Leaving Afghanistan

[Al B. Sure!]

Having watched some of that propaganda, I don't think it would change that much at all.

I used to be as idealist as you and thought that if the Isreali bent over backwards and conceded everything, that it would make a difference. But Hamas's mission is to not to make peace with them but to destroy them and push them into the sea. Until the Palestinian leadership changes it's goals, I don't hold out much hope.

Ideas and movements gain momentum. Unfortunately, those ideas behind what gets lumped together into "Islamist extremism" reached a critical mass some time ago and there's no stopping that snowball now, even if the conditions and concerns that motivated the genesis and propagation of those ideas ever gets changed. While improving the daily lives of Palestinians would make Hamas less attractive to many Palestinians, Hamas has become an institution and that strategy would not be sufficient to bring its demise.

[giblets]

Well, I think it is possible for an institution to change its thinking in response to a change in circumstances. At least if Israel worked at improving the daily lives in Palestinians, Israel wouldn't deserve such a large share of the blame for the conflict.

[C0ckney]

exactly gribbler.

a large part of hamas' popular appeal is the feeling amongst palestinians that at least hamas are doing something, however ineffective, to resist israel. when the situation changes on the ground, then the political environment can change. this will not happen overnight, but the sooner it starts, the sooner changes can take place. once people have something to lose (apart from their chains), then you might see hamas moderating its stance, or new political forces emerging to represent those who see their interests are better served by peaceful means than by violence and rhetoric.

[Al B. Sure!]

There's some truth to that but there's always people who will not only never be satisfied but concessions will galvanize them. And when an institution to represent them still exists because it has generated enough momentum and permeated through the society, they'll still make noise. Even if support for Hamas is reduced to an insignificant in size minority, it will still be a vocal (and possibly violent) minority.

There still needs to be definite improvement in the conditions and opportunities for Palestinians. Ironically enough, those improvements have largely been shouldered by the humanitarian efforts of Hamas itself. It's just my belief that the US, Israel, or whatever else suddenly caring for the Palestinians wouldn't make Hamas suddenly disappear. As well as improving the lives of Palestinians, we'd need a war on the militant wing of Hamas... hopefully by the Palestinian Authority and not by the IDF, though.

[Zevico]

You conveniently brush over the fact that it is exactely the continued support of the US for Israel that has provided a focal point for hatred and made the rise of many of these islamist groups if not possible then surely a lot easier.

Not saying that the US should or should not withdraw support for Israel and also not making any comment son how and where to fight these terrorist groups but a long lasting solution to the ME problem needs to include the consideration that Israel has to be de coupled from US support.

You conveniently brush over the fact that it is exactely the continued support of the US for Israel that has provided a focal point for hatred and made the rise of many of these islamist groups if not possible then surely a lot easier.

I'm not brushing over it.

The fact of the matter is that changes in American policy (or European, or Western) policy has basically no bearing on Islamist perceptions of that policy. Islamist groups exist because they provide a useful explanation of why Middle Eastern societies are backward (they rejected "Islam") and how they can advance (by embracing "Islam") vis-a-vis a West they view as intrinsically heretical. The basic Islamist perception of the Western world is that it is governed "by and for" Jews. Western (Jewish) influence corrupted the previously "Islamic" Ottoman Empire, and led to its downfall and/or the corruption of Islamic values; only the resurgence of Islamist political ideals will "solve" the problem once and for all. When Sayid Qutb wrote Milestones in the early 50's, Israel had barely been established. The United States had recognised it, but it was not in alliance with it by any means. (For an example of the Americans' "Arabist" foreign policy at the time, see their successful and pro-Nasser call for British/French/Israeli troops to be removed from the Sinai in 1956. By the way, Egypt's Nasser claimed that the US participated in this war, as well as the 1967 Israel-Arab war--more proof bizarre conspiratorial thinking informs foreign perceptions of the US, not American policy as such, as America was pro-Egypt in the former and didn't participate in the latter). Returning to Qutb, however, he wrote, nevertheless, of his disgust for American society and the "pornographic" institution of "church dances" which he himself had observed. In his view these dances were instances of indecency of the worst kind and symptomatic of a broader corruption inherent in American society. Qutb identified America as a "pornographic" society to be wiped out (rather than emulated) in Milestones. All the while, of course, he blamed the Jews.

In other words, I think you simply don't comprehend the massive ramifications that conpsiracy theory has on politics and society in the Middle East. Middle Eastern propagandists are willing to (and have) largely successfuly explained away practically any shift in Western policy (whether it be pro or anti- Israel) as yet another sign of the Zionist/Jewish hand in world affairs. In so doing they have basically informed and created an anti-US and anti-Western perception of the world among the vast majority of their people.

This is even true of US allies past and present. Even Mubarak's regime used this strategem as a means of retaining power by blaming Israel and the United States.

The consequences are quite ludicrous. Egyptian officials quite recently blamed a shark attack, of all things, on Zionist infiltrators engaged in a conspiracy to drive away foreign tourists. Similarly, a Palestinian Authority newspaper accused Israel of spreading giant rats through Jerusalem to drive away its Arab inhabitants. (The rats, naturally, were specially trained to pick out Arabs). Pokemon has been cast as a Jewish conspiracy designed to convert Muslims to Judaism because, supposedly, it means "I am Jewish" in Hebrew (it doesn't). Saddam Hussein's Iraq banned Pokemon as a result.

