British MPs display their famed grasp of logic and principle

Truthtriumphs

The REAL obstacle to peace is, and always has been, the failure of western democracies to confront terror, rather than to appease it.
The unspoken will of The Quartet is for Israel to surrender the Zionist project and throw in the sponge, since Israel is dispensable, or so it is wished.

The days when Jews obligingly allowed themselves to be slaughtered are over---forever.
Netanyahu did well to stand firm recently and he should continue in that mode.
Concessions by Israel simply drive peace further away, because Israel's enemies
always interpret them as weakness, and will always increase their demands on that humane, benighted country.

Let the Quartet extract a few concessions from the Palestinians----now that would make a nice change.

Carlos Perera

In my humble opinion, Israel is doomed to destruction the moment it accepts the sort of "mediation" that the likes of your House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee would impose upon it. The history of the 20th century clearly shows that the bad guys are always able to game the system, as the Nazis did during the 1930s, the North Koreans and Chinese Communists did during the 1950s, the North Vietnamese did during the 1970s, and the various Palestinian terrorist organizations and their state sponsors have done since the signing of the Oslo accords.

Invariably, the less belligerent party, with the greater respect for legal forms and procedures (e. g., the sanctity of treaties) in mediated international conflicts, is pressured by the mediator(s) to make one concession after another to the more belligerent party . . . much in the same way as the police often find it easier to circumscribe the behavior of the law-abiding citizenry than that of criminals (as the British should well know by now).

Of course, the mediator(s) will always be able to bask in the warm publicity glow that comes from proclaiming some variant of "peace in our times"--think Chamberlain waving the text of the Munich Agreement for the newsreel cameras as he stepped out of his plane and onto the tarmac, happy to have sold out the Czechs to the Nazis in exchange.

Kepha

I once watched Dershowitz debate Alan Keyes on television re morality and law. Dershowitz stated "I don't know what right and wrong are"--yet now he writes _The Case for Moral Clarity_.

Melanie, in the days of the old Dual Monarchy, the people of Galicia elected a rabbi named Meisels to represent them in Veinna. When asked why he sat with the socialists, R. Meisels replied "Juden habe keine Rechts"--the Jews have no Right (or, "Rights"). Most American Jews--people whom I love and regard as good neighbors, even if I am a fanatical conservative--still feel this way in their hearts of hearts.

As for me, I became most wary of Obama when he equated Palestinian suffering with the Shoah. After all, the Israelis don't have a total extermination policy as the Nazis had even towards the assimilated descendants of Jews. This makes me think that Obama is pandering to a Left-Islamicist alliance.

James Hovland

Can't there ever be more than one obstacle at a time?

Progress on the other side is going far better than it is with Israel. Hamas has given the PA a green light on 1967 borders, and then announced a major shift from rockets to PR. Without a threat, Israel has no defense. Welcome to the information era!

Israel has recognized borders. All Israeli settlements outside of Israel's recognized borders are illegal. The attempted land grabs, also known as "facts on the ground" are not assets that Israel gets to keep, they are evidence of Israel's contempt for international law. Appeasement on an issue of this nature would set a very dangerous precedent.

For your information, international recognition of Palestine, including borders, will not require Israel's approval.

George

Mr. Hovland,

Israel has recognised borders with Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan. She has no recognised border with Syria in the North East and no reconised Eastern border from just South of the Sea of Galilee until the Dead Sea (i.e. with Palestine). These borders are to be the subject of negotiations.
Also, how would you propose the international community enforce borders on Israel that she doesn't recognise?

GaryO

And now David Milliband wants to talk to Taliban.

Are the lives of our soldiers that expendable?

Terry, Eilat - Israel

You are expecting rationality for what has become a theological belief, a belief in a magic solution. This kind of thinking requires no consistancy, no logic, no evidence, & especially the kind of intellectual dishonesty that can disregard all history & experience. That it is also an incredible display of cynicism should surprise no one.

Colin

We could talk to the IRA because we had beaten them militarily. We could talk to them because what they really wanted, was what all marxists and other assorted left wingers really want - money, baubles, to have their Ego's pandered to and the ability to boss ordinary people around. We gave them all these things and more. It's been mildly successful, if you live in mainland UK, a nightmare if you live in Ulster.

The idea that we should be talking to Hamas or indeed the Taleban at this stage is an indication that we have pigmies in control...

Sasquatch

So, has anyone read the Hamas Charter? If you have, you know that there is no such thing as a moderate Hamas element. The charter calls for the destruction of Israel, for pity's sake. That is what every member of Hamas supports.
As for a Palestinian state, perhaps Hamas should start asking neighbouring muslim states for the 90% of "Palestine" that isn't on Israel's territory. They'd have more than enough land for a Palestinian state, without needing any land from Israel. Why don't they do it? Simple - Israel is not muslim and Hamas wants to expel the infidels and make it part of a new caliphate. It has nothing to do with "Palestine" as such.

Margaret Muller-Johansson

Talking to moderate terrorists? That is a funny joke. You can not talk to moderate serial killers or moderate jihadists, or even moderate fascists, because there is nothing moderate about them, it is like saying I want to go to the sea to talk to moderate sharks,

How suicidal!

Truthtriumphs

James Hovland.
Demonstrate,ie; quote chapter and verse as to why the settlements are illegal, instead of repeating the dishonest mantra that they are illegal, which sounds convincing, but has no basis in fact.

Just to repeat what I have written on this blog before, the last legally binding document relating to the territories, ie.The West Bank, Gaza and the Golan, is "The Mandate for Palestine", which was ratified in 1922 as a result of the unanimous approval of all 51 members of the League of Nations, that these areas should form the national homeland of the Jewish people. Before you rush into print with more platitudes,it emphasised that in the future Jewish state the non-Jewish inhabitants thereof should have civil and religious rights, but not political ones.
When the League ceased to exist and the UN replaced it, this document was incorporated into Article 80 of the UN Charter, which remains legally binding until the present day.
In addition, there have been other judgements, such as one by Stephen Schwebel in 1970 (who headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague----the official court of the UN) giving Israel better title to the land.
You conveniently ignore the fact that the West Bank was itself illegally occupied by Trans-Jordan between 1948 and 1967, an act only recognised by Great Britain and Pakistan, but not with respect to Jerusalem.
Can you also explain how the Etzion bloc, for example, which lies on disputed land just outside Jerusalem, can be illegal, as it was legally purchased in the 1920s from Arabs? The legal owners, the Jews, were terrorised and chased off the land in the 1929 massacre, and this land has now been reclaimed.
How can living in your own legally purchased home be illegal?
If you delve into history, you will soon find that much of what the Arabs claim to be theirs is actually land acquired after conquest and colonisation.
Indeed, this tactic is still proceeding apace today by Muslim invaders in other parts of the world.

On another point, why doesn't Hamas change its charter to remove their intent to destroy Israel and kill Jews worldwide, if they it is intent on peace?
WHY???

Olaf Rye

Oh dear ! Are we now to trust the Muslim states, or any of their organisations, to abide by agreements ? You would think that we would be less keen on negotiation after being led a merry dance by Iran on its nuclear programme. Moreover, there was also to outright refusal of Iraq to honour its agreements even after it experienced the most spectacular defeat in military history. As Melanie said, this shows the immense (lack of) intelligence and the conceit of our political classes.

Jez

Miliband wants to negotiate with the Taliban now... as British lads and lasses are fighting for each others welfare/survival, actually on the ground, in Afghanistan, right now.

What a boost for the bloody Taleban.

F***** scandalous.

Nannette

Until our government accept the fact that Hamas, like the Taliban is only answerable to Islamic law, they're on a losing streak.

Our politicians have proven themselves to be morally bankrupt, inept, who have no concept of cause and effect, logic or common sense!

One thing they all seem to lack is any degree of intelligence which is so obvious when they make their moral equivalences between a terrorist aggressor who continually attacks a UN member state and Israel, who puts up with a lot, but HAS to defend herself and her citizens against these heinous attacks.

I'm sure that the MPs who sit in Westminster wouldn't sit back and ignore daily attacks on the UK!

It's bad enough they put their big snouts in the trough, ignore the electoratge and have proven time and again that they have nothing but contempt for us.

john Norman

Mr. Hovland.

The Palestine/Israel borders will have to be mutually recognised. Just as the borders between Germany and its former ennemies had to be mutually recognised and accepted by the international community. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain daft.

Linda Smith

Was factual history dumbed down on the school curriculum by interfering politicians and replaced by touchy-feely emotive games along the lines of "how would you feel if you lived in a refugee camp" - so that the British population can be more easily deceived by the appeasing heirs to Chamberlain.

Linda Smith

In addition to displaying their "famed grasp of logic and principle", British MPs are also displaying their ignorance of history.

The periodic removal of Jews from Gaza goes back at least to the Romans in 61 AD, followed much later by the Crusaders, Napoleon, the Ottoman Turks, the British and the contemporary Egyptians. However, Jews definitely lived in Gaza throughout the centuries, with a stronger presence in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Jews were present in Gaza until 1929, when they were forced to leave the area due to violent riots against them by the Arabs. Following these riots, and the death of nearly 135 Jews in all, the British prohibited Jews from living in Gaza to quell tension and appease the Muslim Arabs.

The British are still trying to appease the Arabs. The heirs to Chamberlain still haven't learned the lesson that appeasement doesn't work.

It's about time that factual history was restored to its rightful place on the school curriculum.

Wm. Hazlitt

Why should British parlamentarians be a focus for your ire? I seem to recall that respected members of the Israeli defence establishment have advocated talks with the Hamas government. Am I wrong?

The Israeli government has in any event already negotiated with Hamas, for example, in arranging ceasefires. This does not appear to have compromised Israel's ability to defend itself and to attack others.

What is to be lost by attempting to negotiate?

Adam B.

I defy anyone to read the Hamas charter, which mocks the very notion of negotiations (it explicitly condemns negotiations, and states that violent jihad is the ONLY acceptable path tp follow). The problem is that these committees haven't read it, and have no idea about the nature and ideology of Hamas. Just read it, then tell me you want to have talks.

