thanks man!
i have meant to watch ghosts of rwanda for a long time,and i never even heard of mullahs and the military.
ill give them a watch.
and i love galloway and hitchens sparring.the one you posted was a classic.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I placed my emphasis there because I believe a simple proponent organization is less biased than an organization that appears to directly oppose the other side, that's all. You're reading way too far into my writing if you think that means I think Hamas is totally innocent. I think I said as much in the very comment that you were quoting.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Virtually every post is not just pro-Israel, but anti Hamas.


I'm not familiar with camera either, so I'm inclined to believe it is biased towards Israel. I'd just point out you have your emphasis wrong. A media source with only pro-Israel posts I wouldn't trust. A media source with only anti-Hamas posts though I would have fewer problems with. Until Hamas comes out and does something positive they deserve every condemnation they receive.

And for the millionth time, yes condemn Israel for civilian casualties, but for the love of humanity don't abdicate Hamas of responsibility for it as well. The world needs to condemn BOTH the ones using human shields AND the ones firing at them anyways.

Well I said that because you said something about "ask the Kurds, Kuwait, etc..." I assumed you didn't know where he was from. No, I didn't know that, but as far as world history goes, I kinda suck.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
You do realize that Kuwait would actually be a province of Iraq under Saddam had no one intervened?

In reply to this comment by LittleRed:
You do realize Farhad is from Kuwait, right?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Farhad2000:
ROFLMAO.
The Khomeini's would obviously support an action to remove Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran in the 80s resulting in the Iran-Iraq war that killed nearly a million. They also hate America. Your point is so ridiculous.


Actually, Hossein Khomeini is a big fan of America and considers his own grandfather a "F@#%!#& queer". He's even gone so far as to hope that America would remove the regime in Iran next. He and most of the other youth in Iran blame the Iran-Iraq war dead largely on his grandfather's attempts to fight it with human waves.

If you think Iran is unique in the region for wanting Saddam removed maybe ask the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Israel if they would rather return to the days of Saddam's rule.

You do realize Farhad is from Kuwait, right?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Farhad2000:
ROFLMAO.
The Khomeini's would obviously support an action to remove Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran in the 80s resulting in the Iran-Iraq war that killed nearly a million. They also hate America. Your point is so ridiculous.


Actually, Hossein Khomeini is a big fan of America and considers his own grandfather a "F@#%!#& queer". He's even gone so far as to hope that America would remove the regime in Iran next. He and most of the other youth in Iran blame the Iran-Iraq war dead largely on his grandfather's attempts to fight it with human waves.

If you think Iran is unique in the region for wanting Saddam removed maybe ask the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Israel if they would rather return to the days of Saddam's rule.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
In reply to this comment by budzos:
Wish I could upvote ten times for enforcing precision of speech. Can't stand when people don't think about the precise meaning of their words. So I pretty much can't stand most people, most of the time.


I can't tell if your talking about Galloway or the other guy? At first you seem to be praising Galloway for enforcing clear speech, but Galloway is the one dropping the context of the speech since Ahminedjad must pause immediately after the line to wait for the cheers of "Death to Israel".

I'm talking about Galloway. We're talking about precision of speech, not taking all things into context.

"I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter."
This makes Israeli invasion and occupation legal how? This charter is not denounced by the UN, regardless of its language. It is an extremist charter which, if you understand how culture works in politics, will unite an entire nation against an invading enemy.

It is not "my point" that Israel created Hamas, this is "what happened". Hamas is seen as the 'son of Israel' in the arab world. The majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas. The majority of the world want Israel to negotiate with Hamas. The Jewish people who march on the streets every year want Israel to negotiate with Hamas.

"I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained."
You are completely missing the point - Hamas has a charter but they are willing to negotiate a settlement. Politics takes care of the rest of it PEACEFULLY. If Israel stopped the occupation Hamas would not stay in power for long. This is the solution that Jimmy Carter saw, as well as the Egyptians and Saudis. Hamas will remain in power whilst Israel occupy the land. Just so you know, the Irish republican charter does indeed lay claim to a part of the United Kingdom.

None of this is my opinion, this is the clear facts of the matter.

If you still disagree, rather than emailing me back, please get in touch with Respect or the UK MP George Galloway who will be more than happy to address your points.

http://www.georgegalloway.com/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter.


