Talk:Hamas/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Added ChrisAmiss data, asked 4 citations, clenned up in gneral

Because ChrisAmiss posted some good data here on the talk page about Hamas's movement toward diplomacy and abiding by ceasefires, I've incorporated that into the article. I've also removed the inapposite embed to Godwin's Law and also repeated a request for a citation to the claim that Hamas wishes to kill all Jews everywhere. If that citation is not forthcoming at long last, I will delete that claim.---Mona- (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I added back some of your deleted citations, but with qualifications. We have no way to know if the translations are perfect, but the raw audio is there, fully available for an Arabic speaker to assess for themselves. Yeah, not perfect, but it deserves to stay with appropriate qualification.MarmotHead (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

RW is for English readers.---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but must it only use English sources? <insert frustrated grumbling> MarmotHead (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well what's next? We link to Chinese speeches, maybe some Russian, and throw in some Urdu?!---Mona- (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure! OK, that's not practical/reasonable here, I know. MarmotHead (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The onus on claiming the translation is false is on you. Not on those that claim the translation to be accurate. Even an inaccurate translation can be notable. For instance, it matters little what transitive or intransitive verbs are used for which purpose in the Tehran dialect of Persian to see that "Israel [...] wiped off the map" is the official translation of the speech by the dinner jacket on the guy's official website... And in the reality based community, MEMRI is known as an excellent and accurate source exposing the doublespeak of Hamas and other who say one thing in English and another thing in Arab (Or Farsi or Turkish or....) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The wiped off the map translation was false. You know better than to spout neoconservative propaganda. He referred to the vanishing of the regime and the occupation, aka regime change. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It was from his own page, but of course Mona, Chris and so on would even defend some Islamist turdbag, if he takes a shit at Israel.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm defending the accuracy of the translations, not his foreign policy views. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post claims to know better what he said than he himself? LOLz.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Did he actually say that himself? ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"And in the reality based community, MEMRI is known as an excellent and accurate source" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA---Mona- (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

What else did you expect. It's not, that Mona has any business with anything reality-based.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You hardcore Zionists are so cute. It's precisely the facts -- the reality -- I bring to bear on your sacred myths that drive you into frothing fits.---Mona- (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

frothing fits- -Mona- Pure projection.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Video translations -- false?

So, User:-Mona-, you strongly suspect what? That prominent Hamas members desired the killing of all Jews? That the translation is wrong? I thought that attributing the sentiment to all of Hamas was egregiously wrong (Hamas-level statements do NOT support genocide, I know), but attributing it to those who said it was alright. Are you disputing the raw video? Something else? I'm just trying to figure out where there's middle ground here. MarmotHead (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I sourced and quoted a Hamas political leader, in English, for my edits. Something that inflammatory has to identify the person(s) saying it in a manner accessible to English readers. Moreover, I have been told -- by pro-Israel users no less -- that Youtube is frowned upon as a reference in articles on RW (to me, it depends -- Youtubes of professional productions would seem be fine). If so, one would think that a foreign language Youtube would be more objectionable still, especially when the translator is known to peddle lies.---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually hate YouTube videos as references, but, in this case, it's a version of the primary source (albeit, not in English), so it seems better to me. You mention "manner accessible to English readers". That sounds like a good thing, but that seems to require either: a) a semi-fluent English speaker; or b) translation by a universally respect translator. I don't see either as being very likely here which leaves the truth (whatever it is) hidden in another language. From now on, I'm going to make all my most controversial statements in Esperanto, the Marmot-fork of Esperanto. MarmotHead (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"translation by a universally respect translator" Really, it just has to be translated by either a neutral source or one with a reputation for accuracy (or if it was in, say, French or Spanish, you could expect some of us here to be able to verify). The IDF doesn't fit either criterion and also, rather than captioning, a transcript would be better.---Mona- (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right that the IDF is not likely to be the most precise translator. However, I remain in favor of keeping the statements as: a) about a couple Hamas leaders (not Hamas, itself); b) that may be translated unreliably; and c) with statements that indicate the possible lack of reliability. I won't be hurt if I don't get my way. MarmotHead (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well if you look up the charter of Hamas (available in various English transalations on the web, I'll link if requested) a statement supporting or indicating genocide of Jews seems to be a thing one can expect of Hamas members. So the onus is on Mona to prove the translation unreliable. Right now she is just trying to say "I don't like who is translating it" (a thing she never had qualms about when it was electronic Intifada that was called into question) and no actual factual rebuttal... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Marmot, I kept the youtubes with your footnote wording, with a "puportedly" stuck in teh above text and noting that it that itwas "some" Hamas members. (I generally ignore Avenger. He's wholly unreasonable and is an autopatrol, had his sysop toys removed, and some considered vandal binning him. He is unhinged on several topics, including Israel. I refuse to let him waste my time any longer in tendentious engagements.)---Mona- (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Says she (while getting several words wrong, but let's forget that for a second) and proceeds to shit all over my user talk page)... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Free and fair election?

First of all the election was in 2006. Second of all, while Hamas did obtain the most votes and the election was freer thaen one in Zimbabwe usually is, the quirky Palestinian election system ensured that Hamas as the strongest vote getter would be grossly over-represented. And on one related note: There never were any elections for supreme dictator of Gaza, so their claim to that is rather old (Italy was considered a soccer power in 2006 and Tom Brady vs. Peyton Manning was still considered a high class duel) and shaky to boot. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Grossly over represented? I'd like some citation on that. The international community regarded it as a fair and free election. As for election processes, please refer to the information I posted under Elections in Gaza above regarding restrictios. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't know which weird variety of First Past the Post is your replacement for democracy but in my world getting 44.45% of the vote should not give you 56% of the seats Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

