compelled to talk to them. I might communicate with them in another, less vocal, manner.
They are the democratically elected leaders of Palestine now. If ever Hamas were to clean up their act, it would be now. You have to at least give them the chance to hang themselves in their new capacity as statesmen as well. If they blow it, you add Palestine to the Axis of Evil. ;)

[Keino]

It is defensible because Hamas is loudly committed to the violent destruction of Israel and has waged a murderous campaign of suicide bombings against Israel for many years. Should the U.S. government talk to a government run by men who think sending a suicide bomber into a Sbarro's pizza to murder dozens of Israeli teenagers is a swell idea? I don't think that's such an easy question to answer. Hamas has been to Israel what Al Qaeda is to the United States. If the people of Saudi Arabia voted for an Al Qaeda government, I wouldn't feel compelled to talk to them. I might communicate with them in another, less vocal, manner.

The US Govt. has no problems, recognizing, supporting and lying in bed with Nations who blow-up Airliners, and those who think that rather than sending a suicide bomber to wreck havoc, sending a missle into a building full of "Hamas Leaders" along with their children and families is OK. It is ridiculous for Palenstinians or Israelis to try and claim the moral high ground in their dispute. Would you be so inclined to recognize a government that Kicked you out of your home and siezed your resources, creating a situation where millions were left not only homeless, but country-less as well?

To put Hamas on the level of al-qaeda overlooks what those people have had to endure since 1948.

As for your comments about the people of Saudi Arabia, well they don't have that option first of all, but secondly, Whether you would talk to them or not has very little to do with anything. We know George W. Bush (Speculation based on prior events for those of you on the Right ready to pounce on my lack of a news source) would talk to them, and that my friend is Hypocrisy.

When did it become a diplomatic requirement, internationally to recognize and encourage normalized relations with Israel?

[Spence]

They are the democratically elected leaders of Palestine now. If ever Hamas were to clean up their act, it would be now. You have to at least give them the chance to hang themselves in their new capacity as statesmen as well. If they blow it, you add Palestine to the Axis of Evil. ;)I'm perfectly willing to give Hamas a chance to clean up its act. So is the Bush admin, I reckon. But I'd like to see something first. As you wrote yesterday, this hasn't happened in a vacuum. Hamas has a long history to live down. Not sending any more suicide bombers to murder Jewish civilians would be a nice start. No peace deal is possible without Israeli participation and approval and if I was El Presidente, there is no way I could tell the Israelis to negotiate with people who, every single day, shout from the rooftops their intention to burn the state of Israel into the sea. Bush won't insist either and good on him for it. Even if Bush did insist, which he never would, there would be a full-blown rebellion on Capitol Hill. Not just Democrats, but Republicans, too. Damn near every single one of them [maybe not Jim Moran] would march hand in hand to the Israeli embassy in Washington to demonstrate their loyalty.

If anyone told the U.S. to negotiate with a government of unrepentant murderers of American citizens, we'd tell them to get stuffed. We'd demand, at the least, a big change in the behavior of the government before we sat down for a chat. We cannot urge the Israelis to do something we would not do ourselves.

I want Israel to negotiate with Hamas -- after Hamas has demonstrated its willingness to exist peacefully, though not happily, on the same planet as Israel.

[Spence]

The US Govt. has no problems, recognizing, supporting and lying in bed with Nations who blow-up Airliners, and those who think that rather than sending a suicide bomber to wreck havoc, sending a missle into a building full of "Hamas Leaders" along with their children and families is OK. It is ridiculous for Palenstinians or Israelis to try and claim the moral high ground in their dispute. Would you be so inclined to recognize a government that Kicked you out of your home and siezed your resources, creating a situation where millions were left not only homeless, but country-less as well?

To put Hamas on the level of al-qaeda overlooks what those people have had to endure since 1948.Sorry, Sean. I just don't agree that Hamas and Israel are morally equivalent. I don't agree at all. There are many, many reasons why this is true, but just for starters, the Israelis recognize the right of Palestinians to exist in an independent state. Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist at all -- under any circumstances.

As for your comments about the people of Saudi Arabia, well they don't have that option first of all, but secondly, Whether you would talk to them or not has very little to do with anything. We know George W. Bush (Speculation based on prior events for those of you on the Right ready to pounce on my lack of a news source) would talk to them, and that my friend is Hypocrisy.You know me, Sean -- I've never based my decisons on what I thought George W. Bush might do. You've got me confused with a Republican Congressman. :)

When did it become a diplomatic requirement, internationally to recognize and encourage normalized relations with Israel?No peace in the Middle East is possible until the Israel/Palestine question is settled and the Israelis will not negotiate with people who get a thrill every time they see the severed body parts of Jews flying through the air. As long as the mass murder of Israeli Jews is an official policy of Hamas, they are not a suitable partner for negotiation. Hamas wants to turn Israel into an abattoir. If someone wanted to do that to my country, I wouldn't negotiate with them, I'd shoot them in the head until I ran out of bullets.

[BurgundyNGold]

I'm perfectly willing to give Hamas a chance to clean up its act. So is the Bush admin, I reckon. But I'd like to see something first. As you wrote yesterday, this hasn't happened in a vacuum. Hamas has a long history to live down. Not sending any more suicide bombers to murder Jewish civilians would be a nice start.
On this we can agree. It just seems to me that unless there is a behind the scenes dialog expressing as much to the new Palestinian government, the public statements really only serve to poison the well before Hamas has even gone to fetch the bucket. That's kneejerk diplomacy at best, disaterous policy at worst and would be par for the course with this crowd.

No peace deal is possible without Israeli participation and approval and if I was El Presidente, there is no way I could tell the Israelis to negotiate with people who, every single day, shout from the rooftops their intention to burn the state of Israel into the sea. Bush won't insist either and good on him for it. Even if Bush did insist, which he never would, there would be a full-blown rebellion on Capitol Hill. Not just Democrats, but Republicans, too. Damn near every single one of them [maybe not Jim Moran] would march hand in hand to the Israeli embassy in Washington to demonstrate their loyalty.
That, in and of itself, is pretty sad. How is the US ever supposed to be respected as a somewhat impartial player in this if we keep fellating Israel at every turn? Don't get me wrong, they're our ally but there has to be some US credibility on this if we are to participate in the peace process. If not, hand it off to Europe so they can employ their ample expertise in appeasement.

If anyone told the U.S. to negotiate with a government of unrepentant murderers of American citizens, we'd tell them to get stuffed. We'd demand, at the least, a big change in the behavior of the government before we sat down for a chat. We cannot urge the Israelis to do something we would not do ourselves.
But that's not happening. We're just refusing to recognize them. That spells Hypocrisy with a capital "H" to the rest of the world -- especially any aspiring or fledgeling Middle Eastern democracies.

I want Israel to negotiate with Hamas -- after Hamas has demonstrated its willingness to exist peacefully, though not happily, on the same planet as Israel.
I'm sure that will be a prominant plank in Netanyahu's platform, just after "Send the tanks into Gaza". :rolleyes: We need to usher this process along or the "Roadmap" is going to lead to the outhouse.

[Spence]

On this we can agree. It just seems to me that unless there is a behind the scenes dialog expressing as much to the new Palestinian government, the public statements really only serve to poison the well before Hamas has even gone to fetch the bucket. That's kneejerk diplomacy at best, disaterous policy at worst and would be par for the course with this crowd.I've no doubt Hamas has already been told by the Americans what they need to do to make themselves an acceptable partner for negotiations. Of course, they don't really need to hear it, they already know. It's pretty simple: Stop murdering Israelis and stop saying that Israel must be destroyed.

That, in and of itself, is pretty sad. How is the US ever supposed to be respected as a somewhat impartial player in this if we keep fellating Israel at every turn? Don't get me wrong, they're our ally but there has to be some US credibility on this if we are to participate in the peace process. If not, hand it off to Europe so they can employ their ample expertise in appeasement.It's not fellating Israel to agree that they have the right to refuse to negotiate with people committed to murdering their citizens and wiping their country off the map. Israel has an obligation to negotiate in good faith with any Palestinian partner willing to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist within secure borders. Hamas, as you know, doesn't come close to that. How can you negotiate with people who are plotting to murder you the moment you show them your back? It's not possible. Hamas must state and then demonstrate its willingness to live in peace with Israel.


We're just refusing to recognize them. That spells Hypocrisy with a capital "H" to the rest of the world -- especially any aspiring or fledgeling Middle Eastern democracies.All I can reply to that is to shrug indifferently. If the rest of the world does not like the fact that we won't talk to Hamas, the rest of the world can get stuffed. It won't be like that, though. Almost no one reputable will talk to Hamas. The Europeans won't. The Japanese won't. Hamas will be left with the Chinese and the Sudanese.

I'm sure that will be a prominant plank in Netanyahu's platform, just after "Send the tanks into Gaza". :rolleyes: We need to usher this process along or the "Roadmap" is going to lead to the outhouse.BNG, you're writing as if Hamas has been somehow left out of the peace process. That hasn't happened. Hamas wants no part of the peace process. Hamas has stated repeatedly that the peace process is a betrayal of the rights of the Palestinian people to occupy the entire area of Israel and the West Bank. We're not talking about a group that has been unfairly shut out of negotiations. We're talking about a group whose method of negotiating has been to send a 15-year-old girl with 20 pounds of explosives strapped to her waist into an Israeli shopping mall.

The U.S. and Israel will negotiate with any Palestinian partner willing to talk peace. Hamas has never been willing to talk peace. Never. And they're quite proud of it. If they change their tune, the situation changes. But not until then.

[BurgundyNGold]

I've no doubt Hamas has already been told by the Americans what they need to do to make themselves an acceptable partner for negotiations. Of course, they don't really need to hear it, they already know. It's pretty simple: Stop murdering Israelis and stop saying that Israel must be destroyed.

It's not fellating Israel to agree that they have the right to refuse to negotiate with people committed to murdering their citizens and wiping their country off the map. Israel has an obligation to negotiate in good faith with any Palestinian partner willing to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist within secure borders. Hamas, as you know, doesn't come close to that. How can you negotiate with people who are plotting to murder you the moment you show them your back? It's not possible. Hamas must state and then demonstrate its willingness to live in peace with Israel.

All I can reply to that is to shrug indifferently. If the rest of the world does not like the fact that we won't talk to Hamas, the rest of the world can get stuffed. It won't be like that, though. Almost no one reputable will talk to Hamas. The Europeans won't. The Japanese won't. Hamas will be left with the Chinese and the Sudanese.

BNG, you're writing as if Hamas has been somehow left out of the peace process. That hasn't happened. Hamas wants no part of the peace process. Hamas has stated repeatedly that the peace process is a betrayal of the rights of the Palestinian people to occupy the entire area of Israel and the West Bank. We're not talking about a group that has been unfairly shut out of negotiations. We're talking about a group whose method of negotiating has been to send a 15-year-old girl with 20 pounds of explosives strapped to her waist into an Israeli shopping mall.

The U.S. and Israel will negotiate with any Palestinian partner willing to talk peace. Hamas has never been willing to talk peace. Never. And they're quite proud of it. If they change their tune, the situation changes. But not until then.
I'm not saying that Hamas has not been a bunch of murdering animals. I'm just saying that they have been duly and properly elected into office to represent the Palestinian people who were tired of the same of rhetoric by the old guard. Obviously Hamas must change its tone and its tactics. If they do not then they should not be granted any legitimacy. However, as a process of international civility, the US should at least acknolwedge that this group exists and is the legitmate face of the Palestinian people for the time being. Then next move would be on Hamas to reciprocate with a statement of the goals of their mandate. That's how dialogue begins, not by dismissing the election and the victors out of hand.

There is an opportunity to take Hamas out of the militant column and to put them into the political column. Let's see if they want to take it. I don't know how that involves capitulating to Israel's outrage that Hamas got elected. Such rhetoric will not change the situation.

[RedskinsDave]

I'm not saying that Hamas has not been a bunch of murdering animals. I'm just saying that they have been duly and properly elected into office to represent the Palestinian people who were tired of the same of rhetoric by the old guard. Obviously Hamas must change its tone and its tactics. If they do not then they should not be granted any legitimacy. However, as a process of international civility, the US should at least acknolwedge that this group exists and is the legitmate face of the Palestinian people for the time being. Then next move would be on Hamas to reciprocate with a statement of the goals of their mandate. That's how dialogue begins, not by dismissing the election and the victors out of hand.

There is an opportunity to take Hamas out of the militant column and to put them into the political column. Let's see if they want to take it. I don't know how that involves capitulating to Israel's outrage that Hamas got elected. Such rhetoric will not change the situation.

I think historically speaking the onus would have to be on the murderous thugs to change their tune.

[Spence]

I think historically speaking the onus would have to be on the murderous thugs to change their tune.Quite so.

[Keino]

Murder is Murder Spence. When you murder you are the moral equivalent of murderers. From where I sit on the Israeli-Palenstine issue, the murders and displacement began in 1948. As I stated, neither side has the moral high ground here.

I cannot believe that you are writing that it is OK to not recognize a duly (and Democratically) elected party simply because they want their land back. Self Determination is at work here, and obviously the Palenstinian people have chosen to support the historical "thugs", much in the same way the US has duly elected the Thugs running this government. Furthermore, we knew going into this that Hamas winning was a very plausible outcome.

How convenient that history is invoked when viewing the actions of Palestinians, but if someone were to invoke history in say a discussion about Americans and Collateral damage, they are now "living in the past" and should move on. Hell, overlooking the role Israel has had in the current state of affairs is another excecise in ignoring history.

What's even more unbelieveable is that BNG and I are in agreement insofar as the recognition of this legitimately elected Political party/Government. If Israel doesn't want to recognize them, fine, but we are speaking about the hypocrisy or lack thereof of our Government.

[RedskinsDave]

Murder is Murder Spence. When you murder you are the moral equivalent of murderers. From where I sit on the Israeli-Palenstine issue, the murders and displacement began in 1948. As I stated, neither side has the moral high ground here.

I cannot believe that you are writing that it is OK to not recognize a duly (and Democratically) elected party simply because they want their land back. Self Determination is at work here, and obviously the Palenstinian people have chosen to support the historical "thugs", much in the same way the US has duly elected the Thugs running this government. Furthermore, we knew going into this that Hamas winning was a very plausible outcome.

How convenient that history is invoked when viewing the actions of Palestinians, but if someone were to invoke history in say a discussion about Americans and Collateral damage, they are now "living in the past" and should move on. Hell, overlooking the role Israel has had in the current state of affairs is another excecise in ignoring history.

What's even more unbelieveable is that BNG and I are in agreement insofar as the recognition of this legitimately elected Political party/Government. If Israel doesn't want to recognize them, fine, but we are speaking about the hypocrisy or lack thereof of our Government.

I don't think anyone is arguing the past. What we have here is a state now "democratically" run by people who's only real platform has ever been "Death to Israel". We can recognize them all we want but that doesn't mean we have to extend the first handshake.

I am not anywhere a fan of Israel or their place in the middle east but I do know when it comes time to sit down and chat with one of the groups, one is more likely to be wearing a non-metallic vest than the other.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think historically speaking the onus would have to be on the murderous thugs to change their tune.
Indeed. But don't freeze them out entirely. You have to leave the door a little bit open. I would think that recognizing that they were duly and democratically elected by the Palestinian people would be a matter of fact, not a matter of preference.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Murder is Murder Spence. When you murder you are the moral equivalent of murderers. From where I sit on the Israeli-Palenstine issue, the murders and displacement began in 1948. As I stated, neither side has the moral high ground here.