No, I'm saying that the checkpoints and refusing 'right of return' are an ugly necessity because of groups like Hamas' with stated goals of reclaiming all of Israel as a single Palestinian state.


...All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE...

...Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation...

...the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government...


I understand your point about Hamas forming out of the palestinian people's blight, and I even agree fully with you, but previously you stated:

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount...


If you want to defend Hamas on the historical context of the Israeli occupation of the surrounding land, then the historical context of that occupation becomes relevant as well. Israel's occuption outside it's '68 borders is the direct result of the aggression of the surrounding Arab nations AGAINST Israel. Even many arab scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are quick to point out that their own nations role in the Palestinian people's blight must not be ignored.

But I again agreed with your earlier statement that historical context leads to endless finger pointing, and the will of the people today is paramount.


If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.


I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter. That is were the will of the people, currently, is paramount. Regardless of what has led up to Hamas growth, in it's current nature it is a divisive and militant organization when real negotiation is needed. The Palestinian Authority and Israel are getting along much better, and in an ideal world the PA would see growing support across Palestine as Israel worked with it. Supporting Hamas though is in direct contradiction to that and just keeps the circle of violence going.


All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.


I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained.

I am very familar with Amnesty reports.

The atrocities are IN RESPONSE to Israeli attacks and oppression AND they are justifiable military attacks on occupied land.

Hamas is what you get when you invade an arab land.
Hezbollah is what you get when you invade an arab land.
The IRA is what you get when you invade Ireland.
The ANC is what you get when you invade South Africa.

All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE.

When Israel kills civilians, Hamas kills civilians in return. The difference is that Hamas do it on OCCUPIED LAND.

Hamas can define whatever they want in their charter, are you suggesting we remove the democratic right of a sovreign country just because another country doesn't like what's in their charter? This can be resoved politically, without fighting, but you can't do that without a ceasefire. It's not that I don't believe it, it's that I UNDERSTAND it.

Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation. It would not and could not have been elected to power without Israel scattering the Palestinian people with an illegal occupation. The Israeli invasion created the conditions for an extremist government to come to power.

"Israel was only occupying Southern Lebanon to stop PLO attacks on Israel."
Where in the hell did you get that idea from? The PLO was set up to liberate Palestine, when you grow up where I grew up you learn about the PLO when you're 12 years old.

"The only thing Israel has refused is the 'right of return'"
Israel has NOT RESPONDED to THREE mediated calls for a ceasefire.

If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter. Yet the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government. Hamas has saved more Palestinian lives and fought off more sieges than the PLO. All occupations create the conditions for extremist governments, and historically these have all been resolved when the extremists politicise themselves.

All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.

Stop trying to defend your own personal beliefs, open your eyes, educate yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxh4HUDaoaU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpA1f1GZgns

http://inminds.co.uk/palestine-rally-13apr02.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3037117.stm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/855881.html
http://israels60thbirthday.com/2008/05/13/pro-palestinian-rally-through-london/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/books/12arts-PROPALESTINI_BRF.html
http://origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49971,00.html
http://www.davepearce.me.uk/Palestine/palestine_solidarity.htm
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/union_engagement_4485.jsp



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hezbollah was set up to drive Israeli occupying forces from Lebanon (and it drove MOST but not all of them out in 2000).


More or less, and their mandate is certainly far better than that of Hamas. Israel was only occupying Southern Lebanon to stop PLO attacks on Israel. I'd say that gives some valid reason for being there, but I'd still agree it was wrong. Before you judge Israel alone though, remember the better part of the PLO army in southern Lebanon was there because Jordanian forces had already chased them out of Jordan. Hezbollah has since continued to use southern Lebanon to launch attacks deeper into Israel. Given Hezbollah's strong ties to Syria and Iran though, I think Israel does have legitimate security concerns about just watching Hezbollah build up forces on the border. But more to the point, we were talking about Hamas...


Hamas was set up to drive occupying forces from Palestine.


And I've already told you that Hamas defines Palestine as not just the occupied territories beyond the '68 borders, and not even just the territory outside the '48 borders, but also the entirety of Israel. If you refuse to believe it go read Hamas Charter, and if you still refuse to recognize this I don't see us getting any where.


Israel has refused time and time again to respond to the offer of a ceasefire in return for removing their forces from occupied territory.


The only thing Israel has refused is the 'right of return', they have offered themselves to return back to the '68 borders. Is it really Israel's fault a ceasefire fails when it is most often broken by attacks on Israeli checkpoints or cities?


