Hamas' policy on negotation, in their own words:

[arkirk]

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.

Actually Hamas and Hezbollah are reactions to Israeli aggression. The Israelis have forgotten God's orders....kill them all, just like the Amalekites. Whenever you go somewhere and shove a bunch of people out of the way to establish a savage free utopia, you are going to be having problems. That is why God wanted the enemy all killed...men, women, children, livestock. If the Israelis had behaved to the letter of the zionist belief, they would have killed all those pesky Palestinians. Now they are paying the price...incidentally so are the Palestinians. It is time for the Zionists to admit their Utopia will never be and that they had better sit down at the negotiating table and hope they can negotiate a little bit of something for everybody, rather than this continuing tirade of criticism of the locals. I have never thought the U.S. has any business giving them warplanes and somebody somewhere giving them nukes. This dispute should be none of America's business and American business should not be involved. For sure our country should not be involved in ethnic cleansing. Oh, I forgot! We were the model the Israelis used. Several U. S. presidents launched genocidal wars against the native American populations. We are a society that is at war with everything...including nature. It seems all we are good for, but we are falling behind these days....actually losing our wars. Maybe it is time to stop doing war. I wonder if we can learn anything else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Continuing to repeat this doesn't make it true. Hamas has made it very clear they will not accept peace while Israel exists.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Continuing to repeat this doesn't make it true. Hamas has made it very clear they will not accept peace while Israel exists.

And Israel has made it clear that it will not accept peace while Hamas exists. None of this is new to anyone. Nor are your pathetic propaganda pieces.

The reality is that at this time none of the major players really want peace. Until enough of them do, the nasty and stupid violence by all will continue. Blaming one side simply points to a severe ideological bias.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Continuing to repeat this doesn't make it true. Hamas has made it very clear they will not accept peace while Israel exists.

Hamas has no power to do anything but poke a few pins in the fat belly of Israel.

Israel needs to allow the Palestinians some freedom. What the Palestinians want is a united Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza under the same rule.

What Israel wants and works for is a divided Palestine.

But I can't expect the Israeli's to be better than Americans.

Americans supported and cheered for far worse crimes than Israel has committed. The US run invasion of Iraq was the biggest war crime since the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Not as big as the US invasion of Vietnam though.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.


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.

2008: Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders

2008: Hamas ready to accept 1967 borders

2011: Hamas accepts 1967 borders, but will never recognize Israel, top official says

2011: Hamas Foreign Minister: We Accept Two-State Solution With '67 Borders

2012: Mashaal: I accept a Palestinian state on '67 borders

2013: Ghazi Hamad: Hamas Agrees to Accept State Within '67 Borders

Hamas has been VERY explicit about this fact every time it has been negotiated. They are willing to accept a two-state solution along the 1967 borders with a permanent peace in place.

It is ISRAEL, not Hamas, that has repeatedly refused to accept the 1967 borders, for 4 main reasons:

1) They do not want to give up the settlements in the West Bank (these are beyond the 1967 borders)
2) They do not want to give up Jerusalem
3) They do not want to give up their military installations deeper in the West Bank, particularly their military installations at Jericho.
4) They do not want to give up access to underground aquifers that the West Bank is sitting on (and currently are difficult to get to without violating the 1967 borders).

There are many other obstacles between a long-term agreement with the Palestinians, but the issue with the 1967 borders is ISRAELI rejection. Simply put: Israeli wants Palestinian land, and will not accept any peace agreement that requires them to give it back (or, for that matter, surrender the option to claim more of it in the future).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Continuing to repeat this doesn't make it true. Hamas has made it very clear they will not accept peace while Israel exists.

Hamas has no power to do anything but poke a few pins in the fat belly of Israel.

Obviously you don't care about the lives of Jews.

Furthermore, the attack that Israel thwarted last year would have been on the scale of 9/11.

Israel needs to allow the Palestinians some freedom. What the Palestinians want is a united Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza under the same rule.

They've tried repeatedly--it always goes badly.

Furthermore, it's not what they want anyway--you're looking at two sides of a civil war and saying they want to be one nation???

