How will the tunnels destroy Israel?
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
How will the tunnels destroy Israel?
Sorry about that. I haven't seen every one of your posts. If you're the same poster who claimed that Hamas has renounced its demand that Israel be obliterated, would you mind directing me to that fact? Or if you've done so already, the post where you already pointed me to that fact?
I'll stay logged on for a while to review the evidence supporting your claim that Hamas seeks a lasting, mutually prosperous peace with Israel.
The tunnels themselves won't destroy Israel. It's the use of the tunnels by Hamas agents who threaten Israel's existence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/w...rael-unready-for-hamass-tunnel-war-.html?_r=0
If this was only since the dawn of Hamas you might have a point.
Hamas leader Haniyeh: Goal is destruction of Israel in stages
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=6024
At a ceremony marking the 24th anniversary of the founding of Hamas, Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh said that Hamas may work for the "interim objective of liberation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem," but that this "interim objective" and "reconciliation" with Fatah will not change Hamas' long-term "strategic" goal of eliminating all of Israel:
December 27, 2011
Right now, yes. But this predates social media. Social media is maybe adding balance to the coverage? Or do you think social media overstates the situation with an anti Israeli bias?
Last edited:
http://www.thetower.org/0380oc-hama...ake-any-compromises-on-destruction-of-israel/
Hamas Chief: We will “Not Make Any Compromises” on Destruction of Israel
by Omri Ceren | 05.22.14 2:17 pm
Reuters on Wednesday conveyed statements from Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas’s political bureau, doubling down on his organization’s commitment to the eradication of Israel, especially and specifically in the context of an anticipated agreed government between Hamas and the rival Palestinian Fatah organization.
Meshaal declared that Hamas had made a range of compromises to secure reconciliation:
Speaking at a gathering in Doha to mark “Nakba”, the annual commemoration of what Palestinians term the catastrophe of their displacement when Israel was founded, Meshaal said Hamas has made sacrifices for the reconciliation to take place.
“We have turned the page on this division… Hamas has already made sacrifices and this was necessary to be closer with our brothers, but with the invader we will not make any compromises,” he said.
He went on to state that “the reconciliation does not mean an end to our resistance against the invaders [and] resistance will continue.”
The stance is not new. Palestinian officials began leaking immediately after last month’s unity announcement that Hamas would get to keep its arsenal of tens of thousands of projectiles pointed at Israel, and last week analysis hardened to the effect that the terror group was pursuing a “Hezbollah model” under which it would be allowed to maintain an armed presence independent of any central Palestinian government.
The arrangement is bound to elicit negative reactions from U.S. lawmakers, who havealready been moving to cut assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) since the unity deal was announced.
Congressional conditions on the distribution of aid to the PA are straightforward:
Hamas Chief: We will “Not Make Any Compromises” on Destruction of Israel
by Omri Ceren | 05.22.14 2:17 pm
Reuters on Wednesday conveyed statements from Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas’s political bureau, doubling down on his organization’s commitment to the eradication of Israel, especially and specifically in the context of an anticipated agreed government between Hamas and the rival Palestinian Fatah organization.
Meshaal declared that Hamas had made a range of compromises to secure reconciliation:
Speaking at a gathering in Doha to mark “Nakba”, the annual commemoration of what Palestinians term the catastrophe of their displacement when Israel was founded, Meshaal said Hamas has made sacrifices for the reconciliation to take place.
“We have turned the page on this division… Hamas has already made sacrifices and this was necessary to be closer with our brothers, but with the invader we will not make any compromises,” he said.
He went on to state that “the reconciliation does not mean an end to our resistance against the invaders [and] resistance will continue.”
The stance is not new. Palestinian officials began leaking immediately after last month’s unity announcement that Hamas would get to keep its arsenal of tens of thousands of projectiles pointed at Israel, and last week analysis hardened to the effect that the terror group was pursuing a “Hezbollah model” under which it would be allowed to maintain an armed presence independent of any central Palestinian government.
The arrangement is bound to elicit negative reactions from U.S. lawmakers, who havealready been moving to cut assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) since the unity deal was announced.
