To understand the beginnings of Hamas it has to be asked where it all went wrong
How Did Hamas Take Control of the Gaza Strip?
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Text: 1993 Declaration of Principles
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
US announces closure of Palestinian mission in Washington
To understand the beginnings of Hamas it has to be asked where it all went wrong
How Did Hamas Take Control of the Gaza Strip?
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Text: 1993 Declaration of Principles
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
You are acting as if Iran and Hamas make a big secret about it.
Just this year the Palestinians were moaning about alleged racism from the Jews because the Jews wouldn't rape their women.
So which is it?
> writes something about the Jews being the Nazis now
> gets called out on it
> Drama ensues
Oh well.
You seriously don't understand how a conversation works do you?
Just because you wrote X doesn't mean that I have to write X. I instead wrote Y.
You don't seem to understand this.
Most Israeli small arms are not American.
The Israeli tanks are not American.
Iron Dome is not American.
Davids Sling is not American.
The Jericho rockets are not American.
All of the Drones are not American.
All information regarding deaths in Gaza come from the Health ministry of Gaza.
The Health ministry is run by Hamas. Just like everything else is run by Hamas.
So Hamas claimed this or that? I am supposed to believe them? Why?
You claimed you found something on Google and therefore it must be true.
Is it that problematic for you if I use the same logic?
So why do you whine about the conflict being one sided?
Did you like it more when more Jews died?
Those are simple questions. Answer them and that will be it.
You yourself want to decide what and who Jews are.
That is exactly what these people did.
WE GET TO DECIDE WHO AND WHAT WE ARE, NOT YOU!
Those times are long gone and won't come back.
Okay I hereby decree that Palestinians aren't native to Canaan.
Because I get to decide that. Just like you get to decide on matters regarding Jews.
This makes so much sense. Thanks for enlightening me.
Yeah yeah I know. It's just a little bit less detailed. Which makes it even worse than the first picture.
Just another pro-Palestinian website advocating for a Palestinian state from the River to the Sea.
So why were we industrialised murdered? How did we wrong the German people?
I cannot think of a single incident that might have sparked the hate.
I can fathom quite a lot.
It's just that I don't want to see exploding Buses, Cafés, etc all over Israel.
Because that was the situation before the security barrier.
How about this. The Palestinians overpower the terrorists (that includes the PLO btw) and elect a liberal government open to peace.
If the Israelis then still block any peace come back to me about this.
Most of the middle east is a lot of things, rational and ethical don't come up in that conversation.
lol what sort of question is that supposed to be?
No I don't care about terrorists and their supporters.
You can like go back a couple of pages and read what I wrote.
You: "1400 years is a long time, and the Arabian Peninsula is still relatively close to the territory. Nomads move around."
Me: "So uh there has been a continuous Jewish presence Eretz Yisrael for like the last... 3000 years.
We've always been there.
Just because we haven't been in power for the last 1900 years and the Romans pretty much tried to kill us all doesn't mean you get to ignore it."
The Romans aren't even the main issue.
What a glorious defence.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
If the accusation is hypocrisy or double-standards then I can't disagree. It's nigh-on impossible to avoid one or both when taking either side on this issue.
The number of people believing something does not determine whether it is correct. You're straying rather close to an argument from numbers fallacy.
Exactly my point.
I have every confidence you'll use more tasteful analogies in future.
I'm not doing that though; I'm making observations about the current political climate in the Arab world. I do not need your permission to pass comment on other countries' political states or the oppressive nature of their societies. My point is if the Gazans want to live in an oppressive Arab-majority dictatorship then frankly they've got their pick of almost the entire Levant. There's no reason to let the Jews build a free & prosperous society that actually tolerates religious and sexual minorities. It would certainly make a change for the region. Maybe the Arabs can move to any number of Arab tyrannies in the region. There they can live under Islamic law and hate Jews all day long.
I don't know what you're complaining about. You're the one who brought up "Hinduland" and "Islamland" in the first place. Accusing me of making them up and "justifying it to myself" is just odd. You're also forgetting that being 'Jewish' is an ethnic identity as well as a religious one.
Whether or not it was a protest vote is irrelevant. The Gazans still voted for them so now they've got to live with the consequences of that decision. I mean it's not like they didn't know Hamas goals before they voted.
What? When was this?
Agreed
It was an observation
Ok
When required.
If thats how they want to live its up to them, no one else
I am not complaining, i am stating the obvious.
India is not a hindu state (yet)
Nor is saudi arabia a muslim state
Sure they have high percentages of the relevant religious belief. However both cases they are subject to international law and UN protocols.
Am i?
To paraphrase you, link?
Hey you abused me, i retaliate and you get all shirty. Show me where i wrote "something about the Jews being the Nazis"
When you missquote me and make up bs then i am entitled to refer you back. Do not misrepresent me, it never works.
