Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

New Hamas leader

ObviousGuy (578567) writes | more than 10 years ago

Television 7

Just a thought about the new Hamas leader.

He has gone on record and stated plainly that the U.S. is not going to be a target of Hamas attacks. This is a very astute move.

Just a thought about the new Hamas leader.

He has gone on record and stated plainly that the U.S. is not going to be a target of Hamas attacks. This is a very astute move.

The patience with Israel around the world is growing very thin. This is not mere anti-Semitism that many Jewish leaders automatically rail against every time the Jews are criticized. There is a growing disgust with the manner in which the Israeli government treats the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. This disgust is a direct result of our concepts of Western democracy and equal rights. Since the victory of Israel against its neighbors decades ago, the Jewish population has oppressed the Palestinian refugees in a system akin to apartheid in South Africa.

For a while here, since the beginning of the second intifada and significant increase in civilian bombings, the Palestinians were losing a lot of credibility. Of course the Israelis have the right to crack down on terrorists!

Even in the Yassin killing, Israel is fully justified in the eyes of many to have undertaken the operation.

But now the new leader of Hamas has done something very smart. He has focused his war onto a single opponent - Israel. This changes the dynamics of the war from one of Hamas vs. Israel/U.S. to only Hamas vs. Israel. The U.S. is now given the chance to disengage themselves from Israel. It also forces Israel to deal with Hamas as an opponent in a civil war rather than as part of an overarching War on Terrorism.

Bush has already taken the position that a Palestinian homeland is inevitable and desirable, and this is Hamas giving the U.S. the chance to push that position. If the U.S. is able to make Israel realize that they will lose American support unless the Jewish population stops treating the Palestinian refugees as interlopers, then we may see significant progress towards peace in Israel.

OTOH, we may see Israel lash out uninhibitedly against the Palestinians. However, the international backlash, including the possible invasion of Israel and arrest of Israeli leaders for violations of international human rights laws, would most likely put a damper on such a large Jewish offensive.

It doesn't look like the U.S. has any inclination to take the chance to disengage, if the public statements of American diplomats are any indication, though. It's too bad. This could have been a way of protecting the U.S. from increased terrorist attacks coming from opponents of Israel.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Look (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 10 years ago | (#8666644)

I'm not about to get into the zillionth unending flame war on the larger topic except to say that the comparison of Israel to South Africa is absurd and baseless, no matter how many times it's repeated.

As far as the Hamas issue goes, I believe you're confused about what their goals have been. It has nothing to do with any sort of compromise with Israel -- they explicitly demand the destruction of Israel and the death or expulsion of every Jew living there. Support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, as both the current US and Israeli governments support, has nothing to do with what Hamas wants.

Also, this retreat from targeting the US is over threats they made the day before, not a change in their ongoing position. They were never threatening US targets, knowing they'd be obliterated if they did. US opposition to Hamas has to do with the idea that blowing up buses full of Israeli civilians is wrong. I realize that notion isn't shared around the world.

Finally, the issue of who is sick of whom is kind of backwards. Israel has been denounced in such ludicrously overblown terms and expected to tolerate such incredible outrages that they have nothing left to lose. What could happen -- another UN condemnation? More bombings?

(Incidentally, it's useful to remember how this situation came about. The Barak government offered Arafat a state in 97% of the West Bank and Gaza, and he walked out and tried to get a better deal through terrorism. That's what all this is. There would be a Palestinian state today, as good as anything they'll ever get, if he hadn't been too much of a coward to accept it.)

Re:Look (1)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 10 years ago | (#8671062)

Let's take this a step forward.
There was NEVER a Palestine. It is a region, part of an area divided up by Britain and France from the Ottoman Empire following WWI.
The Brits fell in love with the idea of a Zionist home. Pretty much because someone misheard or misread somebody else.
The Palis said the region would never support more than 60K people.
The Palis were compensentated for their land in $$$. In fact, they lived in relative peace even until the official chartering of the state in 1948.
However, some were upset with all of the progress. Hydro damns, kibitzes and the knesset (you realize there are more Arab reps in the Knesset than in all other Arab countries combined - 4!)
So when Syria, Jordan and Egypt chided them to leave their homeland so they could attack Israel, the Palis did. Willingly.
They left their homes. Walked away so they could join in a war against Israel.
We know what happened next.
Now the kicker is that Jordan and Egypt and Syria don't WANT the Palis in their land, so they put them in concentration camps, aka, settlements where they still live today.