John

Nary a day goes by without something on these lines. Today's Guardian has yet another piece which is devastatingly deconstructed by Robin Shepherd.

http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/

Truthtriumphs

Wm. Hazlitt.
"What is to be lost by attempting to negotiate".
Answer: Everything.
By doing so you give savages who have no regard for the rule of law of any authority, legitimacy and status---- the two things they crave.
History has demonstrated without exception that such a strategy is ALWAYS doomed to failure, and harms the innocents on both side of a conflict.

Sheila

"Wm. Hazlitt" - "Why should British parlamentarians be a focus for your ire?"

It's their words in their report. Why shouldn't there be a right of reply? Why should the terrorists and their appeasers have the final word?

"I seem to recall that respected members of the Israeli defence establishment have advocated talks with the Hamas government. Am I wrong?" Yes.

"The Israeli government has in any event already negotiated with Hamas, for example, in arranging ceasefires." What's a ceasefire got to do with the right to exist?

"This does not appear to have compromised Israel's ability to defend itself and to attack others." Israel doesn't attack others, though, does it? It defends itself from rocket attacks.

"What is to be lost by attempting to negotiate?" Hamas doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist, so what is there to talk about?

Jon_Boy

We live in an amoral world and often our leaders are imoral.

Many of the advocats for a so called moral world who gain a sense of religious like zeal and rush of self rightchisnous from screaming the loudest are often highly imoral.

This can be seen most graphically in the deligitimisation and intelectual villainisation of states like Israel, Serbia and India etc etc simply because it forms part of an overall worldwide Islamic agenda.

Israelis negotiating with Hamas is a temporary means to an end. However ultimately negotiating with Hamas is the negotiation of your own destruction, how many Jews can you tolerate being displaced, murdered and raped?

Sitting in the UK after miscalculating your own certain safety whatever the outcome it is very easy to scream out 100% of the Jews is tolerable.

Even in Israel there are those living it up in Tel Aviv and other areas who have been intellectually tempted with a tolerable numberin their minds which they think wll make themselves safe.

Linda Smith

Jon boy, you make some very good points which would be enhanced by using your spellchecker.

Augustus

I can't get the link to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee site to activate. But anyhow, how is it possible
to truly negotiate with an organization that views the murder of Jews as a duty? What has changed between December 2008, when they refused to renew the six-month ceasefire? They certainly can't be relied upon to negotiate on rational terms, as their refusal to release Shalit proved. Israel's offer to lift the blockade hardly represented an arduous decision for them, yet the betterment of the Gazan people was not worth trading one soldier for.

Some people claim tha Hamas only uses rudimentary weapons. But its stockpile of weapons includes Kassam rockets, Grad missiles, and, according to Jordanian sources, T4 and TNT, as well as weaponry worth
$400m shipped from the US which it seized, and amongst which were thousands of assault rifles. Hamas is not a secular nationalist Palestinian group seeking merely national aspirations as its political end. What it is seeking is rather the destruction of the state of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic state. It has a very clear, and very fanatical, religio-political agenda.

Joe Strummer

Madness, absolute madness. Do the appeasers seriously suggest that Hamas and now the lunacy of " reaching out" to the Taleban will stop them both murdering and maiming ?

Minnie Ovens

Quite simply, The House of Commond FASC is incoherent and wrong in its judgment of the situation in this area.
Have any of these very silly dogmatized people ever read up on the history of the Middle East in the 20th Century or indeed about the Jews and the Holocaust.
Luckily Ms Phillips skewers these ignorant people so well that I, in my utter disgust and anger, do not have to attempt to do so.
I think I now know what Lawrence felt like after Versailles, except it's for a different nation

Worried

If you want my opinion, Israel is being used as a scapegoat / distraction, while we go on what is nothing more than an lets get there before someone else does Caspian sea oil quest in Afghanistan. A bunch of poppy growing tribal leaders had no interest in the West until they were used and abused by Russia and then the US, so to deflect the attention of the liberati, the spotlight is moved toward the well meaning long suffering Israel, because it's always easy to knock the trusting.

I don't recall any body counts of Taliban forces or UN investigations into civilian casualties.

Meanwhile, despotic nations across the globe continue with genuine human rights abuses.

Ricky

Melanie - we have the most undistinguished, corrupt and venal parliamentarians in living memory. Why would anyone listen to them or take them seriously? Across the world they are a joke. In this country, none of us listen to them anymore. They've utterly lost it. They cannot sit in judgement over us and have lost all authority in the country. They have no moral compass or any special talents apart from greed and unwelcome interference in our lives. None of us care what they have to say. That's why - in desperation - they are seeking friends wherever they can. The Taliban. Hamas. Anyone will do.

The Chairman of this nonsensical ship of fools - Michael Gapes - isn't he in a largely Jewish constituency? Let's hope they won't forget this act of betrayal come May 2010.

Wm. Hazlitt

Adam B. Those in the Israeli security establishment who advocate negotiation have no doubt read the Hamas charter.