This is the tip of the iceberg, dannubis. America support for Israel between 1948-the late 70's ranged from non-existent to threadbare. Similarly, when it intervened on behalf of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan against Iraq and the Soviet Union respectively, it was reviled rather than respected. It was perceived as an enemy then, and it will be today even if it changes its policy. It's a convenient foreign and heretical enemy.

[Zevico]

I note in passing that, in Cockney's view, the MB calling for war with America and endorsing the killing of American soldiers or civilians doesn't qualify as "acting against American interests." Nor is Hezballah and Iran's overt participation in the murder of American soldiers or civilians tantamount to "acting against American interests." In Cockney's view, if you want to prevent the killing of American soldiers or civilians--you need only join the IDF!

[Zevico]

we'd need a war on the militant wing of Hamas... hopefully by the Palestinian Authority and not by the IDF, though.

There is no militant and non-militant wing of Hamas. There is Hamas; its policies are uniform and dissent from the party line is uniformly suppressed.
By the way, the PA tried that and failed, with US backing. Look up Muhammad Dahlan.
The reason for this failure is the same reason the better-funded, trained and equipped PA was kicked out of Gaza in the first place. US training notwithstanding, they were neither organised, prepared for or motivated to fight for what was, in the end, not some set of ideals, but a bunch of members of Fatah's central committee who spend their time squirelling away aid into Swiss bank accounts.

[rah]

When an organization won't even lie publicly about it's goal to exterminate Israel, you can figure the odds of them conceding it in negotiations. So why should anyone give them assistance in hopes for peace? Even the dumbest negotiator is willing to bend the truth about what they eventually want to try and get concessions. You might say that you applaud their honesty, but I say why bother negotiating because even they're telling you it can't end well.

[C0ckney]

and certainly the best way to fight hamas is to reduce the people of gaza to penury, to make them dependent on UN food aid for mere survival, to subject the population to attack using bombs and missiles, to make it so that almost no one has a job, or hope for the future. to continue, every day, to steal more land in the west bank and literally hold the people there in a cage.

there is a term for what israel is doing. it's called collective punishment. why is the west (the USA) giving money to support this? how does your 'alliance' with israel benefit your country. how do you think israel's constant human rights abuses reflect on the USA?

[rah]

Desperate acts for desperate circumstances. The people are responsible for their leadership. Until they stand up and say no mas, things aren't going to change. Would you give a crap about a neighbor who every time he opened his mouth said you don't deserve to exist and he wants to kill you. When being nice doesn't change anything, what's the point.

The politicians in the west support Israel because enough the people in the West do so that to remove their support would put their jobs in jeopardy. If a majority of the people didn't support Israel, you can guarantee that the politicians would think twice about their support. Why shouldn't they be held to the same standard?

[C0ckney]

i note in passing that zevico either can't read or is incredibly dense and i feel sorry for his future clients if this is the way he argues a case.

i would also say that during the soviet invasion of finland in 1939/40 many swedish people volunteered to fight against the invading soviet armies. but wait a minute didn't russia fight on the allied side during world war 2? wouldn't that make the swedes nazis then according to zevico's logic? maybe that's it, the swedes were nazis, they had blond hair and blue eyes afterall. or maybe, just maybe they were so outraged at the invasion of their neighbours by a foreign power that they wanted to do something about it...

[C0ckney]

rah, saying the leadership of hamas is bad (which no one disputes) does not justify the abuse, degradation and murder of the civilians in palestine. what israel is doing is not helping the situation. quite the opposite in fact. israel's actions only strengthen hamas, perhaps that's the idea...

and also, the sort of support that israel receives in US is not mirrored in the populations of other western countries, who tend to be far more critical of its actions. a better question might why the US is so committed to israel, when it seems impossible to see any benefit for them in the whole arrangement.

[Agent Sox]

It's weird to me that we are still in Afghanistan even though we got Osama in Pakistan. It makes me think there is something else in the country we're trying to do.

[rah]

Until Hamas will concede Israels right to exist and stops being committed to it's extermination, Israel has the right to defend itself. What you may call murder in some cases may be collateral damage. IT's a grey area where your point of view will determine how you call it. Most Americans view Israel as under siege and is just defending itself. The large number of Jews in the US help buoy that opinion. I'll admit that I used to fully support them. I'll give credit for all those here that have a different opinion since I don't think so black/white on the issue anymore. Most people in the US don't actively seek out that information. Most just hear about Hamas refusing to acknowledge their right to exist. That's a powerful statement.

And deep down, I don't believe that it's Israel's intent to abuse, degrade and murder Palestinians. (but I think they're wrong on the settlements and wish we would push them harder on that issue)
On the other hand, it's hard to sympathize with those that outright declare it's their intent to exterminate all the Jews.

[Jon Miller]

I rarely agree with rah, but I do here.

I will probably at most 'not support' Israel (and will generally support Israel), unless HAMAS/etc recognizes Israel's right to exist/etc.

JM