Israel Vs. Palestine: Evil Scorecard
POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 19:27
VIEWED: 9289
PAGE 4 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hamas is the legitimate government of Gaza, at least according to the Israel-hating Nazi website Wikipedia.
If you have a cite of Wikipedia saying that Hamas is the legitimate government of Gaza, please provide it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hamas is the legitimate government of Gaza, at least according to the Israel-hating Nazi website Wikipedia.
If you have a cite of Wikipedia saying that Hamas is the legitimate government of Gaza, please provide it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Conflict between Fatah and Hamas had been simmering since Hamas won the legislature elections in January 2006. The U.S. and Israel attempted to undermine the democratically elected Hamas[4] while strengthening President Mahmoud Abbas's position and forcing Hamas from power. The U.S., Egypt, and Israel also armed and trained Fatah for a possible 'War' with Hamas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
But if Hamas leaders thought its parliamentary victory would bestow greater credibility on them in the eyes of the international community - or if they thought in any way that they would be given any more leeway - they were mistaken
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_pa
lestinians/profiles/1654510.stm
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0202/p09s02-coop.html
What 'Israel's right to exist' means to Palestinians
Recognition would imply acceptance that they deserve to be treated as subhumans.
By John V. Whitbeck
from the February 2, 2007 edition
DEAN ROHRER
JEDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA - Since the Palestinian elections in 2006, Israel and much of the West have asserted that the principal obstacle to any progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace is the refusal of Hamas to "recognize Israel," or to "recognize Israel's existence," or to "recognize Israel's right to exist."
These three verbal formulations have been used by Israel, the United States, and the European Union as a rationale for collective punishment of the Palestinian people. The phrases are also used by the media, politicians, and even diplomats interchangeably, as though they mean the same thing. They do not.
"Recognizing Israel" or any other state is a formal legal and diplomatic act by one state with respect to another state. It is inappropriate – indeed, nonsensical – to talk about a political party or movement extending diplomatic recognition to a state. To talk of Hamas "recognizing Israel" is simply to use sloppy, confusing, and deceptive shorthand for the real demand being made of the Palestinians.
"Recognizing Israel's existence" appears on first impression to involve a relatively straightforward acknowledgment of a fact of life. Yet there are serious practical problems with this language. What Israel, within what borders, is involved? Is it the 55 percent of historical Palestine recommended for a Jewish state by the UN General Assembly in 1947? The 78 percent of historical Palestine occupied by the Zionist movement in 1948 and now viewed by most of the world as "Israel" or "Israel proper"? The 100 percent of historical Palestine occupied by Israel since June 1967 and shown as "Israel" (without any "Green Line") on maps in Israeli schoolbooks?
Israel has never defined its own borders, since doing so would necessarily place limits on them. Still, if this were all that was being demanded of Hamas, it might be possible for the ruling political party to acknowledge, as a fact of life, that a state of Israel exists today within some specified borders. Indeed, Hamas leadership has effectively done so in recent weeks.
"Recognizing Israel's right to exist," the actual demand being made of Hamas and Palestinians, is in an entirely different league. This formulation does not address diplomatic formalities or a simple acceptance of present realities. It calls for a moral judgment.
There is an enormous difference between "recognizing Israel's existence" and "recognizing Israel's right to exist." From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to concede that the Holocaust was morally justified. For Palestinians to acknowledge the occurrence of the Nakba – the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homeland between 1947 and 1949 – is one thing. For them to publicly concede that it was "right" for the Nakba to have happened would be something else entirely. For the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, the Holocaust and the Nakba, respectively, represent catastrophes and injustices on an unimaginable scale that can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.
To demand that Palestinians recognize "Israel's right to exist" is to demand that a people who have been treated as subhumans unworthy of basic human rights publicly proclaim that they are subhumans. It would imply Palestinians' acceptance that they deserve what has been done and continues to be done to them. Even 19th-century US governments did not require the surviving native Americans to publicly proclaim the "rightness" of their ethnic cleansing by European colonists as a condition precedent to even discussing what sort of land reservation they might receive. Nor did native Americans have to live under economic blockade and threat of starvation until they shed wh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In other words, even other Arab states don’t consider Hamas a legitimate government.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How bout spinning the telescope around and looking in the correct end for once.
