Thursday June 25, 2009, 4:25 pm
And that is why, my Care2 friends, the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. Armed struggle is the road to death for Hams and Palesitnians. Some people thrive on chaos and violence---Hamas represents some of those who do--front and center. They offer their people othing but more of the same violence and death for no reason.

Friday June 26, 2009, 5:09 am
"Meshaal said the notion of an exclusive Jewish nation was anathema to the Palestinians because it means giving up what he described as the right of six million Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland in what is now Israel.

"We warn against any Arab leniency on this issue. The calls by the leaders of the enemy for the Jewishness of Israel are racist, not different to Italian Fascism and Hitler's Nazism," said Meshaal, who lives in exile in Syria."

Why then Obama talks about settlements, i.e. Israeli villages?

Friday June 26, 2009, 9:53 am
Cal Mendelsohn (392)
Thursday June 25, 2009, 4:25 pm
And that is why, my Care2 friends, the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. Armed struggle is the road to death for Hams and Palesitnians. Some people thrive on chaos and violence---Hamas represents some of those who do--front and center. They offer their people othing but more of the same violence and death for no reason.

As opposed to what the Zionist state of Israel is offering them. Indentured servitude in their own country.

Friday June 26, 2009, 11:26 am
"There is no alternative," Meshaal said. "Peaceful resistance works for a civil rights struggle, not in front of an occupation armed to the teeth."

I don't think I agree with this. Armed resistance will only create more calls for retribution on the Israeli side, and will keep Israel's most hawkish politicians in power. If Hamas were to cease hostilities, they would have a chance to prove themselves a legitimate political force and to shed their terrorist image. This might lead to a lifting of the blockades.
That having been said, I doubt the Israeli offer had genuine intentions, as it's not bloody likely Hamas would ever agree to disarm completely.

Friday June 26, 2009, 12:56 pm
I think Hamas is making a mistake. A two state solution seems like the only logical solution.
I hope President Obama is listening carefully to the concerns of Hamas and is then able to address most of them.
Then I think he must also ensure the Isreal halts further settlements in the disputed territories.

Friday June 26, 2009, 1:36 pm
"Concerning non-violence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks." - Malcolm X

Only hypocrits expect the oppressed (Palestine) to disarm, while the oppressor (Israel) has the most powerful military of any Middle Eastern country, and the fifth most powerful military in the world.

PS, the article is from the capitalist media, who benefit from U.S./Israeli imperialism, so it is skewed in favour of the capitalist class and their imperialist project, against Indigenous Palestinian rights, and so I will not note it.

The capitalist media is the voice of the oligarchy. What about the voice of the other 99% of humanity??? Can you find any NON-CAPITALIST news, Cal? There is plenty out there.

Friday June 26, 2009, 1:43 pm
Thomas wrote: "If Hamas were to cease hostilities, they would have a chance to prove themselves a legitimate political force and to shed their terrorist image."

Clearly you are unaware of the history. the enemies of mighty Israel (most powerful military in the Middle East and fifth most powerful military in the world), tiny Hamas and Hizbollah, have ceased hostilities at times, and have also often offered peace. But ISRAEL continues its aggression regardless of Hamas and Hizbollah's peace actions and peace offers. Get your facts straight please. You won't get the facts from the capitalist media, which is the voice of the oligarchy, benefitting from U.S./Israeli imperialism, and so is pro-Israeli. Please look for non-capitalist sources of information, such as Noam Chomsky - who often gives many references for his claims.

Friday June 26, 2009, 2:24 pm
Well, Locan, Simon, no one ever said that we have to agree on everything. The road to insanity is paved with good intentions, of course on both sides. I think that Israeli intransigence has been covered enough elsewhere on Care2 in different articles--yes? Israel's oversights and missed opportunities don't make Hamas' course correct for their people. Violence for the sake of violence won't do anything to help anyone.Every article on this subject is biased, Simon, so the old biased media argument works both ways, btw.