Americans supported and cheered for far worse crimes than Israel has committed. The US run invasion of Iraq was the biggest war crime since the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Not as big as the US invasion of Vietnam though.

1) None of the events you refer to were war crimes.

2) The worst war crime is the ethnic cleansing that the two sides have been carrying out in Iraq since the invasion. It's driven by outside forces but not the US, why don't you blame the actual instigators?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They've tried repeatedly--it always goes badly.

And even when it doesn't, Israel goes out of its way to make sure it does.

Furthermore, it's not what they want anyway--you're looking at two sides of a civil war and saying they want to be one nation???

That is the normal case in a civil war, yes. Two different factions with radically different agendas fighting for control of a country they refuse to share with their opposition. Sometimes, the underlying cause of their dispute proves reconcilable after all and the civil war ends with a peaceful power-sharing agreement. Other times (on rare occasions) one faction crushes the other and takes over completely.

The Palestinians have ALREADY established grounds for such a reconciliation. Strictly speaking, they're no longer in "civil war" mode and have already started forming a unity government.

 

[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.


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.

2008: Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders

2008: Hamas ready to accept 1967 borders

2011: Hamas accepts 1967 borders, but will never recognize Israel, top official says

2011: Hamas Foreign Minister: We Accept Two-State Solution With '67 Borders

2012: Mashaal: I accept a Palestinian state on '67 borders

2013: Ghazi Hamad: Hamas Agrees to Accept State Within '67 Borders

Hamas has been VERY explicit about this fact every time it has been negotiated. They are willing to accept a two-state solution along the 1967 borders with a permanent peace in place.

I stand corrected. But of course, you have to see the qualifications that Hamas puts in place as well: no recognition of Israel, and no permanent peace (only a "hudna" i.e. a temporary truce). The sources above are very clear that Hamas explicity rejects a two-state solution.

It is ISRAEL, not Hamas, that has repeatedly refused to accept the 1967 borders, for 4 main reasons:

1) They do not want to give up the settlements in the West Bank (these are beyond the 1967 borders)
2) They do not want to give up Jerusalem
3) They do not want to give up their military installations deeper in the West Bank, particularly their military installations at Jericho.
4) They do not want to give up access to underground aquifers that the West Bank is sitting on (and currently are difficult to get to without violating the 1967 borders).

There are many other obstacles between a long-term agreement with the Palestinians, but the issue with the 1967 borders is ISRAELI rejection. Simply put: Israeli wants Palestinian land, and will not accept any peace agreement that requires them to give it back (or, for that matter, surrender the option to claim more of it in the future).

Yep.

 

[untermensche]

Hamas has no power to do anything but poke a few pins in the fat belly of Israel.

Obviously you don't care about the lives of Jews.

It is the Israeli government's desire for expansion that puts those lives at risk.

It cares more about expanding and maintaining stolen land than those people.

Israel needs to allow the Palestinians some freedom. What the Palestinians want is a united Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza under the same rule.

They've tried repeatedly--it always goes badly.

You mean after Israel assassinates a few leaders?

It is what the Palestinians want. It doesn't presently exist because of Israeli interference.

Furthermore, it's not what they want anyway--you're looking at two sides of a civil war and saying they want to be one nation???

Civil war is what Israel wants and is trying to produce. That is why it is not pushing for another national election.

Americans supported and cheered for far worse crimes than Israel has committed. The US run invasion of Iraq was the biggest war crime since the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Not as big as the US invasion of Vietnam though.

1) None of the events you refer to were war crimes.

Unprovoked violent attacks that overturn governments are not only a war crime, they are acts of terrorism.

If somebody supports the US invasion of Iraq they are supporting state terrorism on a massive scale. They have no right to say anything about terrorism from any other place, which pales in comparison.

2) The worst war crime is the ethnic cleansing that the two sides have been carrying out in Iraq since the invasion. It's driven by outside forces but not the US, why don't you blame the actual instigators?

None of this sectarian violence existed in Iraq until the US invaded and blew up the place. In times of terror religious leaders gain great power as people turn to religion.

The party responsible for all this sectarian violence is the US.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Obviously you don't care about the lives of Jews.

It is the Israeli government's desire for expansion that puts those lives at risk.

You still need to prove that they are expanding.