So does the UN. Do you believe them.
No, you said i found something on google.
One sided If Americans Knew - What every American needs to know about Israel/Palestine
Of course you wont believe it
No, what gives you the impression i rejoice murder?
There goes the hyperbole again, i dont agree with you so you have to use personal insult.
Jolly good. What matters? Those same matters highlighted in in UN resolutions? Or dont you believe them?
Show where it advocates that. You make the clime to hide behind,can you put your money where your mouth is?
I don't really know the answers to those questions, although I'm not sure how bringing up the Germans (or the Romans, for that matter) has anything to do with what's going on today. The Palestinian Arabs are neither German nor Roman.
But it seems that the common thread here is tribalism/nationalism and how some groups are targeted because they are seen (as a group) as an "enemy," for whatever reason.
The German Nazis are obviously cited as the most extreme, horrific example in history, although one can identify the same root mentality in many other examples, both historical and contemporary. It generally involves labeling another group as the "other," or "not one of us."
A lot of people have made similar arguments here in America, such as advocating a ban on Muslims - or an outright ban on immigration altogether. The same basic argument is used to justify building a wall along the US-Mexican border. Those who support such proposals make similar arguments about crime, terrorism, gangs, etc.
Yet there are still those who make good arguments in opposition to such proposals, such as citing the fact that it punishes the innocent along with the guilty just because they belong to the "other" group. Others may observe that the benefits of an open, tolerant society outweigh whatever risks of crime and terrorism might exist.
Well, I suppose anything is possible. Considering that the Arabic-speaking countries constitute a much larger land area (and considering the wealth of the oil-rich nations in the region), it seems difficult to believe that these nations can't accommodate the Palestinian Arabs in some way.
Perhaps not, but there might be outside observers looking at the situation and think "Hey, these people aren't being treated fairly, so maybe that's why they're lashing out." That's what it looks like, and it doesn't appear to be all that difficult to figure out why it raises a few hackles.
What about those who are innocent, who just happened to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Well, I didn't think that they were, but what you're arguing is that the Romans occupied the region and tried to kill off the Jewish inhabitants - the consequence of which was that the land was left somewhat open to settlement by nomadic tribes who were nearby.
Whether they were right or wrong to do so may be a larger question, but it appeared to be ripe for the taking, so they moved in. Later on, as Islam spread through the Middle East and North Africa, while Christianity was spreading through Europe, the territory itself grew to have immense religious significance. That's what led to further wars and conflicts over that territory. The overall situation was that the Muslim control of the Middle East meant that Europe was cut off from possible trade ties to the East, which is what led Columbus to try to find other trade routes.
The point is, all of history fits together like a giant, intricate puzzle. However, those of us living today merely inherited the situation. We didn't create the circumstances into which we were born, yet we can only play the hand that we're dealt.
Though in recent times, particularly in the aftermath of what happened in World War 2, which included the industrialized murder and other horrific atrocities associated with that war, there arose a renewed and more vigorous commitment to human rights.
That's why the UN was formed and why there was a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the West, civil rights movements grew by leaps and bounds, partly because more and more rational people realized that the old ideas were wrong and could no longer be supported or implemented as public policy. Some also might have viewed such policies as impractical and destabilizing at a time when the West was weakened and their colonial empires vulnerable to communist uprisings.
The whole bottom line was that the Allies and most other world governments decided that they had to change the way that they were doing things and operating in the world. A new direction was sought, with an emphasis on human rights and global cooperation. We couldn't go back to the old ways, although there were some notable holdouts in various parts of America which garnered a lot of negative attention, as well as in places like Rhodesia and South Africa.
But now, who knows what direction the world might take? Some might see it as moving backwards, with the perceived resurgence in certain nationalist and tribalist viewpoints in Europe, America, and elsewhere.
Admittedly, it's a tough situation and there are no easy answers. You're correct in that no one wants to be attacked and murdered by terrorists. People also don't want to be attacked by street criminals or have their kids shot at school by some maniac on a shooting spree. It's actually quite a natural reaction that people would feel compelled to want protection from whatever "bad people" might be out there.
That's what appears to be the main issue here. Israel wants protection from the terrorists and other belligerent powers which would attack them if given the opportunity. But there's also the question in how best to do that while balancing legitimate human rights concerns.
But if the conflict at hand is so ingrained in the hearts and minds of its participants, then there may not be any real solution. This has been going on for generations, and here in the West, we've been hearing over and over about wanting to bring peace and stability to a region of great strategic and economic significance. Yet, all we ever hear about is endless conflict in the region (although much of it doesn't even involve Israel directly).
