Israeli–Palestinian war (2023)

[Bethanyclaire]

@DogOfDanger coward

[on a peaceful hiatus]

https://www.theonion.com/israel-assu...ize-1851085308

[chriscorey]

[chriscorey]

You political fucks.

[chriscorey]

[chriscorey]

the pro Palestine are disingenuous.

[timber]

Jesus, Iran, calm yo tits!

[DogOfDanger]

Yeah, but the Netanyahu government sucks too. I'm a Zionist but only 15% of Israelis even support the far-right Kahanist government, who I think really does want to kill all the Arabs. The administration sucking doesn't mean Israel is just a priori wrong or anything

The current war effort in Gaza has broad bipartisan support in Israel, and is also backed by 90% of the Israeli Jewish population -
Newly Vulnerable, Israelis Remain Traumatized and Mistrustful - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

"in the survey, 94 percent of Israeli Jews and 82 percent of the total population think the Israeli military has used “adequate or too little force” in Gaza. Some 88 percent of all Jewish Israelis think the number of Palestinians killed or wounded in Gaza is justified by the war."

The war is supported across the board politically... the Israeli war cabinet that was formed in response to Oct 7 consists of leaders from all major parties -
Israeli war cabinet - Wikipedia

The Gaza war effort is not some fringe right wing initiative in Israel. No, it is mainly just the ignorant activist left in Western countries who opposes Israels actions... mainly the ones in the United States. And they usually voice their support on broad ideological grounds, usually the grounds that Israel are colonialists and representatives of Western civilization, not really contending with the details since they generally are extremely ignorant.

and even with all the extremist far-right Orthodox Jews who are basically exactly the same as Islamic extremists other than people give them more money I'd still rather live in Tel Aviv than anywhere in Palestine now.

Conquest is the modus operandi of Islam. The same is not true for Judaism. The two religions are not even comparable in that respect, really. Islam spread itself to a quarter of the worlds population mostly through conquest. The Palestinians have been the aggressors in virtually every incident since 1947 when they declared war on / attempted to murder their Jewish neighbors, then subsequently lost the war and were driven out of their land. No, it is really not all just a wash and morally equivalent, because there is such a thing as cause and effect, as well as inherent attitude - which is how we can distinguish between an act aggression vs self defense.

This is the pattern that has repeated itself countless times:
Palestinians commit some act of aggression (acting in accordance with their religion) > the Jews retaliate and dominate the Palestinians > the Palestinians blame the Jews and swear vengeance in the name of Allah

In any society there are certain fringe people that hold bigoted views... in fundamentalist Islamic nations those people are the ones in leadership positions.

Far-right Jews like most Jews are actually pretty poor, but people like the Rothschilds and the US government still fund Israel and don't fund Palestine so the far-right Jews who basically act exactly the same as Islamic extremists but with speaking Hebrew instead of Arabic and yarmulkes instead of burkas but all the same ridiculous dietary stuff, sexism, etc. just end up with more money.

Again, Israel is not morally the same as the Palestinians due to a novel concept known as cause and effect. And Judaism / Islam are two very different sets of ideas.
And women are not equally as oppressed in Israeli society, even in the fundamentalist Jewish subcultures, as they are in somewhere like Iran. For example... Judaism does not allow a man to hold sex slaves, nor does it have a concept of honor rape. Jews also allow women to drive and don't require they cover their faces at all times...
It should not be such a surprise that Western nations consider Israel as a partner in the region, because the West and Israel share a set of common values while the values of the Islamic fundamentalists are diametrically opposed to the West. Western nations will always partner better with moderate Islamic nations than fundamentalist ones. Broken alliances is just the natural consequence o a generally hostile attitude. Sadly this attitude is prescribed by the toxic religion of Islam, but it does not lead to anywhere good.

Some Arabs are moderate too but most of them luckily don't seem to identify with Palestine, but there's also the Palestinian Authority.

In fundamentalist Islamic nations the moderates are suppressed. Though really Islam itself suppresses moderation, it's a very difficult balancing act to be a moderate Muslim.
While superficially you could claim that both Judaism and Islam operate on fear, suppression, and intimidation, Islam is very different than Judaism in this respect - because while Judaism emphasizes fear of God and of the supernatural, Islams core doctrine prescribes that individuals wage war in this life to bring about the Utopian vision.

