• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians suck

You are not addressing the reality that the religious content of the multiple quoted surah echoes the history of Muslim conquests which were driven by the same religious motivation as Hamas which is the Islamization of the entire world while eradicating those who "defy Islam" and those who will not convert to Islam and serve Allah and those who will not be abiding to a fundamentalist and radicalized interpretation of Islam.

Muslim conquests were always driven by a religious motivation. The occupation of conquered land always included the motivation of converting natives to Islam. It is a religiously motivated expansion not one based on "just wanting the same land".

I am very surprised you are not seeing the blue prints of such same religion motivated expansion in the Hamas Charter.

I think this is false. Back before the Enlightenment in the 18'th century there was no difference between religion and politics. They were interchangeable concepts. Before the printing press all religious conquests was just about getting some land. What Mohammed did was open up the concept a bit, and create a kind of super-religion. Where the same religion could be interpreted in several different, but equally true, ways. That's the schtick about "religions of the book". This was a really novel way to sort-of-separate politics from religion. At least a little bit. And it worked well. But this concept really only worked as a political tool then and there. It's very context dependent. Which is why early Islamic decrees often come across as so random and silly today,

This is the reason why Mohammed made a thing about NOT converting Jews and Christians to Islam. He even made it forbidden, just to hammer home the point. He wanted them to be religiously equal (even if the Muslims had all the power). The Ottomans sort of kept this tradition. But let Ottomans to convert... I forget when. But it was quite late. 12'th century or something.

So the goal of Mohammed and Islam was NOT to convert anybody. The goal was to build an empire. Which they did. Today we think of this as disingenuous. As if the religious epiphanies of Mohammed was political manipulation. But the pre-litterate world didn't see it that way. A world without authorities readily available to be consulted gets a very fluid concept of Truth.

We can read from the Koran, that if Mohammed was anything, it was pragmatic. He really seems like a guy who could think on his feet.

Our idea of religion was really born in the Enlightenment. A product of post-printing press technology. Modern Christianity, Islam and Judaism have almost nothing to do with the same religions at the time of the Islamic conquest. They are best viewed as completely modern inventions.

Hammas on the other hand are just fucking cunts. They're like football hooligans in a position of political power. Not a shred of Mohammed's pragmatism. It can be argued that they're the result of 50 years of failed appeasement. And just have given up. Not longer trying to win. Now they're just trying to annoy Israel as much as possible. As if in, if they can't win, they can at least make the Jewish victory less tasty. A childish and silly attitude.

Anyhoo
 
As long as there exists on either side religious radicalized movements capable of pulling the strings in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, there is NO hope of peaceful cohabitation whether it be a 2 State solution or a one State solution.Territorial adjustments will not pacify Muslims who abide to the Hamas Charter.

Not that this has any chance of being anything more than a rhetorical question on a board like this, but considering Hamas' charter was written -- and remains largely unchanged -- long before that organization had any aspirations or even the remotest possibility of being included into any kind of Palestinian government, how relevant IS the original charter to the organization's motives?

I ask this because it was pointed out to me a while ago that 30 years of Israeli assassination programs would certainly have a darwinian effect on Hamas' leadeship class: the more loopy and unhinged leaders are easier to kill, while the smarter, more creative, more pragmatic leaders with better personal discipline and a good sense of foresight would be able to avoid assassination that much longer. It could simply be that the assassination program has selected as "hard to murder" a more dominant trait, but it seems to me the kind of person who is smart enough to avoid the Shin Bet would also be smart enough to avoid blundering into a military quagmire on some half-assed religious precept.
 
When it comes to specifically Hamas, it is not just about "wanting the same land". As a reminder from the content of the Hamas Charter :
So lets see.

The brutal occupation and oppression begins in 1967.

And this answer to it from the oppressed arises in 1987.

What am I supposed to make of this document born out of brutality and oppression?

It is not very nice?

There is absolutely nothing special about Hamas or it's charter. This is what oppression begets. Happens all the time.

Hamas is simply one manifestation of the war against Israel. The war that started long before 67.
 
So lets see.

The brutal occupation and oppression begins in 1967.

And this answer to it from the oppressed arises in 1987.

What am I supposed to make of this document born out of brutality and oppression?

It is not very nice?

There is absolutely nothing special about Hamas or it's charter. This is what oppression begets. Happens all the time.

Hamas is simply one manifestation of the war against Israel. The war that started long before 67.
Yes of course.

Israel can brutalize people all it wants.

And every response to this abuse is really just an extension of some long dead war.
 
Hamas is simply one manifestation of the war against Israel. The war that started long before 67.
Yes of course.

Israel can brutalize people all it wants.

And every response to this abuse is really just an extension of some long dead war.

You still keep denying the obvious evidence. The trouble existed before 67, thus the trigger must also have existed before 67 unless there's a time machine involved. You're just cherry-picking.
 
Yes of course.