I cannot believe that you are writing that it is OK to not recognize a duly (and Democratically) elected party simply because they want their land back. .


I don't think it's because they want their land back. It's because they suicide-bombed innocent civilians.

[RedskinsDave]

I don't think it's because they want their land back. It's because they suicide-bombed innocent civilians.

Someone shoot me now. I am agreeing with Spence AND IBB. :banghead:

[Keino]

I don't think it's because they want their land back. It's because they suicide-bombed innocent civilians.

They suicide bomb because they want their land back. Not saying it's right, but that is the motivation.

Were Ameri-Indians wrong for Scalping innocent, non-combatants? Probably, but you can certainly understand their reasoning.

[Spence]

Murder is Murder Spence. When you murder you are the moral equivalent of murderers. From where I sit on the Israeli-Palenstine issue, the murders and displacement began in 1948. As I stated, neither side has the moral high ground here.If you are defining the two sides as Palestinians and Israelis, you have a point. If you are defining the two sides as Hamas and Israelis, you do not have a point. Or, you do have a point, but it is wrong-headed. Almost everyone on the planet has the moral high ground compared to Hamas. If you think Israel is no better than a group of people who have spent most of their time planning to murder defenseless civilians, then it is no wonder we can't agree on this subject. Hamas murders Jews whenever it can. Israel does not do the same to Palestinians. If Israel wanted to murder every Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza it could have done so long ago. There is no valid comparison between Israel and Hamas. None.

I cannot believe that you are writing that it is OK to not recognize a duly (and Democratically) elected party simply because they want their land back.Two problems here. Firstly, the United States already recognizes the Palestinian Authority. Hamas is now the governing party of the Palestinian Authority. It is not a question of recognizing the PA. That's already been done. The issue is whether or not to engage in peace talks with the government of the PA. The entire subject might be theoretical; Hamas has never displayed any interest in peace talks. Maybe that will change. If so, good.

The second problem is that Hamas does not "want their land back." They want the West Bank, Gaza, and all of Israel to belong to a Palestinian state. The state of Israel would disappear entirely. That's not Palestinians getting their land back. That's Palestinians taking everything. Pretty big difference.

How convenient that history is invoked when viewing the actions of Palestinians, but if someone were to invoke history in say a discussion about Americans and Collateral damage, they are now "living in the past" and should move on. Hell, overlooking the role Israel has had in the current state of affairs is another excecise in ignoring history.I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you are suggesting that the United States and Israel are no better than Hamas then, once again, I think you're completely wrong-headed. Every government makes mistakes. Not every government has made it a policy to murder innocent civilians. Collateral damage is not appropos to this discussion. Hamas does not inflict collateral damage. When they murder innocent civilians, they do it on purpose. It is, in fact, what they are most known for. Speaking of collateral damage and Hamas is like speaking of collateral damage and Auschwitz. There was no collateral damage.

[Keino]

I don't think anyone is arguing the past. What we have here is a state now "democratically" run by people who's only real platform has ever been "Death to Israel". We can recognize them all we want but that doesn't mean we have to extend the first handshake.

I am not anywhere a fan of Israel or their place in the middle east but I do know when it comes time to sit down and chat with one of the groups, one is more likely to be wearing a non-metallic vest than the other.

I think the point I am emphasizing is that they represent the view of the majority of their citizens, hence the democratic charicterization.

[Spence]

I think the point I am emphasizing is that they represent the view of the majority of their citizens, hence the democratic charicterization.There really isn't any evidence that Hamas won because they're better at spilling Jewish blood than most. That is some of their appeal, certainly, but it is likely far bigger issues were Fatah's almost mind-boggling corruption and complete inability to impose law and order in Gaza after the Israelis withdrew.

[Keino]

If you are defining the two sides as Palestinians and Israelis, you have a point. If you are defining the two sides as Hamas and Israelis, you do not have a point. Or, you do have a point, but it is wrong-headed. Almost everyone on the planet has the moral high ground compared to Hamas. If you think Israel is no better than a group of people who have spent most of their time planning to murder defenseless civilians, then it is no wonder we can't agree on this subject. Hamas murders Jews whenever it can. Israel does not do the same to Palestinians. If Israel wanted to murder every Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza it could have done so long ago. There is no valid comparison between Israel and Hamas. None.

Two problems here. Firstly, the United States already recognizes the Palestinian Authority. Hamas is now the governing party of the Palestinian Authority. It is not a question of recognizing the PA. That's already been done. The issue is whether or not to engage in peace talks with the government of the PA. The entire subject might be theoretical; Hamas has never displayed any interest in peace talks. Maybe that will change. If so, good.

The second problem is that Hamas does not "want their land back." They want the West Bank, Gaza, and all of Israel to belong to a Palestinian state. The state of Israel would disappear entirely. That's not Palestinians getting their land back. That's Palestinians taking everything. Pretty big difference.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you are suggesting that the United States and Israel are no better than Hamas then, once again, I think you're completely wrong-headed. Every government makes mistakes. Not every government has made it a policy to murder innocent civilians. Collateral damage is not appropos to this discussion. Hamas does not inflict collateral damage. When they murder innocent civilians, they do it on purpose. It is, in fact, what they are most known for. Speaking of collateral damage and Hamas is like speaking of collateral damage and Auschwitz. There was no collateral damage.


It is your contention then that Israel has never undertaken to murder innocent Palestinians on purpose?

Of course I'm defining Hamas and Palestinian as being one and the same. In the context of this discussion they are exactly that. Remember, Hamas just won the Palestinian general election. I think you should look at a pre-1948 map. I think you will find that there was no Israeli state, so while you may want to say they want everything, from their perspective it was always theirs (excepting of course those lands that Israel siezed from Jordan, Syria etc to create their buffer such as the Golan Heights).

You're right, collateral damage has no bearing on this discussion. I just thought it ironic that the main person who takes exception to my historical characterizations of current events, did exactly that, and so my comment was an underhanded swipe at that.

[Spence]

It is your contention then that Israel has never undertaken to murder innocent Palestinians on purpose?To my knowledge it has never been Israeli policy to murder innocent Palestinians. The Israelis have engaged in numerous assassinations of Palestinian terrorists, such as the members of Black September, but the Israelis do not hunt down innocent and defenseless Palestinians for the purpose of murdering them. They have, on many occasions, killed Palestinians during the course of military or para-military actions. The point of those actions was to kill terrorists, not to murder innocents. The Israelis have been -- and will continue to be -- willing to kill innocents if terrorists are taking refuge among innocents. That might be a morally questionable tactic, but it is hardly the same thing as purposely seeking out those same innocents and exploding their body parts across a public square.

Of course I'm defining Hamas and Palestinian as being one and the same. In the context of this discussion they are exactly that. Remember, Hamas just won the Palestinian general election. I think you should look at a pre-1948 map. I think you will find that there was no Israeli state, so while you may want to say they want everything, from their perspective it was always theirs (excepting of course those lands that Israel siezed from Jordan, Syria etc to create their buffer such as the Golan Heights).The United Nations created an Israeli state and a Palestinian state after World War 2. The Israelis accepted this situation. The Arabs did not and virtually every country in the Arab world went to war with Israel, with the expressed purpose of destroying it. Israel won the war and seized the lands that the U.N. had given to Palestine. If the Arabs had agreed to the U.N. solution as the Israelis did, an independent Palestine would exist today. What happened to the Palestinians was a tragedy, but one they brought upon themselves. They were offered a peaceful compromise. They chose war instead. Turns out they chose unwisely. The Israelis are willing to hand back some of the land they have in return for peace. Hamas rejects that, too. Seems to me like one side keeps talking peace and the other side keeps talking war.

[redskin_rich]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Arafat and his Fatah party terrorists themselves in the past? Weren't they affiliated with the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigade, who have been responsible for a large amount of suicide bombings in recent times?