And Netanyahu is directly to blame for Hamas so if you don't like Hamas don't make excuses for what Israel is doing

Ariel Sharon is to blame for Hamas insofar as he withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and allowed the Palestinians to govern themselves. Hamas was elected in 2006. Netanyahu was not elected until 2009. So no...
Israeli disengagement from Gaza - Wikipedia

even if you think a priori the Jews have a right to their ancestral land/Holy Land/whatever.

The whole debate on whose land is actually not important in practical reality. There are 10 million Israelis living there now, what we must decide is how best to govern those people today. The purpose of government is not to serve itself and raise its flag to the glory of its leaders... it is to serve the civilian population. The Palestinians keep this narrative about the land going, Israel responds to it with whatever arguments they can muster, but Israel probably shouldn't even bother making this argument - they've conquered the land and built it up, history has moved on - those civilians are not going anywhere.

[DogOfDanger]

the pro Palestine (war protesters) are disingenuous.

Yeah, but the Netanyahu government sucks too. I'm a Zionist but only 15% of Israelis even support the far-right Kahanist government, who I think really does want to kill all the Arabs.

Did I ever say otherwise? People who dislike Netanyahu support the war because they don't like Hamas and they want the Israeli hostages back, even if Netanyahu is responsible for October 7th in the first place. Since the entire rest of your argument is disingenuous, conflating supporting the war with supporting Netanyahu when in Israel those are not the same thing, I shall be ignoring it.

If you're not referring to the current war effort as evidence to justify the bolded statement then what evidence do you have to justify it, other than just a generic prejudice toward conservative Jews...? And why mention this in the context of a conversation about the war in Gaza if you don't presume to speak to that...? But if you are insinuating that the war in Gaza is, for right wingers, motivated by a desire to kill Arabs, this is undermined by the existence of rationale justifying the war - which bipartisan support is evidence of. Because rational acts aren't evidence of irrational prejudice. But if you're just attempting to share your prejudices against conservative Jews while ignoring the conversation topic / derailing the thread you can get lost.
I'm fine with you scurrying off and not arguing.

It's amazing the mental knots that some people tie and act as if they didn't tie it / now it's your job to untie it.

Netanyahu is responsible for October 7th in the first place.

Hamas is responsible for Oct 7. Your statement is akin to victim blaming.

[chriscorey]

I'm really worried for the Iranian people right now. They are innocent and dislike their government. They've suffered enough. I hope Israel sees that.

[chriscorey]

Everybody on X has the same question. We're all watching. Why can't the left debate the right? I'm liberal/independent. I wonder why the left always ad hominem! No logic, only radical crazies.

I'm not subscribing to Marxism.

So we look to the right and say "what the hell is going on?"

[xerx]

At this point I can see you twisting information...
The video you're responding to - of a senior Hamas official detailing Hamas's negotiating stance - is saying the same thing as your 1st article... but you've conveniently glossed over the part where the Hamas official says the agreement is one step in a long term strategy to reclaim all the land. In your article Israel says the same thing... So we now have sources from both sides informing us that Hamas's stance toward Israel hasn't really changed. Hamas still refuses to acknowledge Israels existence... what kind of basis for an agreement is that? You didn't address this... you ignored it and acted like Hamas is negotiating in good faith... You're not debating in good faith.

You seem to believe you're the official Hamas spokesperson now, you can just assert that they're negotiating in good faith as if your word makes it so.


Why on earth would Israel give Hamas a giant amount of land if Hamas continues to desire Israels destruction?
This is the most critical issue for the negotiation, without the good faith interest of both negotiating parties an agreement is as valuable as the paper it's written on.
Irrelevant...? That is the most you have to say about the most critical point of the negotiation - it's irrelevant. Very telling.
I advise you to never negotiate anything important on behalf of a company, or yourself for that matter. You have no idea how leverage in a negotiation works.


Willingness to accept an agreement where you receive giant amounts of land and provide basically nothing in return is not any kind of evidence of good intent or tolerance. However, continued unwillingness to acknowledge Israels existence is evidence of bad intent. You have absolutely no basis for making claims about Hamas's intent here. You are not the spokesperson for Hamas. We don't need your opinion, we can just listen to the senior Hamas official explain that they intend to reclaim all the land in time. And it's a irrational opinion, it is plain to see that Hamas has no intention of making peace. Could not be more obvious.

