• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ireland: Rachel Corrie won't dock at Ashdod

juncon said:
In my mind, "terrorist" is thrown around too much. These issues are much more complicated than simply labeling people as being "terrorists". When labeling people as "terrorists", no one cares anymore why people are fighting in the first place... "terrorists" are supposedly just out to kill people for illegitimate reasons. Yes it's true, wars and acts of violence can break out because of false facts and angry feelings... but one should still understand people's reasoning for their actions before labeling them as extremists. And yes, there are true extremists out there, but I think the Gaza / Israel relationship is more complicated.
Click to expand...

It's not really that complicated. Terrorists are people who blow other people up. There's no political reason behind it. That's why it's called "terrorism" and not "politicism." What's incomprehensible is the ability of the left to characterize terrorists as maligned, misunderstood and misrepresented.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
Fail Hamas has stated that, if they return to the 1967 borders then their will be peace.
Click to expand...

‘long-term truce’ possible
Click to expand...

possible.. that means no by Hamas.

as to possibility Hamas would renounce terror
Click to expand...

Well.. we know Hamas never stand behind their anounces.

Zahar told CNN if Israel "is ready to give us the national demand to withdraw from the occupied area (in) '67; to release our detainees; to stop their aggression; to make geographic link between Gaza Strip and West Bank
Click to expand...

And so on, and so on... a geographic link between Gaza Strip and West Bank will split israel in to two parts.. very realistic yeah..

But when asked about Hamas' call for Israel's destruction, Zahar would not say whether that remains the goal. "We are not speaking about the future, we are speaking now," he said.
Click to expand...

Well.. so what's the point if the Hamas is still sworn to fight Israel?
 
StevenA59 said:
It's not really that complicated. Terrorists are people who blow other people up. There's no political reason behind it. That's why it's called "terrorism" and not "politicism." What's incomprehensible is the ability of the left to characterize terrorists as maligned, misunderstood and misrepresented.
Click to expand...

No political reason?

How about:
- Israel seizing power of the area
- The oppression of Palestine for 50+ years by Israel and how the U.S. has been backing them
- U.S. bases being located on the Middle East
- The U.S. invading Iraq
- The U.S. military killing countless civilians, even if it was on accident

Not to mention the CIA created the Taliban, leading to them taking control of Afghanistan

Here's some more "light" reading for you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_US_regime_change_actions

StevenA59 said:
I think you misread that article. But let's say Israel withdraws to 1967 borders. What concessions does Hamas make?
Click to expand...

Uh... peace. What, is that not good enough? :confused:
 
Last edited:
ferrugem said:
possible.. that means no by Hamas.



Well.. we know Hamas never stand behind their anounces.



And so on, and so on... a geographic link between Gaza Strip and West Bank will split israel in to two parts.. very realistic yeah..



Well.. so what's the point if the Hamas is still sworn to fight Israel?
Click to expand...

Apocalypse said:
As usual Haruno you are giving false information.
Hamas in that article says that it will agree to a cease fire(not peace) for what appears to be an unconditional fulfillment of all of the Palestinians' demands from Israel.
Israel has had many of those "cease fires" with Hamas since then.
Click to expand...

If you read the article closely, it says they would wait to find out what Israel's true intentions are.
 
How does possible mean no? Urrrrrrr AM i MISSING something here?
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
How does possible mean no? Urrrrrrr AM i MISSING something here?
Click to expand...

No you aren't, they are.

Zahar told CNN if Israel "is ready to give us the national demand to withdraw from the occupied area (in) '67; to release our detainees; to stop their aggression; to make geographic link between Gaza Strip and West Bank, at that time, with assurance from other sides, we are going to accept to establish our independent state at that time, and give us one or two, 10, 15 years time in order to see what is the real intention of Israel after that."
Click to expand...
 
Jucon said:
No political reason?

How about:
- Israel seizing power of the area
- The oppression of Palestine for 50+ years by Israel and how the U.S. has been backing them
- U.S. bases being located on the Middle East
- The U.S. invading Iraq
- The U.S. military killing countless civilians, even if it was on accident
Click to expand...

People can have all sorts of stated reasons for stuff, including the brutal murder of women and children. That doesn't mean those reasons are the truth. Again, we're talking about animals who blow themselves up along with as many innocent civilians as they can manage.

Uh... peace. What, is that not good enough? :confused:
Click to expand...

Well of course there are obvious problems with your reasoning. I suppose the most basic of which is that the loser doesn't dictate the terms of surrender.
 
If you had read about Israeli-Hamas relationship history, you would probobly find it hard to trust Hamas.. they always talk about "peace" and "cease fire" but the main goal is to make this quiet moment and them make IDF to respond militarily as a result of "self defense" suicide bomb in the middle of a mall or on a bus full with children and civilians.

Dont you see that Hamas doesnt care about peace? if they cared about peace, first of all, the aid cargo that been sent from the convoys they will let it through, but they decided to decline this aid.

Secondary, it's easy to talk about peace and condition when you sit in your villa in Damascus, Syria. Yes, the heads of Hamas sits in a foreign county knowing nothing about hunder.