Congressional conditions on the distribution of aid to the PA are straightforward:
(1) None of the funds appropriated in titles III through VI of this Act may be obligated for salaries of personnel of the Palestinian Authority located in Gaza or may be obligated or expended for assistance to Hamas or any entity effectively controlled by Hamas, any power-sharing government of which Hamas is a member, or that results from an agreement with Hamas and over which Hamas exercises undue influence.
[Photo: MediaUMNO Malaysia / YouTube]
[Photo: MediaUMNO Malaysia / YouTube]
This one is the scariest of all, although I cannot believe any Hamas leader is serious about transforming all of civilization to live under Islamic rule.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/video/1.607434
WATCH: Destruction of Israel is not Hamas' end goal, says 'Son of Hamas'
Mosab Hassan Yousef tells CNN what it was like to grow up with Hamas' leadership; Hamas' goal is to build an Islamic state on the rubble of all other civilizations.
Mosab Hassan Yousef, who famously wrote "Son of Hamas" and later wrote and starred in the film of the same title, is the son of Hamas founder and leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef. Yousef betrayed his father and Hamasby spying on their activities for Israeli intelligence during the second intifada, eventually seeking asylum in the U.S. and converting to Christianity - the topics of his book and film.
Interviewed on CNN's Tonight by Don Lemon, Yousef recounted what he learned growing up in and around the ranks of Hamas' leadership. "In the mosques Hamas' taught us that without sheddinginnocent blood for the sake of the ideology we will not be able to build the Islamic state," Yousef told Lemon.
Yousef told CNN that Hamas's final goal is not just the destruction of the state of Israel, but "Hamas' final destination is building the Islamic caliphate, building an Islamic state on the rubble of all other civilizations." When asked whether or not Israel and Hamas can live side by side in coexistence, Yousef responded, "Hamas is not seeking coexistence and compromise," but the full destruction of the state of Israel.
##
Note the date: July 27, 2014 -- not that long ago.
Times of Israel had an article entitled "when Genocide is permissable" defending the many casualties suffered by Palestinians. Was then taken down not long after:
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-01/times-of-israel-publishes-when-genocide-is-permissible/
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-01/times-of-israel-publishes-when-genocide-is-permissible/
I've provided enough evidence to support the assertion that Hamas still, as of 27 July 2014, seeks the destruction of Israel.
But I'm quite open to seeing the evidence to support the assertion that Hamas actually seeks a peaceful, mutually prosperous coexistence with Israel and that this entire conflict is built on a gross misunderstanding of Hamas's true intentions.
But I'm quite open to seeing the evidence to support the assertion that Hamas actually seeks a peaceful, mutually prosperous coexistence with Israel and that this entire conflict is built on a gross misunderstanding of Hamas's true intentions.
I've noticed that people from my facebook/ twitter groups have been increasinly reposting and retweeting posts from some of their mostly muslim friends. Meaning, people who usually don't have an opinion on any specific, current conflicts (Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine), are happily posting links to videos and blogs which, from what i can observe, are 99% anti-Israel.
There is also something very fashionable and iconographic about this whole Free Palestine imagery. A lot if them wearing it on tshirt or having it as stickers on their cars, badges on rucksacks etc. I doubt, however, that the majority of them would be able to write down five sentences on what Free Palestine is even supposed to mean. It has a similar feel to it as seeing Justin Bieber wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt.
No one is arguing that Hamas are the good guys in this situation. But can you not see how oppressing the Palestinians and routinely bombing the shit out of them will only make Hamas stronger? Israel is oppressing these people, routinely bombing them and for some idiotic reason expects them to listen to which political party should be in power? On top of being morally reprehensible it doesn't actually work. "so, I know we took your land, homes and killed your family - but you can't vote for those guys." It's just a bad policy.
Conversely there are lots of Palestinian solidarity organisations across the globe who have hitherto been shouting in the dark. This overnight 'popularity' has been decades in the making.
nobody really questions, that the core of Hamas are religious maniacs.
Still your claim is nonsense, that they are the only faction, that prevents peace. There was no peace before hamas existed and there wont be peace if they get destroyed. The very moment Isreal makes meaningful steps towards a 2-state solution, Hamas will disappear.