Your own article says this as plain as day:
"“Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”"

So basically in this deal Hamas does absolutely nothing for Israel, won't cede it a single inch of land or acknowledge its existence... and Israel just gives all this land, including its capital, to Hamas, and you present this as proof of some "good faith negotiation". Your argument is absolutely absurd.
All this proves is that Hamas, even when the deal of a lifetime is on the table, is completely irrational and cannot even pretend for a moment they acknowledge Israels existence - due to their religious dogma - this is not rational.


Yes, I am well aware that the main point of contention is the land... but that land is holy land, this is a religious issue, Zionism is not a secular concept... Zionism is relevant insofar as the Jews have occupied holy Jerusalem.


Spiritual right to exist...? Well what on earth does that mean? You certainly selected those words very carefully, didn't you? Again you like to act as if you're Hamas's official spokesperson - where did you find this language "spiritual right to exist"...? Hamas said they still do not acknowledge Israels right to exist. This is referring to the nation of Israel, not some ethereal body of Israel. Israels right to exist is what they said, you're obviously trying to twist the phrasing here to make it seem like... this denial of Israels right to exist is some inconsequential nebulous spiritual concept. Just yet more lies, and not even good ones, just desperate fail attempts.



There is nothing in that arrangement that gives any allowance to Israel or insurance for Israels continued existence, infact it explicitly refuses to acknowledge Israels existence, you are just making this stuff up at this point. On what basis could you possibly make this statement? Did you not read their quote? Go read it again, this is the first line in their 2017 public statement:
"Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However... (we are willing to take Israels land while giving nothing in return. Aren't we charitable?)"

It's amazing that you are actually trying to claim the mere fact Hamas is willing to accept a donation of land from Israel is somehow proof they'd accept Israels existence, despite their explicit statement to the contrary... but this demonstrates the level of sheer denial and delusion you suffer from with respect to this issue.

Hamas would accept a physical border between itself and Israel. That's what matters in politics, and it's all that matters: what people are willing to do, not what they say or feel — That Hamas would tolerate a cold peace is more significant than wishy-washy, rhetorical nonsense that another country has a "right to exist".

Consider the situation of Taiwan: The United States doesn't officially recognize Taiwan's right to exist at all (as doing so would complicate its relations with China) but is willing, per past and current foreign policy establishments, to defend it unwaveringly and has a strategic alliance with this diplomatic non-entity.

On the question of Israel's safety and security, Hamas' grudging acceptance of a hard border is more assuring than all the bullsh*t philosemitic slogans in the world.

[DogOfDanger]

Hamas would accept a physical border between itself and Israel. That's what matters in politics, and it's all that matters: what people are willing to do, not what they say or feel — That Hamas would tolerate a cold peace is more significant than wishy-washy, rhetorical nonsense that another country has a "right to exist".

Consider the situation of Taiwan: The United States doesn't officially recognize Taiwan's right to exist at all (as doing so would complicate its relations with China) but is willing, per past and current foreign policy establishments, to defend it unwaveringly and has a strategic alliance with this diplomatic non-entity.

On the question of Israel's safety and security, Hamas' grudging acceptance of a hard border is more assuring than all the bullsh*t philosemitic slogans in the world.

They're not willing to accept a hard border, they stated explicitly that they reject any alternative to the full and compete liberation of Palestine - they do not accept the border. You are just ignoring the obvious. You are not Hamas's spokesperson, their spokesperson says they do not accept the border, we go by what they say, not what you say.

Taiwan is a very bad analogy because a) the dispute is not based in Islamic fundamentalism, but is based on self-interest of the respective nations, and therefor negotiation based in reason and appeals to self interest are possible (as has been explained); b) the united states has not declared war on China or vice versa, and both nations do their best to avoid a war - whereas Hamas has declared war on Israel and is eagerly seeking that; c) China is not governed and dominated by a religion that considers the people of Taiwan to be their sworn enemy - we wouldn't expect a genocide of the Taiwanese people if China took over Taiwan, it would mainly just be an economic catastrophe for the West

When Hamas says Israel has no right to exist, and say they plan on reclaiming all the land, they mean every word of that. They have not shown any sign of being wishy washy in this and not meaning it, your reading of that is just completely irrational. The rhetoric is obviously relevant, it is the basis of their war declaration, ending the war declaration is the entire point of the peace negotiation, and any arrangement would obviously have to be contingent on peace. If you think this is not relevant you are in the twilight zone.
Anyway, you cannot construe an arrangement where the warring party makes zero concessions and is unwilling to even drop the war declaration as a good faith peace offer, it just isn't.
Carry onward

[chriscorey]

Hamas would accept a physical border between itself and Israel. That's what matters in politics, and it's all that matters: what people are willing to do, not what they say or feel — That Hamas would tolerate a cold peace is more significant than wishy-washy, rhetorical nonsense that another country has a "right to exist".

