View Story | 123 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
the part where the bad son was shooting his own people in the streets and throwing civil servants off rooftops.
That said, good for Alan Johnston. You don't have to take sides in this or any conflict to worry about the impact of violence against journalists. It's a huge problem in our disintegrating vice-royalty of Iraq.
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:44:26 AM PDT
This action is a huge positive step and one can take the gamble (as I said yesterday - everything is a gamble at this point) that rewarding such behavior will lead to more.
I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan
by arielle on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:07:33 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I don't see that Hamas had much of a choice in this matter, since they desperately need to overcome the isolation their criminality and terrorism has placed them under; but who knows, maybe they'll come around to embracing the rule of law and surrendering to the lawful government.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:15:31 AM PDT
agree that Hamas should be situated as a moderate grouping along the Islamist spectrum. Compared to more extreme groups, such as al Qaeda, Hamas believes in electoral democracy and the rule of law.
Their behavior since being elected to control the PA Parliament certainly bears out such an analysis.
Yes, We Can
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:44:28 AM PDT
Objective observers of the Middle East don't look at a violent coup marked by summary executions of political opponents as evidence of a commitment to moderation, the rule of law or democracy. Nor do objective observers place Hamas in the same category as actually moderate Islamist elements, such as the ruling Truth and Justice Party of Turkey. Objective observers agree that the U.S., the UK, Japan, Australia and the EU are entirely correct in classifying Hamas as a terrorist organization, no matter how much that afrights the delicate sensibilities of their friends at Electronic Jihad Intifada.
Terror continues, though "toned down"...
Intel: Hamas toned down terror activity Hamas has toned down its terrorist activities in Gaza but has allowed Islamic Jihad to continue firing rockets against civilian targets in the western Negev and to plan suicide bombings, a senior IDF officer told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday. Col. Ronen Cohen, deputy head of Military Intelligence's Research Division, said Hamas has focused its anti-Israel activity on firing mortars, mostly at military targets along the Gaza border. But he warned that Hamas had strengthened its military forces in Gaza and that its ability to transfer information, documents and money in and out of the Strip via Egypt would grow, even though the border with Sinai was currently closed.
Intel: Hamas toned down terror activity
Hamas has toned down its terrorist activities in Gaza but has allowed Islamic Jihad to continue firing rockets against civilian targets in the western Negev and to plan suicide bombings, a senior IDF officer told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday.
Col. Ronen Cohen, deputy head of Military Intelligence's Research Division, said Hamas has focused its anti-Israel activity on firing mortars, mostly at military targets along the Gaza border.
But he warned that Hamas had strengthened its military forces in Gaza and that its ability to transfer information, documents and money in and out of the Strip via Egypt would grow, even though the border with Sinai was currently closed.
As do threats of extra-legal violence...
Hamas says release of kidnapped BBC reporter begins era of law and order for Gaza GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — The Islamic militant Hamas said Wednesday the release of BBC reporter Alan Johnston, nearly four months after he was snatched by a shadowy Palestinian group, ushers in a "new era" of law and order in chaotic Gaza, and it will now go after all vigilante gunmen. But the Hamas attempt to portray itself as a responsible ruler of the territory it seized by force last month was immediately sabotaged by the kidnappers, who bragged they would never surrender their weapons.
Hamas says release of kidnapped BBC reporter begins era of law and order for Gaza
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — The Islamic militant Hamas said Wednesday the release of BBC reporter Alan Johnston, nearly four months after he was snatched by a shadowy Palestinian group, ushers in a "new era" of law and order in chaotic Gaza, and it will now go after all vigilante gunmen.
But the Hamas attempt to portray itself as a responsible ruler of the territory it seized by force last month was immediately sabotaged by the kidnappers, who bragged they would never surrender their weapons.
The fun part? We know how Hamas-style justice is dispensed: bullet in the head on a street corner without benefit of trial. So my guess would be that Gazans have reason to be worried about the return of summary executions in the name of "law and order". As they did, for example, three weeks ago, when the moderates of Hamas started throwing people off rooftops.
Truly astonishing that any self-proclaimed member of the reality-based community would describe Hamas as moderate. Street-corner executions don't qualify as Progressive.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:10:09 AM PDT
of Likud and Kadima talking points.
Really, dude, you're sounding like a broken record. Change the disk already.
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:32:01 AM PDT
Problem is, the disk that really needs to be changed is your fact-free contention that Hamas is "moderate" in any universe where the term has meaning. Found any elected Democrats yet who agree with that position?
Thought not.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:51:30 AM PDT
"Do not judge your neighbor until you walk two moons in his moccasins." Cheyenne
by maracatu on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:10:55 PM PDT
Satisfied? Doesn't make Hamas any less evil or murderous.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:19:07 PM PDT
by maracatu on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:21:10 PM PDT
...that's a constant genuflection everyone here who doesn't abjectly loathe Israel has to go through. Please, by all means, proceed.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:31:19 PM PDT
a guy named Dore Gold says there is no occupation.
That's not bad, right?
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:50:36 PM PDT
..dont't start with that. :)
by sofia on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:57:11 PM PDT
Thank you for correcting my error.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:00:26 PM PDT
Hamas. Al Qaeda. Hamas. Al Qaeda. Hamas. Al Qaeda.
Which one blows up buildings and offers no political program?
Which one organizes itself as a political party, runs in (and wins) elections, and operates an extensive social welfare program?
On the Islamist spectrum, which one would you characterize as moderate?
As long as AIPAC keeps pulling shit like this, it won't be long before more Democrats than Jimmy Carter and George McGovern see the light on Middle East peace...