But what's unfair about that? They still got the popular vote and it's not like two party system where it's evenly divided 50/50. They still won the election even with all the options people could've chosen. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A CRS Report for Congress on the 2006 elections concluded: "The election was overseen by 17,268 domestic observers, complimented by 900 credentialed international monitors. ... The Bush Administration accepted the outcome of the Palestinian legislative elections and praised the PA for holding free and fair elections. ... The conduct of the election was widely considered to be free and fair" Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33269.pdf. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In a democracy, absolute power (as Hamas has over Gaza) should not be wielded by 44.45% percent. Maybe you should get a lesson on representative electoral systems. First Past the post means 30% "wins" the election. More democratic systems of voting should ensure the opposite... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Might want to tell that to President Bush. They still got the bigger share of votes compared to other parties, so it's fair that they make the majority of seats. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The electoral system of the US is a gigantic pile of shit, you don't need to remind us of it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No it is not. Viktor Orban also got the most votes. His constitution changing super-majority is still not fair by any sane definition of the term. He does not have the support of half the Hungarians plus one. That's what we in dirty old Europe call a "majority". It is needed to "govern" with "legitimacy". I know, those technical terms might confuse some of you...Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Palestinian electoral system, but Hamas' popular vote granted it 29 seats under proportional representation (the 44.45% you're talking about) and 45 constituency seats (40.82%/1,932,168 votes compared to Fatah's 35.58%/1,684,441 votes), thus a total of 74 seats. So it's more complicated than the simple 44.45% you're talking about. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that means even less of a mandate. Instead of 44.45% we are talking about roughly 42% now... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really, they won both the PR and constituency portion of an elections relative to other contenders. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what PR is supposed to mean in this, but having less thaen halve of those who voted behind you is the opposite of a mandate. And a voting system that so strongly distorts election results is anything but not democratic... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

PR is proportional representation. Constituency refers to local areas. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of Chris Amiss' views on electoral law, I think the relation between the number of votes and electoral outcome should be mentioned here (meaning on the Hamas peage in mainspace that Paravant is prohibiting me from editing as of now). After all when a similar thing happens in France , Hungary or the US it bears mentioning as well. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hamas charter

If you want to read the full text in English this link might help. We should consider using it as a reference, as it would be a good way of pointing out the crankiness and authoritarianism of Hamas as is part of our mission. Cheers. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's already linked in the page, and that's not including how the Hamas charter is considered irrelevant by its political leaders today, along with a US government study which mentions, "Hamas has, in practice, moved well beyond its charter. Indeed, Hamas has been carefully and consciously adjusting its political program for years and has sent repeated signals that it may be ready to begin a process of coexisting with Israel" Source: http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/Special%20Report%20224_Hamas.pdf. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If they were really serious about it, they would changed the charter.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

What would that do? It's a political document that has the same level of relevance as the US Declaration of Independence. It's not a legal or governing document. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The social democratic party in Germany changed their program in the 1950s in order to excise all Marxism from it (imho a giant mistake, but that's another story). This was considered at the time a conditio sine que non for any formal alliance between them and any of the bourgeois parties. Shortly thereafter, the social democratic party entered into a coalition with the Conservatives (1966-1969) and later the liberals (1969-1982). These things do matter. A lot. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

They could, but they also do not reap major benefits on the other hand. Don't forget Fatah did the same by officially recognizing Israel in 1988 and all they got was more settlements under Oslo in the 90's. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Pre Oslo the PLO was a terrorist organization and struggling for viability and recognition. Post Oslo they were a state in all but name and a respected "partner for peace" on the international stage. And thaen they took this golden opportunity and squandered it all through corruption, incompetence and haplessness in dealing with second (non-electronic) Intifada. The Palestinian leaders really never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And that's not even mentioning the "95% of your demands a state and peace now" That Arafat turned down in cam David. Instead Fath lost Gaza and won nothing in the West Bank... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your first two sentences don't really dispute what I said, so I'll assume my point about changing political platforms without any benefits was valid. As for Camp David, you're spouting propaganda and you know better because I've already explained this to you. Shlomo Ben-Ami, an Israeli negotiator at Camp David and a former Foreign Minister, said, "If I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David". What Arafat was given was not even close to 95% (you're thinking the Clinton Parameters, which Arafat DID NOT REJECT but was willing to work with along some preconditions as noted in the White House press release; the same goes for Ehud Barak), but rather 80% that would've divided the West Bank into 3 cantons which no Palestinian leader could legitimately present to the public. I didn't know the propaganda was this pervasive among Israel's defenders. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And it is relevant him saying it about 6 years later... Why??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

What's irrelevant about it? You can read Clayton Swisher's book for more information and details. Barak himself conceded that his plan would've trisected the West Bank. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Chris, I believe you may know more than I do about some issues relative to Israel and Palestine, which is unusual in my encounters -- I'm extremely glad to see it! But you are a very busy younger scholar, while I have heaps of time due to health issues forcing an early retirement. I wish YOU had all the time. But it's all good.---Mona- (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Could you please do your - let's just call it things to avoid unkinder words - elsewhere? Arafat rejected the best chance at peace the Palestinians ever had. Shortly thereafter some Palestinians take Sharon daring to walk around on some hill or other as "provocation" enough to start murdering people left and right. Of course the fact that a significant number of the victims of Palestinian violence during both Intifadas were in fact Palestinian is too often ignored. As is most Palestinian suffering that can't be blamed on Israel... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The quote by Ben Ami is for you to see. Arafat rejected a deal that would've created 3 bantustans. And now you're just making shit up. 74 Palestinians were killed in the first days of the second intifada before the suicide bombings that came to define the intifada started happening in Israel months later after after the killing of Palestinians by the IDF. But go ahead, ignore the context, blame those damn Palestinians for reacting. And that's not including the assassinations that sometimes preceded preceded suicide bombing. But nope, it's all the Palestinians fault. Why are they so violent? It's okay when we commit violence, but bad when the other side does it.