Consider the situation of Taiwan: The United States doesn't officially recognize Taiwan's right to exist at all (as doing so would complicate its relations with China) but is willing, per past and current foreign policy establishments, to defend it unwaveringly and has a strategic alliance with this diplomatic non-entity.

On the question of Israel's safety and security, Hamas' grudging acceptance of a hard border is more assuring than all the bullsh*t philosemitic slogans in the world.

I was liberal and democratic my whole life. My green party parents raised me that way. The gay community I grew up in raised me that way.

I have a problem with people killing innocent people. I have even more of a problem with people who raise their kids from infancy to kill innocent people.

[chriscorey]

A moderate just asked on X "As a leftist I can't argue with the left; they ad hominem. But I can argue with the right.?" She described the right as if it were like speaking to adults.

Attack the argument. Not the person.

[chriscorey]

Some prophecies for you....

Us independents/moderates are painted red to fit right in...

[chriscorey]

[chriscorey]

That's not Hamas' negotiating stance. Hamas has agreed to a two-state solution and has for years. Its 2017 charter calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 border, which is a de facto acceptance of Israel's continued existence.

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...l-1967-borders

* https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas

Whether or not Hamas wants Israel to exist is irrelevant. What people want and what they're willing to tolerate are different things, the latter being the more correct marker of their intent.



From the Wilson Center document, this is the relevant section Re. Hamas' new charter:



* Hamas draws a clear distinction between Zionism and Judaism.

* Without accepting Israel's spiritual right to exist, Hamas is willing to accept a Palestinian rump state along the June 1967 border (which is a coming-to-terms with the fact that Israel will continue to exist).

* Hamas won't abandon the right of return of refugees

You can disagree with Hamas' characterization of Israel as a racist and colonialist project, you can reject the idea of the Palestinians' right of return, you can question the sincerity of Hamas' rejection of antisemitism, and you can even loathe Hamas (I confess that I personally have very little use for them), but I don't believe that you can argue that Hamas is unwilling to (grudgingly) negotiate.

They raise their children to kill Jews. I've posted evidence of this. Videos! Are you out of your fucking mind?

[Adam Strange]

Oh, I wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, who…
*Who?*
…who wrote the Book of Love?

First there was some Bullshit,
Then there was a Flood.
Then a long, long family tree
And lots and lots of Blood!

Oh, I wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, who…
*Who?*
…who wrote the Book of Love?

[chriscorey]

Hamas would accept a physical border between itself and Israel. That's what matters in politics, and it's all that matters: what people are willing to do, not what they say or feel — That Hamas would tolerate a cold peace is more significant than wishy-washy, rhetorical nonsense that another country has a "right to exist".

Consider the situation of Taiwan: The United States doesn't officially recognize Taiwan's right to exist at all (as doing so would complicate its relations with China) but is willing, per past and current foreign policy establishments, to defend it unwaveringly and has a strategic alliance with this diplomatic non-entity.

On the question of Israel's safety and security, Hamas' grudging acceptance of a hard border is more assuring than all the bullsh*t philosemitic slogans in the world.

I'm sorry xerx, I was just really irritated. I want the Jews and the Palestinians to co-exist.

[chriscorey]

Oh, I wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, who…
*Who?*
…who wrote the Book of Love?

First there was some Bullshit,
Then there was a Flood.
Then a long, long family tree
And lots and lots of Blood!

Oh, I wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, who…
*Who?*
…who wrote the Book of Love?

I honestly don't know if you're talking about Islam or Judiasim. Enlighten me...

[chriscorey]

@DogOfDanger coward

can you elaborate?