Fatach tried to negotiate with Israel. They acknowledged Israel´s right to exist and they stopped to use terror as favoured way to make politics. What did they get in return? Israel screwed them. They got absolute jack-shit. Its even worse. When Palestinians in the westbank started non-violent resistence (e.g. boycott of Israeli goods), Israel answered violently.
Not a chance. They are not going anywhere irrespective of what Israel does.
Most American scholars and officials refer to Hamas’s 1988 charter as defining its ideology.10 They do not take into account the changes within Hamas, preferring instead to focus on the fundamentalism of the charter. Yet, Hamas officials have made public declarations that challenge the charter. Khaled Meshal, as observed by Sherifa Zuhur, affirmed that the charter “should not be regarded as the fundamental ideological frame of reference from which the movement takes its positions.”11 Indeed, over the last decade, Hamas has expanded its involvement in political discourse and has moderated its traditional stance. According to Hroub, 2006 was a turning point: “A ‘new discourse’ had (...) been showing up in Hamas thinking during the campaign and has not simply resulted from their victory in the elections per se.”12 Hroub’s studies of Hamas’s declarations led him to conclude that its arguments tend to be more political and based on “legal jargon and the norms of international law” rather than religious rhetoric.13 During the 2006 campaign and the following months, Hamas issued several statements in which the religious references in its political argumentation were diluted.14 It mentioned neither the establishment of an Islamic state nor the destruction of Israel. Regarding Israel, the electoral platform seems to agree on the 1967 frontiers, as it only calls for “cooperating with the international community for the purpose of ending the occupation and settlements and achieving a complete withdrawal from the lands occupied [by Israel] in 1967, including Jerusalem, so that the region enjoys calm and stability during this phase.”15
For Hroub, this “new discourse” reflects a genuine change that is the consequence of Hamas’s pragmatism: “The vague idea of establishing an Islamic state in Palestine as mentioned in the early statement of the movement was quickly sidelined and surpassed.”16 He affirms that the rare evocation of an Islamic state is not serious but purely rhetorical and has almost disappeared from the organization’s documents and statements, replaced by a realistic political program.17
http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/hamas-agenda-how-has-it-changed
Hamas’s radical agenda has effectively changed over the last decade, moving towards political strategy. Over the 2000s, Hamas has indeed become a major player in Palestinian politics. It implemented a strategy of attracting the Palestinian people that paid off at the 2006 elections.
Hamas has reduced its traditional discourse on the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state, preferring instead to insist on resistance to Israel and a political stance. Hamas has even seemed increasingly ready to accept a long-term ceasefire with Israel; several declarations have hinted at recognition of Israel within the 1967 frontiers.
Nevertheless this change is mainly strategic and pragmatic. Indeed, Hamas’s new discourse has been partially prompted by external factors: Palestinian public opinion and Israeli pressure. Opting for a political strategy was thus a means toward remaining influential in Palestine. Moreover, it appears that Hamas’s leaders have not reached a consensus on this moderate strategy. Some hardliners within Hamas are impeding the negotiations for a ceasefire. In addition, Hamas is facing pressure from more radical groups in Gaza that are trying to prevent the organization from following a peaceful path.
http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/hamas-agenda-how-has-it-changed
Hamas has reduced its traditional discourse on the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state, preferring instead to insist on resistance to Israel and a political stance. Hamas has even seemed increasingly ready to accept a long-term ceasefire with Israel; several declarations have hinted at recognition of Israel within the 1967 frontiers.
Nevertheless this change is mainly strategic and pragmatic. Indeed, Hamas’s new discourse has been partially prompted by external factors: Palestinian public opinion and Israeli pressure. Opting for a political strategy was thus a means toward remaining influential in Palestine. Moreover, it appears that Hamas’s leaders have not reached a consensus on this moderate strategy. Some hardliners within Hamas are impeding the negotiations for a ceasefire. In addition, Hamas is facing pressure from more radical groups in Gaza that are trying to prevent the organization from following a peaceful path.
http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/hamas-agenda-how-has-it-changed
You're asking a different question. The other poster appeared to deny that Hamas had any intention whatsoever of seeking the destruction of Israel. Now that that preposterous claim has been rubbished with stone cold facts as recent as four days ago, we can now move on to another question, which is how should Israel best handle a situation in which its neighboring country seeks its destruction.