Saturday June 27, 2009, 1:08 am
Someone resembles thier Media Steriotype here... Du'OOh!
Why should they Put Down thier Arms, after thier families have Been Bombed, Shot, Homes Buldozed For the invadors "Settlements"; it will only Continue. Much as the Expantionist Agendas of the USA Kept Crowding the Natives More and More; Violating Treaties and creating Unlivable Conditions.
The Zionists Have already Proven they will Do as They Wish inspite of Truce and "agreements" However any Rational Person Well Versed in Prisoners Rights; Knows That Extortionatly influenced Agreements obtained under Duress From a Tortured Prisoner; Have NO Validity in the "Real Just World".
the Israeli Position is No Better than a brutal Bigoted racist Southern or Chicago Cop Beating a confession out of his Afro American Victim and Threatening to Burn his Home, Rape his wife, and Kill his Children: unless he Does as Told;
(or to Modernise the example: No Better than GitMo technitians Creating "Testimony" For Bush/Cheny's Sick Agenda)....

Saturday June 27, 2009, 2:59 am
"Why should they Put Down thier Arms?" asks Rod, I'll answer your question for you.
The answer is because they want a better life for their children who they presumably love. Given the current sucky situation, they have a choice. Knowing the whole world is watching (and it is), Hamas could hypothetically demonstrate to all that it wants to lead the Palestinian people to peace instead of continuing to drag all the suffering men, women and children living in Gaza into their vengeful cycle of retribution. If Hamas were to do this, Israel would be given the choice of continuing the blockades and losing the support of all who want peace in the region, or recognizing Hamas as a legitimate government, capable of stopping the rocket attacks and suicide bombings, and loosening restrictions on Gaza.
Hamas' other option is of course to continue attacks on Israel, though this would never possibly result in the dissolution of the state of Israel. The more Hamas-led revenge, the more retaliation and misery from Israel.
Others on this site have criticized me for these relatively simplistic views of such a complex problem, but I hold that if Hamas demonstrates they will recognize Israel's right to exist and an intent of peace, Israel would have no choice but to recognize Hamas.
What road to peace is most likely to occur given the current snafu?

Saturday June 27, 2009, 3:04 am
And Simon, please tell me about these "peace actions and peace offers" you refer to. This isn't a challenge, I'm here to learn.

Saturday June 27, 2009, 10:13 am
Netanyahu made the "deal" so unpalatable that it would be guaranteed to fail ... nothing new here ... move along ... same ol' bullying ..

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" -- David Ben Gurion

Saturday June 27, 2009, 11:24 am
Thomas -- either side could end this tomorrow if they wanted to. Israel could as well by ending the settlements.

Saturday June 27, 2009, 11:51 am
Mondoweiss: Naomi Klein in Bil'in: Boycott Israel

Saturday June 27, 2009, 1:05 pm
I'm all for depopulating all the settlements as was done in Gaza, but we can all see it didn't work there. Israel feels it needs to keep Hamas in a stranglehold with blockades, and depending on who you ask, this is either completely necessary to keep bigger weapons from being used on Israel, or is unnecessary and the cause of Hamas' armed struggle. Given the history of Israel's neighbors repeatedly attacking it, I don't blame Israel for being trepidatious here, both sides would need to show good intent.

Saturday June 27, 2009, 1:07 pm
And, I agree with Cal's statement : "Israel's oversights and missed opportunities don't make Hamas' course correct for their people."

Saturday June 27, 2009, 3:18 pm
But a blockade is an act of war. So, as long as Israel continues their blockade of Gaza and the West Bank, that means that they are interested in perpetual warfare. Hamas does not have the ability to destroy Israel. However, Israel has the ability to destroy itself.

Saturday June 27, 2009, 4:03 pm
We all know both sides have their own agendas so I think the only 2 options available are : To keep fighting each other ad infinitum (forever) or cut the bullsh**t once and for all and actually start working and negotiating towards a solution or agreement.
What really sickens me about politics is that each side always claims to be right and to posses the absolut truth. Maybe the real problem is that we (humans)are still very primitive (beings) or just plain stupid and selfish.

Sunday June 28, 2009, 1:22 am
"But a blockade is an act of war. So, as long as Israel continues their blockade of Gaza and the West Bank, that means that they are interested in perpetual warfare."

That's a bit of a stretch. A blockade means they want perpetual warfare? Do you think Israel enjoys putting its sons and daughters in harms way?

Sunday June 28, 2009, 8:43 am
Blockade is an act often leading to war, or a direct act of war. However, this war was started by Hamas elected on its militarist and incompromising agenda. Hamas won't back down on its goal of Israel destruction, and Israel won't back down on its survival. So, provided reality includes these two constants, we do have a recipe for unending war.

