Hamas' policy on negotation, in their own words:

[Loren Pechtel]

http://english.alresalah.ps/en/post.php?id=4702#.VXbUd1CU_c4.twitter

Armed resistance is not a political issue that may be negotiated,

In other words, there can be no peace agreement.

 

[Jayjay]

In other news, dog bites man.

 

[Arctish]

http://english.alresalah.ps/en/post.php?id=4702#.VXbUd1CU_c4.twitter

Armed resistance is not a political issue that may be negotiated,

In other words, there can be no peace agreement.

Where is the rest of that sentence?

ETA: Found it.

Senior leader of Hamas Mahmoud al-Zahhar said all options are available to confront the Israeli occupation, including armed and popular resistance and resistance of boycott.

Armed resistance is not a political issue that may be negotiated, said al-Zahhar in a meeting organized by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Khan Younis City on Sunday to commemorate the day Jerusalem was occupied.

"It is neither a controversial, nor a negotiable issue; it is, rather, dogmatic fundamental cause in struggle with Israel," said al-Zahhar, referring to armed resistance, pointing out that Israel has long sought to erase the Palestinian constants, concerning the Palestinian lands, Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque.

I'm curious. What have senior Likud leaders said about giving up the option of armed conflict while the peace negotiations are underway? I'm guessing they said something along the lines of "Hell, no! Our right to conduct military operations is non-negotiable." And I'm guessing everyone who heard them say it nodded their heads and said something like "Yeah, that's understandable".

 

[Togo]

This is a lot milder, and a lot more understandable, than some of the stuff the IRA used to come up with.

Hands up who thinks that peace with the IRA was impossible. Anyone?

 

[Draconis]

The amusing thing is if they had their way, ie that Israel vanished off the map, they would have nobody to deflect blame onto for whatever troubles their supporters might have. Suddenly it would all be their fault. So they need Israel to carry on existing and being the nasty bogeyman.

 

[untermensche]

The amusing thing is if they had their way, ie that Israel vanished off the map, they would have nobody to deflect blame onto for whatever troubles their supporters might have. Suddenly it would all be their fault. So they need Israel to carry on existing and being the nasty bogeyman.

Hamas is the product of decades of oppression. It is the kind of group that many times arises when people are oppressed. Radical and violent.

The bogeyman is Israeli oppression, not Israel.

If the oppression ended these people would have nothing to fight and in a generation they would be reduced to the margins.

But it appears that Israel has no intention in ending the oppression. It has chosen expansion over peace time and time again as we have seen for the last few decades.

 

[Jayjay]

If the oppression ended these people would have nothing to fight and in a generation they would be reduced to the margins.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://english.alresalah.ps/en/post.php?id=4702#.VXbUd1CU_c4.twitter



In other words, there can be no peace agreement.

Where is the rest of that sentence?

ETA: Found it.

Senior leader of Hamas Mahmoud al-Zahhar said all options are available to confront the Israeli occupation, including armed and popular resistance and resistance of boycott.

Armed resistance is not a political issue that may be negotiated, said al-Zahhar in a meeting organized by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Khan Younis City on Sunday to commemorate the day Jerusalem was occupied.

"It is neither a controversial, nor a negotiable issue; it is, rather, dogmatic fundamental cause in struggle with Israel," said al-Zahhar, referring to armed resistance, pointing out that Israel has long sought to erase the Palestinian constants, concerning the Palestinian lands, Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque.

I'm curious. What have senior Likud leaders said about giving up the option of armed conflict while the peace negotiations are underway? I'm guessing they said something along the lines of "Hell, no! Our right to conduct military operations is non-negotiable." And I'm guessing everyone who heard them say it nodded their heads and said something like "Yeah, that's understandable".

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??

 

[Jayjay]

Technically, the right to continue armed resistance is not the same as continuing armed resistance.

 

[untermensche]

If the oppression ended these people would have nothing to fight and in a generation they would be reduced to the margins.

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.

 

[KeepTalking]

Where is the rest of that sentence?

ETA: Found it.

Senior leader of Hamas Mahmoud al-Zahhar said all options are available to confront the Israeli occupation, including armed and popular resistance and resistance of boycott.

Armed resistance is not a political issue that may be negotiated, said al-Zahhar in a meeting organized by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Khan Younis City on Sunday to commemorate the day Jerusalem was occupied.