[xerx]

They're not willing to accept a hard border, they stated explicitly that they reject any alternative to the full and compete liberation of Palestine - they do not accept the border. You are just ignoring the obvious. You are not Hamas's spokesperson, their spokesperson says they do not accept the border, we go by what they say, not what you say.

Taiwan is a very bad analogy because a) the dispute is not based in Islamic fundamentalism, but is based on self-interest of the respective nations, and therefor negotiation based in reason and appeals to self interest are possible (as has been explained); b) the united states has not declared war on China or vice versa, and both nations do their best to avoid a war - whereas Hamas has declared war on Israel and is eagerly seeking that; c) China is not governed and dominated by a religion that considers the people of Taiwan to be their sworn enemy - we wouldn't expect a genocide of the Taiwanese people if China took over Taiwan, it would mainly just be an economic catastrophe for the West

When Hamas says Israel has no right to exist, and say they plan on reclaiming all the land, they mean every word of that. They have not shown any sign of being wishy washy in this and not meaning it, your reading of that is just completely irrational. The rhetoric is obviously relevant, it is the basis of their war declaration, ending the war declaration is the entire point of the peace negotiation, and any arrangement would obviously have to be contingent on peace. If you think this is not relevant you are in the twilight zone.
Anyway, you cannot construe an arrangement where the warring party makes zero concessions and is unwilling to even drop the war declaration as a good faith peace offer, it just isn't.
Carry onward

Please don't lecture me on what Hamas said or didn't say.

I'll directly quote the former leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, who informs Reuters that Hamas would accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 border with Israel. He says, in no uncertain terms, that while Hamas doesn't accept Israel's "right" to exist, it does grudgingly acknowledge the unassailable reality that Israel does in fact exist. This is Hamas' official (and nuanced) position, not the propagandistic claim that it is singlemindedly focused on "killing all the Jews."(1)

We as Hamas and as Palestinians do not talk about recognizing Israel or accepting it as a reality. As a Palestinian today I speak of a Palestinian and Arab demand for a state on 1967 borders. It is true that in reality there will be an entity or a state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land. This is reality but I don't deal with it from the point of view of recognizing or admitting it. It is a fact that was the result of historical factors.

Per article 20 of its charter, Hamas supports the establishment of a Palestinian state along the June 4th 1967 border. Accepting a diminished Palestinian state within Gaza and the West Bank is a de facto surrender to a two-state solution, and although it isn't a statement of enthusiastic acceptance, it is a statement of understanding that the former Mandatory Palestine would be shared between two separate entities in an uneasy peace. (2)

20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

Would Hamas prefer that Israel ceased to exist? Obviously --- it's a nativist organization by its own admission.

But does recognition of Israel's right to exist even matter as a basis for peace? I can see the argument for it, but I don't see any reason to believe that it wouldn't be an empty gesture that means nothing, is worth nothing, or that Israel is in any way moved by such symbolic concessions. Keep in mind that the West Bank's Palestinian Authority (and the PLO, before it) recognizes Israel's right to exist with nothing to show for it. It's also certainly worth noting that Israel and the United States have yet to recognize Palestine's legitimacy, by e.g. repeatedly voting against its induction into the United Nations as a full member (3).

[xerx]

They raise their children to kill Jews. I've posted evidence of this. Videos! Are you out of your fucking mind?

Per articles 16 and 17 of its charter, Hamas distinguishes between Zionism and Judaism, and it denounces antisemitism (and racism in general). You're certainly free to question Hamas' sincerity, but you still have to answer the fact that their stated position is the rejection of antisemitism.

16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.

17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.

[xerx]

If you don't care for Meshaal or Hamas' charter, you can watch this statement by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmie Carter's national security adviser and an influential international relations strategist. This is not someone with a discernible anti-Israeli bias nor any discernible favoritism towards Hamas or Islamist ideology, nor is he someone with anti-American / anti-establishmentarian politics. His primary (and prescient) objective was to end a petty, parochial conflict that undermines American legitimacy in the Middle East. (link)

While he concedes that Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist isn't conducive to a permanent resolution, he goes on to say that Hamas is willing to enter into coalition with other Palestinian parties that do recognize Israel's right to exist, and he makes it quite clear that Israel is the inflexible party that refuses to enter negotiations.

Meshaal's statement came from as early as 2009, and Brzezinski's was from 2014. Since then, Hamas' charter and its other statements should have only reinforced the perception that Hamas is open to an imperfect coexistence.