Truthtriumphs, The strategy of trying negotiations is "ALWAYS doomed to failure". That is a large claim. How do you justify it? (By the way, your account of the Mandate is fanciful at best - when you say that history proves you right it is as well to take more care.)

Sheila, Why should British parliamentarians be the focus when Israelis also advocate negotiation? - Members of the Israeli security establishment have indeed advocated negotiation.

Negotiation over a ceasefire has everything to do with ending hostilities without the annihilation of one party or the other. (The unspoken corollary of Israeli intransigence would appear to be a willingness to continue to despoil and oppress Palestinian Arabs until they acquiesce in Israel's appropriation of whatever it wants and until they acknowledge that Israel has an historic right to appropriate whatever it wants). Both sides have said they are willing to make peace. The way to find out whether they are serious is to negotiate.

"Israel doesn't attack others"...Your assertion is difficult to square with the facts.

Mladen Andrijasevic

Since Article 7 of the Hamas Charter "O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP109206

came from hadith Bukhari (Vol 4, Book 52, No. 177) and quotes Prophet Muhammad

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html

could the British MPs please clarify whether they expect Hamas to defy Muhammad or are they quite comfortable with Article 7. Which is it?

Truthtriumphs.

Wm.Hazlitt.
"Your account fo the Mandate is fanciful at best".
Is it really, Mr. Hazlitt, is it?
It's you who should take care, so that you are not laughed out of bed.
Anyone can go to the historical documents and read them for themselves, which I have.
If YOU have, then it would suggest that your comprehension skills are not up to much---funny in a person who uses Hazlitt as a pseudonym.
Neither do you understand how a debate works----- it's a bit like a tennis match-----one fires the volley and the other responds---- if he can't, then he loses.
So, it's for YOU to give examples, and just one will do, of an instance when negotioting with terrorists who are well-armed has ever produced results.
You can't, can you?
On further consideration, it's great having someone like yourself as the opposition because you are so utterly incompetent.

Yehuda

Maybe the fact just has to be faced that the values system of these British politicians is identical to that of Hamas.
Do the people of Britain want to place their future into such minds and hands?

Adam B.

Wm Hazlitt, you make the mistake of thinking that because an Israeli can advocate such a position, it is nonsensical for me, as a supporter of Israel, to contend that there can be no negotiations with Hamas. So here it is Wm Hazlitt, I think those in Israel advocating such a position are wrong too. Amazing, supporters of Israel can think differently, we're not all the same!

And what is your position? Do you think that Hamas put in this article condemning negotiations for a joke? Do you think they don't really mean it? How about their position advocating the extermination of every Jew on earth? Maybe they don't mean that either. And maybe the moon is made of cheese.

Linda Smith

Truthtriumphs: welcome back!

Some of the commenters here wouldn't recognise the truth if it jumped up and smacked them in the face. The just keep regurgitating the same old lies and hoping to hook some gullible newcomer.

Keep up the good work - lie busting!

Wm. Hazlitt

Truthtriumphs, What the Mandate said was, "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." This is not the same as saying that the whole territory of Palestine was to be devoted to a national home for the Jewish people.

Balfour and Lloyd George may well have had no intention of observing the rights of the population to self-determination as espoused by the Allies in their pronouncements during and after the War. However, the official British position was that Britain could fulfil both its promise to the Jews and its obligations to the majority population (despite warnings from Samuel that the two were not consistent and could not both be peacably implemented).

You say, "When the League ceased to exist and the UN replaced it, this document was incorporated into Article 80 of the UN Charter, which remains legally binding until the present day." This is not strictly correct. As the successor organisation to the League, the UN accepted the proposal of the Mandatory power that, to fulfil its final responsibility to allow the population self-government, it would be obliged to partition the Mandate territories. You are right that this action of the Mandatory power, as accepted by the UN, provides the legal basis for Israel's title to the territory assigned to it (I suggest you consult a map of those territories).

On the question of how debate works: if you make a large claim such as, "History has demonstrated without exception that such a strategy is ALWAYS doomed to failure", it is customary to be wiling and able to substantiate your claim. It is not enough simply to challenge your opponent to disprove it. The burden of proof is yours.

Ronnie

Adam B.

'I defy anyone to read the Hamas charter, which mocks the very notion of negotiations (it explicitly condemns negotiations, and states that violent jihad is the ONLY acceptable path tp follow).'

Why, is it written in a language that only you can read?

Wm. Hazlitt

Adam B., My point was simply that it is possible to have Israel's best interests at heart, to read the Hamas charter, and still advocate negotiation. If you remember, you defied anyone to read the charter and still advocate negotiation.

Groovy Times

Hazlitt, you seem to be placing negotiations above all other considerations. Adam B asked you specifically if you accepted the genocidal anti-semitic principles of the Hamas charter as a genuine reflection of that organisation's political world view. You cannot advocate 'negotiations uber alles' while ignoring the murderous intentions of Hamas, unless you tacitly approve of such principles yourself. Israel negotiates cease-fires with Hamas, it has no illusions of finding political accomodation with an organisation that exists in order to bring about the physical destruction of Israel and the biological destruction of the Jewish people.