Amnesty International has even condemned the killings of civilians by Israeli armed forces, and that is a good place to start to learn about what is really going on.


Thanks, others have pointed me to the same report before. You really should go read it, it seems to make it very clear that the vast majority of atrocities committed in Palestinian territory are the result of factional fighting between groups like Fatah and ... Hamas. Amnesty International has also repeatedly condemned Hamas and Hezbollah for using human shields in their tactics. That aught to take out some of the fire in condemning Israel for collateral damages, no?

Israel is attacking Palestine, and occupying it. Israel is invading Lebanon, and occupying it.

Hezbollah was set up to drive Israeli occupying forces from Lebanon (and it drove MOST but not all of them out in 2000). Hamas was set up to drive occupying forces from Palestine.

It can't be made any clearer than that. Hamas is now the elected government of Palestine with the overwhelming support of its people. Israel has refused time and time again to respond to the offer of a ceasefire in return for removing their forces from occupied territory.

Jesus man, everyone knows this. I am completely exasperated now. Amnesty International has even condemned the killings of civilians by Israeli armed forces, and that is a good place to start to learn about what is really going on.

http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/regions/middle-east-and-north-africa/palestinian-authority







In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hamas' charter calls for a withdrawal from all land occupied by Isreal since 1967, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.


No, it doesn't:
Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences:
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad...

Plainly Hamas Charter defines Palestine as all of modern Israel in addition to the occupied territories.


That is their legitimate goal and attacks sanctioned by Hamas are against military targets on occupied Palestinian territory. Attacks inside Isreal are not sanctioned by Hamas and are condemned by Hamas.


And yet the most recent school shooting inside Israel was praised by Hamas. That is of course consistent with their Charter since all of Israel is rightfully part of Palestine in their view.

I'll walk through the various truce offers made when I've got time make sure I have the correct sources. I clearly recall Hamas' stance on the 10 year truce to be that it was only acceptable as an interim step to re-claiming all of Palestine. None the less, that's a good step but a lot more went into each effort falling apart.

This is an Arab nation with an extremist government, and they believe that they will eventually be strong enough to reclaim all of Palestine. This is no reason for the continued occupation of their land. Hamas has over 90% support from the Palestinian people whether Israel or anybody else likes it or not.

Oppression leads to extremist governments, look at the ANC in South Africa, and the IRA in Ireland. All extremists, all engaged with politics, all led to peace.

The school attack was on occupied territory and was called 'God's vengeance' and a 'natural reaction to Israeli attacks' by Hamas.

It is their view that Israel belongs to them because that is the view of the Palestinian people. Why does this excuse Israel from occupying their land? Millions of their people are refugees because of the occupation. Do you think that Israel are right to invade Palestine, bulldoze down homes, leaving 1.5 million refugees? Do you think that the Hamas charter somehow gives Israel permission to do this? Do you think that the people of Palestine should do nothing in retaliation to continued Israeli attacks?

Why is Israel withdrawing and a 10 year ceasefire not an acceptable solution to you? Because Hamas won't relinquish their claim to Isreal? How do you know that is not a legitimate and stable political position enabling a ceasefire? Do you know that the Irish republicans still lay claim to the North of Ireland and this was acceptable to the British government, and enabled a ceasefire and a peace process? Why is this somehow different?

I can send you the dates of some pro-Palestinian rallies if you are interested. I don't think you'll find a pro-Israel one anywhere in the world.

"that's a good step but a lot more went into each effort falling apart."
Bollocks. Absolute total categorical bollocks. Now I know you don't know what you're talking about.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hamas' charter calls for a withdrawal from all land occupied by Isreal since 1967, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.


No, it doesn't:
Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences:
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad...

Plainly Hamas Charter defines Palestine as all of modern Israel in addition to the occupied territories.


That is their legitimate goal and attacks sanctioned by Hamas are against military targets on occupied Palestinian territory. Attacks inside Isreal are not sanctioned by Hamas and are condemned by Hamas.


And yet the most recent school shooting inside Israel was praised by Hamas. That is of course consistent with their Charter since all of Israel is rightfully part of Palestine in their view.

I'll walk through the various truce offers made when I've got time make sure I have the correct sources. I clearly recall Hamas' stance on the 10 year truce to be that it was only acceptable as an interim step to re-claiming all of Palestine. None the less, that's a good step but a lot more went into each effort falling apart.