[Keino]

Seems to me a very slippery slope in the trying to distinguish between governmental paramilitary operations that kill innocent women and children from an organization without an "official" army or a military who does the same. Murder is Murder, and it is very convenient to murder and then claim that it wasn't the intent. It may not be formal policy, but the actions indicate it is policy. Neither Palestinians nor Israelis can claim moral high ground no matter how many different ways you try to distinguish their despicable acts from each other.

Again I ask, would you be so willing to talk peace if you had your land (that portion with the most in the way of natural resources) and access to the city that you regard as holy ground if it was arbitrarily taken from you without compensation? I know for a fact I wouldn't. I would be all about war until I got what's justly mine. In other words, I would be equally uncompromising in my demand for the return of my property, and resources.

[RedskinsDave]

Seems to me a very slippery slope in the trying to distinguish between governmental paramilitary operations that kill innocent women and children from an organization without an "official" army or a military who does the same. Murder is Murder, and it is very convenient to murder and then claim that it wasn't the intent. It may not be formal policy, but the actions indicate it is policy. Neither Palestinians nor Israelis can claim moral high ground no matter how many different ways you try to distinguish their despicable acts from each other.

Again I ask, would you be so willing to talk peace if you had your land (that portion with the most in the way of natural resources) and access to the city that you regard as holy ground if it was arbitrarily taken from you without compensation? I know for a fact I wouldn't. I would be all about war until I got what's justly mine. In other words, I would be equally uncompromising in my demand for the return of my property, and resources.

So basically you're willing to excuse suicide bombers who go into shopping centers with the ONLY intent to take out civilians so long as they claim a purpose? Using such flimsy standards, you can pretty much excuse any act of violence.

[Keino]

So basically you're willing to excuse suicide bombers who go into shopping centers with the ONLY intent to take out civilians so long as they claim a purpose? Using such flimsy standards, you can pretty much excuse any act of violence.


No Im not defending the practice at all. I just think it's not really different from a paramilitary operation that has the same effect as it relates to the loss of innocent life. Murder is Murder no matter what outside factors or conditions are placed on the act. For example one could send a missle into a hospital where one suspected "terrorist" is believed to be hiding out, killing hundreds of innocents and that seems to be justified by the likes of you and Spence because of the alleged intent, yet somehow that's different than someone blowing themself up in a public place with the intent of taking innocents with them. How can the intent of the 2 actions be judged to be different?

[BurgundyNGold]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Arafat and his Fatah party terrorists themselves in the past? Weren't they affiliated with the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigade, who have been responsible for a large amount of suicide bombings in recent times?
Don't come in here stating facts!

Lunatic.

:D

[Paintedbird]

I think we wanted Hamas to win. We openly gave millions to Fatah, which is much like Al Queda donating money to one US political party and we pressured Israel to open East Jerusalem for voting, and thats big Hamas territory. We wanted this result. The question is "why".

As crazy as it sounds (and it sound very crazy), it seems we either did it on purpose or have surpassed ourselves in pure stupidity (which I doubt). I'm pretty much at a loss about the whole thing. To my mind, we've also pushed Iraq toward Iran and away from our side, transparently so, and are now on the verge of kissing off Pakistan. Maybe we're insane...or 1984's really here and de-stabilization's the real objective.

By the way, congrats on your record postings.

[Paintedbird]

To my knowledge it has never been Israeli policy to murder innocent Palestinians. The Israelis have engaged in numerous assassinations of Palestinian terrorists, such as the members of Black September, but the Israelis do not hunt down innocent and defenseless Palestinians for the purpose of murdering them. They have, on many occasions, killed Palestinians during the course of military or para-military actions. The point of those actions was to kill terrorists, not to murder innocents. The Israelis have been -- and will continue to be -- willing to kill innocents if terrorists are taking refuge among innocents. That might be a morally questionable tactic, but it is hardly the same thing as purposely seeking out those same innocents and exploding their body parts across a public square.

The United Nations created an Israeli state and a Palestinian state after World War 2. The Israelis accepted this situation. The Arabs did not and virtually every country in the Arab world went to war with Israel, with the expressed purpose of destroying it. Israel won the war and seized the lands that the U.N. had given to Palestine. If the Arabs had agreed to the U.N. solution as the Israelis did, an independent Palestine would exist today. What happened to the Palestinians was a tragedy, but one they brought upon themselves. They were offered a peaceful compromise. They chose war instead. Turns out they chose unwisely. The Israelis are willing to hand back some of the land they have in return for peace. Hamas rejects that, too. Seems to me like one side keeps talking peace and the other side keeps talking war.

I generally agree with you, Spence, but many Israeli attacks on Palestinians have been highly suspect over the years. There have been allegations of attacks on towns and massacres that have seemed to have foundations in fact and have caused my Jewish friends to shudder. Even the revenge for Munich went beyond the pale and caused the death of innocents, not always by mistake.

[Paintedbird]

That term "terrorist" as such does not directly apply to the colonial experience against the British. John Hancock & Co. never indisciminately slaughtered English women and children. They saved that for the Native Americans.

The "terrorist" label was more a propoganda tag in England because the guerilla tactics employed by the colonists weren't particularly "sporting". The British were so appauled at the American tactics because they and the other contintental powers were used to the agreed upon rules of engangement. The British were used to marching in straight lines unfettered into and out of an orderly "battle" in which ranks of men from two opposing armies would alternate firing their muskets and reloading, stepping towards each other as they did. When they ran out of rounds, out came the bayonets. Since the colonists largely chose to avoid such direct conflict, choosing to attack the flanks of British columns instead, they were viewed by the British more as cowards than as "terrorists" in the modern vernacular.

I'm just adding a note to the above informative comment: Hancock was, in fact, the owner of a fleet of ships and was granted a Letter of Marque as a Privateer to sack British vessels. A Privateer was/is essentially a pirate operating on his own but against the enemies of the country granting the Letter. As privateers, Hancock and his captains were not restrained by the Continental Congress in relation to how they treated women or children on British ships or in relation to any other rules of conduct or engagement. They kept all booty, did exactly as they pleased (committing every atrocity imaginable), reported to no one, and kept their mouths shut, or not.
It is estimated that American Privateers sunk 3,700 British ships during the Revoluntionary War. It is thought by historians that they are the primary reason England capitulated. The extent of their activity and perfidy of their methods are not traditional material for the classroom.
Americans are apparently pretty particular about how they win their wars.

[PennSkinsFan]

I'm on the fence here. There is no doubt that the Palestians were wronged back in 1948. And there is no doubt that they view this as a freedom fight, the fight to recpature land that was there's. The problem with Hamas and other radical groups with me is not struggle for their land, not the fight for the right to get their home sback, but the methods they use to try and acheive those results. I guess i could except it more readily if the attacks were aimed at Israeli military targets and not in malls and resturants. That is the part I have a hard time dealing with. Hamas has always called this a military struggle for freedom, but according tothe geneva Convention, attacking and killing and maiming innocent citizens is a war crime.

Now Isarel has not been innocent in this regard either. Israel has failed to show due restraint often, inflicting heavy civilian casualties, furthering the hatred.

No one will ever convince me that hamas is an innocent freedom fighting force, but then again, Isrel is not guiltless either.

The fact of the matter for me is this...Hamas was democratically, by ballot, by the people, elkected to govern. PERIOD. How can we go around and spout how middle east should be democratically governed, when we refuse to accept democratic outcomes? Kind of like Venzula with Chavez. he was democratically elected, but we can not support that nation because, well, he just does not hold our views. Same goes for the recent elections in Bolivia where a pro-Chavez candidate has won. The problem with this Nation is and has always been the same. We are only for Democracy as long as the poeple of foreign countires elect governments friendly to the USA. And then we wander why the world dislikes the US and believe we are arrogant people.

