Hamas' policy on negotation, in their own words:

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm pretty sure they already know that. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that they are so completely aware of this that they have already taken it as a given for the eventual formation of a fully sovereign Palestinian state, realizing that they cannot continue to exist as a party unless Israel continues to fuck with them every now and then.

That is a childish description of what is NOT THE CASE. You imagine the world from the safety of your armchair....and cannot imagine that a person in Hamas may very much believe in the people of Paletstine and have genuine altruistic goals.

Oh no, I fully undestand that A PERSON in Hamas has genuine altruistic goals. I understand, in fact, that MANY members of Hamas have aspirations of helping their organization make the transition from a resistance/revolutionary organization to a legitimate functioning political party that can seek the benefit of the Palestinian people through pragmatic analysis of the facts.

But those aren't the kinds of people setting policy for Hamas, and it's hard to say if they ever will be.

The people running the show have their own political calculus, and whether you like it or not, blaming all of their problems on Israel is just good politics. It's an election tactic that won't fail because 1) it's plausible to the Palestinian people and 2) Israel isn't doing anything to challenge that narrative. So even while the rank and file of Hamas -- and even some of its leadership have much more practical goals in mind, they continue to take the path of least resistance simply because it is easier to blame all your problems on the bad guys than explain to voters how those problems can be overcome. That isn't saying much except that Hamas' political class is NOT hyper-competent or remarkably media savvy; but that's a little like saying broccoli isn't candy.

I am sure that there are people in Hamas who have THAT DESIRE.

And I'd be willing to bet that they would make up the overwhelming majority.

The problem is, Hamas is first and foremost a political party, which means its membership has the same basic structure as political parties in the west:

Bottom: Voters, taxpayers, activists; normal people with normal goals and aspirations that include "Not causing my kids to get blown up while crossing the street."
Middle: Organizers, fundraisers, bureaucrats; educated people with mostly normal goals and aspirations but a tendency to (at least outwardly) obey the party line as long as it doesn't include "Causing my kids to get blown up while crossing the street.
Top: Professional politicians and military officers; people with bizarre idealistic goals that include "Causing your kids to get blown up while crossing the street, thereby scoring us political points with the international community."

One of these three groups is dominated by sociopaths. Can you guess which one?

 

[bilby]

"The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980" - Wikipedia.

It is unusual - perhaps unique - for the country that is the aggressor to be the one that is invaded.

Or is this re-write of history intended only for an uneducated audience who might be prepared to believe what you say without checking the facts?

Sure Iraq invaded Iran, but that doesn't mean they are the one who wanted the war. The invasion was a defensive first strike against the rising Iranian aggression. Iraq had no choice, and the Free World had no choice but to support them. It was Gleiwitz all over again.

Or did I just get confused exactly which unambiguous acts of aggression are to be defended no matter the facts?

WTF?

Saddam invaded Iran because he wanted control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, and believed that Iran was sufficiently divided by the revolution to be a pushover.

No serious historian disputes that Iraq started the war. Gleiwitz has fuck all to do with it. There was no staged border incident; and if the Iranians were to be cast in the role of the SS at Gleiwitz, that would have been a prelude to them invading Iraq.

Only the Iraqi army was ready, mobilised and on the border; they invaded deep into Iran at the southern end of the border. None of this is consistent with Iranian aggression.

 

[KeepTalking]

You're missing the point--they're saying that the right to continue armed resistance is not subject to negotiation. If the fighting is going to continue what sense is a peace agreement??

It is you who is missing the point. 'Resistance' is a word with meaning. Maybe you should go look it up, and then come back and tell us what you have learned.

And how does armed resistance coexist with peace???

What peace do they have to coexist with? Israel is an armed occupier of Palestine, and therefor Palestinians have the right to armed resistance of that occupation. They would be foolish to give up that right. If Israel ceases their occupation of Palestine, and Palestine continues armed action against Israel, it is no longer resistance, and then you may be right to condemn such action. When do you see such an event taking place?

 

[Jokodo]

Sure Iraq invaded Iran, but that doesn't mean they are the one who wanted the war. The invasion was a defensive first strike against the rising Iranian aggression. Iraq had no choice, and the Free World had no choice but to support them. It was Gleiwitz all over again.

Or did I just get confused exactly which unambiguous acts of aggression are to be defended no matter the facts?

WTF?

Saddam invaded Iran because he wanted control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, and believed that Iran was sufficiently divided by the revolution to be a pushover.