Hamas' charter calls for a withdrawal from all land occupied by Isreal since 1967, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. That is their legitimate goal and attacks sanctioned by Hamas are against military targets on occupied Palestinian territory. Attacks inside Isreal are not sanctioned by Hamas and are condemned by Hamas.

The unilateral withdrawal offered by Sharon that you mention was in fact a 10 year truce mediated by Jimmy Carter in return for complete withdrawal of Isreal forces from the occupied lands taken in 1967, and a return to the 1967 borders. Isreal never responded to it.

Hamas then offered another truce in June this year mediated by Egypt. They have agreed to stick to the timetable but will continue to respond to Isreali attacks. Isreal didn't respond to that either.

In 2006 Hamas announced it would cease all violence if Isreal recognised the 1967 borders and withdrew from occupied territory.

I hope you are seeing the parallels with the Irish struggle.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hamas does not exist to stir retaliatory strikes from Isreal, that is American propoganda and is completely untrue. Hamas wants to liberate their country which has been illegally occupied by Isreal and wants to reassemble their nation which is an entirely legal and legitimate goal.

By Hamas own charter, they define the illegally occupied country as the ENTIRETY of Israel. If taking that 'back' is a legal and legitimate goal I'm content to disagree.


Isreal is circling and taking over Palestinian land, the idea that they are encouraging any kind of withdrawal is laughable and untrue.


Israel took the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights after the six-day war from, not the Palestinian people, but from Jordan and Syria. Israel was not concerned with circling the Palestinians, as they were not in control of those regions, they were concerned with the armies that Egypt, Syria and Jordan were massing on their borders.

As for withdrawal, have the Palestinians put forward anything similar to Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan? I'd think that, at the least, somewhat qualifies as encouraging withdrawal.

You don't just decide to not negotiate with an elected democratic government because you view them as extremists from inside your own culture. Nelson Mandella was an extremist, my own country is now governed by people who murdered and planted bombs in the 1970s, in retaliation to British oppression. They are extremists but they are not terrorists.

Hamas does not exist to stir retaliatory strikes from Isreal, that is American propoganda and is completely untrue. Hamas wants to liberate their country which has been illegally occupied by Isreal and wants to reassemble their nation which is an entirely legal and legitimate goal.

As MP George Galloway has said, a suicide bombing of of a group of Israeli soldiers in illegal occupation of Palestinian lands is an entirely legitimate military act, a suicide bombing of a group of Israeli settlers illegally occupying Palestinian land is an entirely justifiable military action. A suicide bombing of a falafel stall in Tel Aviv is not. A bombing of a nightclub in Haifa is not.

It is not the methods or the weapons that make them terrorists.

Isreal is circling and taking over Palestinian land, the idea that they are encouraging any kind of withdrawal is laughable and untrue.



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.


I call Hamas a splinter group in the sense of operating through suicide bombers and operating on a mandate to remove all Jews from the region because they are Jewws. In Hamas' sick and twisted version of Islam, that's every good muslim's duty. Did you not even look at the quotes I gave you, go read the whole charter and see for yourselft. That they managed to get a political mandate just makes them all the worse. The extremists in the world need to be marginalized, not dignified by negotiating with them. I'd say negotiating with Fatah and refusing to recognize Hamas until they change their mandate is the proper course.


It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.


And few political struggles with extremists have been resolved through negotiating, that's why history is littered with assassinations, coups, and wars. I'd rather see negotiations with the reasonable elements than lending any strength or dignity to extremists.


Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.


Now your listening too closely to Hamas' propaganda. Hamas runs out of Syria, they are primarily an engine to stir retaliatory strikes from Israel. Syria provides the funding, training, and rockets so Hamas can attack Israeli civilians. Then the Hamas militants hide in civilian homes and mosques and wait to see if Israel will come after them. All the while Syria hopes for as many dead Palestinians as possible to rally more anti-Israeli sentiment. Hamas lacks any real military strength to 'beat back' Israeli forces. Israel has always mantained a policy of short and quick military operations. The only goal they have is to defend their civilians from attack. Taking land is not a goal so there is no invasion for Hamas to even try to beat down.


Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


And what political steps are you proposing Palestinians have taken? Electing Hamas, seems to me to be making things worse and giving a mandate of more war and bloodshed, not less. For Israel's part, their political process has continued to encourage withdrawal from expanded settlements and encouraged the handover of land taken in previous wars over to the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.

