Tel Aviv bombing is part of self-defense: Hamas

[KrazyHorse]

So I guess im not getting your implication that Hamas is limited in its physical ability to stop terrorism.

I really don't know how limited it is. Given that Israel itself fails to completely prevent terrorist attacks, I doubt that Hamas would be able to completely prevent these attacks. It's a question of both firepower and intelligence.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And in this case the attack was X hours old

If you want to be pedantic, in neither case can a statement of support make one responsible for an act which has already occurred (be it a thousand years ago or one second ago).

The statement of support makes you responsible in part for any further acts which may not have occurred had you not supported the original act. It also indicates a level of responsibility for "sins of omission" prior to the acts (provides evidence about your existing state of mind).

Hamas is supporting the event contemporaneously with its occurance. There is no way that supporting the nazis today can effect in any way what they did.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yes, and a lovely spring day is just a point on the spectrum between a freezing winter day, and a sweltering summer day. The existence of spectrums does not lessen the importance of distinctions.

I guess I'm not getting your point here. Are you trying to say that Hamas is more responsible now for the terrorist attacks committed by IJ than Fatah was for the terrorist attacks committed by IJ during its tenure?

If so, then I don't know why you're trying to convince me of this.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

So I guess im not getting your implication that Hamas is limited in its physical ability to stop terrorism.

I really don't know how limited it is. Given that Israel itself fails to completely prevent terrorist attacks, I doubt that Hamas would be able to completely prevent these attacks. It's a question of both firepower and intelligence.

Israel acts with raids, air attacks, etc. Except for a few months in 2002 (surely you remember that) israel didnt have control on the ground of all West bank cities and refugee camps. And i dont the IDF has had such control over Gaza since 1994. Hamas, by contrast, is present on the street throughout the territories. It wouldnt be a matter of sniffing out attacks, but of destroying Islamic Jihad as an organization. Has Hamas even moved to ban Islamic Jihad? Well of course not, they are actually approving of IJs actions, and they have in recent years been off and on allies. At least at this point its kind of pointless to say they dont have the force to stop IJ.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Whoha


Hamas is supporting the event contemporaneously with its occurance. There is no way that supporting the nazis today can effect in any way what they did.

?

In the one case Hamas' statement can affect further attacks by IJ and other terrorist groups (to a certain extent). In the other, my statement can affect further action by neonazis and a host of other fringe political groups. Is one of these going to be more important than the other? Of course.

In neither case can the statement travel back in time and affect events prior to its utterance.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I guess I'm not getting your point here. Are you trying to say that Hamas is more responsible now for the terrorist attacks committed by IJ than Fatah was for the terrorist attacks committed by IJ during its tenure?

If so, then I don't know why you're trying to convince me of this.

1. Yes

2. I thought you were denying it

3. Its important to keep in mind what we are dealing with. Its well and good that the west is united in the boycott of Hamas NOW, but future events may test that commitment.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


?

In the one case Hamas' statement can affect further attacks by IJ and other terrorist groups (to a certain extent). In the other, my statement can affect further action by neonazis and a host of other fringe political groups. Is one of these going to be more important than the other? Of course.

In neither case can the statement travel back in time and affect events prior to its utterance.

Thus speaks the physicist

In politics, condoing, even after the fact, something that happens on "your watch", is far different from condoning something that happened long ago.

The diff between, say, our noble Texan leader condoning the human pyramids at Abu Graib, and condoning the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WW2.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I dont think even Arafat ever (post-Oslo) explicitly condoned attacks on Israeli civilians, west of the Green Line. Which is my point, that this goes further. If you have quotes showing Arafat explicilty approving an attack on civilians in Israel (not the territories) post 1993, Id be interested in seeing it.