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:54:31 PM PDT
Will the elite be happy living behind gated communities in the potential meltdown? Peace now. -7.00, -2.92
by mattes on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:08:40 PM PDT
Hamas. Al Qaeda. Hamas. Al Qaeda. Hamas. Al Qaeda. Which one blows up buildings and offers no political program?
Obviously, you know as little about AQ as you do about Hamas. Al Qaeda has both an ideology and a program; the end results of which, if implemented, would be indistinguishable from those of Hamas. Other commonalities include the linkage to the Muslim Brotherhood, the embrace of suicide bombings, the goal of an Islamic state as the end stage of political development, religious intolerance, and so on and so forth. The principal difference? Al Qaeda operates Ummah-wide, Hamas is confined to Israel and the disputed territories.
But keep on spamming the one blog post you think validates what you're saying. It doesn't, mind you, and your bizarre views are anathema to all Democrats, but you go right ahead and move on over to the Green Party.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:59:54 PM PDT
A wikipedia piece to prove that al Qaeda has a "program." And then when one goes to wikipedia, looking for that program, what do they find?
This:
Al-Qaedaism, or al-Qaedism, is a political neologism coined after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 which refers to the set of religious beliefs, political doctrines, objectives, practices and methods, inspired by al-Qaeda. It is based on a militant, dogmatic and orthodox form of Islamism, sometimes referred to as Islamofascism.
What is the content of that program? Wikipedia doesn't tell us. It doesn't even tell us there is a program; rather, it refers to a "set of ... beliefs, political doctrines, objectives, practices and methods." "A set," mind you, not even a specific doctrine.
What makes this indistinguishable from Hamas? Why, MBNYC, blogger extraordinaire, tells us so!
And what makes you an expert on Hamas and al Qaeda, dear sir? Why should we accept your word, when people with actual expertise in Middle East politics -- like Hosni Mubarak -- tell us different?
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:16:45 PM PDT
What a refresingly novel reading of things. You rely on an unsourced, second-hand blog report - how internet of you - to enlist Mubarak, of all people I'd stay away from, in your crusade jihad. Here's why it's rational that there could be such a policy shift, and it's entirely in line with my analysis: Hamas focuses merely on the destruction of Israel. Al Qaeda has wider ambitions. From Egypt's perspective, that would tend to make Hamas preferable to them, yes, but that doesn't establish that they're a different order of being.
Well, unless one thinks that Haniyeh is merely walking in Lincoln's footsteps, as you were debased enough to insinuate the other day.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:26:47 PM PDT
So the report is "unsourced" and "second-hand" but you accept its principal findings: that Egypt has turned away from the US-Israeli efforts to isolate Hamas, and that fear of al Qaeda expanding its influence in Gaza underlies Egypt's shift in position.
Rather than accepting the view of actual Middle East experts, however, you offer your own.
Why don't you go read the original Al-Quds al-Arabi article? Oh, that's right, it's in Arabic...
Let me know how much your translation differs from Badger's.
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:49:57 PM PDT
You claim, falsely, that the article establishes significant differences between Hamas and Al Qaeda. I have shown that those differences are immaterial and only relevant from the theoretical Egyptian perspective.
The problem isn't with the experts; it's in your ludicrous deductions from them.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 08:24:03 PM PDT
Which is why Mubarak turns away from the policy recommended by his sponsor -- what is the total US aid to Egypt annually? -- to isolate Hamas, because the differences between Hamas and al Qaeda are "immaterial."
Your analysis fails the laugh test...
by litho on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 04:48:49 AM PDT
by MBNYC on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 05:46:44 AM PDT
by litho on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:09:29 AM PDT
I'm getting sick and tired of you twisting my words. I said that Haniyeh, like Lincoln, faced an illegal insurrection and had to take violent action to put it down.
I did not say, ever, there was any comparison between Lincoln's political philosophy and Haniyeh's. Do not repeat that slander again.
You are on notice.
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:51:29 PM PDT
Now that you've repeated the Lincoln-Haniyeh comparison again?
What are you going to do, trollrate me for telling the truth? You're comparing Lincoln to Ismail Haniyeh, a terrorist and war criminal. There is no such valid comparison to be made, not least because Haniyeh, the war criminal and murderer of his own people, didn't face such an insurrection. If you're looking for a comparison in American history with Haniyeh, it's Jefferson Davis; and it's an open question in my mind which of the two hated the Jews more. I'm inclined to give that dubious distinction to Haniyeh.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 08:29:45 PM PDT
...used to silence anti-Hamas positions. Clearly, ratings abuse by Litho.
by MBNYC on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 06:28:44 AM PDT
by mattes on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:07:41 PM PDT
Palestinians?
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:00:21 PM PDT
You keep harping that Hamas doesn't recognize Israel. How about Israel recogizing Palestine? Logic dictates the onus in cases such as this should fall on the occupier, which is Israel:
Dr. Mahmoud Ramahi, Hamas’s chief whip in the PLC, made a similar statement when I interviewed him a few days earlier in the PLC’s main seat in Ramallah: We have said clearly that Israel is a state that exists and is recognized by many countries in the world. But the side that needs recognition is Palestine! And the Israelis should recognize our right to have our state in all the land occupied in 1967. After that it should be easy to reach agreement. They ask us to recognize Israel without telling us what borders they’re talking about! First let us discuss borders, and then we will discuss recognition. Haniyeh made clear in our short interview that his government would be putting domestic rather than international affairs at the top of its agenda. "We are confident we can succeed in this new challenge of organizing the Palestinian house," he said. "Our people want internal security now."