Really Avenger? Are you forgetting an Israeli killed Rabin? When an Arab kills his brethen, it goes to show you how lacking in credibility they are. When a Jew kills his brethen, well uhh.... SHUT UP YOU ANTISEMITE ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Gaslight someone else somewhere else. Both intifadas were at least partly Palestinian civil wars, whereas such stuff like with Rabin is rather rare in Israel (the Israeli government was always very careful not to allow independent militias to remain active in Israel, just look at the Altalena Affair, where they blew up a ship with badly needed weapons and fighters just to get the Irgun to either be absorbed into the IDF, go to prison or be shot!).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Chris wrote: " It's okay when we [Jews]commit violence, but bad when the other side [Palestinians] does it." This is literally the policy in Israel now as declared by an outraged former director of Israel's security services, who says settlers daily "apply some level of violence or terrorism against the persons or possessions of Palestinians:" and do so with near total impunity in a separate "justice" system. Indeed, settlers have been distributing instructions on how to burn Arabs to death, which they've done -- also often with impunity or great leniency. ---Mona- (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yay, left vs right pissing contest, Israeli style! And about Duma, everyone and his mother, sister, daughter and pet cat is against it except some extremist fringe elements.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, not everyone is against it. Read what Yuval Diskin has to say (surely a former Shin Bet director isn't especially on "the left?") The policy truly is: "it's okay when we Jews do it, and heinous when you Palestinians do." Of course, an ethno-religious supremacist state tends to behave like that.---Mona- (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If Israel'd be like that, than terrorists like the ones that perpetrated the Duma arson, would be celebrated in the Israeli media up and down as heroes like the Palestinian media does with their terrorists and not hunted by the Israeli security services.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"and not hunted by the Israeli security services." You are confused, and have not read Yuval Diskin's piece, which affirms this one: Why Israelis can burn Palestinians alive and get away with it ---Mona- (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well as far as the intifadas go, they were uprisings against the Israeli occupation more-so than a civil war. That there are splintered groups under a military occupation with no real legitimate state/governance is not surprising nor should we hold them to a different standard. You would know Arisboch that Israel courted Hamas and Islamist movements to counteract the PLO in the 1980s, yet you omit this because it would place culpability on Israel for splintering groups to vanquish Palestinian national unity. And that doesn't include the recent stabbing at a gay pride parade in Israel, but go ahead, keep raging against Palestinians for killing their own people while downplaying the same thing when Israeli Jews do it. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

In Israel, this guy who stabbed the people at the gay parade went straight (pun intended) into prison again, whereas violence and oppression against LGBT is official fucking policy in the Islamist controlled Hamasistan aka Gaza (and there are enough LGBT Arabs fleeing to Israel to escape their gay-murdering brethren (I guess you don't remember the gay Palestinian boy murdered by his own family and afterwards they blamed Israel for it)).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Bull. The trope about gays fleeing from Palestine to Israel and finding paradise is largely unfounded. "In 2002, Palestinians with Israeli identity cards issued under family reunification laws allegedly used that status to aid suicide bombers. The Nationality and Entry Into Israel Law of 2003 was quickly passed, effectively revoking the family reunification laws and sharply limiting the authority of even the interior minister to grant residency permits to Palestinians [...] The new law, and the new reality, has led to a crackdown on gay Palestinians in Israel, according to Shaul Gonen, a former board member of The Aguda, the largest of the Israeli lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organizations. (The few lesbians who flee move more easily under the radar screen, aided by Aswat, an Israeli-Arab organization for Palestinian lesbians.) Asylum has always been out of the question, but now, no official status is possible [...] Gonen estimates that since 1997, when the gay rights organizations started counting, about 300 gay Palestinian men have come to Israel in the hope of finding safety. Most came during the Oslo years, and none have official residence status. About 20, he says, are now under “house arrest” or “area arrest,” which is “house arrest” with a little extra latitude. The rest are either in jail, have been summarily deported to an unknown fate, or are still evading detection" Source: http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2006/02/for-gay-palestinians-tel-aviv-is-mecca.html ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Arisboch, why don't we let the Gazan gays speak (the truth) for themselves?

Doesn’t Israel provide Palestinian queers with a safe haven?

Of course it does: the apartheid wall has sparkly pink doors lining it, ready to admit those who strike a fabulous pose. In fact, Israel built the wall to keep Palestinian homophobes out and to protect Palestinian queers who seek refuge in it.

But seriously: “Israel” creates refugees; it does not shelter refugees. There has never been a case of a Palestinian — a descendant of a family or families who were forcibly displaced, sometimes massacred, often thrown in jail without charge — magically transcending the living legacy of this history to find him or herself granted asylum in “Israel” — the state that committed these atrocities.

If some people manage to cross the wall and end up in Tel Aviv, they are considered “illegal.” They end up working and living in horrible conditions, trying to avoid being arrested.

How do you deal with your main enemy, Islam?

Oh, we have a main enemy now? If we had to single out a main enemy that would be occupation, not religion — Islam or otherwise.

---Mona- (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yay, now Electronic Jihad Intifada is trying to defend or gloss over Hamas' gayhunt by screaming OCCUPATION loud enough.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hamas isn't liberal with regard to gay rights, that's correct, but don't act like Israel's an angel either. Israel only decriminalized homosexuality in 1988, 37 years after it was decriminalized in the West Bank among Palestinians in 1951. So they had a 37 year jump on you. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And then Israel overtook them and now has more LGBT rights than any country in Asia and the Middle East (had even gays serving in the military with fully equal rights earlier than the US and some European countries. OK, Israel is no paradise in that topic (still no gay marriage conducted in Israel)).--20:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk Arisboch -- try reading for comprehension. That EI article is written by Ghaith Hilal, a queer Palestinian activist from the West Bank who has been part of Al-Qaws leadership since 2007. In other words, he knows what queer Palestinians ACTUALLY think as opposed to the sentiments you Zionists self-servingly like to attribute to them.---Mona- (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well one voice quoted in electronic bullshit does not a movement make. I am sure there are gay Palestinians who are quietly or openly resentful of Hamas and similar groups and have at least a grudging respect if not outright admiration for Israel. However, stating so openly and with their name attached to it may get them killed or tortured and have implications for their family and loved ones. We know what Islamists do to gays and "race traitors". Imagine what they would do if a defector were to fall in love with an Israeli of the same sex? - Actually that's a tremendous idea for a movie or a book... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well one voice quoted in electronic bullshit"...is one documented source more than you or Arisboch have. You have self-serving assertions.---Mona- (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And I thought, you're not gonna talk to Avenger anymore (but that's now much easier, after Paravant vandalbinned him for no intelligent reason whatsoeva).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this "Hey, let's compare Israel and Hamas's stances on LGBT issues" stuff an obvious red herring? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:59, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

There was no basis for you (Arisboch) to think that as I never made such a declaration. I merely said I was going to ignore his antics with my comments on his talk page. Anyway, as I said: you two traffic in fanciful and unsupported assertions. 142․124․55․236 not so much a red herring as pinkwashing. ---Mona- (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the IDF as a matter of policy threaten blackmail of a person's sexuality in order to garner more information on family members or get the suspect to be a willing informant? I know in Hebron earlier this year they broke into into a family's house at night and took photographs of children for ID purposes. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think that gays (of whichever race color creed or background) don't matter and treating them like actual human beings is somehow a form of propaganda, you disgust me. Gay and bisexual people are brothers and sisters of our common human race just like anybody else. They deserve the same amount of respect as any other person. It is a real tragedy that neither Hamas nor the majority of the Palestinian population would even consider treating gays, lesbians and other sexual minorities with dignity. But it is certainly not the fault of Israel. If pointing out that Israel does good things and is a vibrant open democracy is propaganda, thaen I am glad to be a propagandist. Even Mona would - if she were sane - have to admit that living as an Arab Israeli within Israel is vastly preferable to live as an Arab in any of the other Arab nations with the possible exception of Tunisia. And this is especially true if you happen to love someone of your own gender. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think she's suggesting that. I think she's criticizing how the achievement of LGBT rights is being exploited for political scorepoints (made to look one side more civilized relative to those barbarians) rather than celebrated nobly, in effect dehumanizing LGBT people by using them as cogs in the machine rather than treating then like humans. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that's what Iran or USA's best buddy Saudi Arabia does, treating them not as humans (there ain't no gays in Iran, according to Mahmoud, amirite?), but as e.g. building crane decorations.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

We should boycott Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, I am already doing that, as I don't drive a car and they don't export anything besides oil and terrorism. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd boycott Saudi Arabia too, especially with their disgraceful conduct in Yemen now. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Another source

If you for some intellectually dishonest reason dislike the translation provided above, here is another one made by an American university, so you won't have to break any sacred BDS vows in order to read it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If the Hamas charter is irrelevant

As Mona likes to claim, why is it still unchanged? After all Hamas would lose nothing and gain a lot by simply changing it, wouldn't they? Or are they afraid that the money from the Saudis and Iran ("mak bar Israel" [I would add a footnote, but fear of being blocked for it by Paravant] being a statement almost all Iranian leaders of consequence have made at some time) might dry up? So in short: Why do we need a convoluted paragraph somehow defending the horrible scum that is Hamas by explaining away the plain meanings of their words? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, what benefit does it reap when Fatah eliminated it's reference to destroying Israel and got more settlements to boot? It's a founding document and is of little matter. Focus on their actions. They suppress rocket fire for Israel's benefit and maintain ceasefires. That matters more to me than a 27 year piece of paper has to say. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless they shoot the rockets themselves. Or boast in Arabic and deny in English. Or do the plausible deniability thing.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems kind of relevant since they were following it principals for over 30 years, and when they saw political benefit to ignore it for a little while they chose to do so. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a historical document? If Hamas were to move to officially recognize Israel, do you really think they'd do it by changing the old charter (which would pretty much require a complete rewrite) or would they do it with a new document? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

And since they've done neither...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, as ChrisAmiss has documented, they've superseded the Charter with behavior and policy.---Mona- (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hamas could benefit by recognizing Israel, but again, Fatah did the same with no benefit. And that's not mentioning Israel's policy of refusing to recognize a Palestinian state and consistently voting down the two-state solution at the UNGA against the consensus of the entire world (164 countries to be exact). Hamas in its electoral platform calls for a Palestinian state on the 67 borders and recognizing Israel implicitly through popular consensus (their rationale is that they will approve two states if the Palestinian public approves it). Hamas more or less indirectly recognizes Israel through moderating its stance from liberating all of Palestine to calling for a state in the 67 borders. And Ephraim Halevy, as noted in the article, is aware of this moderation. ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

While explicitly screaming for Israel's destruction on all airwaves.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

After 8 years of attempting to pursue the charter and getting the crap kicked out of them, and openly endorsing exiled party members killing Israeli civilians. Seems like it just went underground instead of being endorsed officially as a tactic move to stay in power. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll put more faith in what a head of Mossad has to say regarding Hamas' pragmatism than some alleged speeches that call for Israel's destruction (which even if true is again belied by their actions of suppresing rocket fire and abiding by ceasefires as Israeli officials concede in the recent decade or so). ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You have your facts wrong Emerald. Hamas does not start the conflicts. Consider last year and what defense officers said. "Hamas operatives were behind a large volley of rockets which slammed into Israel Monday morning, the first time in years the Islamist group has directly challenged the Jewish state, according to Israeli defense officials.. The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more.. Hamas hasn’t fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012". I expect better. Source: http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-fired-rockets-for-first-time-since-2012-israeli-officials-say/

Mona, you are wrong. http://www.npr.org/2014/08/22/342318367/hamas-finally-admits-to-kidnapping-and-killing-israeli-teens -as of June where Hamas openly admitted an exiled member did this and endorsed it. I am not interested in being blown hot air up my butt when they are on record saying it with recorded audio. This isn't in question. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Hamas leadership did not carry out this plan (more of it being carried by military members), but nevertheless for argument's sake, let's see if the kidnapping of the teenagers counts as the aggressive, first attack warranting self-defense. Unfortunately, the facts also don't hold favorably here.

"In a new crime of extra-judicial executions, on Wednesday, 11 June 2014, Israeli forces killed a member of a Palestinian armed group and wounded three civilians, including his brother. The victim, who was riding his motorbike on the coastal road, southwest of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, was killed when an Israeli drone launched two missiles at him. Following the execution, Israeli forces admitted committing it as the spokesman of Israeli forces claimed that the man was targeted as he was recently involved in firing rockets at Israeli towns. [However the ITIC weekly report for the previous week states that "Israel's south was quiet," meaning no rocket fire for that entire week.] His brother, 'Ali Abdel Latif Ahmed al-'Awour (10 years old), was also wounded by shrapnel throughout his body causing him bleeding in the brain and entering into a coma. Another two civilians were wounded as well by shrapnel". Source: http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10395:weekly-report-on-israeli-human-rights-viol. So even before the kidnappings happened (June 12), Israel shot first the day before, and that's only including Gaza. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No where did I say this was aggressive or justified retaliation. Just that it happened and it seems like what was desired in the charter has gone to independent members. If you are more interesting making up my beliefs and statements this conversation is over because you aren't interested what I have to say. I am not interested in being made your strawman. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Seems like you're evading the point about Hamas retaliating only after an Israeli attack, which hurts your notion of the charter serving as a gateway for proactive killings rather than Hamas being reactive. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No where did I say proactive or reactive. Thanks for putting words in my mouth again, this is over. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I stated that Hamas didn't start conflicts, and you suggested that they still abide by their charter when in reality they abide by ceasefires or only retaliate after Israel breaks a ceasefire. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Emerald City, don't you think it is time you realized that both I and Chris are extremely well informed and can't be mislead with nonsense such as that Hamas admitted to kidnapping those three Yeshiva teens? I really don't know what I'd do if I were an ardent Zionist when confronted by very knowledgeable Israel critics, but whatever it is that might work, neither you nor the other Zionists here are doing it.---Mona- (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There we go, I am a Zionist for questioning. I expected that sooner. Which is sad because I think Israel's response to this recent provocation was batshit fucking crazy enough to be a human rights violation in need of UN sanctions. Neither retaliation, pre-emptive strike, or provocative behavior justifies intentionally targeting civilians by either group. However, I'd rather speak to people that aren't assholes. Thanks for confirming. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Emerald, I got the impression in the context of things you were asserting that Israel was defending itself by bringing the Hamas charter into play when your above reply explicitly says otherwise. I apologize. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes Emerald City, you are a Zionist. Nothing in that comment contradicts your Zionism and is, in fact, a position many non-Likudnik Zionists hold.---Mona- (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I am sure EmerealdCityWanderer will be somewhat surprised to hear that. In the world I live in most political labels are self applied. But in the world of Mona apparently "Zionist" is an insult to be thrown at any non BDS member. And to be perfectly clear, if Zionism means support for the existence and armed self-defense of the Jewish state of Israel, I am a Zionist. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

How is Zionist being defined here? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't know which definition other people employ. Hence why I explicitly stated my own definition when discussing whether I am in fact a Zionist. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh, Mona, we really don't need to be asserting other people's Zionism based on a handful of edits. It makes no difference as to the validity (or invalidity) of their arguments anyway. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Yay, Mona in full Dubya-mode (either you're with us (BDS) or you're with the terrorists Zioooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonists).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. There isn't any indefinite detention. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, no Arisboch. Among other things, there are liberal Zionists who support BDS. ---Mona- (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Just like that there are blacks, who support the KKK or at least fly a Confederate Flag or Jews, who go to bed with Western Neo-Nazis or are frenching Mahmoud.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Eh I wouldnt go that far. BDS may be hypocritical with regard to international law and calling for one states instead of two states, but calling for one state and being anti nationalist is not the equivalent of supporting the KKK. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Comparing two things does not mean they are equal. For one thing the KKK is / was Antisemitic and anti-Catholic, but that was/is dwarfed by their anti-Black racism. BDS on the other hand claims to have nothing against Blacks (as long as they aren't Ethiopian Jews, of course) or Catholics (as long as they follow the traditions of the church when it comes to Jews). Or am I much mistaken? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think hard-line BDS individuals may be fanatic, but as to whether they make the majority, I'm not so sure. Others may support BDS towards the settlements and occupation rather than the whole state of Israel. I think BDS should be carefully described more as criticism and desires for reform of the Israel's policies than an anti-Jewish coalition. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well sure. And Donald Trump is a mild critic of some policies of Mexico... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a valid analogy. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well you are of course entitled to your opinion... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

What happened to calling a spade a spade?

And saying Hamas is antisemitic? After all their charter, which - Mona's wishful thinking aside - they still hold as valid, openly talks about killing Jews. Not Zionists. So what is keeping us from telling it like it is? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I do wonder what happened to it. (Take note of who made that edit.) Hmm... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I must have hit the revert button on the wrong edit at the wrong time. Asche auf mein Haupt. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"Extrajudicial killing"

Chris, it is not "whitewashing" to correctly say this happened during a time when war was being made on them. Resistance movements from the dawn of history have executed suspected collaborators, including the French Resistance.---Mona- (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I may be tempted to agree, but then Israel's apologists can argue that they have a right to conduct assassinations of terrorists without trial. We should support civil liberties and right to due process for all, regardless of circumstances related to massacre, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Executions of alleged collaborators doesn't sound particularly innocent either. I guess it's more understandable than random extrajudicial killings in peace times, but depending on the exact military situation, not necessarily all that more justified. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:02, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Political violent groups claiming to fight "for Palestine" have often killed Palestinians. This has happened during both Intifadas and it has also happened since Hamas has taken over Gaza. For reasons passing understanding, people like Mona don't like to talk about this unpleasant fact. It just seems that more and more we've come to expect less and less of each other... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as a matter of what Israel apologists can argue -- which they'll argue anyway. It is just a fact that during war resistance movements execute suspected collaborators; always have, always will.---Mona- (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds a bit too much like Avenger saying 'it's a war, there's always some innocent people dying in war' to downplay Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians, to be honest. >.> Whatever the historical reality may be, we shouldn't neglect immoral conduct just because it's happened a lot in the past. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

My principle is people shouldn't be extra-judicially executed regardless of circumstance, whether it's a genocide, ethnic cleansing, or massacre. Otherwise, we're being selective. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying "neglect" it; it should be stated, but as what it is. It's a fact that this ugly activity seems to be an exigency of virtually every resistance movement in history -- when there is no recourse to regular courts and circumstances are dire. What is not legitimate about this distinction? Do you both feel the French Resistance was immoral to execute people collaborating with the Nazis by informing?---Mona- (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to post-war mysticism, every Frenchman was in the resistance.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Morally, it could be the right decision. But legally, no, it was without due process. This is the argument the ACLU often brings up with the US targeted assassination program. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the ACLU is right. There are no exigent circumstances in that case and the courts are available. Extradition exists. Capture is an option. That is not people under armed siege having to defend themselves from internal traitors.---Mona- (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hamas does operate a judicial system, although a very limited one at that. Some of the people killed were previously prisoners. I can understand that collaboration warrants concern because the PA does send information to Israel on where Hamas' targets are and the PA did try to overthrow Hamas 8 years ago, but I still don't approve of the methods. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Hamas does operate a judicial system. But that system, like many other things, was not functional during Protective Edge. I'd like to say I share your position but I don't know what my answer would be to either the French Resistance or Hamas if informers are collaborating while they are under siege?---Mona- (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Arrest them while attempting to provide some form of legal recourse would be my answer. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hamas did hold some sort of truncated hearings. But I don't recall where I read that.---Mona- (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe they did. My understanding was they took some prisoners out and lined them up for a firing squad to send a message not to collaborate. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamas does use human shields

And there is ample video evidence. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And only you have access to it? Hmm, sounds suspect. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

What is certainly true is that Israel uses human shields, and even after it's supreme court told the IDF to stop it, it is clear it has not.---Mona- (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No there isn't. The human rights organizations have done their own investigations and found it to be bunk. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, stay in your echo chamber. You won't click on this link anyway Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Linking to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Need I say more? Are you going to trust independent human rights organizations or the IDF? Do I really need to say who is a more reliable source? And even then, the video proves nothing. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol, an interview with Netanyahu interspersed with a few video fragments of missiles being fired from nondescript buildings. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Are these images not prove positive that Hamas uses human shields? And breaks international humanitarian law in times of war... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No, because they are propaganda from the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry. --Gh1900 (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Pretty amateurish propaganda too. Lol, Avenger should feel embarrassed for linking these. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Even if I took that video seriously, the images are too blurry to determine if a building WITH CIVILIANS (your video shows no evidence of this) is being used by militants to shield themselves, with the civilians being coerced to act as shields. For all you know, those buildings could be empty after Hamas evacuated citizens rather than the other way around. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And Avenger, you should know that the IDF is an unreliable source. For example, they claimed that white phosphorus was not being used during the early days of the 08-09 Gaza War despite clear evidence (documented by HRW and the UN), only to later admit that it was white phosphorus. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamas has never used human shields, this is a myth. It's the Gaza Strip that is densely populated. --Gh1900 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Israel is the only side of this conflict using human shields [1] --Gh1900 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

yet another paid Hasbara shill Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Omitting that Yousef worked with the Israeli intelligence over a period of 10 years. And having read parts of his book, made a number of inaccurate statements (related to Camp David in 2000, etc). ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A video of a dude telling how he converted to Christianity and switched sides making vague statements about Hamas's morality isn't what I'd consider "ample video evidence"... >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Avenger has still not adjusted to the reality that there are several editors well-versed in relevant facts pertaining to Israel-Palestine. To whatever extent his shoddy standards of "support" for his claims once may have worked here or elsewhere, they certainly cannot any longer work here.---Mona- (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Amnesty International, an organization that rejected a motion to condemn antisemitism in the UK, I am sure provides an accurate depiction of human rights in the Arab-Israeli conflict.[2]. However, despite their noble and unbiased ability to monitor the ongoing conflict, I think that they may have accidentally overlooked a bit of evidence.[3][4][5][6][7][8] I'm sure this evidence being overlooked was entirely accidental, and I trust that Amnesty International will correct their statements in the future. Kentuckyball (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I am sure reasonable people are able to observe and assess thesed facts and come to a conclusion as to how to include them into this article. For their non-inclusion, the facts are just too relevant imho... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean the so-called antisemitism in Britain despite the fact Jews rank favorably in public polls compared to Roma and Muslims? Amnesty rejected the resolutiin because frankly, it was bullshit and an attempt to deter criticism of Israel. I don't have the time right now, but your sources prove absolutely nothing according to the working definition of human shields. Also, as I've cited before, most of the Hamas fighting in residential areas is triggered by the presence of Israeli troops in those same areas, not the other way around. ChrisAmiss (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, as I've cited before, most of the Hamas fighting in residential areas is triggered by the presence of Israeli troops in those same areas, not the other way around.- ChrisAmiss More like pulled it out of your ass.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Israel is the party using human shields. More than 1200 times per its highest court, which has ordered the IDF to stop using Palestinian civilians, including children, as shields. The IDF has no intention of obeying, and is still using human shileds. I've documented this many times and can do so again.---Mona- (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Also Kentuckyball, your source links to NGO Monitor which is led by Gerald Steinberg, who himself admits he served as a consultant to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you think you're fooling people by trying to be objective while omitting that crucial piece of information, it's not working. This site is not an outlet for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. NGO Monitor is a propaganda outlet that condemns human rights organizaions for having the nerve to conduct independent findings which find Israel to be in gross violation of human rights. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait are you seriously denying Antisemitism based on poll results? Guess what... We did a poll among the GOP caucus... There are no racists among them. Problem solved Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

When I think of antisemitism, I think of 19th and 20th century Europe. I think of immigration quotas. I think of majority public dislike of Jews. When the new antisemitism is brought up, there's usually a spike following an Israeli military operation and a PR debacle. That's not antisemitism. That's exploiting antisemitism to deflect criticism of the state of Israel and its politics. Much like how Islam apologists use Islamophobia to silence criticism of Islam and Islamism, people use antisemitism to deter criticism. If Israel and its like were genuinely concerned about antisemitism, it would stop saying it represents the interest of World Jewry/the Jewish population when defending Israel's criminal conduct. Netanyahu says he represents the world's Jews when it comes to the Iran deal? Great. When Israel goes to war over Iran, don't say I didn't warn you if there's a spike in antisemitic attacks. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

And another dipshit blaming the Jews Zionists Israel for antisemitism, cause it doensn't want to be driven into the Mediterranean...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Saying Israel is responsible for Antisemitism makes about as much sense as saying Mugabe is responsible for anti-black racism... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism means something clearly distinct, an irrational hatred, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews over the fact that they are Jews. When people seek to erase the distinction between Israel and Jews or says that what Israel is doing is good for the Jews, they are themselves engaging in antisemitism because Israel is then held as a "Jew among nations" or as a representative of the Jewish people. When you erase that distinction, you are making it more likely that people hold Jews collectively responsible for what Israel does. This would be no different than Christian extremists claiming that what Christian terrorists groups do is good for Christianity or whatnot. When you erase that distinction between policies of a government and the racial group, we run into problems because people start associating the two together more than they should. Israel's policies should be independent of the discrimination and hatred against Jews. Israel is the state of Israel, not the state of the Jewish people. A hatred of a government is not the same thing as hatred against a racial group. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

or says that what Israel is doing is good for the Jews, they are themselves engaging in antisemitism- ChrisAmiss And now Chrissie is talking crazy talk again by trying to pit Israel against the Jewish Diaspora, excuse thinly-veiled antisemitism hiding behind an anti-zionist fig leaf and implying Israel to be on one level with Christian terrorist groups.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If I were Jewish, I wouldn't want Netanyahu as a leader claiming he represents me nor groups claiming the actions of a country are meant to serve my interests. I don't want to get into a fight over Zionism, so that should be left for a separate argument. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That's somewhat of a Non sequitur...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned pitting Israel against the Jewish diaspora, hence why I included that first as to whether the Jewish diaspora has a favorable view of Israel currently or over the past decade(s). ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is completely possible to think, that Israel is totally awesome and to think, that Bibi is a stupid motherfucker.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The word "Israelkritik" which floats around in the German discourse is strange all by itself... I have never ever heard anybody talk of "Frankreichkritik" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Human Shields

Hamas did use Human Shields, at least in 2006.

BBC More BBC Moar BBC BBC picturesCorruptUser (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the standard type of tactics used by an inferior military force against a vastly superior one, especially when the territory being contested is a 139-square-mile-city. When your troops are subject to constant airstrikes from the opposing force, and you also have lots of civilians all around, massing them in a strategic area is a great way to deter an airstrike. And if one does strike the building and kill civilians, that's great propaganda to get other international actors to sympathize with your side. "Look at all these dead kids and women that were killed by the evil enemy!". If Hamas were to order all civilians out of the fight area and engage in a 'fair fight' with the Israeli Army, they would be trounced. That's precisely why Hamas is not engaging in a fair fight. They'd lose.

You could argue (rightly) that inviting more civilian casualties is bad behavior, but a couple of things still remain. First, it's a fucking war. People, including civilians, die all the time in wars. When you're fighting in a city of 2 million people, there will be large numbers of casualties. Hamas is simply drilling this point into the heads of everyone watching abroad, and it also makes Hamas seem more necessary to the people living in that city. This war is going to be brutal and bloody anyway. To clarify: I do not support the actions of Hamas in this case.

So who is at fault? Both sides. One is knowledgably and whole-heartedly electing to bomb a populated city, knowing that there's a high risk of civilian casualties, and the other is playing along and pumping up the casualty count as much as they possibly can to gain support and maintain power. It's a terrible situation to be in, but for the inferior side (Gaza). Israel has the ability to stop this. They could withdraw all Israeli citizens and soldiers from the West Bank, and end the blockade of Gaza, allowing any and all materials and people in and out, and this whole thing would not be 10% as bad as it is. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

They did withdraw from Gaza, and the rocket attacks and tunnels weren't happening before. They are in the West Bank now, and it's peaceful in comparison. Hamas also has the power to end this now as well; agree to recognize Israel and end the attacks, and in exchange the blockade is lifted. Every offer they make is either "10 year peace" which means they damn well intend to break it after 10 years, and every map and symbol they have is of all of Israel. Their definition of "Israel occupying Palestinian lands" is not "Israel in WB and Gaza" but "Israel existing at all". I agree, as I've said time and again, that the settlements do have to go, but I'm under no illusion that that will actually lead to peace with everyone. After all, there wasn't peace before 1967, and during that time it was all "'48 borders! '48 borders!" rather than "'67 borders!"CorruptUser (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That Hamas has encouraged civilians to gather publicly in proud defiance of the Israeli military is well-attested. That the latter can be considerably less positively phrased as Hamas stimulating people to volunteer as human shields is also true. Whether an element of coercion is involved is far less clear, however. Suicide is typically not seen as a crime these days and sacrificing oneself for one's nation is even seen as noble and heroic. Basically, if these people want to peacefully assemble at a targeted area and are willing to risk getting blown up if they can symbolically give Israel the finger that way, wouldn't it be kind of reppressive of Hamas to tell them no? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

When you are actively encouraging people to commit suicide for no good reason, sorry, you don't have the moral high ground.