Israel needs to allow the Palestinians some freedom. What the Palestinians want is a united Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza under the same rule.

They've tried repeatedly--it always goes badly.

You mean after Israel assassinates a few leaders?

It is what the Palestinians want. It doesn't presently exist because of Israeli interference.

I was talking about freedom.

Furthermore, it's not what they want anyway--you're looking at two sides of a civil war and saying they want to be one nation???

Civil war is what Israel wants and is trying to produce. That is why it is not pushing for another national election.

Israel doesn't control Palestinian elections.

Americans supported and cheered for far worse crimes than Israel has committed. The US run invasion of Iraq was the biggest war crime since the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Not as big as the US invasion of Vietnam though.

1) None of the events you refer to were war crimes.

Unprovoked violent attacks that overturn governments are not only a war crime, they are acts of terrorism.

Saddam most certainly provoked the attack.

2) The worst war crime is the ethnic cleansing that the two sides have been carrying out in Iraq since the invasion. It's driven by outside forces but not the US, why don't you blame the actual instigators?

None of this sectarian violence existed in Iraq until the US invaded and blew up the place. In times of terror religious leaders gain great power as people turn to religion.

The party responsible for all this sectarian violence is the US.

We removed the suppression of the ethnic violence, that's all. Once again your position amounts to them being animals that can't act in a responsible fashion.

 

[untermensche]

It is the Israeli government's desire for expansion that puts those lives at risk.

You still need to prove that they are expanding.

Prove it?

This is delusional.

They have been building illegal settlements in the West Bank and around Jeruselum for decades. They have been carving apart the West bank and taking all the best land for decades. When is the last time you actually looked at a map of the West Bank?

If you are unaware of these crimes you have no business discussing this.

Saddam most certainly provoked the attack.

He was a dictator. That is not justification for an attack.

The UN Charter outlines the justifications for the use of violence in international affairs.

Here's the first condition before we even get to justifications.

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The Security Council did not approve the US attack of the Iraqi people. It did not determine that Saddam was provoking anything.

The insane neo-cons wanted to attack Iraq long before 911. They begged Clinton to do it. On 911 Rumsfeld asked for plans to invade Iraq.

The US attack of the Iraqi people had nothing to do with any threat to the US.

It had everything to do with perceived and real US control of oil resources.

And in this the US attack of the Iraqi people was not only immoral, a huge war crime, an act of massive terrorism, but also a complete failure.

The scumbags who lied and used the fear and anger from 911 to get the nation to support the attack of the Iraqi people were also incompetent morons. People who had really never done anything but order others around and talk a good game.

They immediately resorted to widespread torture the second things got a little difficult in what they, in their ignorant delusion, dreamed would be a cake walk.

The party responsible for all this sectarian violence is the US.

We removed the suppression of the ethnic violence, that's all. Once again your position amounts to them being animals that can't act in a responsible fashion.

Nonsense.

We terrorized millions and threw them into the arms of the most radial religious so-called leaders.

911 was nothing compared to the US attack of the Iraqi people. But all across the US people went batshit insane because of it.

People in Iraq watched in terror as day after day innocent people were killed, never knowing if they would be next. This created a widespread terror the US has never known. Millions of Iraqi's fled the nation.

And it was the seeds that has directly led to all this sectarian violence and the existence of groups like ISIS.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You still need to prove that they are expanding.

Prove it?

This is delusional.

They have been building illegal settlements in the West Bank and around Jeruselum for decades. They have been carving apart the West bank and taking all the best land for decades. When is the last time you actually looked at a map of the West Bank?

When is the last time you have looked at the wall? The wall that effectively froze de-facto borders.

Saddam most certainly provoked the attack.

He was a dictator. That is not justification for an attack.

He kept playing games with the UN inspectors. He would behave when our army was over there breathing down his neck, he would misbehave when we weren't in a position to immediately attack. Bush had enough of this and didn't accept his last minute backing down.

Nonsense.

We terrorized millions and threw them into the arms of the most radial religious so-called leaders.

We terrorized very few--the locals knew our bombs would drop on target, safety was simply a matter of staying away from military things. That didn't throw them into the hands of the fundies.