Israel can brutalize people all it wants.

And every response to this abuse is really just an extension of some long dead war.

You still keep denying the obvious evidence. The trouble existed before 67, thus the trigger must also have existed before 67 unless there's a time machine involved. You're just cherry-picking.

<shrug> You can't make all troubles the same trouble, any more than you can make all foreigners part of some general racial conspiracy.
 
So lets see.

The brutal occupation and oppression begins in 1967.

And this answer to it from the oppressed arises in 1987.

What am I supposed to make of this document born out of brutality and oppression?

It is not very nice?

There is absolutely nothing special about Hamas or it's charter. This is what oppression begets. Happens all the time.

Hamas is simply one manifestation of the war against Israel. The war that started long before 67.
Let me guess... Ishmael?
 
Hamas is simply one manifestation of the war against Israel. The war that started long before 67.
Let me guess... Ishmael?

I think we can argue over just which war it was till the cows come home. The most significant year was 1948 when the combination of money and Zionist dreamers evicted the indigenous population from the best part of their so called holy land and instituted a Jewish state. Israel stands as a shining example of how money and technology and terrorism can create and enforce the existence of a nation by brutal repression and military aggression. When the funding for this stupidity dries up, it will shrivel and die. What the world needs and indeed must have is secular states guaranteeing the human rights of all. This is a long running and very bloody soap opera...that kills and maims thousands. There is no sense to it and no will on the part of the Israeli leadership but to stay at war...even if there is no real army opposing it.

What Israel needs to do is to make peace. That is going to mean making some concessions to those it have brutalized for a long time. I do not think Netanyahu is capable of doing this. That is because everything he has, all his powers and influence are the product of war making. He believes that war and military domination is the only way and he will be engineering the next conflict before any settlement of this conflict ever appears on paper. It is all he knows. He needs to be replaced. We had our own "axis of evil" guy in this country and chauvinism reigned supreme and we have absolutely nothing to show for it.

The fact is that when a nation is being led by people in the war business there will be a war somewhere to burn up the war materiels so as Jay Leno said about one of the Lays products he advertised..."You cant just have one.....we'll just make more."
 
Yes of course.

Israel can brutalize people all it wants.

And every response to this abuse is really just an extension of some long dead war.

You still keep denying the obvious evidence. The trouble existed before 67, thus the trigger must also have existed before 67 unless there's a time machine involved. You're just cherry-picking.
Yes trouble existed. Israel had kicked out or prevented from returning 700,000 people. The Palestinians had valid grievances. But only a tiny fraction of them thought violence was the solution.

By then on top of this grievance from 1948 the Palestinians had the brutal occupation imposed upon them. Insult to injury.

And the occupation has continued in some form ever since. Constantly sending your military into a place and killing people is a form of occupation. It says you own the place and can do what you want.

But resistance to the occupation and constant attacks, constant taking of prisoners without charges, constant destruction of homes as reprisals, crushing of economic opportunity, disruption and lowering of the quality of education, and the slow taking of land, is not the same thing as Egypt and Syria attacking Israel in 1973.

One has nothing to do with other. Egypt wanted it's land back. It didn't care about the occupation of Gaza.

The people in Gaza and the West Bank have the right to resist oppression. Everybody has the right to resist oppression.

What Israel wants is the right to oppress without consequence. Nobody has that right.
 
Worth noting is that Jews and gentiles seemed to get on fine in Israel/Palestine from pre-history all the way up to WWI. Jews and Arabs in conflict is the anomaly. 100 years is nothing when it comes to ethnic conflicts. If they can start hating each other in this short space of time, then they can start un-hating each other in a just as short time.

Also worth noting is that the Arab/Israeli conflict was engineered by the British. A sloppily worded promise (the Balfour declaration) promising both Jews and Arabs self rule on the same land. Which the British then planned to rescind on. While being sincerely grateful to all the Jews and Arabs who'd lost their lives during the war to fulfil their part of the bargain.

Why not target their hate to where it belongs, the British? And just get along with each other? Both the Jews and Arabs had every reason to feel cheated. And both had an equally valid claim to Israel/Palestine. They still do.... of course. Until both sides acknowledge that both sides have an equal claim, there is no way this conflict can be resolved.
 
Let me guess... Ishmael?

I think we can argue over just which war it was till the cows come home. The most significant year was 1948 when the combination of money and Zionist dreamers evicted the indigenous population from the best part of their so called holy land and instituted a Jewish state.

You're right about 48 but you're still cherry-picking. The trigger was the Arab invasion of Israel.

What Israel needs to do is to make peace. That is going to mean making some concessions to those it have brutalized for a long time.

What you need to do is fly up in the air and proclaim this from the sky.

(Both tasks are about equally possible.)

I do not think Netanyahu is capable of doing this.

No Israeli is--because you can't make peace with someone who doesn't want peace.
 
Back
Top Bottom