I suppose another possible solution that I've heard floated about is the idea of the US pursuing a more aggressive and militaristic policy towards various "hot spots" in the world. Just like those guys who wear t-shirts that say "Let's kill 'em all - and let God sort out the rest!" Then there are those who seem directed towards some kind of anti-Muslim "crusade" in which Israel carries a great deal of significance from a Biblical standpoint. Of course, it would likely mean a world war, and there's no telling where it might lead.
Fortunately, I think that view is a very small minority in US public opinion, although some view that it could spread. Religion can be a very powerful motivator.
Still, I think the prevailing opinion in terms of our overall policy is that we can get more flies with honey than with vinegar. Egypt, for example, was a major turnaround. I seem to recall during the Camp David accords, Egypt was promised US aid and was forgiven billions in debts to the US. Other Arab states have done business with the West and have done quite well for themselves. Perhaps it's a grandiose form of bribery or tribute, but it's an ancient practice which is sometimes preferred because it's still cheaper than all-out war.
But then there are still those who believe in "billions for defense, not a penny in tribute." But now that it's becoming "trillions for defense," then a few billion in tribute seems like a drop in the bucket.
Other than that, then we may very well be headed to some kind of escalation in conflict. Other key factors would involve Russia and China, so we have to be careful in how we proceed. At least considering certain factions which are evident in America, Europe, and Russia - there seem to be those who want to rile people up in the direction of some kind of anti-Muslim "crusade." It's as if we're heading towards some kind of "holy war" that goes beyond the issues discussed in this thread. But the topic of closing the Palestinian mission seems as if there might be those who want to provoke the Palestinians even further and make them even more desperate.
The problem is that this could be a flashpoint for a larger conflict which could get rather messy.
Maybe there is no turning back. Maybe we're all doomed, unless America can defeat all evil in the world and make the world safe for America...er, I mean democracy.
It is relevant to your post. You wrote that Egypt did not massacre people. It is relevant to that error.
But since you want to talk about massacres of Palestinians let’s talk about the Yarmouk Camp massacre. Hundreds of Palestinian fatalities and thousands displace from their refugee camp. But, it was committed by Muslims, not Israelis. Shall we discuss that?
You introduced egypt, i was not discussing egypt.
What is your fixation with egypt anyway? Do you think it somehow justifies israeIi atrocities?
No, it was you that brought up the topic of Egyptian massacres. Last Thursday at 11:52 you wrote “It is not egypt stealing land and massacring people”
You wrote that. You brought up the topic of Egyptian massacres, not me.
Which was in response to your to your post #69 that introduced egypt.
And i repeat , What is your fixation with egypt anyway? Do you think it somehow justifies israeIi atrocities?
I didn’t write post #69! That was someone called Shad. So, no, I don’t have any fixation on Egypt. I didn’t even bring Egypt up. That was you and “Shad”. I merely replied to your posting where you brought up Egyptian massacres implying they had not committed any with a citation to show they had.
Last edited:
So you jumped in on another conversation, ok
And i repeat again, What is your fixation with egypt anyway? Do you think it somehow justifies israeIi atrocities?
Wait, not even an apology? No, “you were right, you didn’t bring up Egypt”? I don’t have any fixation in Egypt. YOU and Shad were the ones that brought up Egypt.
Wrong, it seems shad brought up egypt, i assumed it was you because you jumped in and tried to commander the conversation.
“commandeer”
So I wasn’t wrong. As you confess “it seems shad brought up egypt”. I’m not Shad. You kept accusing me of bringing up Egypt. I did no such thing. You confess that you “assumed it was [me] because “I” jumped in”. All I did was provide a reference which showed that your assertion that Egypt had not committed massacres was false. You were the one that then began making fakes assertions about me which I have simply refuted. No commandeering on my part. You made a mistake, but simply won’t admit it and move on.
And i did not bring up egypt as you have been implying for a week.
You were the are the one obsessed by egypt, i tried on several occasions to tell you it as not relevant to my argument, you repeatedly told me it was...
Iike you know my argument better then me. Sorry if my argument doesn't gel with your ego but thats the way it goes.
Check again. I have written that you brought up Egyptian massacres, not that you brought up Egypt. There’s a difference.
There is nothing in my posts that shows any obsession with Egypt. What I written is that the reference I cited was about Egyptian massacres and that is was relevant to that.
Speaking of obsessions, allow me to point out one of yours. You only want to talk about purported Israeli massacres. But you obsessively refuse to discuss others. Why is that?
Still no apology for saying, repeatedly, that I brought up Egypt when I did not?
Whatever makes you happy. Enjoy your life
Shad
Veteran Member
Yup I brought up the Gaza/Egypt border regarding the blockade which was only represented in the news as an Israeli crime. I also pointed out Egypt occupied Gaza decades ago. Each was made to counter the ill-informed absolutes posted.