The P.L.O. and other Pali 'Liberation' orgs all have the same thing in their charter - the complete destruction of Israel.
They don't seek a truce, they seek death.
They can't be reasoned or bargained with.
They had a deal and decided to play hardball.

They send kids to do a man's job.
They hide in churches and mosques.

They cheered in the street when the WTC fell.

Personally I think genocide is the only solution, however, Israelis may find that a touchy subject. I lack their forbearance.
Lucky for Hamas I'm not the PM.

And you can hold your breath until the Arab league forces one of their member states to become a democracy. Iraq scares the hell out of them.

Re:Look (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 10 years ago | (#8675337)

Personally I think genocide is the only solution, however, Israelis may find that a touchy subject.

I appreciate the support, but this isn't really any more helpful than indiscriminately shouting about "apartheid" and "the Jews". Expelling the Palestinians is utterly out of the question for the overwhelming majority in Israel, let alone killing them.

At this point, the best thing in the short term would be to restore a situation where people on both sides can at least expect to get through the day without being blown up; having the rest of the world constantly dumping fuel on the fire doesn't help.

Re:Look (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 10 years ago | (#8675650)

I do not back down from my use of apartheid, and I threw out a few more incindiary phrases in a post over here [slashdot.org] . Though no analogy is complete, they are all relevant and the parallels between modern Israel and those other situations I listed are striking and disheartening.

Obviously, the biggest difference between those analogies and the current situation is that the oppressed minorities are fighting back against the dehumanizing police state with lethal and illegal methods. But this does not minimize Israel's violation of the Palestinians' human rights, and as they are the governing power, we must hold them to the standard that we would hold any modern government to.

The question I posed was whether American disengagement from the situation could help Israel find peace. The Bush administration thus far has been a terrible steward of the peace process. It has waffled between supporting and condemning Israel for its actions against Hamas and the PLO radicals. It has not taken any concrete position except that in the end America will always support the Israelis despite their actions. America is Israel's big brother, in effect, and is implicitly encouraging Israel to continue its extra-judicial operations on national enemies by not saying anything when the Israeli government continued expanding settlements, assassinated and attempted assissination on troublesome Palestinian leaders, and now the building of the West Bank wall.

If Israel were to lose the support of the Americans, would they be so bold in their operations? Could removing American support from Israel encourage the Israelis to accelerate their movement towards peace?

I think that it is a definite possibility as long as America remains involved in the Peace Process as its main steward. The difference would be that instead of being Israel's ally in the process, teaming up against the Palestinians, it would be a neutral party interested in solutions that benefitted both parties and perhaps at the expense of both parties, as tough as that might be to swallow for the Israelis and Palestinians. But peace is not going to come in an easy to swallow pill.

In the schoolyard bully analogy, it seems to me that Israel, the bully, gets a lot of its legitimacy directly from the implicit U.S. support. Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to stop being the big brother and become the principal (as a badly formed analogy). America needs to be in a position to tell the Israelis to 'knock it off' and have those words have the same legitimacy as when we say it to the Palestinians. It cannot do that as long as it seems that we are clearly partial to one side in this conflict.

IMO, of course.

Re:Look (1)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 10 years ago | (#8678113)

Apparently yesterday 60 prominent Palistinians published an ad saying that more violence is NOT the answer.
AFAIK, this is the first time any kind of moderate leadership has made itself widely known.
Hope springs eternal.

And I know that such talk is neither reasonable nor helpful. However, this is just a web discussion. ;-)

Invasion of Israel? (1)

eglamkowski (631706) | more than 10 years ago | (#8668565)

Let's not forget they have nuclear weapons. If backed into a corner for their very existance by the entirety of the world's nations, what would they have to lose in using them?

hahahahha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8778830)

sandnigger loving faggot
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?