People in Iraq watched in terror as day after day innocent people were killed, never knowing if they would be next. This created a widespread terror the US has never known. Millions of Iraqi's fled the nation.

And it was the seeds that has directly led to all this sectarian violence and the existence of groups like ISIS.

You continue to blame the US for the actions of the ethnic cleansing that came afterwards.

 

[arkirk]

Prove it?

This is delusional.

They have been building illegal settlements in the West Bank and around Jeruselum for decades. They have been carving apart the West bank and taking all the best land for decades. When is the last time you actually looked at a map of the West Bank?

When is the last time you have looked at the wall? The wall that effectively froze de-facto borders.

Saddam most certainly provoked the attack.

He was a dictator. That is not justification for an attack.

He kept playing games with the UN inspectors. He would behave when our army was over there breathing down his neck, he would misbehave when we weren't in a position to immediately attack. Bush had enough of this and didn't accept his last minute backing down.

Nonsense.

We terrorized millions and threw them into the arms of the most radial religious so-called leaders.

We terrorized very few--the locals knew our bombs would drop on target, safety was simply a matter of staying away from military things. That didn't throw them into the hands of the fundies.

People in Iraq watched in terror as day after day innocent people were killed, never knowing if they would be next. This created a widespread terror the US has never known. Millions of Iraqi's fled the nation.

And it was the seeds that has directly led to all this sectarian violence and the existence of groups like ISIS.

You continue to blame the US for the actions of the ethnic cleansing that came afterwards.

Loren: You are still defending Dubbiya? You ARE a Republican and perhaps a supporter of Cheney school of international relations...torture included?

What Bush did in Iraq was a horrendous war crime. The entire invasion was completely unjustified and based on lies. We can't forgive liars when their lies cost thousands of lives.. You shouldn't be slipping this shit in on a thread about Hamas' policy on negotiation. In a funny way, it does point to your other notion about Hamas that they are evil and Bush probably should have gotten them too. You carry with you too many vendettas against Muslim peoples to ever be considered a reliable source on information about the area.
What I found most profound here is your assertion that Bush or any national leader had the right to actualize his impatience by instigating all out military attacks. If he did not have that right, then perhaps you had better say that much. I see Bush as a war criminal who escapes punishment by being simply an ex-president.

 

[untermensche]

We terrorized very few

Perhaps the most ignorant thing I've heard in a while.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When is the last time you have looked at the wall? The wall that effectively froze de-facto borders.

Saddam most certainly provoked the attack.

He was a dictator. That is not justification for an attack.

He kept playing games with the UN inspectors. He would behave when our army was over there breathing down his neck, he would misbehave when we weren't in a position to immediately attack. Bush had enough of this and didn't accept his last minute backing down.

Nonsense.

We terrorized millions and threw them into the arms of the most radial religious so-called leaders.

We terrorized very few--the locals knew our bombs would drop on target, safety was simply a matter of staying away from military things. That didn't throw them into the hands of the fundies.

People in Iraq watched in terror as day after day innocent people were killed, never knowing if they would be next. This created a widespread terror the US has never known. Millions of Iraqi's fled the nation.

And it was the seeds that has directly led to all this sectarian violence and the existence of groups like ISIS.

You continue to blame the US for the actions of the ethnic cleansing that came afterwards.

Loren: You are still defending Dubbiya? You ARE a Republican and perhaps a supporter of Cheney school of international relations...torture included?

Saying that he did have provocation isn't supporting W. I would have been more in favor of some lesser action such as one night removing all those "palaces" that he declared off limits to inspection.

What Bush did in Iraq was a horrendous war crime. The entire invasion was completely unjustified and based on lies. We can't forgive liars when their lies cost thousands of lives.. You shouldn't be slipping this shit in on a thread about Hamas' policy on negotiation. In a funny way, it does point to your other notion about Hamas that they are evil and Bush probably should have gotten them too. You carry with you too many vendettas against Muslim peoples to ever be considered a reliable source on information about the area.
What I found most profound here is your assertion that Bush or any national leader had the right to actualize his impatience by instigating all out military attacks. If he did not have that right, then perhaps you had better say that much. I see Bush as a war criminal who escapes punishment by being simply an ex-president.