Wm. Hazlitt

Groovy Times, I see what you mean, but my response would be, How do you know their intentions without negotiating with them? Negotiate incremental agreements (by which I mean, agree something minor and test their bona fide, then move on to something slightly less minor and repeat the process, and so on, until both sides have invested significant capital in the success of the negotiations - it is how all cooperation gets going). This is after all how the ceasefire last year was negotiated (and it was not the Palestinians' bona fide that was called into question by its breakdown - as Ehud Barak admitted in the summer and the security services reported to the Israeli cabinet in November, Hamas kept its side of the bargain). I agree that it would be a significant gesture for Hamas to disown its poisonous rhetoric, but demanding that your opponents climb down entirely and give away their whole negotiating position and grant you everything you want before negotiations begin is unlikely to produce success.

One final speculation: I suspect that the Israeli authorities may consider trying to suborn Hamas as they have Fatah. Fatah "governs" and receives a steady flow of "aid" so long as it controls the population of the West Bank for Israel. Hamas could similarly be allowed to "govern" in Gaza and receive a steady if restricted flow of "aid" so long as it ends rocket attacks and keeps the population under control. The Palestinian population of both the West Bank and Gaza will then be abandoned to local Mafia-style government - and will no longer be Israel's problem.

Truthtriumphs

Hazlitt.
Do you not know that the area designated for the Jewish homeland by the League in its "Mandate for Palestine" was only 23% of mandated Palestine? The other 77% was allocated,in what became Trans-Jordan, to Abdullah of the Hashemite dynasty, by the British, as a reward for its allegiance in helping to defeat the Turks.
So you could say that Jordan, covering 77% of the mandated area and with over 70% of its population Palestinian, should be called Palestine.

Further, I am absolutely correct in that the "Mandate for Palestine" document is the last legally binding one. That is because the Arabs never accepted any of the proposals put to them, such as the Peel Commission's in 1937, itself offered as a result of the relentless pressure the Arabs brought to bear on the international agencies. Therefore they were rendered null and void.

As to the obligation being upon myself to prove that negotiation with powerful terrorist groups never works, how do you expect me to prove a negative?
However, I will remind you of the most famous example of recent times, when Chamberlain thought that by giving Hitler what he wanted he had bought "peace in our time".
Exactly the opposite was true, for it just increased Hitler's appetite for conquest, and he marched into Poland.
So, now it's for you to give an instance, and just one will do, where negotiating with terrorists who are powerful and not on the brink of defeat, has ever been successful. On the contrary, such misguided attempts always buys them more time for them to realise their ruthless ambitions, whilst laughing at the gullibility of fools (like yourself),just as Iran is doing at the present time.

Truthtriumphs.

Hazlitt.
Do you make things up as you go along?
Seemingly yes.
It is well documented that Hamas, true to form, broke the ceasefire in November, which led to the Gaza war.

Adam B.

WMHazlitt, you duck the issue. Do you think Hamas' condemnation of negotiations was put in as a joke, or that Hamas doesn't believe its own charter?

The whole point of Hamas is that it is a rejectionist movement.

Ronnie, what's your point?

Adam B.

WmHazlitt, have you read the charter?

Wm. Hazlitt

Truthtriumphs, I am not sure what you believe to follow from your brief rehearsal of how the British chose to fulfil the mandate in Palestine east of the Jordan.

On your second point, the Mandate gave the mandatory power some discretion in how it managed the transition to self-government in mandate territories. Britain used its powers to partition Palestine west of the Jordan, and the UN as the successor to the League of Nations endorsed what Britain as the mandatory power proposed. I am aware that there are international lawyers friendly to Israel who insist that the partition is null and void because it was not accepted by both sections of the population. This is not the opinion of most international lawyers, nor of the International Court of Justice. As a layman I cannot add any more on the legalities.

Your account of the breakdown of the ceasefire last year is not accurate. The incursion by the IDF was a breach of the ceasefire, and given the deliberations of the cabinet before it took place would appear to be a provocation.

Wm. Hazlitt

Adam B., What I think of the Hamas charter and of the material composition of the moon is of as little importance as what you think of them. Israel has negotiated with Hamas before despite its poisonous charter, and there is no reason why it should not do so again.

Adam B.

WmHazlitt, they haven't "negotiated" in the sense of trying to reach a wider solution - this is what is being proposed, and this is what Melanie shoots down. There have been "understandings" about ceasefires which have always eventually broken down anyway, due to Hamas' insatiable and openly stated desire to kill Jews.

I take it from your reply that you believe Hamas doesn't believe its own charter.

Ronnie

My point, Adam B, is that you seem to care more about the Hamas Charter than does Hamas itself.

Serious attempts are being made to find a way to create an environment in which peace can begin to be discussed. I'm not optimistic but part of that process necessitates finding someone in Gaza to talk to. Its not hard to grasp that idea, it follows the logic of countless peace processes across the world.

Continually waving the Hamas Charter in everyones' face as a reason not to try anything is, frankly, pathetic.