"It is neither a controversial, nor a negotiable issue; it is, rather, dogmatic fundamental cause in struggle with Israel," said al-Zahhar, referring to armed resistance, pointing out that Israel has long sought to erase the Palestinian constants, concerning the Palestinian lands, Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque.

I'm curious. What have senior Likud leaders said about giving up the option of armed conflict while the peace negotiations are underway? I'm guessing they said something along the lines of "Hell, no! Our right to conduct military operations is non-negotiable." And I'm guessing everyone who heard them say it nodded their heads and said something like "Yeah, that's understandable".

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.

 

[untermensche]

As soon as the Palestinians understand they have no right to resist Israeli oppression there can be peace.

Israel not only wants to oppress, but wants to pay no price for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

Where is the rest of that sentence?

ETA: Found it.

Senior leader of Hamas Mahmoud al-Zahhar said all options are available to confront the Israeli occupation, including armed and popular resistance and resistance of boycott.

Armed resistance is not a political issue that may be negotiated, said al-Zahhar in a meeting organized by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Khan Younis City on Sunday to commemorate the day Jerusalem was occupied.

"It is neither a controversial, nor a negotiable issue; it is, rather, dogmatic fundamental cause in struggle with Israel," said al-Zahhar, referring to armed resistance, pointing out that Israel has long sought to erase the Palestinian constants, concerning the Palestinian lands, Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque.

I'm curious. What have senior Likud leaders said about giving up the option of armed conflict while the peace negotiations are underway? I'm guessing they said something along the lines of "Hell, no! Our right to conduct military operations is non-negotiable." And I'm guessing everyone who heard them say it nodded their heads and said something like "Yeah, that's understandable".

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???

 

[Arctish]

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???

The right to engage in armed resistance is not negotiable, but acts of armed resistance are. Two sides in a conflict can agree to suspend or permanently end armed conflict through negotiation without either side surrendering their right to engage in it.

 

[Ford]

And how does armed resistance coexist with peace???

The right to engage in armed resistance is not negotiable, but acts of armed resistance are. Two sides in a conflict can agree to suspend or permanently end armed conflict through negotiation without either side surrendering their right to engage in it.

You have to understand that Loren believes only one side in this fight has rights. There's no two sides. There is only Israel, and a band of dirty Arab terrorists who are defying Israel's right to all the lands they claim.

 

[bilby]

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.

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?

 

[Jokodo]

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?

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?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The amusing thing is if they had their way, ie that Israel vanished off the map, they would have nobody to deflect blame onto for whatever troubles their supporters might have. Suddenly it would all be their fault. So they need Israel to carry on existing and being the nasty bogeyman.

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.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

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.

Bullshit. Iran didn't invade Iraq in the 1980s and didn't aim to conquer it, nor did they get directly involved in the Soviet/Afghan War. They have made NO attempt to spread Shia Islam militarily to their neighbors, either by proxy or by direct action, primarily because most if not all of their international proxies practice SUNNI Islam and don't answer to the Supreme Leader. That is to say, Iran's "brand of Islam" Is Shia Islam as interpreted by the Supreme Leader of Iran. It is NOT possible to export that brand of Islam; the only way to spread it is by conquering and annexing other countries, which is something they've never even attempted to do.

And how does armed resistance coexist with peace???

In exactly the same way as "power projection" or "Mutually assured destruction." It is a military check against Israeli aggression beyond its own borders. That is to say, the Palestinians reserve the right to resist any violation of their sovereignty.

I would be confused as to why you expect this is a controversial position, but then I remembered your pathological overdog worship: almost the entirety of your activity on this forum is basically apologetics for oppressive states/institutions that flagrantly abuse their power.

 

[arkirk]

The amusing thing is if they had their way, ie that Israel vanished off the map, they would have nobody to deflect blame onto for whatever troubles their supporters might have. Suddenly it would all be their fault. So they need Israel to carry on existing and being the nasty bogeyman.

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. What makes it hard for Atheists is that these characters idea of the good is somewhat shaped by their description of their god. The same thing is true on the other side (IDF). I am certain both sides are very racist and very opposed to each other....any more than Japan and the U.S. were in WWII? The truth is there is always a major component of any society that wants a peaceful society in which to raise their children. I am sure that there are people in Hamas who have THAT DESIRE. You just classing all Arabs as complete idiots and people who are inherently morally flawed makes making peace harder. Of course you might not care and be as hard and harsh as you claim Hamas is.