This doesn't refer to explicit attacks, but general principles. In 2002, when Arafat was asked whether he was worried that he might be replaced, he answered by invoking his mentor, the Mufti:

"Were they able to replace our hero Haj Amin Al-Husseini? ...There were a number of attempts to get rid of Haj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops."
[Al Sharq al Awsat, a London Arabic daily, reprinted in the Palestinian daily Al Quds, Aug, 2, 2002]

http://www.pmw.org.il/bulletins-050802.html

“Hajj Amin Al Husseini (1895-1974) was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem... He supported the Nazis, and especially their program for the mass murder of the Jews. He visited numerous death camps and encouraged Hitler to extend the "Final Solution" to the Jews of North Africa and Palestine. In 1946 he escaped to Egypt.” [Simon Wiesenthal Center Web Site]

[lord of the mark]

Cort Haus, perhaps you are mistaking me. I am no Arafat apologist. I believe, as I think you do, and as I think KH acknowledges, that Arafat through his actions and his words bore considerable responisibility for terror. I am merely pointing out that Hamas goes even beyond that in its responsibility, in several ways.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
?

In the one case Hamas' statement can affect further attacks by IJ and other terrorist groups (to a certain extent). In the other, my statement can affect further action by neonazis and a host of other fringe political groups. Is one of these going to be more important than the other? Of course.

In neither case can the statement travel back in time and affect events prior to its utterance.

the neonazis are running concentration camps?

[KrazyHorse]

Is one of these going to be more important than the other? Of course.

[Whoha]

I should think that neo-nazi concentration camps would be a great deal more important then mere terrorist attacks

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
It seemed to me that the main difference between Arafat and Hamas is that Hamas were more honest and open in their intent to destroy Israel. Arafat had the same goal, but would pretend otherwise.

Arafat also tended to trouser the money himself, rather than spend much of it on his people's welfare. So 2-0 to Hamas, in a wierd sense. If I was Israel I might find it prefereable to deal with someone who was openly trying to destroy me than with someone who was covertly trying to do so.

Something that should be highlighted again.

Looking back on this time from the future, Hamas getting elected may be the best thing for any true peace process, even though it seems dicey now. You, after all, are now forced to deal with this group, whereas before you didn't.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Oh, by the way, apparently IRFAN has been the subject of questions in Parliament, so I don't think you can claim we're ignoring the problem.

I'm not claiming.

I'm asking.

See my first post on subject - contains "serious question" heads up.

But I'm happy that it caused you to google the topic, so maybe one more person will become better aware of how Hamas gathers its money.

The fact is that a low-level state of war has existed for a long time. I don't particularly care about the pretexts needed for Israel to carry out military operations in the PA. My real concern is that there is some sort of actual net benefit to be achieved by anything you guys choose to do. Would an invasion of the West Bank actually do anything, or would it be just another exercise in futility. Do you have some sort of endgame planned, or is this all just running around with your head cut off.

Well, LOTM gave you the current official strategy.

However, in the strategic sense, Israeli policy towards the palestinian conflict is sadly about running around...

You have tons of input from everyone, and everyone is a self proclaimed 'palestinians specialist'. So instead of sticking to one policy, the government makes tons of ****ty decisions, which aren't followed through, because lots of time policy is trashed and over turned, either by an idiot commander in the field, who could care less for something he has no idea about, or by a high ranking commander / minister that once against goes against policy for political reason (ranging from popular pressure, to emotional response, to american pressure to do this or that).

All in all there is no actual well though policy, and what ever bits there are, they aren't followed through, since the high ranking people make every exemption they can, of the rule.

This is my opinion on it, but it comes from lots of... erm... experience with the issues in hand.

Of course, I'm still in service, and i shouldn't say this stuff

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Something that should be highlighted again.

Looking back on this time from the future, Hamas getting elected may be the best thing for any true peace process, even though it seems dicey now. You, after all, are now forced to deal with this group, whereas before you didn't.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

I think it is better to deal with the problem, instead of denying it away like we did before.


Though it could lead to one side's destruction ;-)