His actions in Iraq were stupid but not a war crime.

You continue to blame him for the Sunni/Shia fighting that came afterwards.

1) This amounts to saying they are incapable of acting reasonably on their own--in other words, they're animals.

2) The fighting was driven by outside interests anyway. Bush was not the last or biggest cause, he shouldn't get the blame.

 

[arkirk]

When is the last time you have looked at the wall? The wall that effectively froze de-facto borders.

Saddam most certainly provoked the attack.

He was a dictator. That is not justification for an attack.

He kept playing games with the UN inspectors. He would behave when our army was over there breathing down his neck, he would misbehave when we weren't in a position to immediately attack. Bush had enough of this and didn't accept his last minute backing down.

Nonsense.

We terrorized millions and threw them into the arms of the most radial religious so-called leaders.

We terrorized very few--the locals knew our bombs would drop on target, safety was simply a matter of staying away from military things. That didn't throw them into the hands of the fundies.

People in Iraq watched in terror as day after day innocent people were killed, never knowing if they would be next. This created a widespread terror the US has never known. Millions of Iraqi's fled the nation.

And it was the seeds that has directly led to all this sectarian violence and the existence of groups like ISIS.

You continue to blame the US for the actions of the ethnic cleansing that came afterwards.

Loren: You are still defending Dubbiya? You ARE a Republican and perhaps a supporter of Cheney school of international relations...torture included?

Saying that he did have provocation isn't supporting W. I would have been more in favor of some lesser action such as one night removing all those "palaces" that he declared off limits to inspection.

What Bush did in Iraq was a horrendous war crime. The entire invasion was completely unjustified and based on lies. We can't forgive liars when their lies cost thousands of lives.. You shouldn't be slipping this shit in on a thread about Hamas' policy on negotiation. In a funny way, it does point to your other notion about Hamas that they are evil and Bush probably should have gotten them too. You carry with you too many vendettas against Muslim peoples to ever be considered a reliable source on information about the area.
What I found most profound here is your assertion that Bush or any national leader had the right to actualize his impatience by instigating all out military attacks. If he did not have that right, then perhaps you had better say that much. I see Bush as a war criminal who escapes punishment by being simply an ex-president.

His actions in Iraq were stupid but not a war crime.

You continue to blame him for the Sunni/Shia fighting that came afterwards.

1) This amounts to saying they are incapable of acting reasonably on their own--in other words, they're animals.

2) The fighting was driven by outside interests anyway. Bush was not the last or biggest cause, he shouldn't get the blame.

Of course you would not call what Bush did a war crime. YOU BELIEVE in things I would call war crimes. This invasion was plotted by Neocons in the White House very early in Dubbiya's first term. He just waited for something he could use to justify a pre planned invasion to take back the nationalized oil in the country. It didn't work out, but then, often criminal acts do not work out. We have no reason to keep plugging away arming this side, then that, then fighting people armed with U.S. produced weapons. We need to leave Iraq, not build lillypad bases. We are still playing oil strategic politics. We must be stopping this shit.

Just like pottery, as Powell said, "You break it, you own it."
The Sunnis and Shia had arrived at a non combat condition under Saddam. They were not at war till the U.S. created a political vacuum.

You also support arming the Israelis. This zionist cult is dangerous. It has no intention of making peace or letting the Palestinians have something that resembles a real country. They instead resort to starvation and periodic violent incursions in Gaza and the West Bank. By the way, the wall is not done and it continues to meander here and there to cut up the West Bank. Zionism is at least as terrible as Jihad and I can see no reason for an atheist to support either one. That does not mean we should not chasten the Israelis for the inhuman behavior they have shown to the Palestinians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course you would not call what Bush did a war crime. YOU BELIEVE in things I would call war crimes. This invasion was plotted by Neocons in the White House very early in Dubbiya's first term. He just waited for something he could use to justify a pre planned invasion to take back the nationalized oil in the country. It didn't work out, but then, often criminal acts do not work out. We have no reason to keep plugging away arming this side, then that, then fighting people armed with U.S. produced weapons. We need to leave Iraq, not build lillypad bases. We are still playing oil strategic politics. We must be stopping this shit.