[chriscorey]

Per articles 16 and 17 of its charter, Hamas distinguishes between Zionism and Judaism, and it denounces antisemitism (and racism in general). You're certainly free to question Hamas' sincerity, but you still have to answer the fact that their stated position is the rejection of antisemitism.

Hamas are liars. Do you watch The Green Prince? And what Hamas leaders are saying RIGHT NOW? Obviously not.

Anyway, I was just upset. I had just watched a video of the cutest little Palestinian 4 year old boy. His father made him walk to the IDF and he screamed "don't be afraid, walk to them" then he screamed "shoot him! Shoot him! I know you like killing children!"

The little boy walked up and shook the soldiers hand. He just saw them as soldiers. Which are cool to a small boy.

I almost cried.

They believe in martyring their children. I don't care about the lies you read. They lie so often it's almost comical on X.

[chriscorey]

Peace!!!!!

[chriscorey]

Qatar to American universities since 2012 $3,281,809,223
Seen them on X too. Antisemitism.

[chriscorey]

If only the Jews had an open air prison with 5 star hotels, malls, and grocery stores. And they could use that as a reason to murder 1500 innocent people.

You're really deluded.

[chriscorey]

When I see antisemitism.

[chriscorey]

If you don't care for Meshaal or Hamas' charter, you can watch this statement by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmie Carter's national security adviser and an influential international relations strategist. This is not someone with a discernible anti-Israeli bias nor any discernible favoritism towards Hamas or Islamist ideology, nor is he someone with anti-American / anti-establishmentarian politics. His primary (and prescient) objective was to end a petty, parochial conflict that undermines American legitimacy in the Middle East. (link)

While he concedes that Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist isn't conducive to a permanent resolution, he goes on to say that Hamas is willing to enter into coalition with other Palestinian parties that do recognize Israel's right to exist, and he makes it quite clear that Israel is the inflexible party that refuses to enter negotiations.

Meshaal's statement came from as early as 2009, and Brzezinski's was from 2014. Since then, Hamas' charter and its other statements should have only reinforced the perception that Hamas is open to an imperfect coexistence.

fuck your socialism. I'm independent. We are no conservatives or liberals.

[chriscorey]

everybody in capitalism has a dream. Some are realized.

[DogOfDanger]

I've kind of given up on debating this, but this interview just dropped. It's a long form interview with Mosab Hassan Yousef... this person grew up in Palestine, is the son one of the founders of Hamas, and knows about this much better than anyone here. You'll notice he makes clear that the core motive of the entire conflict is fundamentalist Islam.
Pretty intense interview. At one point he describes how in Islam, when a rape occurs, the rape victim is often executed along with the rapist because the victim is considered dishonored. Apparently this is a practice Hamas adheres to -

[chriscorey]

fuck your socialism. I'm independent. We are no conservatives or liberals.

I got drunk and told @xerx I was going to kidnap his Marxist princess. He's not even concerned...

[chriscorey]

Explain Joan of Arc to me....

[chriscorey]

The Jews had their arms tattooed. if no tattoo, they were sent to the gas chamber.

[chriscorey]

The Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years. Thousands of years.... @FreelancePoliceman One tiny piece of land is too much?

[chriscorey]

If you don't care for Meshaal or Hamas' charter, you can watch this statement by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmie Carter's national security adviser and an influential international relations strategist. This is not someone with a discernible anti-Israeli bias nor any discernible favoritism towards Hamas or Islamist ideology, nor is he someone with anti-American / anti-establishmentarian politics. His primary (and prescient) objective was to end a petty, parochial conflict that undermines American legitimacy in the Middle East. (link)

While he concedes that Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist isn't conducive to a permanent resolution, he goes on to say that Hamas is willing to enter into coalition with other Palestinian parties that do recognize Israel's right to exist, and he makes it quite clear that Israel is the inflexible party that refuses to enter negotiations.

Meshaal's statement came from as early as 2009, and Brzezinski's was from 2014. Since then, Hamas' charter and its other statements should have only reinforced the perception that Hamas is open to an imperfect coexistence.

Can you cite sources? I'm very skeptical. Okay Marxist.

[chriscorey]

@FreelancePoliceman

Hi Marxist. I just want the truth.

[chriscorey]