As for Israel "oppressing" the Palestinians, that belief assumes that the State of Israel has no right to exist. Israel's existence is the very foundation of the "oppression" argument. And it's not a completely irrational argument either. I happen to disagree with that argument and agree with the right of Israel to exist, but those who believe otherwise has some footing to rely on. But only some footing.
But if we happen to agree that Israel indeed has a right to exist on the land it currently exists on -- rather than "occupies" -- we have to ask ourselves what could Israel do to sufficiently appease the likes of the old Palestinian Liberation Organization and now Hamas to create the environment in which Hamas would be willing to peacefully coexist with Israel? If the answer is nothing -- that no matter what Israel does or doesn't do Hamas will continue to seek the destruction of Israel -- now we're left with who bears the burden of responsibility for the casualties in this ongoing conflict: Israel or Hamas?
Israel has proven it is willing to reach agreement with a bitter adversary, Egypt. And with Jordan. (and to a lesser extent, with Syria.) Hamas has never demonstrated any interest whatsoever in a lasting peace agreement with the adversary which defines its very purpose of existence: Israel.
The right question is not when should Israel stop defending itself from an existential threat (and we've known for years that this threat is not idle) and how it should defend itself, but when Hamas should renounce its central objective -- Israel -- and whether it has the courage to seek a peaceful, mutually prosperous existence with its neighbor.
Do you even listen to yourself when you say these words?
you are right; my statement was inaccurate. Hamas wont disappear, but lose much of its power and support. They got into power because Fatach failed completely with a peaceful approach. When Palestinians think, that peaceful negotiations can result in a acceptable compromise, they´ll elect people who are willing to negotiate.
Posting racist cartoons, what a lovely man you are
To tell you the true they have a huge mess over there if was possible to "move" Gaza and attach to the rest of Palestine then the solution would be easier, the Palestinians would have their country and they would live in peace.......until hamas wins the elections and we press the reset button and start over again. Too much hate between both people.
Very helpful and insightful stuff, Sultan.
There is no doubt in my mind that there are many within the Palestinian community who would like to see peace with Israel. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to know that there are voices of moderation within Hamas. But as you properly note, these are still only emerging voices. However, official declarations of changes in the founding charter have yet to be adopted.
If the tables were turned and Israel's founding charter contained language that was dedicated to the destruction of the Palestinian people, one would reasonably conclude that Israel would be serious about this founding principle, even if voices of dissent emerged.
The new discourse has to entail more than a few dissenting voices. It has to become a consensus voice to the point where a radical element within the Palestinian political hierarchy has the power and authority to stifle actions taken in the name of the destruction of Israel.
For better or worse, Israel is here to stay. The Jews will not be shipped back to Europe or around the world. Once Israel is accepted by Hamas or some other political organization that has moral and legal authority in the eyes of the Palestinian people, the foundation for a lasting peace between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples will be established.
There's no mention of race, it's a cartoon of Hamas.
You keep ignoring the fact that Fatah did that and in return had more setlements built all over the West Bank, you've built a false position that its a failure to recognise Israel that is prolonging this conflict, Israel is not intrested in peace, it cannot continue to colonise the West Bank once it's borders are defined.
No, the oppression is a result of policies Israel actively enforces not just an irritation that's caused by their existence. Things like curfews, trade embargoes, and being forced off the land and homes they lived in. And being killed. And the continued theft of land in the West Bank. If this is just the way Israel exists, then it's not justifiable.
The responsibility for any casualty rests squarely on the shoulders of the people who choose to kill those people. If you want to play a game of "well this happened, before this happened, before this happened" we'll quickly find ourselves in the middle of the last century, so lets try not to do that.
I feel like this existential threat is greatly exaggerated. Israel is by some significance more powerful than Hamas and the Palestinians in the area. The only existential threat is to the Palestinians who are disproportionately suffering in every way imaginable. Which might go some way in explaining why they've resorted to some extreme measures.
While Israel should protect it's people, it's actions and policies are not morally or pragmatically justifiable.