Israel damn well needs to recognize Palestines "right to exist" - which they fucking don't.
Till that happens - which VERY specifically includes not letting "settlers" outright take Palestinian land using violent means, and THEN backing them up when the Palestinians defend themselves against the bastards, they're the aggressor here, no matter the technicalities.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/20091139514376677
9.html
Olmert call 'behind US abstention'
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has said a last-minute telephone call to George Bush forced the US to abstain in a crucial UN vote on the Gaza war.
In a speech late on Monday, Olmert said Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, was left "pretty shamed" at the vote and had to abstain on a resolution she had personally arranged.
The Israeli prime minister narrated how he demanded to talk to Bush last Thursday, minutes before a vote in the UN Security Council on a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
"When we saw that Rice, for reasons we did not really understand, wanted to vote in favour of the resolution ... I looked for President Bush," Olmert said.
Bush, who apparently was taken off a stage in Philadelphia where he was making a speech, said he was not informed on the resolution and was "not familiar with the phrasing."
"I'm familiar with it. You can't vote in favour." Olmert claimed telling the US president.
"He[Bush] gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it, a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for," Olmert said.
The Israeli PM described Bush as an "unparalleled friend" of Israel.
UN call
Fourteen of the Security Council's 15 members supported the resolution, which has until now failed to stop Israel's operation in Gaza.
Olmert criticised the UN resolution, saying that "no decision, present or future, will deny us our basic right to defend the residents of Israel".
Israel launched its offensive on December 27, in what it said was an attempt to stop Hamas firing rockets into southern Israel from Gaza.
After a first week of intense air campaign, Israel sent ground forces into Gaza in the second week of fighting and is now making its deepest push into the Strip.
What a joke, the UN needs to eliminate the veto
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
How bout spinning the telescope around and looking in the correct end for once.
Israel damn well needs to recognize Palestines "right to exist" - which they fucking don't.
I'd say that both sides need to recognize each other's right to exist.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's that - and also you nailed what MY problem with Hamas is dead-bang a bit earlier, in that them and Olmerts goons don't wanna stop this shit cause they're feeding off each other to stay in power at the expense of both their peoples.
Barring certain extremists, most Palestinians would be completely satisfied if the damn Izzies would stay on THEIR side of the border, quit cutting off power, water and medical supplies, and end the collective shelling of entire neighborhoods in response to even the tiniest excuse to do so.
But that ain't what they do - and no, the rockets don't help the situation none, but that's a goldfish spittin in the eye of a shark when it comes to it, and the overblown reaction the Izzies have about it has at least begun to bring the worlds attention on the matter, and made them look awful bad since to most reasoning folk it really does look like they're just praying for excuses to act as they do...
That bein said, hell yes, prick that he was, Arafat was a heck of a lot better at this stuff than the current crop of imbeciles, but that's not so high a bar, is it now ?
Hell with blowing up civvies, start clippin leaders and this problem is gonna come to resolution pretty quick - or at the very least quit propping up the damn Izzies on my tax dime, they wanna be a recognized nation then they can damned well either get off our tits or apply for statehood/protectorate, cause that's the choice I'd give em, I had any say in it.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
GEEZER
I'd say that both sides need to recognize each other's right to exist.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Well said
No offense, but when Geezer has become the voice of reason, I'm afraid that says something about the rest of us. Ack! it's some chemical plothole that is turning us all into reavers!
Keep keeping the Shiny side up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hillary saying the right things, NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/us/politics/14state.html?hp
"Mrs. Clinton said America must recognize Israel’s right to defend itself from Hamas rockets but cannot ignore the suffering of Palestinians citizens, as well as Israelis. “Real security for Israel, normal and positive relations with its neighbors” as well as genuine security for Palestinians must continue to be America’s ideal, she said."
Mrs Clinton also expressed concern over a lack of a season II of Firefly, saying, "It saddens be to know that I will start my service as Secretary of State with a great weight still on the world's shoulders. A cancer of the unthinking and the work of the joyless media aparatchik, that must be addressed... even before this Gaza junk is tackled...I will work without equal to bring about a season 2 or a second movie, or both."
Many in the press core were seen to be openly weeping at these words...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME