IDF will occupy Gaza and uproot Hamas

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Eli,

If the occupation can stopped with lesser means, they should be emplyed first.

It appears that everyone is in agreement on this point. So long as a political settlement is acheivable without violence, violence is not justified. If the obstacle to peace, though, is the intention of the occuppied to destroy the occupier's country, the resort to violence to end the occupation is still not justified because the obstacle to peace is not the occupier, but the occuppied.

Arafat has accepted Clinton's Camp David proposal. The Arab League has offered peace consistent with the UN resolutions. Only groups like Hamas and the Iranians have not offered peace. It appears they want all of Israel, which is completely unacceptable.

This means that violence from Hamas in unjustifiable.

Thus Israeli's the primary focus in the short term should be in getting Hamas, and groups like Hamas, to change their position on the destruction of Israel. Only then will a political settlement be possible.

I assume the current/planned Israeli assault on Hamas is intended in part to force Hamas to give up its goal of total conquest of Israel.

[GeneralTacticus]

Arafat has accepted Clinton's Camp David proposal.

What? Arafat rejected the Camp David proposal.

[CyberGnu]

Ned, that is a very good point. But since the actions of Israel are what caused Hamas popularity in the first place, you can't separate the actions of Hamas from the actions of plain freedom-seeking palestinians.

If the occupation ends and Hamas still carries out attacks, then they should be sought out and dealt with as common cirminals.

[CyberGnu]

General, that would be classified as 'revenge', wouldn't it?

However, letting Saddam know that if he does it again, he will be nuked, that I think is fine. (well, assuming that practical details such as making sure that the nuke doesn't kill kurds etc etc could be solved. I doubt they could, but in the hypothetical case it would be morally just).

[CyberGnu]

I think what Ned means is the Oslo accord, where Arafat accepted Israels right to exist.

[GeneralTacticus]

Ned, that is a very good point. But since the actions of Israel are what caused Hamas popularity in the first place, you can't separate the actions of Hamas from the actions of plain freedom-seeking palestinians.

That's rather like saying Nazi actions against the Soviet Communist Party can't be distinguished from the actions of freedom seeking Soviet citizens.

[CyberGnu]

?

Russian Nazis?

Both Hamas and PLO are palestinians, you know.

It would rather be not being able to distinguish between russian partisans who loved their country and russian partisans who just hated germans...

[Sirotnikov]

I should learn to just ignore him until he learns what a source is, but it is hard.

Interesting.

I'm supposed automatically cast doubt on every thing said by my media, since if it is secretly government controlled, and has a nationalist agenda - it my lie.

However, larger, american (or say, french ) media bodies, are nevere influenced by the goverenment, and never have political agendas.

Furthermore, foreign journalists are always the best sources on minute things that are hapenning beneath the headlines -> they always have the best sources - spokesmen of the local information ministry.

Furthermore, international journalists are never affected by thugs with guns that threaten their life, and never ever edotirialise news pieces. They are never ignorant of the local history or detached from events.


Lesson learnt.

Proceed to teach me some more of your thinking.

However, having learnt critical thinking, I now cast serious doubts on the content of my last lesson.

[CyberGnu]

You are supposed to automatically cast doubt on every thing said by your media, since it has a nationalist agenda.

However, larger, american (or say, french ) media bodies, are seldom influenced by the goverenment, and seldom have political agendas. While seldom does not equal never, seldom is the best you will ever get, and infinitly preferable to partisanship.

Furthermore, foreign journalists might not always be the best sources on minute things that are hapenning beneath the headlines, but one can only trust that if an event is important enough the foreign journalist will cover it. Between lack of coverage and partisan coverage, lack of coverage is the better choice.

Furthermore, international journalists are can be affected by thugs with guns that threaten their life, and can edotirialise news pieces. They can be ignorant of the local history or detached from events. (Although, assuming that this is the case becasue it could be the case is flawed logicall). If this is a concern, then reading several impartial news agencies is a better choice than relying on partisan coverage.

[Ned]

Yes, CyberGnu, even before the occupation ends, as soon as a peace agreement is signed, Hamas has to stop their own mini war or else.

[CyberGnu]

Ned, I don't think that is possible. The current intifada started because the Oslo accords didn't lead to the end of occupation, as it was promised. Support for Hamas won't end unless there is a palestinian state, and returning to a status quo (i.e. a peace treaty under continued occupation) won't lead anywhere.

[CyberGnu]

Also, as a practical matter, how do you expect Arafat to reign in Hamas immediately after a peace treaty, or even immediately after the occupation ends? Israel has systematically destroyed the palestinian police force.

Israel can't do it, or Hamas will get all their support back when the first Israeli soldier crosses the border to palestine...

[GeneralTacticus]

?

Russian Nazis?

Both Hamas and PLO are palestinians, you know.

It would rather be not being able to distinguish between russian partisans who loved their country and russian partisans who just hated germans...

That was probably a rather inept analogy. My point is you can and must distinguish between Hamas and PAlestinians who just want to be free. The latter category should either adopt non-violent resistance (it works, you know), or if they have to fight, launch attacks only on soldiers and settlers in the occupied territories.

[CyberGnu]

Eventually, yes. Until the occupation stops, it is impossible.

Non-violent resistance only works if the occupying power expects to gain something apart from land out of the occupied territories. Perhaps if the palestinians actually starved to death because of their non-violent protests would the rest of the world do something, but just accepting Israeli occupation would only lead to more settlements stealing more land.

BTW, you do know that three out of the four major organizations in palestine DID restrict themselves to soldiers and settlers only. (Until after the incursion in Jenin, when they declared that since Israel was going after civilians, so would they...) Didn't do them any good though, the public opinion didn't separate Hamas from any of the others, partly becuase the Israeli goverments repeated condemnation of Arafat as soon as anything happened.

[GeneralTacticus]

Non-violent resistance only works if the occupying power expects to gain something apart from land out of the occupied territories. Perhaps if the palestinians actually starved to death because of their non-violent protests would the rest of the world do something, but just accepting Israeli occupation would only lead to more settlements stealing more land.

If the Palestinians stop the violence at their end, there will be no reason for the Israelis to keep it up at their end.

BTW, you do know that three out of the four major organizations in palestine DID restrict themselves to soldiers and settlers only.

No, I didn't know that. However, one that doesn't is one too many.

Didn't do them any good though, the public opinion didn't separate Hamas from any of the others, partly becuase the Israeli goverments repeated condemnation of Arafat as soon as anything happened.

Why couldn't Arafat have dealt with Hamas? I see no reason why he couldn't have.