[Keino]

I'm on the fence here. There is no doubt that the Palestians were wronged back in 1948. And there is no doubt that they view this as a freedom fight, the fight to recpature land that was there's. The problem with Hamas and other radical groups with me is not struggle for their land, not the fight for the right to get their home sback, but the methods they use to try and acheive those results. I guess i could except it more readily if the attacks were aimed at Israeli military targets and not in malls and resturants. That is the part I have a hard time dealing with. Hamas has always called this a military struggle for freedom, but according tothe geneva Convention, attacking and killing and maiming innocent citizens is a war crime.

Now Isarel has not been innocent in this regard either. Israel has failed to show due restraint often, inflicting heavy civilian casualties, furthering the hatred.

No one will ever convince me that hamas is an innocent freedom fighting force, but then again, Isrel is not guiltless either.

The fact of the matter for me is this...Hamas was democratically, by ballot, by the people, elkected to govern. PERIOD. How can we go around and spout how middle east should be democratically governed, when we refuse to accept democratic outcomes? Kind of like Venzula with Chavez. he was democratically elected, but we can not support that nation because, well, he just does not hold our views. Same goes for the recent elections in Bolivia where a pro-Chavez candidate has won. The problem with this Nation is and has always been the same. We are only for Democracy as long as the poeple of foreign countires elect governments friendly to the USA. And then we wander why the world dislikes the US and believe we are arrogant people.

Doesn't seem like and on the fence position to me. I tend to agree with this.

[RedskinsDave]

I'm on the fence here. There is no doubt that the Palestians were wronged back in 1948. And there is no doubt that they view this as a freedom fight, the fight to recpature land that was there's. The problem with Hamas and other radical groups with me is not struggle for their land, not the fight for the right to get their home sback, but the methods they use to try and acheive those results. I guess i could except it more readily if the attacks were aimed at Israeli military targets and not in malls and resturants. That is the part I have a hard time dealing with. Hamas has always called this a military struggle for freedom, but according tothe geneva Convention, attacking and killing and maiming innocent citizens is a war crime.

Now Isarel has not been innocent in this regard either. Israel has failed to show due restraint often, inflicting heavy civilian casualties, furthering the hatred.

No one will ever convince me that hamas is an innocent freedom fighting force, but then again, Isrel is not guiltless either.

The fact of the matter for me is this...Hamas was democratically, by ballot, by the people, elkected to govern. PERIOD. How can we go around and spout how middle east should be democratically governed, when we refuse to accept democratic outcomes? Kind of like Venzula with Chavez. he was democratically elected, but we can not support that nation because, well, he just does not hold our views. Same goes for the recent elections in Bolivia where a pro-Chavez candidate has won. The problem with this Nation is and has always been the same. We are only for Democracy as long as the poeple of foreign countires elect governments friendly to the USA. And then we wander why the world dislikes the US and believe we are arrogant people.

Who said we're not recognizing it? We are choosing not to speak with them because they are a terrorist group. I have not heard anyone say the election was fraudulent. Just because we don't choose to be friendly with the elected folks does not mean we find their election to be illegitimate. Same goes for Venezuela and Bolivia.

[Keino]

Thats just it. They are a legitimate Government, not a terrorist group. They were elected by their people who are well aware of their stances on issues.

By not speaking to them, we are not recognizing the legitimacy of their Government. Would we have spoken to the Palestinian regime if the guys we wanted to win won?

[BurgundyNGold]

The fact of the matter for me is this...Hamas was democratically, by ballot, by the people, elkected to govern. PERIOD. How can we go around and spout how middle east should be democratically governed, when we refuse to accept democratic outcomes? Kind of like Venzula with Chavez. he was democratically elected, but we can not support that nation because, well, he just does not hold our views. Same goes for the recent elections in Bolivia where a pro-Chavez candidate has won. The problem with this Nation is and has always been the same. We are only for Democracy as long as the poeple of foreign countires elect governments friendly to the USA. And then we wander why the world dislikes the US and believe we are arrogant people.
OT, I know, but the thing about Chavez is that he's systematically eliminating the ability of his political foes to compete or even have their voices heard. A popular election may have brought him to office but I doubt that one will be the cause of his exit.

[RedskinsDave]

Thats just it. They are a legitimate Government, not a terrorist group. They were elected by their people who are well aware of their stances on issues.

By not speaking to them, we are not recognizing the legitimacy of their Government. Would we have spoken to the Palestinian regime if the guys we wanted to win won?

No, they are still a terrorist group. Germany could elect Bin Laden and that wouldn't legitimize his existence. How hard is it to understand that this is HAMAS?

[fent]

No, they are still a terrorist group. Germany could elect Bin Laden and that wouldn't legitimize his existence. How hard is it to understand that this is HAMAS?

germany democratically elected a mad man back in the 30s...people talked to him and look what happened there.

[BurgundyNGold]

It looks like the administration's brain cramp has lessened. Bush is now being more concilliatory in his acceptance of the Hamas victory:


President Bush accepted the stunning election results in the Palestinian territories yesterday with a conciliatory tone, saying the landslide victory of the militant Islamic group Hamas was rejection of the "status quo" and a repudiation of the "old guard" that had failed to provide honest government and services.

"There's something healthy about a system that does that," Bush said at a news conference. He reiterated that he will not work with Hamas, formally known at the Islamic Resistance Movement, as a "partner of peace" until it renounces its goal of destroying Israel and disarms its militias. But he left unsaid what a Hamas-led government will mean for the distribution of U.S. financial assistance and for American involvement in trying to reach a peace deal.

...


The term "old guard" in describing Fatah sounds vaguely familiar. ;)

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601009.html)

[Keino]

germany democratically elected a mad man back in the 30s...people talked to him and look what happened there.

Yes and he was allowed to do what he did by his neighboring countries. Does anyone think that the PA would get away with anything remotley hitleresque, given the amount of international scrutiny in the area?

[BurgundyNGold]

germany democratically elected a mad man back in the 30s...people talked to him and look what happened there.
Different situation, Fent. The economic chokehold that Britain and France had on Germany as a result of the WWI war debt fertilized the soil for Hitler's growth. When they knew Hitler was restarting the war machine, they chose to ignore it. When he invaded Poland, they let it slide with a stern warning. Hell, they were willing to give him Checkoslovakia as appeasement. Merely talking to a madman does not lead to bad things. Not standing up to one is.

[Keino]

No, they are still a terrorist group. Germany could elect Bin Laden and that wouldn't legitimize his existence. How hard is it to understand that this is HAMAS?

See Rich's comment about Fatah. Yasser Arafat changed his tune when given the chance. We owe it to the democratic ideal that we expound in the region to extend the same chance.......

[BurgundyNGold]

See Rich's comment about Fatah. Yasser Arafat changed his tune when given the chance. We owe it to the democratic ideal that we expound in the region to extend the same chance.......
That's what I've been saying. Let's give Hamas the same opportunity afforded the PLO to rise to the dignity of their elected responsibility. Let's not just dismiss their mandate out of hand.

[fent]

Yes and he was allowed to do what he did by his neighboring countries. Does anyone think that the PA would get away with anything remotley hitleresque, given the amount of international scrutiny in the area?

we have yet to see how this will play out. however, these guys have made clear that their purpose is to take posession of that land, militantly if need be.

just because you're a democratically elected government doesn't change the fact that these guys have done nothing more than blow people up. these guys have been democratically elected before, just not in as high a number. what do you think is going to change the way they have done things in the past? it's amazing that you're willing to give a bunch of murderous thugs who strap bombs onto teenage kids and walk them into crowded malls a chance to win people over, but you refuse to give your own country's leadership a chance to let new plans/policies unfold before you condemn them.

[Keino]

Im not proofing my comments very well...I meant democratic Ideals that we espouse in my last post.

Yes BNG, we actually see eye to eye on the issue in terms of recognition.