Dr. Mahmoud Ramahi, Hamas’s chief whip in the PLC, made a similar statement when I interviewed him a few days earlier in the PLC’s main seat in Ramallah:
We have said clearly that Israel is a state that exists and is recognized by many countries in the world. But the side that needs recognition is Palestine! And the Israelis should recognize our right to have our state in all the land occupied in 1967. After that it should be easy to reach agreement. They ask us to recognize Israel without telling us what borders they’re talking about! First let us discuss borders, and then we will discuss recognition.
Haniyeh made clear in our short interview that his government would be putting domestic rather than international affairs at the top of its agenda. "We are confident we can succeed in this new challenge of organizing the Palestinian house," he said. "Our people want internal security now."
by maracatu on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:10:11 PM PDT
Actually, yes, I do make that complaint, but haven't made it here; so I can only guess that you're sitting there at home, drawing out the Israel=bad flash cards.
As to Haniyeh, please, if that war criminal was serious about recognizing Israel, he'd change the Hamas charter, stop shooting rockets at civilians, and so on. There is no Palestinian state to recognize, however, Israel recognizes the PA; therefore, your argument is somewhat specious.
May I suggest your next flash card deal with genocide or the apartheid wall? Haven't seen those in a few days.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:29:32 PM PDT
As I had long suspected, you have no desire for a just solution.
by maracatu on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:32:46 PM PDT
by mattes on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:10:35 PM PDT
There is no Palestinian state to recognize...
That says it all.
by maracatu on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:20:29 PM PDT
One recognizes (or doesn't) an existent state.
There is no state of Palestine.
There has never been a state of Palestine.
There is a Palestine Authority which is, in fact, recognized by Israel.
by arielle on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:44:19 PM PDT
You asked for it:
Amnesty International details Israeli war crimes in Lebanon Between July 12 and August 14, the Israeli air force conducted more than 7,000 air attacks in Lebanon, supplemented by 2,500 naval bombardments and an unknown number of artillery barrages. An estimated 1,183 people were killed, about one third of whom were children, 4,054 were injured and 970,000 people, or 25 percent of the total population, were displaced. Half a million people sought shelter in Beirut, many in parks and public spaces without basic facilities. "The Lebanese government estimates that 31 ‘vital points’ (such as airports, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities) have been completely or partially destroyed, as have around 80 bridges and 94 roads. More than 25 fuel stations and around 900 commercial enterprises were hit. The number of residential properties, offices and shops completely destroyed exceeds 30,000. Two government hospitals—in Bint Jbeil and in Meis al-Jebel—were completely destroyed in Israeli attacks and three others were seriously damaged," the report stated.
Amnesty International details Israeli war crimes in Lebanon
Between July 12 and August 14, the Israeli air force conducted more than 7,000 air attacks in Lebanon, supplemented by 2,500 naval bombardments and an unknown number of artillery barrages. An estimated 1,183 people were killed, about one third of whom were children, 4,054 were injured and 970,000 people, or 25 percent of the total population, were displaced. Half a million people sought shelter in Beirut, many in parks and public spaces without basic facilities.
"The Lebanese government estimates that 31 ‘vital points’ (such as airports, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities) have been completely or partially destroyed, as have around 80 bridges and 94 roads. More than 25 fuel stations and around 900 commercial enterprises were hit. The number of residential properties, offices and shops completely destroyed exceeds 30,000. Two government hospitals—in Bint Jbeil and in Meis al-Jebel—were completely destroyed in Israeli attacks and three others were seriously damaged," the report stated.
by maracatu on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:39:18 PM PDT
as clear a statement as one can ask for that Hamas not only recognizes Israel but is willing to accept a two-state solution with Palestine being created on the OPT. And from the mouth of someone in a position of sufficient authority to make such a statement.
Will that stop MBNYC from continuing his jihad?
Ummm, no. The "Israel is never wrong" crowd has long since demonstrated its imperviousness to actual facts...
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:58:56 PM PDT
What some guy from Hamas sez:
They ask us to recognize Israel without telling us what borders they’re talking about! First let us discuss borders, and then we will discuss recognition.
What litho reads:
There it is as clear a statement as one can ask for that Hamas ... recognizes Israel...
Maybe litho's constant reiteration of the falsehood that Hamas recognizes Israel is simply an eyesight problem. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking. Whatever it is, it's easily contradicted by reality -- in fact, the very same bits of reality litho relies on to come to the wrong conclusions!
In memory of Tom Disch.
by zemblan on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:27:51 PM PDT
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:52:57 PM PDT
You took a quote saying quite plainly that Hamas does not recognized Israel and claimed that it said quite plainly that Hamas does recognize Israel. Now, maybe it's not your eyesight. Maybe it's not wishful thinking. Because the alternative is that you're simply a liar and don't care who knows it.
by zemblan on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:38:22 PM PDT
because Ramahi said:
We have said clearly that Israel is a state that exists and is recognized by many countries in the world... And the Israelis should recognize our right to have our state in all the land occupied in 1967.
I'll reiterate: that is as clear as a statement as one can ask for by Hamas recognizing Israel's existence within the 1967 borders, and accepting that the boundaries of the future Palestinian state will be within the OPT.
How you can read it any other way simply baffles me.
Of course he withholds formal recognition. They haven't reached a peace agreement yet, and formal recognition is a bargaining chip. But the statement stands as a clear signal that Hamas is willing and ready to take that step as soon as Israel shows its willingness to reciprocate.