Thomas, I am wondering why Israel should leave all the settlements: by international law, land taken as a result of defensive wars belongs to the winner. The land is now theirsWhy should Israel be an exception? And if you suggest another transfer of Jews from their populated areas, you have to propose transferring Arabs out of some areas too. Is it your point of view?

Sunday June 28, 2009, 9:07 am
Apparently, Israel doesn't care if they put their sons and daughters in harms way. Their policy has been hijacked by 200,000 religious fanatics who want to create a "Greater Israel" and who think that God is on their side. This is the sort of twisted thinking that happens when public policy is hijacked by religion. Perpetual warfare is justifiable in this twisted thinking,

Mike, your comment is just a bunch of war propaganda. Every nation that decides to go to war always uses survival as justification for war. No reasonable person can argue that Hamas is somehow a threat to Israel's survival. And next, under international law, every people has a right to self-determination. So, if Israel is not interested in providing the Palestinian people full and equal participation in its system, then it has no choice but to grant them independence under international law. If Israel wants to keep its gains, then they have to grant the Palestinian people citizenship rights. It's their choice.

Sunday June 28, 2009, 9:44 pm
Jesse, a war with Hamas is a better way to protect Israeli civilians than surrender to Hamas. Israel does not want this war, but there is no choice: Hamas wants this war. Nobody in Israel talks about "Greater Israel", and the question is about lands taken in defensive wars which are now legally Israel's. It's not twisted logic, it is common sense and a world accepted practice.

Israel wants to separate from Palestinians with two independant countries for two peoples, even Netaniyahu said that. The problem is that Hamas doesn't want to let Israel live.

Monday June 29, 2009, 5:07 am
"common sense and a world accepted practice."

I guess thats why "the world" votes so overwhelmingly pro-Israel in the United Nations.

Monday June 29, 2009, 8:19 am
False choice. This is the kind of mentality that got us into Iraq and Vietnam. There is a third way, and that involves negotiating a solution. We talked to the Soviet Union and even the Viet Cong. We talked to North Korea, Iran, and Maoist China. So, this is no different.

Israel has a right to keep their land, but they do not have a right to deny the Palestinians a right to self-determination, so they have to make a choice between giving them a state of their own or annexing the West Bank and Gaza and making them citizens of Israel with full voting rights.

Israel wants this war as well, or they would not be continuing their economic blockade on Palestine and denying their people the opportunity to do something besides terrorism. They are trying to have it both ways -- deny the Palestinian people any alternative but terrorism and then turn around and play the victim when the rockets fall. And there are plenty of people calling for a "Greater Israel" like this article proves:

http://www.mystudydate.com/pg/blog/Martini/read/1388/the-geostrategic-imperative-of-greater-israel

“The process of national revival of the Jewish people is irreversible and has its internal logic. We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Country of Israel will not return under Jewish control. This might sound too hard, but such is the logic of history. The war on the Holy Land has been already fought for four thousand years and the end cannot be seen. A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel. The state will find at last its geostrategic completeness. We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land. This may seem utopia to many now - but an even greater utopia seemed a hundred years ago the revival of the Jewish state...If you want it, this will not not be a fairy tale"
--Rabbi Avrom Shmulevic of the Bead Artzein ("For the Homeland") Movement.

Monday June 29, 2009, 12:01 pm
"Thomas, I am wondering why Israel should leave all the settlements: by international law, land taken as a result of defensive wars belongs to the winner. The land is now theirsWhy should Israel be an exception? And if you suggest another transfer of Jews from their populated areas, you have to propose transferring Arabs out of some areas too. Is it your point of view?"

I would love to see a situation where Israel has more land than it does, especially considering how their land has been whittled away over the decades. I am also aware that when Egypt annexed Gaza and Jordan annexed the west bank, the people living on these pieces of land didn't seem to have a problem with that and saved their ire for when the Jews took them over.
However, I see it as politically necessary for Israel to demonstrate to the world that is is interested in peace, and the restrictions on movement in the west bank because of the settlements are one of the main gripes of the Arabs living there. Another option might be for Israel to discontinue protection for Jews living in the settlements. If there is to be real peace, Jews should be able to live safely alongside Arabs in Arab countries, just as Arabs live peacefully inside Israel's borders. This could result in a massacre, maybe not.