I've stopped watching the news because I cannot watch the horrific images being broadcast. I can't even imagine what life will be like for those innocent people caught in crossfire. I've even refrained from mostly reading this thread. All I can personally do is pray both sides can somehow find a solution, a common ground which allows both sets of people to live in peaceful coexistence or as neighbours.
I'm with you Sults. Its sad and obscene. Just saw a Palestinian woman and her kids roaming the streets. She said 45 members of her family have been killed.
The situation at a this stage is so inflamed that neither Hamas nor the Israelis would agree to it.
Yea, I feel this situation is beyond negotiation now. Very unfortunate, my thoughts go out to the poor innocents stuck in the crossfire, no way can I get close to even imagining what they must be feeling.
Would you use that logic regarding Gaza and Hamas?
Does Israel oppress Egyptians or Jordanians, or even Syrians?
The answer is no, because neither Egypt nor Jordan nor even Syria is hellbent on the destruction of Israel. Remove the daily threat of the destruction of Israel and you will see that Israel will not resort to extreme measures to defend itself from daily attack.
But a response to that might be "But Gannicus, does Israel really have to resort to extreme measures to defend itself?" To that I would ask whether Hamas really have to dedicate itself to the destruction of Israel? If Hamas has no choice but to seek the destruction of Israel, it will have to live with harsh measures. Everyone here hates harsh measures and there's no doubt one can find over-reactions to Hamas (and before that PLO) attacks, but why does Hamas have a right to demand the destruction of its neighboring country?
Imagine France's reaction if the ruling party in Germany were dedicated to the destruction of France and backed that policy up with the use of deadly force? It's pretty hard to imagine France being willing to sit down with the Germans to negotiate a peace until Germany repudiated this policy.
As for the suggestion that the existential threat is "greatly exaggerated" because "Israel is by some significance more powerful than Hamas and the Palestinians in the area", I ask you in reply whether you support Israel's military superiority. If you do, then what you really support is the horrifying status quo of one regime being dedicated to the destruction of the other and the other regime being sufficiently armed to prevent its own destruction. That's blindingly daft. That status quo simply ensures ongoing suffering between the two peoples. I can't speak for you, but I don't like the status quo one bit. And if you argue for the dismantling of Israel's military superiority and have no problem with Hamas's grand strategy, then you are effectively in agreement with the proposition that Israel has no right to defend itself and no right to exist.
Those who are interested in the ending of the suffering of the Palestinian people should support Hamas, or whoever rightly speaks for the Palestinian people, declaring once and for all that Israel has a right to exist, but that in exchange for a peace agreement that Israel must agree to numerous conditions, which of course begins with the settlements, among addressing other legitimate grievances. Palestinians must have water and other basic necessities of a civilized nation, which Israel and the international community can help with. And we have to go far beyond addressing grievances but also rebuilding the physical, cultural and intellectual foundations for a functioning and prosperous society. These two peoples can not only coexist, but prosper together. But the Palestinian people have to stand up against the extremist political agenda of Hamas in order for there to be any hope of that.
All this can be done, but those who speak for the Palestinian people have to be courageous by denouncing calls for the destruction of Israel and commit themselves to a lasting peace with their Jewish neighbors. This won't be easy, but it is a necessary condition for peace.
Best thing in here. There's something wonderful about the look on Benjamin Netanyahu's face here.That's obviously not going to happen, and i think the Israelis have now recognized that they can't co-exist with Hamas.
Before Hamas the Palestinians were led by the PLO, another bunch of maniacs.
These people deserve better leadership than that which they have had to suffer from for many decades.
Don't you think their leadership is indicative of the urgency of their struggle ? If they were in a good situation, surely groups like Hamas wouldn't gain the leverage to rise to power ?
Witnesses tell Al Jazeera six youths were taken to a bathroom in a house in Khuzaa and executed by Israeli forces.
You keep banging on about Hamas and ignoring the treatment of Fatah by Israel. They've done everything you want Hamas to do and Israel have given them nothing, Israel is the party not intrested in peace, Israel is the one that's stokeing this conflict
What exactly do you mean? What year are you talking about, which conference?