Of course, as is par for the "Israel is never wrong" crowd, you took the opportunity to launch a personal attack against me. At the same time you willfully ignored the clear meaning of Ramahi's statement...
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:59:37 PM PDT
I know you want it to mean that. But, as the context makes more than clear, it simply doesn't, bolded, italicized, or rendered in Morse.
Of course he withholds formal recognition.
Ah, so even you see that Hamas doesn't recognize Israel, despite your earlier claim that it did. Congratulations on your improved vision.
by zemblan on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:13:12 PM PDT
Now, could you put your glasses back on and see what the diplomat is actually saying?
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:44:22 PM PDT
that nobody will notice when you cherry-pick the Hamas statements you'd like to focus on. Unfortunately, this being the reality-based community, which I urge you to join at some point, we're able to see that these statements are eclipsed by many more of the genocidal, kill-all-the-Jews variety. These, of course, cast into doubt, for all but Lenin's useful idiots, the sincerity of Hamas' statements to the contrary.
Such as this one, by the Speaker of the LegCo, Nancy Pelosi's terrorist counterpart.
Dr. Ahmad Bahar (acting Speaker, Palestinian Legislative Council): "This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our people was afflicted by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation... Be certain that America is on its way to disappear, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine... Make us victorious over the infidel people... Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies... Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one." [PA TV, April 20, 2007]
So you tell me: who are we supposed to take seriously?
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:17:00 PM PDT
I'm not interested at the moment in analyzing the tendentious and misleading statements you might be able to dredge up on the internet.
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:43:35 PM PDT
I'm sure you're cute when you have your fingers in your ears and blurble "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!". It's a great look for my four-year old niece.
Welcome to the Barbara Bush school of political analysis; I agree, you don't need to trouble your beautiful mind with things you're kicking and screaming not to hear. Being a Progressive member of the reality-based community, I beg to differ; but you do what seems right for you, Litho.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:51:59 PM PDT
the subject. The item under analysis is a statement by a significant leader of Hamas in which he makes an unequivocal statement signaling Hamas's willingness to recognize Israel within the 1967 borders once Israel recognizes Palestine within the borders of the Occupied Territories.
Have other Hamas leaders made other statements at other times that could be interpreted in other ways? Obviously they have. Do those statements have any bearing whatsoever on how we interpret this particular statement? Not much.
Unless, of course, you believe that people and political parties are incapable of evolving their positions. Extremists like Dore Gold generally do take that kind of view...
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:55:16 PM PDT
Your approach is akin to those who treated Hitler's peaceful speeches of the mid-thirties as more relevant than Mein Kampf, the Nuremberg Laws, and other speeches that they didn't want to hear. Zemblan has already pointed out that this statement doesn't mean what you say it does. Arielle shows here that Hamas has repudiated, repeatedly, exactly identical statements. What is your point exactly, except to demonstrate your vast and self-willed credulity?
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 08:12:51 PM PDT
uprated this execrable Nazi comparison.
by litho on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 04:50:09 AM PDT
So I get trollrated for a comparison between the Nazis and Hamas, on a Progressive site, no less.
By the very same guy who called me a fascist, to boot.
by MBNYC on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 06:09:34 AM PDT
on How to be a Schmuck:
Pull the Nazi Analogy. The one thing that you can count on when the demonization of Israel gets flowing is that some irate soul is going to whip out the Nazi analogy. Sure, every comparison in the world is fair game. You can compare a piano to Isabella Rosellini: they both have legs. It's a perfectly valid analogy. What you can't do is pretend that saying doing so, you've said anything close to useful or enlightening about either pianos, Rosellini, or legs. But the Nazi analogy isn't just dumb and vacuous to the point of uselessness. It's also poisonous. Why? Because it has an emotional impact on Jewish readers that it won't have on other readers. It's designed to twist the knife in a deep historical wound for Jewish readers in a way that it doesn't for most other readers. It's ethnically selective. This one has that extra nasty component, the implication that "you're all just as bad as the guys who killed your grandma." Needless to say, that's a very different impact than "you're all just as bad as the guy who killed someone else's grandma." It's much more visceral. Which is why some folks love using it so much: it wounds Jewish Zionists in a particularized way. So here's the balance. It's an unilluminating and inapt analogy that conveys nothing except your hatred of Israel and does nothing but make Jews hate you for very personal reasons. Not much of a balance, is it. Don't do it. Don't be a schmuck.
Pull the Nazi Analogy.
The one thing that you can count on when the demonization of Israel gets flowing is that some irate soul is going to whip out the Nazi analogy.
Sure, every comparison in the world is fair game. You can compare a piano to Isabella Rosellini: they both have legs. It's a perfectly valid analogy. What you can't do is pretend that saying doing so, you've said anything close to useful or enlightening about either pianos, Rosellini, or legs.
But the Nazi analogy isn't just dumb and vacuous to the point of uselessness. It's also poisonous. Why? Because it has an emotional impact on Jewish readers that it won't have on other readers. It's designed to twist the knife in a deep historical wound for Jewish readers in a way that it doesn't for most other readers. It's ethnically selective. This one has that extra nasty component, the implication that "you're all just as bad as the guys who killed your grandma." Needless to say, that's a very different impact than "you're all just as bad as the guy who killed someone else's grandma." It's much more visceral. Which is why some folks love using it so much: it wounds Jewish Zionists in a particularized way.
So here's the balance. It's an unilluminating and inapt analogy that conveys nothing except your hatred of Israel and does nothing but make Jews hate you for very personal reasons. Not much of a balance, is it.
Don't do it. Don't be a schmuck.