Whether or not you agree with Hamas' political mandate this is the Palestinian people's democratic right, and they elected Hamas to power based on that mandate. Oppressed nations always vote in the hard liners, this is how it has always been, this is why Northern Ireland now has the two extremist political parties sharing power.

It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.

There will never be peace with borders and checkpoints, boundary dissolution *is* the route to peace.

Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.

There is peace in Northern Ireland even though one of the sharing parties refuses to recognise the North of Ireland as British. This is a stable, tenable, peaceful political position with democratic support. Just as the British forces pulled out of the North of Ireland when this was achieved, so should Isreal have pulled out of Palestine when Hamas was elected- but they did not, and they continue to invade that country.

Many political charters around the world use strong extremist language, this is the way of the world, this is how democracy works, this is what political stability is all about.

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
The problem with your analogy is that Hamas IS the rogue splinter group. Here are some quotes from it's own founding charter:
"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."
"Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators."

Once again, if you want to go back to Israel's declaration of independence I don't think it's needed to go find any quotes from Arab nations about wiping anyone off the map. The formerly Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,Jordan and Exgypt sent nazi trained armies against Israel to destroy it, urging the Palestinian people to flee and return a few days later after the presumed victory. When Israel managed to win, the mess we see today began in full. The Arab nations failed to provide for the Palestinian people they'd encouraged to flee, and Israel was stuck with serious security problems with letting everyone simply return. The constant run of wars since has shown those security concerns to be undeniably valid.

A political solution would be great, and your right in spirit about negotiating with moderates to remove borders. The 2 problems are that Hamas is not the moderate group to negotiate with until it recognizes Israel's right to exist, and that surrounding Arab nations like Iran and Syria keep encouraging the rogue extremists with funding, training and weapons.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The attacks are in response to Isreali oppression just as Irish Republican attacks in the 70s were in response to British oppression.

The longer the oppression exists, the less grip Hamas will have over splinter groups just as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army has no control over rogue elements and splinter groups.

Arab nations did not say they wanted to wipe Isreal off the map, they refused to recognise its sovereignty and there are political and historical reasons for this. This is a quote also attributed to Ahmadinejad as well, it is incorrect and is bandied around in American media all the time. Neither Iran nor any Arab nation has claimed to want to attack Isreal or wipe it off the map.

Removing borders will not stop splinter groups attacking Isreal, but doing it in conjunction with a political process with Hamas WILL, just as it has in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
If you want to go back to 1948 then you need to blame the Arab nations for abandoning the Palestinian people when they bid to wipe Israel out upon declaring it's independence.

The settlement policy of territory outside the '68 borders is criminal. But so are Syrian and Iranian rockets being launched by Hamas against Isreali civilians. Comparing atrocities though doesn't fix anything.

Despite knowing that removing the borders and checkpoints would create much good will, Israel can't ignore that Hamas agents would also take advantage of that to launch rockets into Jerusalem. When an Israeli checkpoint keeps a suicide bomber out, and saves a 14 year-old life, it is doing something good.

The attacks are in response to Isreali oppression just as Irish Republican attacks in the 70s were in response to British oppression.

The longer the oppression exists, the less grip Hamas will have over splinter groups just as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army has no control over rogue elements and splinter groups.

Arab nations did not say they wanted to wipe Isreal off the map, they refused to recognise its sovereignty and there are political and historical reasons for this. This is a quote also attributed to Ahmadinejad as well, it is incorrect and is bandied around in American media all the time. Neither Iran nor any Arab nation has claimed to want to attack Isreal or wipe it off the map.

Removing borders will not stop splinter groups attacking Isreal, but doing it in conjunction with a political process with Hamas WILL, just as it has in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
If you want to go back to 1948 then you need to blame the Arab nations for abandoning the Palestinian people when they bid to wipe Israel out upon declaring it's independence.

The settlement policy of territory outside the '68 borders is criminal. But so are Syrian and Iranian rockets being launched by Hamas against Isreali civilians. Comparing atrocities though doesn't fix anything.

Despite knowing that removing the borders and checkpoints would create much good will, Israel can't ignore that Hamas agents would also take advantage of that to launch rockets into Jerusalem. When an Israeli checkpoint keeps a suicide bomber out, and saves a 14 year-old life, it is doing something good.