No serious historian disputes that Iraq started the war. Gleiwitz has fuck all to do with it. There was no staged border incident; and if the Iranians were to be cast in the role of the SS at Gleiwitz, that would have been a prelude to them invading Iraq.

Only the Iraqi army was ready, mobilised and on the border; they invaded deep into Iran at the southern end of the border. None of this is consistent with Iranian aggression.

I was trying to impersonate Loren, or more accurately a Loren lookalike who got confused exactly which obvious and undisputed acts of aggression have to be whitewashed.

My point is that claiming Iran started the war is pretty much the same as claiming Poland started WW II.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Despite your inability to fathom it Iran has been the aggressor since 1980. They don't want peace, they want to export their brand of Islam.

"The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980" - Wikipedia.

It is unusual - perhaps unique - for the country that is the aggressor to be the one that is invaded.

Or is this re-write of history intended only for an uneducated audience who might be prepared to believe what you say without checking the facts?

You're forgetting the Iranian invasion of the US that came before that.

- - - Updated - - -

You're missing the point--they're saying that the right to continue armed resistance is not subject to negotiation. If the fighting is going to continue what sense is a peace agreement??

It is you who is missing the point. 'Resistance' is a word with meaning. Maybe you should go look it up, and then come back and tell us what you have learned.

And how does armed resistance coexist with peace???

What peace do they have to coexist with? Israel is an armed occupier of Palestine, and therefor Palestinians have the right to armed resistance of that occupation. They would be foolish to give up that right. If Israel ceases their occupation of Palestine, and Palestine continues armed action against Israel, it is no longer resistance, and then you may be right to condemn such action. When do you see such an event taking place?

1) The whole point of a peace agreement is a position both agree is acceptable. That means there should be no more fighting.

2) You're forgetting that they consider all of Israel to be occupied. In their minds the occupation can't end so long as Israel exists.

 

[KeepTalking]

You're missing the point--they're saying that the right to continue armed resistance is not subject to negotiation. If the fighting is going to continue what sense is a peace agreement??

It is you who is missing the point. 'Resistance' is a word with meaning. Maybe you should go look it up, and then come back and tell us what you have learned.

And how does armed resistance coexist with peace???

What peace do they have to coexist with? Israel is an armed occupier of Palestine, and therefor Palestinians have the right to armed resistance of that occupation. They would be foolish to give up that right. If Israel ceases their occupation of Palestine, and Palestine continues armed action against Israel, it is no longer resistance, and then you may be right to condemn such action. When do you see such an event taking place?

1) The whole point of a peace agreement is a position both agree is acceptable. That means there should be no more fighting.

When there is a peace agreement in place, then this will matter, but retaining the right to armed resistance does not mean that there will be more fighting if an acceptable end to the armed occupation comes about. It's not a right that you can ask anyone to give up. Any nation confronted with an another armed nation has the right to armed resistance.

2) You're forgetting that they consider all of Israel to be occupied. In their minds the occupation can't end so long as Israel exists.

But that's not going to be put to the test, because Israel is not going to end the actual armed occupation of recognized Palestinian territory, now is it? If that ever happens, Israel will have the high moral ground. As it stands they cannot rightfully complain about armed resistance of a populace they have under armed occupation.

 

[Jayjay]

You mean like Hezbollah after Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon?

Or ayatollah Khomeini's cronies when the Shah was overthrown?

Or ISIS after American troops pulled out from Iraq?

Just because some violent, batshit insane group can gain foothold due to oppression (or perceived oppression), it doesn't mean that the genie will nicely go back into the bottle once the original reason is removed. History shows us that these type of extremist groups tend to continue to be extremists and they will manufacture or find enemies to justify themselves in perpetuity.

Like Egypt, and Jordan.

Iran was first saddled with the Shah. Then with the US supported Iraqi invasion and decade long war, devastation Americans can't fathom. Then the invasion of Iraq right next door and a decade long US occupation.

It is a joke to think Iran has been left in peace.

And ISIS is the latest blowback from US aggression. It just arrived, and the involvement of the US in Iraq is not over.

See, now you are talking about "aggression". Or not being "left in peace". The issue here was oppression, and in specific, that even after the original reason for a militant extremist group has long gone, they can always find other pretext to keep up the fight. There is always going to be something they can spin off as "aggression" regardless of whether its real or imaginary, and by their own violence they can perpetuate the cycle.