You know I'm Jewish.
Schmuck.
by litho on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:05:29 AM PDT
I suspect you're only looking for an excuse to fling crap, but all the same, here's the state of play.
MBNYC didn't compare you to the Nazis. He compared Hamas to Nazis.
For MBNYC to compare you to the Nazis would be unfair and tactless. But, what do you know, folks! That's not what he did. Instead, he compared you with all the clueless folks in the US who turned a blind eye to the Nazi threat.
So stop wibbling.
by zemblan on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 12:27:27 PM PDT
I'd be flattered for you to use my thoughts, but not as a blunt instrument wielded without comprehension at the wrong targets.
I believe there are times when the Nazi analogy is completely appropriate. Hamas in an excellent example. And if MBNYC were actually using the Nazi analogy against you, I'd be pretty disappointed, because he's usually on firmer moral ground than that. But -- gee -- if it turns out that it's just another case of your seeing something that isn't there and flinging donuts to compensate for your eyesight problem, well, there's no longer much room for me to be disappointed.
by zemblan on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 12:31:26 PM PDT
Allow me to hand you yet another trollrating, this time for lies. Trust me, if I were inclined to call you a Nazi, I most certainly have the ability to do so, based on my command of the language.
by MBNYC on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 12:48:27 PM PDT
And both Arielle & Zemblan are cited in the comment you protest, for arguments that have nothing to do with Nazi anything, so why shouldn't they uprate.
Oh I know, because you simply refuse to do anything BUT change the subject.
"It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park." - Jim Moran
by Eric S on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 07:27:11 AM PDT
MBNYC's analogy isn't litho=Nazis but Hamas=Nazis.
So stop your pouty-pouting about being called a Nazi, cuz you weren't.
by zemblan on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 12:35:01 PM PDT
Reuters
GAZA, Feb 9 (Reuters) - Hamas said on Friday it would never recognise Israel and will not, as a movement, abide by previously reached Palestinian peace accords with Israel as urged by President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah. "We will never recognise Israel. There is nothing called Israel, neither in reality nor in the imagination," Nizar Rayyan, a senior Hamas leader in Gaza, told Reuters.
GAZA, Feb 9 (Reuters) - Hamas said on Friday it would never recognise Israel and will not, as a movement, abide by previously reached Palestinian peace accords with Israel as urged by President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah.
"We will never recognise Israel. There is nothing called Israel, neither in reality nor in the imagination," Nizar Rayyan, a senior Hamas leader in Gaza, told Reuters.
Then there was the story about Meshal recognizing Israel and they took that one back an hour later.
Haaretz
Hamas denies Meshal said group would consider recognizing Israel By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz Service and Reuters Hamas denied Wednesday that its Damascus-based political chief Khaled Meshal told Reuters in an interview that his group would consider recognizing Israel once a Palestinian state is established. (Click here for the full interview) One hour after the Reuters interview was published, the Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad told Haaretz that Meshal said, "Israel exists - and that's a fact."
Hamas denies Meshal said group would consider recognizing Israel
By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz Service and Reuters
Hamas denied Wednesday that its Damascus-based political chief Khaled Meshal told Reuters in an interview that his group would consider recognizing Israel once a Palestinian state is established. (Click here for the full interview)
One hour after the Reuters interview was published, the Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad told Haaretz that Meshal said, "Israel exists - and that's a fact."
by arielle on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:23:04 PM PDT
I can never understand why some people are so anxious to close the door to any possible compromise. Anyway, I'll go with Wallerstein on this one:
We could compare the Israel-Palestine conflict to the Afrikaner-Black African conflict in South Africa, to the Unionist-Republican conflict in Northern Ireland, to the United States-China conflict after 1949. In each of these cases, the two sides had diametrically opposing objectives and rhetoric. In each of these cases, each side had its "hardliners" who called the "hardliners" of the other side "extremists" (or "terrorists"). In each of these cases, it seemed virtually impossible to bridge the gap between the two sides. Yet, in each of these cases, a political settlement was finally achieved, one that at the minimum brought the violence to an end. How was this done? A political settlement was achieved only when what the French call interlocuteurs valables came to power in each of the two camps. What is an interlocuteur valable? It is a group, often incarnated in a particular leader, which has substantial support, is "hardline" in its politics, and therefore is in a position to guarantee a compromise settlement if they agree to it. In South Africa, the settlement was between F.W. De Klerk and the Nationalist Party on the one hand and Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress on the other. In Northern Ireland, the settlement was between the Rev. Ian Paisley and the Democratic Unionist Party on the one hand and Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein on the other. The U.S.-China tensions were brought to an end when President Richard Nixon went to Beijing to meet Mao Zedong. Note something in each of these cases. Up to the very last minute, at least one of the two sides said that it would never compromise with the other because the other was untrustworthy and villainous. In each case, they both finally did just that. The reasons were manifold, but realism and exhaustion were major factors in the final agreement. And in each case, each side made painful compromises but was able nonetheless to keep their own followers in line.
We could compare the Israel-Palestine conflict to the Afrikaner-Black African conflict in South Africa, to the Unionist-Republican conflict in Northern Ireland, to the United States-China conflict after 1949. In each of these cases, the two sides had diametrically opposing objectives and rhetoric. In each of these cases, each side had its "hardliners" who called the "hardliners" of the other side "extremists" (or "terrorists"). In each of these cases, it seemed virtually impossible to bridge the gap between the two sides. Yet, in each of these cases, a political settlement was finally achieved, one that at the minimum brought the violence to an end.