And before you start, I am perfectly aware of what is in the Hamas Charter. I am also aware that some people live by it, you appear to be one of them, but a great many people do not. That is where hope, if there is any, lies.

Ronnie

umphs.

I thought the true stats were that the Hashemites were promised 73% of the 52% that was left after the Hittites were pushed off of the 68% that they had been given by the Ottomans, who in turn had loaned 47% to the Berlusconis, who lost it in a scandal.

How you guys can spend so much time on the web disputing percentages of land apportioned by treaties and carve-ups from the 1920s and 30s, and not realise that it is a pointless waste of time, is beyond me.

By the way, how's that thing with the pin head going?

Adam B.

Ronnie, the charter isn't some harmless insignificant document. You even state that Hamas doesn't seem to care about it. What evidence do you have for this bizarre contention? Everything Hamas does is in accordance with its principles. Sorry you seem to think that pointing this out is "pathetic."

What is pathetic, however, is the naive belief that no harm comes from trying to have "negotiations" with a terrorist, nihilistic, racist and genocidal group. By legitimizing these thugs (who don't hesitate to kill their own people, let alone Jews) with negotiations (especially when there is not the slightest evidence that talks would achieve anything) is extremely damaging, and simply encourages further terror and murder. In other words, Ronnie, you are rewarding terror. Comparisons with other parts of the world are completely spurious. I don't know of any other groups with a similar philisophy, other than Al-Qaeda, which doesn't have a centralized control (unlike Hamas).

Sometimes there simply isn't a compromise, not without the price being too outrageously high. You remind me of those who believed that Britain could have struck a deal with Hitler, that he was someone with whom one could "negotiate".

Truthtriumphs

Adam B.
Well said!

I challenged Hazlitt earlier to give one example, just one, where negotiating with powerful totalitarian thugs/regimes ever yielded results.
He has remained tellingly silent.
So perhaps Ronnie would like to take up the baton?

Ronnie

Adam B.

You remind me of a man hanging at the end of the bar.

umphs, if you don't mind I'll let you and B run round in circles with your baton. You can keep your copy of the Charter wrapped up inside it.

Ronnie

Strangely, Adam B., Britain could have struck a deal with Hitler, but not over Czechoslovakia or Poland. Hitler hoped we could be on the same side or at least neutral.

You'll struggle to find any evidence that I would have supported a deal with Hitler. Another of your many mistaken assumptions.

Wm. Hazlitt

Truthtriumphs, "As to the obligation being upon myself to prove that negotiation with powerful terrorist groups never works, how do you expect me to prove a negative?"

You should perhaps be more careful in making sweeping statements that you know cannot be substantiated.

I suppose it can be argued that the Sandinista government was right to negotiate with the Contra terrorists. It did stop the terrorist attacks on civilians. On the other hand, Nicaragua has been left impoverished and benighted.

I suppose the people of East Timor were wise to talk to the terrorist regime in Indonesia. At least it stopped the slaughter, although the depredations of Indonesia and Australia have left them with only a poor simulacrum of independence.

I suppose the British were right to negotiate finally with the IRA and agree to the establishment of the Republic of Ireland (not before time).

I suppose the British were right to keep talking to the leaders of the Yishuv, despite the activities of their auxiliaries (acting entirely on their own, of course), like the terrorists Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir - but that is clearly open to debate.

Have you attempted to study the policies of Chamberlain's government in any detail, or are you just using it as the traditional rhetorical cosh?

Wm. Hazlitt

Adam B., I'm sorry but I am not going to engage in this semantic nit-picking - they negotiated a ceasefire, but it understandingwasn't proper "negotiating", just arriving at an , which is entirely different, and does not involve trusting in your adversary's bona fide, no, what we can't have is Proper Negotiation, because that would involve legitimizing them, whereas reaching an understanding with them does NOT legitimize them at all, in any way, ever, because that would be wrong...I think the technical term for this is piffle.

By the way, it was not Hamas who broke the ceasefire.

If you don't want to look at the details of what happened, simply consider the question of plausibility. Israel worked out a plan of campaign over a number of months (while they admitted the ceasefire was holding). They actually mobilised their armed forces and deployed them in advanced offensive positions. They authorised shelling and incursions (while admitting that Hamas was observing the ceasefire. And they did all this just in case Hamas should choose to break the ceasefire (despite indicating its willingness to prolong it). The Israeli armed forces remained poised in very expensive offensive readiness just in case...It would have been very disappointing if they didn't manage to persuade Hamas to "break" the ceasefire. Luckily, a little provocation was enough.

Truthtriumphs

Ronnie.

In what way did Hitler's Nazi party differ from Hamas?
Answer: not at all.
In fact Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of whose disciples was the dreadful Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini, who gave Hitler master classes on how to exterminate the Jews, and was directly complicit in the liquidation of Hungarian Jewry.
And you want a Jewish state to negotiate with the savages who comprise Hamas, people who are brutal to their own kith and kin, no less?
You are morally bankrupt.

SHAME on you and others like you.

Adam B.