Granted that over in that region, the moral high ground is below sea level... CorruptUser (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Human shields entails a coercive element. When citizens engage non-violently against a planned, illegal military attack against them (which is terrorism itself), that is non-violent civil resistance. If police during the civil rights movement claimed that protestors who were nonviolently protesting were forming human shields, would we truly buy that? No, and the same applies here. So the links you provided don't debunk what the section says on human shields. And no, they did not withdraw from Gaza, it's still occupied. Israel maintains effective control of Gaza through the borders, air space, waters, population registry, among others. That is simply what the law says with regards to what constitutes occupation and what the Red Cross/human rights organizations have come to in their conclusions. Those aren't Hamas apologetics, they're simply facts according to reputable sources. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say Hamas and a sizable amount of Gazans would disagree with you about it being "for no good reason". 141.134.75.236 (talk)

There's a strain in pacifism and non-violent resistance that sometimes, throwing yourself at the enemy is a morally courageous act designed to elicit public outrage and garner sympathy for your cause. Gandhi himself said Jews should throw themselves into the gas chambers. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Gandhi had some, uh, interesting ideas about what people should do in response to the Nazis. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, rewrite the section, but include the links. CorruptUser (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Gandhi only worked because he was facing the British. Had he faced the Mongols... CorruptUser (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording but included links. Again, this is not a defense of Hamas, but I am relying on what reputable human rights organizations have determined and I think it's best for our website to not endorse pro-war propaganda that doesn't fall in line with the on-the-ground facts corroborated by these organizations. It's important we stick to the meaning of words, human shields in this case, and not distort it or alter its understood meaning. Human shields entails deliberately forcing someone to shield you from military attack. Nonviolent civil resistance or fighting in urban areas (which is densely populated enough as is) doesn't qualify under this definition. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind this accusation isn't really new coming from the IDF. They've leveled the same accusations at Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon War, and HRW found no evidence to corroborate these allegations (source: http://www.hrw.org/node/10734/section/10). IDF are not always the greatest purveyors of truth to put it lightly, so their claims should be treated skeptically. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

And here's the other question - if the shoe was on the other foot, if the tables were turned, if the Zionists were faced with an asymmetric warfare scenario in which they were the weaker rather than the stronger party, would they behave any differently? Consider the Siege of Masada, where the Jewish Zealots committed mass murder-suicide, killing their own wives and children (whether those wives and children wanted to die or not) rather than permit the Romans to capture them; is that not even worse than what Hamas is accused of doing? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Zionist militias were not opposed to fighting in urban areas during the 1930s and 1940s, sometimes putting their weapons near civilian areas, not to mention using terrorism at a time of virulent antisemitism in Europe. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The Zealots were facing the Romans; the fate that awaited the survivors was crucifixion or a life of slavery and constant rape. CorruptUser (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Also what the hell, we are talking on an I-P thread and we are doing so relatively civilly. It feels weird. Too weird... umm... Your usernames all indicate inadequacies in the bedroom that you will never admit to! There, normal. CorruptUser (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to be in the place of a woman having to choose between suicide and a very high likelihood of being raped. But, the problem with what the Zealots did, is they didn't give the women the choice, the men made the choice for them - and as such, it wasn't suicide, it was murder (a species of honor killing, even). The only two women who survived (Josephus, The Jewish War, 7.9.399) did so because they'd hidden from the men, not because they were given the option of living (with a high probability of being raped) versus dying, the men insisted on making that choice for them. The two women who survived, (as far as I know) history doesn't record what happened to them; while it is not unlikely that they were killed or raped or tortured, it is also entirely possible that the Romans treated them mercifully (just as Vespasian had treated Josephus himself) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Does something that happened literally two thousand years ago really have all that much relevance today? Pizzameister (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, there were Jews living in Israel/Palestine two thousand years ago, but if you think that's not relevant, that's fine with me. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

I think it is more relevant who is living there now at this very moment. But of course if the Palestinian "right of return" can be inherited, why can't the Jewish? Pizzameister (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice use of scare quotes there. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:43, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Can you "return" to a place you've never been to? Ironically, in some ways the Palestinians are now "Arab Jews" insofar as they are disliked by most of their host countries, are often (mis)blamed for various ills and yearn to return to a homeland that isn't theirs anymore and that they don't even know anymore. Someone once said "Everything in history happens twice. First as tragedy, than as farce." He may have been right. Pizzameister (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I think restricting movement from one country to another for non-criminals is a farce. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Well tell that to... Every country on the face of this earth for the last two thousand years at least. Apparently humans like their walls, their fences, their lines in the sand... Pizzameister (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That does seem to be the case, regrettably. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

One good idea is to set the countries according to the ethno-religious makeup of the land. That seems like it would solve some problems. If this were implemented, Gaza and the West Bank would be ruled by the Palestinians, not Israel. Also, to Pizzameister, The Arabs were there for more than a thousand years before the Jews started to arrive there again. And the "right of return" generally refers to the right of Palestinians living in Syria and other places to return to the 1967 borders. Not something else. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Most Israelis would be happy with Gaza and most of the WB ruled by Palestinians. Problem is that the Israelis don't want those two ruled by people who intend to invade Israel. As for right of return, if you mean to an independent WB and Gaza, sure, if they want to take in the refugees they can. CorruptUser (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)