How was this done? A political settlement was achieved only when what the French call interlocuteurs valables came to power in each of the two camps. What is an interlocuteur valable? It is a group, often incarnated in a particular leader, which has substantial support, is "hardline" in its politics, and therefore is in a position to guarantee a compromise settlement if they agree to it. In South Africa, the settlement was between F.W. De Klerk and the Nationalist Party on the one hand and Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress on the other. In Northern Ireland, the settlement was between the Rev. Ian Paisley and the Democratic Unionist Party on the one hand and Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein on the other. The U.S.-China tensions were brought to an end when President Richard Nixon went to Beijing to meet Mao Zedong.
Note something in each of these cases. Up to the very last minute, at least one of the two sides said that it would never compromise with the other because the other was untrustworthy and villainous. In each case, they both finally did just that. The reasons were manifold, but realism and exhaustion were major factors in the final agreement. And in each case, each side made painful compromises but was able nonetheless to keep their own followers in line.
by maracatu on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:41:12 PM PDT
"anxious to close the door to any possible compromise"?
by arielle on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:54:02 PM PDT
I like to think positively
I disagree. It doesn't appear that you like to think very much at all, positively or otherwise.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 05:58:26 PM PDT
You can speak all the foolishness you like. People in power that think similar to you will just perpetuate the current state of affairs. For the sake of the region (and that means Israel), I hope a much wiser Israeli leadership will emerge sooner rather than later.
by maracatu on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:36:46 PM PDT
The fools are the ones who do not think that Hamas' statements might very well be in earnest, that they don't mean what they say, and that there is no price to be paid for ignoring totalitarianism of their particular flavor.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:34:50 PM PDT
Cease occupation; solve problem.
by maracatu on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:53:30 PM PDT
There's little evidence that the idea of wiping out Israel stems only from 1967.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 08:20:33 PM PDT
by maracatu on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:00:05 PM PDT
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:19:09 PM PDT
...that some people on both sides are missing -- Hamas is not a monolith -- that's why you see so many conflicting statements; there is an internal struggle within Hamas. The goal should be to empower the more moderate factions; isolating them only empowers the hardliners. Islamist movements aren't going away anytime soon, the question is how to deal with, and moderate them. Many moderate ME experts believe the correct approach is to dialogue with them and invite them into the democratic process.
See my links here for analysis in mainstream publications from mainstream journalists and analysts.
by sofia on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:59:53 PM PDT
I keep on hearing about? What, do they want a kinder, gentler genocidal hate group?
I think you're confusing tactical flexibility, which Hamas has repeatedly shown, with moderation. Hamas the organization is entirely consistent in its doctrine, and its leadership has been given endless opportunities to publicly repudiate its clear and stated program. They have chosen not to do so. I don't see much of a conflict between their statements, and if there are factions within the organization, which is to be supposed, it does not appear that any of them are in a position to deliver what we want.
There were factions within the CPSU and the Nazi Party as well. Didn't create much of a moral distinction in the case of the latter, and it took seventy years for the former to produce a leader able to move on from tyranny. Those are the relevant comparisons.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 08:58:55 PM PDT
..all these mainstream analysts, including many Democrats like David Aaron Miller, Robert Malley(who both served in the Clinton administration) and others, are terrorist sympathizers and Nazi appeasers.
If you don't see contradictions in the various statements put out by different Hamas spokespeople, the change in their platform they ran on vs. their charter, I don't know what to tell you.
I'm not confusing anything, and I resent the implication from someone who is clearly rather a naive re. the ME. I really don't know what else to say.
by sofia on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:16:42 PM PDT
of mainstream analysts who thought the Khmer Rouge would do some good as well; they were, after all, the sworn enemies of our enemies, the Viet Cong.
That's before they started killing.
It's fashionable in the Beltway consultant class to believe that every entity is capable of being worked with. In this case, the evidence that this Beltway conclusion is in error is vast. I repeat: Hamas has been entirely consistent in its public statements. People are free to ignore that all they will, but the fact remains.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:26:02 PM PDT
Hamas has been entirely consistent in its public statements
Inconsistent statements are Hamas's stock in trade. This reflects internal differences of opinion within the movement. All one has to do is go back through the various threads to see the evidence; where one commentator presents a link that Hamas has said this, another commentator presents a link that contradicts the other commentator link, one would think you would have noticed that. My impression is that you have an idée fixe on this issue. That's ok.
by sofia on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:42:01 PM PDT
Salon:
From the Israeli perspective, less than a year after the Israeli Defense Forces failed to defeat Hezbollah and its allies in Lebanon, the Hamas takeover in Gaza is a disaster. And for the Bush administration, preoccupied with the quagmire in Iraq, Gaza marks another failure in the Middle East. The White House forced Israel to allow Hamas' participation in last year's election, thus legitimizing Hamas' political role, but the strategy backfired with Hamas' decisive victory. Faced with the disappointing outcome, U.S. and Israeli officials sought to "isolate the extremists and strengthen the moderates" through a diplomatic and economic boycott of Hamas, and by pledging further support for Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, who kept his position as the president of the weakened Palestinian Authority. But even despite European support for this policy, Hamas withstood all pressure to recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terror and abide by past Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
This isn't, as you seem to be implying, my psychological problem, it's an observable fact agreed upon by the policy-makers of either party. It's simply not the case that there is a silent constituency for Hamas' moderation, certainly not within any legitimate school of opinion.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:00:33 PM PDT
..within Hamas will recognize Israel, unless in the context of a negotiated settlement, based on a two-state solution where both sides recognize each other in recognized borders. On the other hand there are those within Hamas who reject the two state solution, categorically. Public opinion polls consistently show Palestinians do not want Hamas to recognize Israel unless it is in the context of a final settlement because Arafat's recognition of Israel in Oslo failed to achieve the end of the occupation, and instead lead to a doubling of the settlement population post-Oslo.