Ronnie, you are right - Britain could have struck a deal with Hitler, even after the Battle of Britain - but could and should are two different things, Ronnie. You need to learn that.

And as for your flippant remarks about the founding principles of a neo-Nazi genocidal organization - well, I'm glad you can find it funny.

Please provide a shred of evidence that Hamas has departed from its charter. The problem is that you can't, so you pretend it doesn't matter. That's not much of a reply.

Adam B.

Hazlitt, Hamas broke the ceasefire. Fact.

Adam B.

Hazlitt, I'll ask you one more time, has Hamas departed from its founding principles and if so, please provide evidence.

Linda Smith

I don't suppose Ronnie was ever a prisoner in Auschwitz or a Japanese prisoner of war camp. If he had been, he wouldn't be so flippant.

Ronnie

Umphs and B.

I do think you both need to learn to properly read the contributions of others before engaging them in any kind of discussion. Obviously you both inhabit environments where communication is mostly one-way.

B. where have I said that Britain SHOULD have struck a deal with Hitler?

My flippancy is aimed at you B. and your inability to see beyond your beloved Hamas Charter. There may well be progress in the peace progress, or not, but you are unable or unwilling to accept the possibility.

There is a difference between pretending the Charter doesn't exist and trying to see beyond it. You need to learn that.

umphs.

What bankruptcy there is lies in your willingness to see things continue as they are without even considering a better and more peaceful alternative.

While you stamp your feet, more people will die.

I'm afraid the shame lies with you.

What a pair.

Truthtriumphs

Hazlitt.
By your own admission you haven't a clue about international law (and much else besides.)
The only point in responding to your convoluted "reasoning" and pontificating claptrap is to nail the lies, so that the gullible do not fall for them.

As to breaking the ceasefire, you prefere to believe the account of Hamas, an organisation of brutes and savages, that throws its own brother Arabs from the tops of tall buildings, hands and feet tied together, that uses ambulances and schools to fire from using Palestinian children as human shields to guarantee no return of fire, that drags the sick from hospital beds and shoots them outside as a lesson for others, if they are suspected Fatah supporters, and that rules by fear and terror, just like the IRA did.

How can anyone take you seriously?

Wm. Hazlitt

Adam B., "Hamas broke the ceasefire. Fact." - One of those "facts" so successfully deployed over the years in Israeli propaganda.

Your killer question is entirely beside the point. Hamas should certainly renounce its evil charter, as a matter of ethical decency, but also pragmatically because it is in no position (and never will be) to put it into effect.

I note that Hamas has not insisted that Israel abide by international law and human decency and stop its state terrorism before Hamas will talk to it.

Wm. Hazlitt

Adam B., "Hamas broke the ceasefire. Fact." - One of those "facts" so successfully deployed over the years in Israeli propaganda.

Your killer question is entirely beside the point. Hamas should certainly renounce its evil charter, as a matter of ethical decency, but also pragmatically because it is in no position (and never will be) to put it into effect.

I note that Hamas has not insisted that Israel abide by international law and human decency and stop its state terrorism before Hamas will talk to it.

Wm. Hazlitt

Truthtriumphs, I said I was a layman and unwilling to second- guess the majority of international jurors and the International Court of Justice. By what mean-spirited and intellectually dishonest illogic do you translate that into, "By your own admission you haven't a clue about international law (and much else besides.)"?

I have carefully explained where I think your confident assertions about history go wrong. I have provided the counter-examples you asked for. I have put up with your puerile sarcasm and insults. And you have the impertinence to lecture me on how debate works.

If you feel that you can "nail" my "lies", please go ahead.

Ronnie

That's an excellent point Linda Smith. If I was arguing with me that's exactly the point I would make. Certain in the knowledge that there is nothing grotesque about bringing Aushwitz or the Burma railway into the equation.

On the other hand, what is your point now, in the last day of July 2009?

Linda Rivera

To James Hovland:
JEWISH Refugees Must be COMPENSATED in LAND And Finances

Around, and after 1948, one million Jews suffered VIOLENT religious Jew cleansing from Arab countries. Arab governments seized the land, farms, homes, hospitals, schools, businesses and bank accounts of the Jews.

Most Jewish refugees fled to Israel where the religious terror war against Jews NEVER stops.

Cruel Global war is fought to subjugate all humanity under merciless Islamic sharia law where defenseless non-Muslims have NO human rights-it is unacceptable to Islamics for Jews to have self-rule in TINY Israel.

The 1948 Jewish refugees and their descendants who make up about half of Israel's Jewish citizens MUST be compensated in land and finances!

See:
http://www.theforgottenrefugees.com/

Linda Rivera

To James Hovland:

There NEVER was an Arab country of Palestine. Jerusalem was NEVER the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Jewish Bible, not once in the Koran.

ALL Land Stolen from Jews in the 1948 Islamic INVASION Must be Returned!

The inalienable rights of Jews to the Biblical heartland must not be violated! No one is demanding Muslims surrender THEIR top religious areas of Mecca and Medina!

In 1948, Egypt invaded Gaza, ethnically cleansing all Jews and in 1948, Jordan invaded Judea, Samaria and east Jerusalem, ethnically cleansing all Jews.