[fent]

Different situation, Fent. The economic chokehold that Britain and France had on Germany as a result of the WWI war debt fertilized the soil for Hitler's growth. When they knew Hitler was restarting the war machine, they chose to ignore it. When he invaded Poland, they let it slide with a stern warning. Hell, they were willing to give him Checkoslovakia as appeasement. Merely talking to a madman does not lead to bad things. Not standing up to one is.

i'm just pointing out that being democratically elected doesn't change a person. they don't suddenly stop blowing people up overnight.

i'm not arguing that we should ignore these guys. but i'm not holding my breath that they'll even be able to form a government, much less be able to sustain said government in a peaceable manner.

[Ibleedburgundy]

we have yet to see how this will play out. however, these guys have made clear that their purpose is to take posession of that land, militantly if need be.

just because you're a democratically elected government doesn't change the fact that these guys have done nothing more than blow people up. these guys have been democratically elected before, just not in as high a number. what do you think is going to change the way they have done things in the past? it's amazing that you're willing to give a bunch of murderous thugs who strap bombs onto teenage kids and walk them into crowded malls a chance to win people over, but you refuse to give your own country's leadership a chance to let new plans/policies unfold before you condemn them.

The standard is juuuuuuuuust a little higher here in the States.

[RedskinsDave]

That's what I've been saying. Let's give Hamas the same opportunity afforded the PLO to rise to the dignity of their elected responsibility. Let's not just dismiss their mandate out of hand.

Again, the onus is on them, not us. They are the ones who sponsor suicide bombings and things of that sort. They can no longer hide behind a government because they are that government. The ball is in their court now but I'm not holding my breath.

[Keino]

we have yet to see how this will play out. however, these guys have made clear that their purpose is to take posession of that land, militantly if need be.

just because you're a democratically elected government doesn't change the fact that these guys have done nothing more than blow people up. these guys have been democratically elected before, just not in as high a number. what do you think is going to change the way they have done things in the past? it's amazing that you're willing to give a bunch of murderous thugs who strap bombs onto teenage kids and walk them into crowded malls a chance to win people over, but you refuse to give your own country's leadership a chance to let new plans/policies unfold before you condemn them.

I think I've been equally critical of the way both Hamas and Israelis handle themselves as it relates to the Israel-Palestine conflict. They are the same, yet, we support one group of murderers over another. Pure Hypocrisy.

My own country's leadership is a joke in it's current state and the chances have given over and over again. They have proven time and time again that they do not care about the issues that the majority of Americans care about IMO.

[fent]

The standard is juuuuuuuuust a little higher here in the States.

why are there different standards IBB? are we better than these people? is that what we're getting at here?

[fent]

I think I've been equally critical of the way both Hamas and Israelis handle themselves as it relates to the Israel-Palestine conflict. They are the same, yet, we support one group of murderers over another. Pure Hypocrisy.

My own country's leadership is a joke in it's current state and the chances have given over and over again. They have proven time and time again that they do not care about the issues that the majority of Americans care about IMO.

and the people of hamas have shown time and time again that they're perfectly willing to blow themselves up amongst innocent people to prove their point.

furthermore, israel and hamas are nowhere near on par. spence laid out perfectly the differences between the two earlier.

[Keino]

and the people of hamas have shown time and time again that they're perfectly willing to blow themselves up amongst innocent people to prove their point.

And yet their people think they are the best representatives for their government.....

If we are promoting Democracy we have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of the election results. I'm glad to see that G Dub softened his stance later in the day yesterday.

[Keino]

and the people of hamas have shown time and time again that they're perfectly willing to blow themselves up amongst innocent people to prove their point.

furthermore, israel and hamas are nowhere near on par. spence laid out perfectly the differences between the two earlier.


And in my retort to Spence, I laid out exactly why I do not distinguish between Murder and Murder.

[RedskinsDave]

I think I've been equally critical of the way both Hamas and Israelis handle themselves as it relates to the Israel-Palestine conflict. They are the same, yet, we support one group of murderers over another. Pure Hypocrisy.

My own country's leadership is a joke in it's current state and the chances have given over and over again. They have proven time and time again that they do not care about the issues that the majority of Americans care about IMO.

They are so not the same. I cannot stand the way Israel was created and also cannot stand the ways they have acted at many times since their creation. But, they are not the same as Hamas and no matter how many times you try to say they are won't make it true. If they were the same as Hamas, they would have nuked half the region.

[BurgundyNGold]

Again, the onus is on them, not us. They are the ones who sponsor suicide bombings and things of that sort. They can no longer hide behind a government because they are that government. The ball is in their court now but I'm not holding my breath.
Precisley. My thing was that the initial response by the administration was obstinate and rigid, leaving very little room for the peace process to resume. Today, Bush did a better job of spelling out their first steps for Hamas. He basically said what I thought he should've said yesterday: Cease "military" operations and recognize Israel's right to exist and we can sit at the same table. If they can't or won't do that, then they are not going to be able to be players in the peace process. If they do, then they should be regarded as legitimate partners in dialog.

[fent]

And in my retort to Spence, I laid out exactly why I do not distinguish between Murder and Murder.

there is a DISTINCT difference between taking out military targets and specifically targetting civilians.

[Ibleedburgundy]

why are there different standards IBB? are we better than these people? is that what we're getting at here?

Those are admirable questions. To be realistic and blunt, we are a more advanced Democracy, we have better educations, and we have a larger pool of educated people to draw from when selecting leadership. To hold them to our standard is unrealistic. Baby Steps.

[fent]

And yet their people think they are the best representatives for their government.....

If we are promoting Democracy we have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of the election results. I'm glad to see that G Dub softened his stance later in the day yesterday.

of course we have to be prepared to deal with it. if you go back i threw that caveat in there as an edit to one of my posts, perhaps you just missed it because of that. however, anyone that's holding their breath for these guys to just up and change should probably find something soft to fall on when they pass out.

[BurgundyNGold]

Those are admirable questions. To be realistic and blunt, we are a more advanced Democracy, we have better educations, and we have a larger pool of educated people to drawal from when selecting leadership. To hold them to our standard is unrealistic. Baby Steps.
:lol1:

You could cut that irony with a knife!

[Keino]

Im ok agreeing to disagree with everyone. Murdering Innocent people in my mind, regardless of stated intent, is the same thing as murdering innocent people. Excuse Israel from culpability all you want. I refuse to.

[Ibleedburgundy]

there is a DISTINCT difference between taking out military targets and specifically targetting civilians.


That's true from our perspective, but to the innocent people who are killed, the result is the same. People give a lot of free passes for collateral deaths. Dukeuch and BNG had that debate the other day.

[Ibleedburgundy]

:lol1:

You could cut that irony with a knife!


give me a second, I already changed the post. sheesh.

[fent]

Those are admirable questions. To be realistic and blunt, we are a more advanced Democracy, we have better educations, and we have a larger pool of educated people to draw from when selecting leadership. To hold them to our standard is unrealistic. Baby Steps.

sounds like the same policy we take with China which allows them to be exempt from international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, etc. regardless of the fact that they're not a fledgling country. if a country wants to be recognized by the world as legitimate, they cannot be allowed to be run by separate standards.

[fent]

Im ok agreeing to disagree with everyone. Murdering Innocent people in my mind, regardless of stated intent, is the same thing as murdering innocent people. Excuse Israel from culpability all you want. I refuse to.

sean, when it comes to war, innocent people are going to die. that's an unfortunate fact of life. when we went into afghanistan, innocent people died. are you arguing, then, that the collateral deaths in afghanistan caused by US military action are on par with the the thousands that were killed when al qaeda attacked us?

these people are at war. one chooses to fight that battle by blowing up blatantly civilian targets. in retaliation, the other takes out military and political targets and in the aftermath, innocents die.

[BurgundyNGold]

sounds like the same policy we take with China which allows them to be exempt from international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, etc. regardless of the fact that they're not a fledgling country. if a country wants to be recognized by the world as legitimate, they cannot be allowed to be run by separate standards.
I agree with this, which is why we should and now have recognized the legitimacy of the Hamas mandate per their election. Democracy is democracy no matter where it happens.