It's incredibly naive to think that Hamas would just drop their weapons and start collecting stamps or whatever, if only Israel would leave them alone. There is a reason why Hamas will periodically start wars with Israel even if they know they can't win.

 

[bilby]

"The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980" - Wikipedia.

It is unusual - perhaps unique - for the country that is the aggressor to be the one that is invaded.

Or is this re-write of history intended only for an uneducated audience who might be prepared to believe what you say without checking the facts?

You're forgetting the Iranian invasion of the US that came before that.

Only a total moron would describe the breach of national sovereignty implied by taking over an overseas embassy as an 'invasion of the US'.

The US did not go to war with Iran (or vice-versa). I am pretty confident that this would not have been the case if the Ayatollah had landed on Long Island at the head of an armoured brigade. I guess it takes an American to have such a weak grasp of what constitutes an 'invasion'.

Iran had a revolution. The revolutionaries didn't respect the sovereignty of the embassies of nations that had supported the Shah. That's a very long way short of being an invasion of anything.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You're forgetting the Iranian invasion of the US that came before that.

1) Iran didn't invade the U.S. and
2) Even if you could claim convincingly that the sacking of the U.S. embassy counts (it doesn't), Saddam Hussein was the President of IRAQ, not the United States.

1) The whole point of a peace agreement is a position both agree is acceptable. That means there should be no more fighting.

Then the Palestinian right of resistance would be a moot point in the event of peace. When they reach an agreement, there is nothing more to resist.

2) You're forgetting that they consider all of Israel to be occupied.

You're forgetting that they have already acknowledged the 1967 borders as the legitimate borders of the State of Palestine. It is Israel, NOT Hamas, that refuses to recognize those borders.

 

[Jayjay]

1) Iran didn't invade the U.S. and
2) Even if you could claim convincingly that the sacking of the U.S. embassy counts (it doesn't), Saddam Hussein was the President of IRAQ, not the United States.

1) The whole point of a peace agreement is a position both agree is acceptable. That means there should be no more fighting.

Then the Palestinian right of resistance would be a moot point in the event of peace. When they reach an agreement, there is nothing more to resist.

2) You're forgetting that they consider all of Israel to be occupied.

You're forgetting that they have already acknowledged the 1967 borders as the legitimate borders of the State of Palestine. It is Israel, NOT Hamas, that refuses to recognize those borders.

I don't think Hamas has made any such acknowledgement. Hamas has openly rejected the Arab peace plan for example.

 

[untermensche]

It's incredibly naive to think that Hamas would just drop their weapons and start collecting stamps or whatever, if only Israel would leave them alone. There is a reason why Hamas will periodically start wars with Israel even if they know they can't win.

That's why I don't say it.

I say, in a generation Hamas will have very little support.

Does the IRA give England much trouble these days?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's incredibly naive to think that Hamas would just drop their weapons and start collecting stamps or whatever, if only Israel would leave them alone. There is a reason why Hamas will periodically start wars with Israel even if they know they can't win.

That's why I don't say it.

I say, in a generation Hamas will have very little support.

Does the IRA give England much trouble these days?

The IRA doesn't cause much trouble because their money got cut off.

 

[Jayjay]

It's incredibly naive to think that Hamas would just drop their weapons and start collecting stamps or whatever, if only Israel would leave them alone. There is a reason why Hamas will periodically start wars with Israel even if they know they can't win.

That's why I don't say it.

I say, in a generation Hamas will have very little support.

Does the IRA give England much trouble these days?

Hamas will have very little support, only if they don't engineer the circumstances to keep themselves relevant. You can refer to IRA as a counter-example, but look at Hezbollah which is ideologically and in circumstances a lot closer to Hamas than IRA ever was, and after 15 years of Israeli occupation of Lebanon shows no signs of losing support.

 

[crispy]

That's why I don't say it.

I say, in a generation Hamas will have very little support.

Does the IRA give England much trouble these days?

The IRA doesn't cause much trouble because their money got cut off.

How much trouble do you think they would cause if England had complete control of import/exports in Ireland?

 

[Jokodo]

"The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980" - Wikipedia.

It is unusual - perhaps unique - for the country that is the aggressor to be the one that is invaded.

Or is this re-write of history intended only for an uneducated audience who might be prepared to believe what you say without checking the facts?

You're forgetting the Iranian invasion of the US that came before that.