In violent opposition to G-D, Muslim Jordan destroyed 58 synagogues in Jerusalem. The jihad is against the Holy One.

When Israel won the Arab war of aggression in 1967, Jews returned to the areas of their ancestral homeland they had been ethnically cleansed from for 19 years. Anti-Israel propaganda DECEITFULLY calls Jews' legitimate return "occupation".

Jews have had a continuous presence in physical and spiritual homeland Israel for 4000 years.

Jewish ownership of the land, homes and buildings stolen from the Jews in the 1948 Islamic invasion must be restored!

Adam B.

Hazlitt, I am sorry you regard facts as "Israeli propaganda". No doubt you regard Hamas as a reliable, propaganda free organization, if we could just all see beyond its desire to exterminate the Jews. Hamas broke the ceasefire, then, if you recall, refused to renew the ceasefire (such as it was) just before Operation Cast Lead, despite an Israeli willingness to do so. How absurd that a terror organization renounces the ceasefire unilaterally, then bitterly complains when it becomes targeted.

Ronnie, is there a shred of evidence that
1. Hamas is willing to negotiate.
2. Hamas has expressed a desire for peace.
3. Hamas no longer wants to exterminate the Jews.

It's not about the charter, the charter merely shows Hamas' principles (which it has shown no desire to renounce). You missed the point about Hitler - if it was wrong to negotiate with Hitler, why is it right to negotiate with Hamas? What is the difference between the two?

Wm. Hazlitt

Adam B., The conversation grinds to a halt if you insist on deliberate misunderstanding for the sake of sarcasm.

"Facts","factoids" "selective facts" "propaganda": Israel is expert in all of these (which state is not?).

I am not sure therefore why you consider the IDF's version reliable. There are many sources other than the official spokesmen of the combatants.

Adam B.

Hazlitt, I didn't quote the IDF. Consequently, I don't know what you're talking about.

Wm. Hazlitt

Adam B. You got your "facts" from someone who got them from...? Mr. Regev possibly, or...? Of course, you don't know what I'm talking about! Anyway, the conversation has ground to a halt.

Adam B.

Hazlitt, my facts came from the BBC (hardly a Zionist supporting body). Hamas refused to renew the ceasefire, which it had already broken repeatedly. The movement rejects peace with Israel - its whole raison d'etre.

Where do you get YOUR facts? Socialist Worker?

Adam B.

Hazlitt, the ceasfire was broken by Hamas, who then refused to renew it very shortly before Cast Lead. I heard this on the BBC, (which usually takes any opportunity to be anti-Israel). Your assumptions are revealing.

Wm. Hazlitt

Adam B., I am intrigued. Was it in December you heard this on the BBC? You are aware of the conditions under which journalists work in Israel, especially during military operations? It sounds as if I was nearer the mark than I thought - Mark Regev's fingerprints all over it. I have not seen any BBC pieces subsequently attempting to establish the true sequence of events. Can I suggest you read an article by Gareth Porter IPS January 9th; also notes by Adam Sheets on the internet "Facts about Israel's War on Gaza" (ignore his political commentary and concentrate on the evidence). I think you will find that the BBC broadcast the IDF/Israeli government version and did not re-visit the question once the dust had settled. Do you not at least agree there may be more to what happened than Israel is willing to have the world believe?

Ronnie

Adam B.

Since their election and the subsequent use of sanctions against them, because they won, no-one has asked Hamas. As with all such groups, Hamas is riven by faction. We made the extremists stronger by rejecting the overall group's election victory. A propapaganda defeat that caused more problems for Israel in the long run.

My point is that I believe that the Iran-backed militants and their adherence to the Charter can be marginalised if an effort is made to do so.

My other point is that you seem to prefer things to remain as they are, better the situation you know, however violent, than a changing situation that Israel may not be able to control so well through military means. Fair enough, that is your right.

As for, 'if it was wrong to negotiate with Hitler, why is it right to negotiate with Hamas? What is the difference between the two?'

Hitler had taken control of and successfully militarised a very large and mostly unified (through poverty and propaganda) industrial state.

His strategy for development was to expand eastward by means of genocidal war, having neutralised any possible opposition on his western borders.

I believe that Churchill was right to recognise that any negotiation with Hitler was pointless and would prevent us focusing on defending ourselves.

In the case of Hamas, there is already a long war in progress. The question here is, is there any way to stop it? In order to do so, people and groupings need to be identified with which to have effective dialogue.

As I have said above, I believe Hamas to be a factionalised group within which the militants have been dominant since they formed the government in Gaza.

It seems pointless to pretend that Gaza should not be represented at any talks that may or may not take place. It is therefore equally pointless to run around yelling 'Charter' every five minutes and point-blank refuse to see that Gaza and its representatives cannot be excluded from any meaningful settlement.

However, to be frank, I think a meangingful settlement will be impossible to achieve and I think you, umphs and the others can rest easy.

Ronnie

'propapaganda' such a lovely word.

Trips across the tongue like a new lamb in a fresh Spring meadow.