Skip to main content

View Diary: Simple Problems: The Middle East (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well for a quick and dirty search, admitting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that better sources may exist but that the current state of research on the web is such that any search on any IP topic pulls up a couple of million hits.  Many if not most of those hits are from admittedly biased sources or else present a set of talking points and not information.  I have tried to parse them out, to find a source which could not be dismissed as "anti-Jewish" on their face and came up with this:

    I will note that some advocates for Israel demand a recognition that Israel has a right to exist and to continue to exist in perpetuity as a "Jewish" state.  However, this perpetual "Jewish state" needs to be specifically and explicitly as the definition of "Jewish state" seems to be one that changes over time.  It would be very helpful to clarify what this means and specifically, how or by what mechanisms, it would remain Jewish, no matter what political or demographic changes occur in the unforeseeable future  

    •  C'mon entlord, you're better than this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Justanothernyer, rduran, slipper

      Your search could not find even a single quote by a Hamas source that Hamas would accept a Jewish homeland.  

      This article is just self-serving statements by a Fatah person trying to keep the money rolling into the "unity" government.

      Needless to say, when it's so difficult to find a single quote by any Hamas spokesperson that they would, in fact, be willing to accept a Jewish homeland, maybe it's because they don't in fact accept a Jewish homeland?

      •  I expected better from you (0+ / 0-)

        You are playing the same game extreme advocates always play whereby you move the goalposts constantly.  I watch this on Red State constantly.

        You asked for a source so I searched for one which would be acceptable.  I then sought a source which would seem to be authoritative.  Now your complaint is that it is Fatah speaking and not Hamas.

        Even if I spend the time searching for a Hamas source, the problem will either be that that person would not be a spokesman for Hamas, would not be far enough up in the hierarchy to make such a comment, would not really belong to Hamas but to another group or is simply lying.

        If your agenda is to reject whatever proof you are presented with, you are not an honest broker in the exchange of ideas but are dishonest in the exchange.

        So far, Hamas has been extremely pragmatic in their actions, which can be compared to the IRA or the ANC or any number of other groups involved in an asymmetrical struggle.  I would suggest, instead of my spending time trying to find a source that meets your criteria, that you present a source which refutes my source or sources.

        Happy hunting!

        •  I'm trying to engage with you, not to be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:


          I'm merely pointing out that "Hamas" has never said this, and the reason is very simple: They never said it.

          Nobody is moving the goal posts on you.  If Hamas leadership has never said something, and it's impossible to find a quote from a Hamas leader even sympathetic to the idea that they would accept a Jewish homeland, why do you believe it to be true?

          •  Fatah says that they said it (0+ / 0-)

            if there is a unity government, then Hamas will have to accept Fatah's recognition of Israel.  How could there be a unity government if the two factions do not agree on the basic premises?

            However, I note that Bibi has said that Israel will not recognize any unity government but instead will continue to treat Hamas as a terrorist organization.  So if the complaint is that Hamas refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist, it seems Israel also refuses to recognize the existence of any unity government that they do not approve of.

            The insistence by Bibi that Hamas specifically agree that Israel has some sort of natural right to exist as a Jewish state is problematical in that it is unusual for a country to demand its neighbors recognize its right to exist.  Countries come and go.  That is the nature of things.  Consider how many nations have disappeared or appeared since 2000 for example.  Did those nations have a right to exist or is this some sort of special thing for Israel alone in the world.

            Then we have the question of what would a Jewish state be?  It would seem that in a democracy, if certain groups of Jews, such as the Haredi receive special treatment from the government, then the Christian and Muslim equivalents  would also be eligible for the same sort of treatment in a true democracy:

            •  Hamas and Fatah will do the minimum necessary (0+ / 0-)

              to keep the money rolling in.  That's all they've done.  Hamas has not agreed to anything concerning Israel.  

              I'm not going to respond in this thread to your comments on Netanyahu not accepting Hamas.  I don't want this thread to be threadjacked.  I'll just point out that it seems odd that you wish for him to treat a terrorist organization as anything other than ..... a terrorist organization.

              •  you may remember that Reagan called (0+ / 0-)

                Mandela a terrorist.  The terrorist label has been so abused by various factions that it merely means a nonstate actor who opposes a state.

                Hamas is a political organization.  Israel helped form Hamas as a counterweight to PLO so this whirlwind is at least partially theirs to reap.  I would also note that Hizbullah is also a political organization though it is labeled a terrorist organization by some.

                Bottom line is Israel is going to have to deal with Hamas in any agreement, the same as IRA, ANC and Sandinistas eventually got a seat at their tables

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site