OT, but we let China get away with murder, literally. As for Kyoto, if China and India were not exempt, the US would likely sign on in a heartbeat. It's a bad treaty with gaping holes that's not consistently applied. I don't fault our government for rejecting it, as such.

[Keino]

there is a DISTINCT difference between taking out military targets and specifically targetting civilians.

Sure. Targetting a compound that you know is residential in nature, because some of your "Military/terrorist" targets are there, with full knowledge that the number of innocents far exceeds that of "targets" is creating a distinction that has no difference.

Excuse Israel all you want. I don't. The very foundation of their existance is murder and siezure of resources. I can see how the victims of that murder and siezure don't want to recognize the legitimacy of said Nation/State. That in no way excuses the subsequent murders by the Palestinians of innocent Israelis.

[RedskinsDave]

Sure. Targetting a compound that you know is residential in nature, because some of your "Military/terrorist" targets are there, with full knowledge that the number of innocents far exceeds that of "targets" is creating a distinction that has no difference.

Excuse Israel all you want. I don't. The very foundation of their existance is murder and siezure of resources. I can see how the victims of that murder and siezure don't want to recognize the legitimacy of said Nation/State. That in no way excuses the subsequent murders by the Palestinians of innocent Israelis.

Is this from the "New Muslim" handbook?

[BurgundyNGold]

This topic makes strange bedfellows. Keino and I on the same side of a non-Redskin related topic is peculiar, but Spence, Dave and Fent on the same side has got to be some sort of sign of the apocalypse, lol.

[fent]

This topic makes strange bedfellows. Keino and I on the same side of a non-Redskin related topic is peculiar, but Spence, Dave and Fent on the same side has got to be some sort of sign of the apocalypse, lol.

between this and the alliances formed around the crybaby denver fan, it's a sure sign of the apocalypse ;)

[Ibleedburgundy]

sean, when it comes to war, innocent people are going to die. that's an unfortunate fact of life. when we went into afghanistan, innocent people died. are you arguing, then, that the collateral deaths in afghanistan caused by US military action are on par with the the thousands that were killed when al qaeda attacked us?

these people are at war. one chooses to fight that battle by blowing up blatantly civilian targets. in retaliation, the other takes out military and political targets and in the aftermath, innocents die.

This is why people distinguish between collateral deaths from the war in Afghanistan, and collateral deaths from the war in Iraq (and in turn that is why the Bush administration tries so hard to lump the two wars together). The war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity. The war in Iraq was a choice.

[Spence]

Look, there is no question of the U.S. not recognizing that an elected and legitimate government was voted into power in the PA by the Palestinian people. The U.S. will recognize Hamas as the legitimate governing party of the PA. The only issue is whether or not Hamas is a suitable partner for peace negotiations.

Now, it is my view that you don't belong at peace negotiations if you announce every day that you plan to destroy the people sitting across the table from you. Seems to me the first thing to do before starting the peace negotiations is establish that both parties are willing to live in peace under certain negotiated circumstances. The Israelis have already demonstrated that they are willing to live in peace with an independent Palestinian state in Gaza and parts of the West Bank. Hamas has declared that Israel must be destroyed and that peace negotiations with the Zionist enemy are completely unacceptable.

So, tell me: How do you negotiate peace with people who say there is no alternative to destroying you? If someone can give me a decent answer to that question, I'll change my view. That ain't gonna happen, though, because there is no decent answer to that question.

Hamas willing to accept Israel's existence = negotiations
Hamas unwilling to accept Israel's existence = drop dead, jerkwads

[Ibleedburgundy]

Sure. Targetting a compound that you know is residential in nature, because some of your "Military/terrorist" targets are there, with full knowledge that the number of innocents far exceeds that of "targets" is creating a distinction that has no difference.


To add to this post I have a rhetorical question: How many innocent people is it worth killing to bring one terrorist to justice?

[Keino]

Is this from the "New Muslim" handbook?

I wouldn't know, Im not a Muslim.

You are aware that there are a substantial number of Christian Palestinians are you not? They lost their homes too

[RedskinsDave]

To add to this post I have a rhetorical question: How many innocent people is it worth killing to bring one terrorist to justice?

Rhetorical questions are not answered.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Rhetorical questions are not answered.

You don't say. Answer it if you want.

[RedskinsDave]

I wouldn't know, Im not a Muslim.

You are aware that there are a substantial number of Christian Palestinians are you not? They lost their homes too

Yes and I have no problem supporting Palestinians. I have a problem supporting Hamas, who are terrorists.

[RedskinsDave]

You don't say. Answer it if you want.

It was rhetorical, so I cannot. :rolleyes:

[Spence]

I have no problem supporting Palestinians. I have a problem supporting Hamas, who are terrorists.My view precisely.

[RedskinsDave]

My view precisely.

Then I take it back!! :D

[BurgundyNGold]

My view precisely.
[looks for hail]

[Spence]

My views on the importance of destroying terrorists and not dealing with them are probably fairly similar to Dave's. We're about the same age so we were both young during the Iran hostage crisis, but old enough to be angry about it. While Dave might have viewed the Reagan's administration's dealings with Iran in the 1980s differently than I did [I was red-faced furious with what I regarded as something akin to treason], he probably didn't approve of it. Both of us supported the invasion of Afghanistan. While we differed on the Iraq War originally, I think Dave now regards it as a mistake -- even if he doesn't want to admit it.

The Palestinians have rights. They deseve an independent state within secure borders and the right to determine their own destiny. They are not entitled to destroy Israel or any other country and they do not have the right to strap explosives to their children and send them off to kill other people's children. We're all civilized people here, so I'm pretty surprised these views are so controversial.

[Keino]

This topic makes strange bedfellows. Keino and I on the same side of a non-Redskin related topic is peculiar, but Spence, Dave and Fent on the same side has got to be some sort of sign of the apocalypse, lol.

Im on the 37th floor of my building, and I swear I see a swarm of Locusts.......

[RedskinsDave]

My views on the importance of destroying terrorists and not dealing with them are probably fairly similar to Dave's. We're about the same age so we were both young during the Iran hostage crisis, but old enough to be angry about it. While Dave might have viewed the Reagan's administration's dealings with Iran in the 1980s differently than I did [I was red-faced furious with what I regarded as something akin to treason], he probably didn't approve of it. Both of us supported the invasion of Afghanistan. While we differed on the Iraq War originally, I think Dave now regards it as a mistake -- even if he doesn't want to admit it.

I did not approve of how Iran was dealt with but I did approve of the intention. I have admitted that Iraq has been a mistake but I will never approve crying about it.

The Palestinians have rights. They deseve an independent state within secure borders and the right to determine their own destiny. They are not entitled to destroy Israel or any other country and they do not have the right to strap explosives to their children and send them off to kill other people's children. We're all civilized people here, so I'm pretty surprised these views are so controversial.

Agreed.

[BurgundyNGold]

My views on the importance of destroying terrorists and not dealing with them are probably fairly similar to Dave's. We're about the same age so we were both young during the Iran hostage crisis, but old enough to be angry about it. While Dave might have viewed the Reagan's administration's dealings with Iran in the 1980s differently than I did [I was red-faced furious with what I regarded as something akin to treason], he probably didn't approve of it. Both of us supported the invasion of Afghanistan. While we differed on the Iraq War originally, I think Dave now regards it as a mistake -- even if he doesn't want to admit it.

The Palestinians have rights. They deseve an independent state within secure borders and the right to determine their own destiny. They are not entitled to destroy Israel or any other country and they do not have the right to strap explosives to their children and send them off to kill other people's children. We're all civilized people here, so I'm pretty surprised these views are so controversial.
I don't think my views differ from yours and Dave's too terribly much. Fent, on the other hand, is a madman. :D

In a nutshell, I think both sides have blood on its hands, however I am not willing to concede that either is better than any other. The grieving families of the dead don't distinguish, so I don't think that I should either. Frankly what gets lost in all of this is that the fantasy that some murderous path to peace is even achievable. Such medieval thinking is truly an embarassment to the entire human race in the 21st century. It's time to grow up.