The Iranian "invasion" of the US might be, marginally, relevant if the US had invaded Iran in 1980. My sources all seem to agree that it Iraq instead, and though Iraq was a US ally at the time, the Iraqi army was not literally a part of the US armed forces. And a good thing it is for you, because otherwise you'd have to take full responsibility for the Halabja massacre.

 

[Arctish]

That's why I don't say it.

I say, in a generation Hamas will have very little support.

Does the IRA give England much trouble these days?

Hamas will have very little support, only if they don't engineer the circumstances to keep themselves relevant. You can refer to IRA as a counter-example, but look at Hezbollah which is ideologically and in circumstances a lot closer to Hamas than IRA ever was, and after 15 years of Israeli occupation of Lebanon shows no signs of losing support.

Actually, Hezbollah did lose a lot of support in the years following Israel's withdrawal, as resentment against the Syrian Occupation steadily increased. At the start of 2006, Hezbollah's favorability rating was in the 20s; it sank into the low teens when Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers and Israel responded with massive airstrikes and artillery fire. But that changed when Israel started attacking Lebanese targets throughout the entire country, destroying infrastructure and killing civilians far away from the region Hezbollah controlled. Hezbollah went from looking like a bunch of troublemakers to the only force willing to stand up to the regional superpower slaughtering innocent Lebanese.

Israel inadvertently turned Hezbollah into national heroes by treating all Lebanese like ducks in a shooting gallery and making Hezbollah their only hope of salvation.

 

[Jayjay]

Hamas will have very little support, only if they don't engineer the circumstances to keep themselves relevant. You can refer to IRA as a counter-example, but look at Hezbollah which is ideologically and in circumstances a lot closer to Hamas than IRA ever was, and after 15 years of Israeli occupation of Lebanon shows no signs of losing support.

Actually, Hezbollah did lose a lot of support in the years following Israel's withdrawal, as resentment against the Syrian Occupation steadily increased. At the start of 2006, Hezbollah's favorability rating was in the 20s; it sank into the low teens when Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers and Israel responded with massive airstrikes and artillery fire. But that changed when Israel started attacking Lebanese targets throughout the entire country, destroying infrastructure and killing civilians far away from the region Hezbollah controlled. Hezbollah went from looking like a bunch of troublemakers to the only force willing to stand up to the regional superpower slaughtering innocent Lebanese.

Israel inadvertently turned Hezbollah into national heroes by treating all Lebanese like ducks in a shooting gallery and making Hezbollah their only hope of salvation.

Which is exactly what I said: groups like Hezbollah and Hamas can engineer a conflict to maintain their own relevance. Of course Hezbollah got a little bit more than they bargained for, but it was still them whose provocations started the war. And I doubt there was a huge difference in Hezbollah's popularity before and after the war, only that afterwards the country was more polarized.

 

[Archimedes]

That's why I don't say it.

I say, in a generation Hamas will have very little support.

Does the IRA give England much trouble these days?

The IRA doesn't cause much trouble because their money got cut off.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Your bizarre fact free ideas about the IRA being a Soviet funded organisation that collapsed because of the fall of the USSR is so far fetched from the actual reality of the situation in Northern Ireland that it's hard to take any of your opinions on international politics seriously at all.

 

[bilby]

The IRA doesn't cause much trouble because their money got cut off.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Your bizarre fact free ideas about the IRA being a Soviet funded organisation that collapsed because of the fall of the USSR is so far fetched from the actual reality of the situation in Northern Ireland that it's hard to take any of your opinions on international politics seriously at all.

My understanding is that they were funded and supplied by the Germans, and that they ceased operations when the Treaty of Versailles blocked that supply line. (Fortunately for them they had enough explosives and ammunition stockpiled to last another eighty years, but when that ran out, they were fucked).

Well it makes as much sense as Loren's hypothesis.

 

[untermensche]

That's why I don't say it.

I say, in a generation Hamas will have very little support.

Does the IRA give England much trouble these days?

The IRA doesn't cause much trouble because their money got cut off.

The money dried up because peace was made.

And many, like the people here, said it was impossible.

If Israel actually wanted peace instead of expansion it could have easily had peace a long time ago and Hamas never would have existed.

What Israel can't have is a world where there is a guarantee that some lone lunatic born in an Israeli created hellhole won't seek revenge for the decades of crimes abuse and torture done by Israelis.

Nobody has those kinds of guarantees.