Again, you ignore the many mainstream analysts, who believe that doesn't preclude negotiations. So I guess I agree with you -- Hamas will never recognize Israel unless it occurs within the context of mutual recognition and specified borders between Israel and a Palestinian state. I guess I thought all this was obvious. :)
by sofia on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:48:16 PM PDT
..that well-known radical, terrorist sympathizer, Nazi appeaser (Sheesh, I always thought he was a moderate Democrat with impecable pro-Israel credentials -- silly me!) wrote, Feb. 2006, right after Hamas's win in the legislative elections: Hamas could open new peace possibilities
If Hamas is going to fail now in leading the Palestinian Authority, it is crucial that it be seen to fail on its own -- because it can't transform itself from a terror group into a ruling body delivering peace, security and good government for Palestinians -- not because Israel and the United States never gave it a chance. [..] Israel was obsessed with getting the PLO to renounce its charter, but in the end, that did not affect Yasser Arafat's real behavior one whit. That's why, regardless of the conditions Israel lays down for allowing funds to flow to a Hamas-led government or negotiating with it, Israel needs to ask itself this: What would impress Israelis most --if Hamas recognized the Jewish state today and sang Hatikva, the Israeli national anthem, or if it maintained the cease-fire and the negotiating process? [..] But Israel has an enormous interest in testing Hamas' ability to evolve. Because if Hamas keeps to the current cease-fire, focuses on better governance and begins to tacitly, but not formally, support a negotiating process with Israel, the benefit to Israel would be enormous.
If Hamas is going to fail now in leading the Palestinian Authority, it is crucial that it be seen to fail on its own -- because it can't transform itself from a terror group into a ruling body delivering peace, security and good government for Palestinians -- not because Israel and the United States never gave it a chance.
[..] Israel was obsessed with getting the PLO to renounce its charter, but in the end, that did not affect Yasser Arafat's real behavior one whit. That's why, regardless of the conditions Israel lays down for allowing funds to flow to a Hamas-led government or negotiating with it, Israel needs to ask itself this: What would impress Israelis most --if Hamas recognized the Jewish state today and sang Hatikva, the Israeli national anthem, or if it maintained the cease-fire and the negotiating process?
[..] But Israel has an enormous interest in testing Hamas' ability to evolve. Because if Hamas keeps to the current cease-fire, focuses on better governance and begins to tacitly, but not formally, support a negotiating process with Israel, the benefit to Israel would be enormous.
And now, June 7, after Fateh's rout in Gaza: NY Times Select
First is the fact that Yasir Arafat's Fatah group, which has long dominated Palestinian life, is in disarray. Fatah will not disappear, but it will never again totally dominate the Palestinian Authority. Fatah will have to share power with Hamas, which has largely wiped out Fatah in Gaza already. Sooner or later, the U.S. and Israel are going to have to drop the economic sanctions they imposed on Palestinians to pressure Hamas into recognizing Israel. ''As repulsive as [Hamas] is to me as an Israeli, I don't think it's coming to the Palestinian Authority just to pay a visit -- it is here to stay,'' said Israeli TV's top Arab affairs reporter, Ehud Yaari. Israel's real choice is between dealing with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority or watching it collapse into little pieces, which Israel would have to pick up. [..] Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki told me that as bad as things are today, his polls show most Palestinians still don't blame Hamas. They blame Israel and America for withholding funds from the Hamas government that Palestinians elected. The best way to diminish Hamas's influence, or to moderate it, is by forcing it to assume responsibility. Ask it: ''Do you want Palestinians to be able to work in Israel? Then sit down with Israel and work out the details.'' We need to ''force Hamas through a corridor of difficult decisions,'' said Israeli strategist Gidi Grinstein. If America can talk to Iran, Israel can talk to Hamas. Second, Hamas says it will only offer Israel a long-term cease-fire. Fine, take it. Fact No. 1: the real history of Israeli-Arab relations is: war, lull, war, lull, war, lull -- from 1948 until today. Fact No. 2: ''Since 1948,'' said Mr. Yaari, ''the Jews have always made better use of the lulls than the Arabs.'' Israel doesn't need Hamas's recognition. It needs a long lull.
First is the fact that Yasir Arafat's Fatah group, which has long dominated Palestinian life, is in disarray. Fatah will not disappear, but it will never again totally dominate the Palestinian Authority. Fatah will have to share power with Hamas, which has largely wiped out Fatah in Gaza already. Sooner or later, the U.S. and Israel are going to have to drop the economic sanctions they imposed on Palestinians to pressure Hamas into recognizing Israel. ''As repulsive as [Hamas] is to me as an Israeli, I don't think it's coming to the Palestinian Authority just to pay a visit -- it is here to stay,'' said Israeli TV's top Arab affairs reporter, Ehud Yaari.
Israel's real choice is between dealing with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority or watching it collapse into little pieces, which Israel would have to pick up.
[..] Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki told me that as bad as things are today, his polls show most Palestinians still don't blame Hamas. They blame Israel and America for withholding funds from the Hamas government that Palestinians elected. The best way to diminish Hamas's influence, or to moderate it, is by forcing it to assume responsibility. Ask it: ''Do you want Palestinians to be able to work in Israel? Then sit down with Israel and work out the details.'' We need to ''force Hamas through a corridor of difficult decisions,'' said Israeli strategist Gidi Grinstein. If America can talk to Iran, Israel can talk to Hamas.