Just like pottery, as Powell said, "You break it, you own it."
The Sunnis and Shia had arrived at a non combat condition under Saddam. They were not at war till the U.S. created a political vacuum.

You also support arming the Israelis. This zionist cult is dangerous. It has no intention of making peace or letting the Palestinians have something that resembles a real country. They instead resort to starvation and periodic violent incursions in Gaza and the West Bank. By the way, the wall is not done and it continues to meander here and there to cut up the West Bank. Zionism is at least as terrible as Jihad and I can see no reason for an atheist to support either one. That does not mean we should not chasten the Israelis for the inhuman behavior they have shown to the Palestinians.

As far as I'm concerned you're the one supporting war crimes--what Hamas does.

As for Iraq--we aren't the ones who broke it. We left the door unlocked, places like Iran came in and broke it.

Starvation in Gaza? Blame Hamas who spends the money on guns rather than food--there are no restrictions on how much food they can import.

 

[untermensche]

....As for Iraq--we aren't the ones who broke it. We left the door unlocked, places like Iran came in and broke it...

We invaded, destroyed the military, disbanded all the civil services, destroyed infrastructure like buildings, roads, electricity and clean water, killed tens of thousands of innocents, wounded tens of thousands more, terrorized millions for a long period of time, not one day like 911, caused millions to flee the nation, rounded up civilians and began widespread random torture, allowed terrorist organizations into the country that were being kept out, unleashed sectarian violence that had no existence in Iraq until the invasion, strengthened the most radical elements and weakened the most moderate, created the conditions that gave ISIS experienced military leadership, left weapons for ISIS to take.

Destruction of a society and ten years of occupation. The tools that have allowed ISIS to wreak havoc.

If one can't see that the US broke the place there is little hope they will see anything real in the world.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.


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.

2008: Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders

2008: Hamas ready to accept 1967 borders

2011: Hamas accepts 1967 borders, but will never recognize Israel, top official says

2011: Hamas Foreign Minister: We Accept Two-State Solution With '67 Borders

2012: Mashaal: I accept a Palestinian state on '67 borders

2013: Ghazi Hamad: Hamas Agrees to Accept State Within '67 Borders

Hamas has been VERY explicit about this fact every time it has been negotiated. They are willing to accept a two-state solution along the 1967 borders with a permanent peace in place.

I stand corrected. But of course, you have to see the qualifications that Hamas puts in place as well: no recognition of Israel, and no permanent peace (only a "hudna" i.e. a temporary truce). The sources above are very clear that Hamas explicity rejects a two-state solution.

They accept, in practice, a two-state solution. The reason they don't call it a TWO state solution is because Palestine is the only state they will recognize in the region. They don't consider the Israeli government to be legitimate, which really just means they will have no formal diplomatic relations with them.

For the record, lack of recognition has never IN AND OF ITSELF actually been an obstacle to peace. The U.S. refused to recognize China for something like 40 years after Mao's uprising; they STILL don't recognize Iran.

What Hamas is basically stating is that they are willing to accept a permanent resolution to the conflict along the 1967 borders, which at this point is a bit like Mexico giving up its claims on Texas. Agreeing to accept sovereignty WITHIN that border is tantamount to surrendering any land claims outside of it. They could, conceivably, attempt to annex Israel through a stealth campaign of terrorism and/or demographic transplantation (subtle migration and/or intermarriage) but that would bear little if any resemblance to the conflict as it exists now, and in any case isn't something that could realistically plan for until LONG after they've established a coherent state of their own.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It is the Israeli government's desire for expansion that puts those lives at risk.

You still need to prove that they are expanding.

How does that need to be proven? Even the ISRAELIS think they're expanding.

Netanyahu actually got reelected partially by promising to continue that expansion.

It's not even debatable. They are expanding.

The "separation wall" is not the legitimate border of Israel and it's highly unlikely it ever will be. Even if it was, most of those settlements are OUTSIDE the wall, and well outside of Israel's internationally recognized borders. When those settlements increase in population, increase in size, increase in infrastructure, or ALL OF THE ABOVE, that is by definition Israeli expansion outside of its borders.