I am concerned that the US loses any credibility in the peace process when it is constantly siding with one of the parties as a matter of policy. When Spence correctly noted that most of Capitol Hill would be up in arms if Bush was concilliatory in his speech regarding the democratic tide that brought Hamas to political power, it just underscored how blatantly biased the US is in all of this. How does anybody think we have any credibility in this whole process?

I also recognize that the PLO were also terrorists, but were allowed to earn their way into legitimacy through measured steps over the years. I see the opportunity to do the same here with Hamas. I think that by engaging Hamas at the table is better than rendering triage in a Sbarro or on the streets of Tel Aviv. There is an opportunity to take one of the largest players in terrorism out of the game. Dismissing such an opportunity out of hand significantly reduces your options and, to me, seems to be rather obtuse.

What was controversial to me in all of this was the initial response by the administration. It smacked more of siding with Israel before they had even bothered to examine the fallout of the election. After 24 hours, they have offered a more concilliatory message to Hamas -- offering them a Roadmap to the Roadmap to Peace, if you will. If this message was expressed yersterday, I would not have had much of an issue with administration's tack.

[BurgundyNGold]

Im on the 37th floor of my building, and I swear I see a swarm of Locusts.......
Spring came early in Florida this year? :D

[PennSkinsFan]

why are there different standards IBB? are we better than these people? is that what we're getting at here?

The standards are higher? If they are higher it is because we never had to live liek the Palenstinans. We never had our land taken, instead, we took. We don't live in consistent and constant war zones. We are not in war on our soil. We don't have millions of refugees living in tents along militarized zones. We don't have radical component on two oppsoing side spreading terror. So yeah, we may have a little higher standard, but then again, American would never survive living with what those people do.

[PennSkinsFan]

Is this from the "New Muslim" handbook?

Excuse me? Dave, Sean was making a point. Why when someone defends an opposite view point must it be fashioned in this way. Kind of like opposing the Iraq War was un-American until American truly did find out how they were duped. So sinc ethere is some understanding of the background of the Middle East conflict, and one views from a perspective of Palestinian opporession that they must be Muslim? Open the mind Dave, it is too narrow.

[Keino]

Spring came early in Florida this year? :D

we have 2 seasons.....Spring and Summer. It is now Spring.

[RedskinsDave]

Excuse me? Dave, Sean was making a point. Why when someone defends an opposite view point must it be fashioned in this way. Kind of like opposing the Iraq War was un-American until American truly did find out how they were duped. So sinc ethere is some understanding of the background of the Middle East conflict, and one views from a perspective of Palestinian opporession that they must be Muslim? Open the mind Dave, it is too narrow.

Tell Sean the same. If anyone has been oppressed ever in their history, they are apparently justified in being murderous. Sean's insistance that Hamas is somehow justified in blowing up civilians in a pizza parlor sounded just like some radical Muslim manifesto.

[PennSkinsFan]

and I agree. Like I stated prior, I have sympathies for the Palestianian plight, the conditions they live in, the homelessness they feel, but I do have personal problems with the methods they using in justifying armed struggle. BUTjust like Sean, I also have problems with the Israeli response. The responses are often times inflicting huge damage on woman and children. I am by far, not anti-Israel, but I am not so Pro-Israel that I am blinded to the realties of what has cause the strife, the methods both sides have used, and the fact that the oppression, living conditions, violence, has all led to the popular election of Hamas. Hamas is no longer just a terrorist organization, they are now a governing body and a popularly elected force.

BUT, we must also remember, they are a terrorist labeled organization in the view of the Western World, but in the Middle East, parts of Asia, parts of Africa and even parts of South America, they are seen as a liberating armed miliitary fighting a war of liberation. In comparison, most Nations view Al Queda as a terrorist organization, even want of the largest terrisrm financiers, Saudi Arabia, brands Al Queda as Terroist, not so with Hamas. Many in the world view Hamas as a liberating militia that use several tactice in armed stuggle. There is a deeper division of what a terrorist organization is. We go with the American definition because were American. BUT our definition is not always the most popular worldwide. Plus the hypocrisy of our foreign policy makes it hard to export our views worldwide. Take for instance our view of a 'brutal dictator', ie Saddam Hussein, in which he must be wiped out and we must save his people from him, yet, since Uzbekistan was in the coaclition of the willing, that dictator was fine with us, even though he was and is more brutal than Hussein. This all complicates how we export our view. Such like who and what we label as "terrorist"

[Keino]

Tell Sean the same. If anyone has been oppressed ever in their history, they are apparently justified in being murderous. Sean's insistance that Hamas is somehow justified in blowing up civilians in a pizza parlor sounded just like some radical Muslim manifesto.


Dave honestly, you're a smart guy. Just because someone understands the motivation behind something doesn't mean they condone it.

That is now the 3rd time on this thread you have mischaracterized my position, when reading any of my posts on the matter, and reasonable person would conclude that I find killling of Innocents a deplorable act. I find Israel on Equal footing with "Terrorists" in this regard, (specifically because they have targetted targets that are civilian, and then later claimed that they were military targets, or that said Civilian target was "harboring terrorists"), despite all of the outside factors you, Spence, Fent and whoever else would like to impose on the murders.

I have been steadfast in my contention that Murder (That's taking innocent life) is the same thing as Murder (That's taking innocent life).

If you think that equates to me Justifying suicide bombing, then that is your damn problem, not mine.

I challenge anyone to produce a quote of me saying Hamas was justified in employing suicide bombers as a tactic. I may have said they are justified in their view that Israel is not a legitimate Nation/State, but not one time have I justified killing of innocents.

[Paintedbird]

Different situation, Fent. The economic chokehold that Britain and France had on Germany as a result of the WWI war debt fertilized the soil for Hitler's growth. When they knew Hitler was restarting the war machine, they chose to ignore it. When he invaded Poland, they let it slide with a stern warning. Hell, they were willing to give him Checkoslovakia as appeasement. Merely talking to a madman does not lead to bad things. Not standing up to one is.

Britian and the United States had the chokehold. France had no money with which to take over German industry as did the British and the Americans and because of its huge manpower losses of World War I was unable to force Germany to pay reparations. France gets a pass on this one. The U.S. doesn't.

[BurgundyNGold]

Britian and the United States had the chokehold. France had no money with which to take over German industry as did the British and the Americans and because of its huge manpower losses of World War I was unable to force Germany to pay reparations. France gets a pass on this one. The U.S. doesn't.
What did that have to do with the oppressive burden of German war reparations? France and Belgium were the leaders in insisting upon economic compensation at levels that many economist still think were excessive. Britain and France were insistent, immobile parties regarding German war reparations. While both were motivated by factors of fear and preservation of empire, France was particularly harsh in its insistance upon German reparations as a "lesson" to the Kaiser and his sympathizers. It can be understood to a degree since both France and Belgium had been especially ransacked by the Germans and as late as 1918, the Germans were still blowing up French mining facilities on their way out the door.

France does not get a pass because they insisted upon war reparations and, along with Britain, kept the pressure of the tightening vice on Germany. Nor do they get a pass for the European policy of appeasement of Hitler. Granted, Chamberlain conjured up much of the policy, but France was still a preeminent power in Europe and they allowed the policy to come to pass.

As for the United States, the US had very little to say in the affairs of Europe at that time and had retreated back towards to its pre WWI isolationist policies -- hence our great national dillema for joining the war in Europe in the 40s. If anything, the US influence was largely a moderating influence at the Paris Peace Conference. If you want to slam the US, have the facts behind you next time.

[fent]

Hamas will not recognize Israel, but says they'll behave, for now.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/06/D8FJK2304.html

[BurgundyNGold]

Hamas will not recognize Israel, but says they'll behave, for now.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/06/D8FJK2304.html
The peace process just stepped back 20 years. Who has time for this over there?