Second, Hamas says it will only offer Israel a long-term cease-fire. Fine, take it. Fact No. 1: the real history of Israeli-Arab relations is: war, lull, war, lull, war, lull -- from 1948 until today. Fact No. 2: ''Since 1948,'' said Mr. Yaari, ''the Jews have always made better use of the lulls than the Arabs.'' Israel doesn't need Hamas's recognition. It needs a long lull.
by sofia on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 07:27:54 AM PDT
Are you of the opinion that Hamas' coup, with all the associated killings, should remain free of consequence, judicial or otherwise?
by MBNYC on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 08:55:55 AM PDT
.. perpetrated executions on both sides should be brought to trial and punished, obviously. Will that happen? Highly unlikely, these executions between factions and among factions have been happening for a long time, mostly without punishment.
The latest fighting between Fateh and Hamas has been going on since Hamas won a majority in the legislative elections. It stems from the fact that some elements in Fateh refused to accept defeat and share power, and egged on by the US and Israel, were actively planning the overthrow of the democratically elected Hamas government.
Unfortunately, I think what happened in Gaza was inevitable, as a resolution through negotiations had failed repeatedly. This doesn't mean I approve or condone what happened.
by sofia on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:29:21 AM PDT
naive shoud be naif.
by sofia on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:22:44 PM PDT
by maracatu on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:07:33 PM PDT
by MmeVoltaire on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:08:26 PM PDT
a apache helicopter? Or a gun ship?
by mattes on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:07:02 PM PDT
Bang, bullet in the head in front of the family.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 05:59:39 PM PDT
freed.
by mattes on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:23:20 AM PDT
they had much choice in the matter, being completely isolated after their coup and desperate for some good will.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:11:42 AM PDT
thrown off of one rooftop, it became the entirety of Tony Snow's critique of Hamas and his justification of the administration's policy of isolating Hamas, and all of these facts have been pointed out to you ad infinitum previously.
It is only your bad faith that forces you to bring them up here, in an entirely different context.
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:42:05 AM PDT
people thrown off from the 15th floor of a building by Hamas that were reported.
but you speak with the authority of someone who was here, there and everywhere witnessing the entire coup all at once in Gaza.like you saw every atrocity with your own eyes. how many went unreported?
and as if somehow conflating Tony Snow with Hamas absolves them of their war crimes commited during the coup, as noted by Human Rights Watch
but lithman, let's not forget the peace rally in Gaza in which people were gunned down in cold blood by Hamas,
Even The Best Drummers Get Hungry
by Keith Moon on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:51:38 AM PDT
..two people were thrown from rooftops; one act perpetrated by Hamas, one act perpetrated by Fateh.
Militants throw rivals off high-rise Gaza buildings (CNN)
Hamas militants kidnapped an officer in a Fatah-linked security force, took him to the roof of a 15-story apartment building and threw him off. [..] Just before midnight, a Hamas activist was thrown off the 12th floor of a building and killed, security officials said. Four other Hamas men in the building were shot and wounded, bringing the day's toll to three dead and 36 wounded,
Hamas militants kidnapped an officer in a Fatah-linked security force, took him to the roof of a 15-story apartment building and threw him off.
[..] Just before midnight, a Hamas activist was thrown off the 12th floor of a building and killed, security officials said. Four other Hamas men in the building were shot and wounded, bringing the day's toll to three dead and 36 wounded,
by sofia on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:04:45 AM PDT
will try to find it later
by Keith Moon on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:07:35 AM PDT
..it was Farfour after hearing his show was being cancelled.
by sofia on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:14:49 AM PDT
...Farfour the Glorious Martyr Mouse fell prey to teh Zionists.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:16:39 AM PDT
..I'm saying that Farfour did the throwing after he read the script for the last episode; mixed up a Fateh guy with a Hamas guy, you know those masks are confusing, especially for a mouse.
by sofia on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:25:44 AM PDT
How many hours of entertainment have all of us collectively derived from Farfur? Not a bad track record for a mouse that squeaks only in Arabic.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:41:13 AM PDT
..highly annoying. It has crossed my mind the kids were secretly relieved at his demise. Hopefully his replacement will be a little more suitable for children.
by sofia on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:00:32 PM PDT
doesn't make Hamas good or its actions more excusable. It just means Fatah is bad as well; though arguably, in the larger context, not as bad.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:45:07 AM PDT
gotta love that old Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, don't you say!
Down home good old boys! I bet they'd fit right in on the Redneck Riviera...
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:00:56 PM PDT
Weren't you arguing not that long ago that AAMB wasn't all that bad - certainly not bad enough to ban someone who posted a verbatim appeal from them here in a piece of general advocacy?
My, how quickly we forget.
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:41:08 PM PDT
that even mentioning their name in a positive light should be sufficient grounds for banning?
Hmm. Now you seem to love them...
by litho on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:57:20 PM PDT
...courtesy of Litho, a classic case of projection.
by MBNYC on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 05:50:09 AM PDT
i was totally unaware that you felt that way about hamas;) have a good 4th man!
Rod Torkelson's Armada Featuring Herman Menderchuk
by howardx on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 08:03:02 AM PDT
Same to you! Happy Burger/Freedom Day! :-)
by MBNYC on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:14:12 AM PDT
being issued for the freeing by Hamas of a Palestinian supporter. Kinda like being kissed by one's siter.
A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.
by Doodad on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:18:18 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 123 comments