If Hamas so care about it's inmates in Israel so Gilad Shalit should be released without any "considerations" by the Hamas leader, the Israeli government ready to release more the 1000 prisoners in exchange for one single soldier.

If Hamas so cares about it's people, why they didnt accept the aid cargo that waits only their permision to enter Gaza and let the population some reliefe?
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
Thank you, I thought that I was the one that was missing something in the comment.
Click to expand...

Since it's your link, am assuming you read it. Did you have any problem with this comment in the article??

"But when asked about Hamas' call for Israel's destruction, Zahar would not say whether that remains the goal. "We are not speaking about the future, we are speaking now," he said. "


Does seem like the article you are trying to use as exculpatory evidence fits better as just the opposite....:roll:


.
 
Out of all the boats to be named after Rachel Corrie I would have thought that they would have named a boat like this after her.
 

Attachments

  • crane-barge3.jpg
    crane-barge3.jpg
    79 KB · Views: 6
Jucon said:
No political reason?

How about:
- Israel seizing power of the area
- The oppression of Palestine for 50+ years by Israel and how the U.S. has been backing them
- U.S. bases being located on the Middle East
- The U.S. invading Iraq
- The U.S. military killing countless civilians, even if it was on accident

Not to mention the CIA created the Taliban, leading to them taking control of Afghanistan
Click to expand...

StevenA59 said:
People can have all sorts of stated reasons for stuff, including the brutal murder of women and children. That doesn't mean those reasons are the truth. Again, we're talking about animals who blow themselves up along with as many innocent civilians as they can manage.
Click to expand...

Please explain this part.

StevenA59 said:
Well of course there are obvious problems with your reasoning. I suppose the most basic of which is that the loser doesn't dictate the terms of surrender.
Click to expand...

What the hell is Gaza supposed to offer besides a cease fire / peace?
 
Cole said:
Since it's your link, am assuming you read it. Did you have any problem with this comment in the article??

"But when asked about Hamas' call for Israel's destruction, Zahar would not say whether that remains the goal. "We are not speaking about the future, we are speaking now," he said. "


Does seem like the article you are trying to use as exculpatory evidence fits better as just the opposite....:roll:


.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you guys keep taking their words out of context.

Zahar told CNN if Israel "is ready to give us the national demand to withdraw from the occupied area (in) '67; to release our detainees; to stop their aggression; to make geographic link between Gaza Strip and West Bank, at that time, with assurance from other sides, we are going to accept to establish our independent state at that time, and give us one or two, 10, 15 years time in order to see what is the real intention of Israel after that."
Click to expand...
 
What the hell is Gaza supposed to offer besides a cease fire / peace?
Click to expand...

Well.. particularly NOTHING... but they have to recognize Irael as a state.
The peace must be peace.. and not every weekend the Hamas will launch a Kassam rockets and during the week we're in peace.
 
Jucon said:
I don't understand why you guys keep taking their words out of context.
Click to expand...

Not sure which "us guys' you are trying to label. My question is pretty direct. Do you believe the statement by Zahar is more than a little troubling? When asked if the annihilation of Israel is still a goal he declines to dismiss that as one of their desires.

Trying to stay open minded in the debate here. But are we both speaking english....??


.
 
Cole said:
Since it's your link, am assuming you read it. Did you have any problem with this comment in the article??

"But when asked about Hamas' call for Israel's destruction, Zahar would not say whether that remains the goal. "We are not speaking about the future, we are speaking now," he said. "


Does seem like the article you are trying to use as exculpatory evidence fits better as just the opposite....:roll:


.
Click to expand...

"We can accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied (in) '67," he said. Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza in the Six-Day War of 1967.

Key conditions could allow Palestinians to give a "long-term hudna or long-term truce," and "after that, let time heal," he said.

But when asked about Hamas' call for Israel's destruction, Zahar would not say whether that remains the goal. "We are not speaking about the future, we are speaking now," he said.

Zahar argued that Israel has no true intention of accepting a Palestinian state, despite international agreements including the Road Map for Middle East peace.

Until Israel says what its final borders will be, Hamas will not say whether it will ever recognize Israel, Zahar said. "If Israel is ready to tell the people what is the official border, after that we are going to answer this question."
Click to expand...

I bolded the main parts you left out.

But to ensure that we're on the same page, I'll try to explain how I'm looking at this...

Israel seized control of the West Bank in 1967 during the "Six Day War". I've seen multiple different sources claiming one side attacked the other first and vice versa, but never-the-less Israel was the victor and ended up in control of the West Bank.

So now, Hamas wants the West Bank back to use it to create an Arab-Palestinian State. Zahar is saying that Israel needs to decide where it's borders lay. If they choose to give the West Bank back to the Arab-Palestinians, it sounds like they would be willing to have peace. If Israel chooses to keep the West Bank, then one can pretty much guarantee there will be no cease-fire, no peace treaty, Hamas will not recognize Israel as a state, and they will likely continue to wish the destruction of Israel.

It's a tough choice for Israel to make given the history the Arabs and Jews have with one another. Either Hamas or Israel needs to give in... and I just have a feeling neither side will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom