Hamas Founder KILLED

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't care about Yassin or his bodyguards. It's just that Israel has a nasty and frequent habit of killing innocent bystanders along with their targets. Nothing boils the blood like dead kids.

Chegitz, could you go to the Middle East yourself and tell the terrorists to stop using civilians as human shields, and stop training impressionable, naive teenagers to carry out bombings??

[Az]

You say that the jews antagonized the proto-palestinians by siding with the Europeans against the Hashemites. I say that this is doubtful, since the proto-palestinians didn't like the desert-dwellers themselves. Reminder: Abdullah the 1st was killed by a palestinian.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
You say that the jews antagonized the proto-palestinians by siding with the Europeans against the Hashemites. I say that this is doubtful, since the proto-palestinians didn't like the desert-dwellers themselves. Reminder: Abdullah the 1st was killed by a palestinian.

Yes he was, in 1952, after he had been friendly to the new state of Israel. What i said was that the zionist backed foreign European rule as opposed to local rule, whether that be Hashemite or another group opf locals- they allied with the foreign imperialists-is this supposed to make locals happy?

[Az]

So you don't think that the fact that this is a different group of locals has any meaning?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I would say the people who would "understand" why israel did it (as in, not only know Israels claims but also willing to see those claims as valid) are a much smaller group than the inbuilt Hamas supporters. I think for the mayority as a whole, they are not out becuase they are hidding indoors.

When i said "understand" i did not mean approve of, but people who would be clear enough on what was going on not to be surprised, and not to become any more sympathetic to Hamas then they already were.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
So you don't think that the fact that this is a different group of locals has any meaning?

Well, since after 1925 the Hashemites were out of the picture (in that the nomads now had thier own land not slated to become part of a Jewish Homeland), I think the effect is not as great as you may think. If that difference has any great bearing, it bears on the fiction that all Arabs are the same, so why should, as the Israeli right always says, the Arabs have 20 ood states and the Jews none? Obviously you agree that all Arabs are not the same.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes he was, in 1952, after he had been friendly to the new state of Israel. What i said was that the zionist backed foreign European rule as opposed to local rule, whether that be Hashemite or another group opf locals- they allied with the foreign imperialists-is this supposed to make locals happy?

Im sure there were locals as well who didnt support the 1922(?) rebellion - in a situation like that everyone has to predict winners and make political judgements of interest - my point was that the rejection of the Zionists at least on the part of much of the Arab leadership, was conditioned on the political struggles of the time, not an inevitable rejection of Zionist claims as you seem to indicate here and elsewhere. Lebanese Maronites also sided with the Europeans, and also earned enmity. Unfortunately neither Lebanese Maronites nor Zionists could avoid making a choice, and made the choices that were most rational at the time.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
When i said "understand" i did not mean approve of, but people who would be clear enough on what was going on not to be surprised, and not to become any more sympathetic to Hamas then they already were.

That group is most likely very small. As for ebing surprised, why would they not be? I think many of them may not have thought the Israelis foolish enough to kill him-fearing what it would bring.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, since after 1925 the Hashemites were out of the picture (in that the nomads now had thier own land not slated to become part of a Jewish Homeland), I think the effect is not as great as you may think. If that difference has any great bearing, it bears on the fiction that all Arabs are the same, so why should, as the Israeli right always says, the Arabs have 20 ood states and the Jews none? Obviously you agree that all Arabs are not the same.

I dont think theyre say the Arabs should have only one state, but rather that the Jews SHOULD have one. Just to clarify.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


That group is most likely very small. As for ebing surprised, why would they not be? I think many of them may not have thought the Israelis foolish enough to kill him-fearing what it would bring.

I suspect it is larger than you think. Certainly there are many in Gaza who WERE commited supporters of Hamas, before the assasination. OTOH i doubt very much that Mohammed Dahlan and his followers will suddenly switch sides - my impression is that Pal politics simply isnt THAT fluid. People make choices based on interests, ideologies, clan loyalties, etc - not based on rage at the days events, any more than people elsewhere in the world.

As for whether they were surprised, given "what it would bring" clearly we're in circular territory here. IF it would bring alot than lots of Pals would be surprised, and be more likely to be influenced by the event. BUT how much "it would bring" is precisely a function of how surprised Pals are by it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im sure there were locals as well who didnt support the 1922(?) rebellion - in a situation like that everyone has to predict winners and make political judgements of interest - my point was that the rejection of the Zionists at least on the part of much of the Arab leadership, was conditioned on the political struggles of the time, not an inevitable rejection of Zionist claims as you seem to indicate here and elsewhere. Lebanese Maronites also sided with the Europeans, and also earned enmity. Unfortunately neither Lebanese Maronites nor Zionists could avoid making a choice, and made the choices that were most rational at the time.

One: this goies beyond political leadeships- I am talking about the inherent xenophobic and nativist attititudes most likely held in the basic palestinian farming village-an attitute that is more human than I care it to be. For example, the Hebron massacre- IIRC, that was a riot more than directed violence by any Arab political leaders. A riot based on the feelings on the ground.

You also seem to argue that this leadership would have had support on the ground-it is fine for a family coming out of Mecca to claim they should be kings of the Arabs due to some deal they struck with the UK-that does not mean in 1921 and 22 when these negotiations were going on that these folks had done much to get support from the actual people they now claimed to rule. I asusme there were plenty of local Arab nationalist who would not have been happy with a bunch of Mecca ingrates now ruling them as kings, as opposed to some other government.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I suspect it is larger than you think. Certainly there are many in Gaza who WERE commited supporters of Hamas, before the assasination. OTOH i doubt very much that Mohammed Dahlan and his followers will suddenly switch sides - my impression is that Pal politics simply isnt THAT fluid. People make choices based on interests, ideologies, clan loyalties, etc - not based on rage at the days events, any more than people elsewhere in the world.

If Dahlan were to be shot tommorrow by some Hamas man, do you think the grieving crowds in Gaza would be even half as big? I personally doubt it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


One: this goies beyond political leadeships- I am talking about the inherent xenophobic and nativist attititudes most likely held in the basic palestinian farming village-an attitute that is more human than I care it to be.

But of course the Jews werent settling in Pal farming villages - they were for the most part either developing underutilized land, or settling in the cities (which would have been exposed to all kinds of outside influences)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Chegitz, could you go to the Middle East yourself and tell the terrorists to stop using civilians as human shields, and stop training impressionable, naive teenagers to carry out bombings??

Oh wow, do you think that will really work?

Israel is not blameless. It chooses to shoot guns at children with rocks, drop bombs on sleeping families, and fire missiles into crowds. They are every bit as much of terrorists as Hamas. The only differnce is that Israel isn't targetting non-combatants. They just don't care if they hit them anyway.

Maybe if you educated yourself about the Palestinian situation you might not be such an ignorant smart-ass. You might realize that both sides are the bad guys and that the innocent on either side are trapped in the middle.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


If Dahlan were to be shot tommorrow by some Hamas man, do you think the grieving crowds in Gaza would be even half as big? I personally doubt it.

Precisely my point. If Dahlan were shot tomorrow by the Israelis, the grieving crowd wouldnt be half as big either. Hamas already had extensive support in Gaza, and has for years. The question is whether assasinating Yassin adds significantly to this support. I see no empiral evidence that it is, just the usual a priori belief in blowback.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


But of course the Jews werent settling in Pal farming villages - they were for the most part either developing underutilized land, or settling in the cities (which would have been exposed to all kinds of outside influences)

Do you think people in villages are removed? In 1910's, how many of those Eastern Europeans were moving into Kansas? or Nebraska? Or Wyoming? Did that stop the people in those states having nativist feelinsg and supporting cutting of immigration which was really only a immidiate concern to the eastern coast cities?

Maybe the jews begun in the cities and "underdeveloped lands", but as more and more arrived-how long till they came to the villages? What would happen when "underdevelope land" ran out? And that is without the fact Arabs knew the zionist sought to gain political sovereignty to create a Jewish homeland in what they considered their land. (last time I looked, people in Hawaii still see Alaska as their land-as in, the US).

[Pax]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Blah@you.

Bad move this.

The war with Hitler had nothing to do with his policies on Jews. So I see no moral grounds for assasinating Hitler. But as I have argued Assasination is as moral as terrorism or war for material or political gain.

[Az]

Actually, just like everywhere else, the FATAH is still the dominant force in palestinian politics.

Well, since after 1925 the Hashemites were out of the picture (in that the nomads now had thier own land not slated to become part of a Jewish Homeland), I think the effect is not as great as you may think.

a) and were were talking about the beginning of the 20s, where this wasn't the case.
b) the Hashemites always played an important role in politics here. It has been a rather complicated equillibrium.

If that difference has any great bearing, it bears on the fiction that all Arabs are the same, so why should, as the Israeli right always says, the Arabs have 20 ood states and the Jews none? Obviously you agree that all Arabs are not the same.

I might as well post a small part of an article on organic synthesis, it would have as much to do with the matter at hand.

Oh and another small point of data, GePap: the first riots by the proto-palestinians against the jews were incited on RELIGIOUS grounds and not nationalistics. It had something to do with the wailing wall IIRC.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


Do you think people in villages are removed? In 1910's, how many of those Eastern Europeans were moving into Kansas? or Nebraska? Or Wyoming? Did that stop the people in those states having nativist feelinsg and supporting cutting of immigration which was really only a immidiate concern to the eastern coast cities?

LOTM Actually there were Russian and Ukrainian settlers in the Dakotas. In any case nativist voting is one thing, its not the same as acts of violence. And before you tell me that they couldnt vote in mandate Palestine, there were other means of political expression. You are assuming that all opposition to immigration is equivalent regardless of the means used, and that the use of certain means by group X is not relevant to how group X's adversaries deal with group X, how trust is developed in negotiations, etc.


I know you want to "humanize" the Pals by making their political decisions look reasonable to Americans. Look, you dont have to do that with me. I know theyre humans, and I dont begrudge that they will make decisions i dont like. What is absurd is for you to expect Israeli leaders to say "oh we'll overlook the fact that you tried to push is into the sea for 18 years when we DID NOT have the West BAnk and Gaza, we'll overlook the fact that you tried to keep us out by violence for years before that, we'll go ahead and make the same kind of territorial concessions that would have made sense had you not done so, we'll just TRUST that when we leave the West Bank and Gaza 100% you'lll give up your claim that we have no right to be here at all. After all, everything you said and did was perfectly reasonable, we were jerks to want to come here anyway"

THAT, my friend, is political fantasy of the tallest order.

[Pax]

Originally posted by yavoon


yes standing far away in europe trying desperately to not be the target of terror attacks it becomes easier to yell at the good guys for getting their boots muddy. afterall, it doesn't rain in europe.

Who said that Israel is the good guys. They have certainly done a good amount of wrong. I think both side have a lot of blame in this conflict.
A very simple method
After Assasinations is there a spike in protests and suicide bombings or do protests and suicide bombings decrease.
If they decrease then I can understand the rationalization for having the assasinations.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
a) and were were talking about the beginning of the 20s, where this wasn't the case.
b) the Hashemites always played an important role in politics here. It has been a rather complicated equillibrium

.

Always played a role? I doubt before 1918 they played any role, given power was held by the Ottoman rulers back in Istanbul. The Hashemites begun to play a role in the late 1910's, early 1920's, which is when this whole mess begun.

Oh and another small point of data, GePap: the first riots by the proto-palestinians against the jews were incited on RELIGIOUS grounds and not nationalistics. It had something to do with the wailing wall IIRC.

Which goes to back my nativist "culture" arguement-after all, one of the first problems found against Immigranst here in the US was that they were dirty papists, not good old protestants.

[Az]

There is no lowering of immideate activity; However, statistics show that the more pressure Israel is putting on the terrorists, the less suicide bombings, and other attacks on civilians take place.

[Az]

Always played a role? I doubt before 1918 they played any role, given power was held by the Ottoman rulers back in Istanbul. The Hashemites begun to play a role in the late 1910's, early 1920's, which is when this whole mess begun.

Yes, the Ottomans had a lot of power.

Which goes to back my nativist "culture" arguement-after all, one of the first problems found against Immigranst here in the US was that they were dirty papists, not good old protestants.

HOWEVER, later arguments took up a distinct nationalist tone. This goes to back a theory that the first topic was used to start the flames, to go to the second one.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by GePap
LOTM Actually there were Russian and Ukrainian settlers in the Dakotas. In any case nativist voting is one thing, its not the same as acts of violence. And before you tell me that they couldnt vote in mandate Palestine, there were other means of political expression. You are assuming that all opposition to immigration is equivalent regardless of the means used, and that the use of certain means by group X is not relevant to how group X's adversaries deal with group X, how trust is developed in negotiations, etc.

Never said there was an excuse to the violence, did I? I would say though that the fact there was no violence in the US is not proof of much, since most places you see such dramatic demographic changes you do get violence. Besides, there was more than immigration-these were not just immigrants wanting to becomes part of your society, and in the process perhaps change it. These were immigrants coming to suplant your culture to create a new and different society of theirs in the same land. That adds a new dimension.

What is absurd is for you to expect Israeli leaders to say "oh we'll overlook the fact that you tried to push is into the sea for 18 years when we DID NOT have the West BAnk and Gaza, we'll overlook the fact that you tried to keep us out by violence for years before that, we'll go ahead and make the same kind of territorial concessions that would have made sense had you not done so, we'll just TRUST that when we leave the West Bank and Gaza 100% you'lll give up your claim that we have no right to be here at all. After all, everything you said and did was perfectly reasonable, we were jerks to want to come here anyway"

Why should the Palestinians give up their claims? After all, it is the jews who said "hey, this land is ours, cause we lived here 1800 years ago". Pot, Kettle, no?

Who is asking for Jews to overlook? I personally don;t think the issue can be solve as long as either side has as their aim a "someone" state, ie, a state for one nationality. As long as either side has this as thier ultimate aim, there will be no end to tension,even if open violence ends.

[Az]

Why should the Palestinians give up their claims?

Leaving the ethical argument aside, the answer is still obvious: because there is no way they're going to get it all, so might just as well settle fore less.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

Yes, the Ottomans had a lot of power.

And somehow the Ottoman-backed appointed keeper of Mecca, whom you have stated earlier was part of the arabs the proto-Palestinians did not like, did? Sorry, but for all the lol's, that makes NO sense.

HOWEVER, later arguments took up a distinct nationalist tone. This goes to back a theory that the first topic was used to start the flames, to go to the second one.

And?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
Leaving the ethical argument aside, the answer is still obvious: because there is no way they're going to get it all, so might just as well settle fore less.

The probelm with that line of thinking is that the Pals have some wonderful teachers- I mean, it took 1800 years, but the jews made it back, no? After alll, whom in 580 ad would have thought a new Jewish kingdom would veer rise up again around Jerusalem? not to mention 180 ad (or whenever the second revolt was finally crushed)?

[Az]

And somehow the Ottoman-backed appointed keeper of Mecca, whom you have stated earlier was part of the arabs the proto-Palestinians did not like, did? Sorry, but for all the lol's, that makes NO sense.

Could you please rephrase that? I don't understand, what exactly makes no sense.

The probelm with that line of thinking is that the Pals have some wonderful teachers- I mean, it took 1800 years, but the jews made it back, no? After alll, whom in 580 ad would have thought a new Jewish kingdom would veer rise up again around Jerusalem? not to mention 180 ad (or whenever the second revolt was finally crushed)?

Well, now you're really stretching it to save the argument (and it seems that you suffer from the opponent symptom, i.e. trying to prove me wrong just because you don't agree with the general argument ) .

You might just as well say that the story of the jewish people shows that the right conditions for the rebirth of a nation occure every two millenia.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
Could you please rephrase that? I don't understand, what exactly makes no sense.

The Hashemites had no inherent powerbase anywhere outside the Hejaz. They only gained power outside of the Hejaz by being the arab allies of the British. As far as I know, there were no large arab revolts by proto-palestinians or in Iraq, or by Syrians, or any Arabs not riding north from the Hejaz. So to say this family had any powerful say in the politics of the Coast before 1918 makes no sense.

You might just as well say that the story of the jewish people shows that the right conditions for the rebirth of a nation occure every two millenia.

Yes, you might, so the point is that the whole "get what part of the pie you can get now" line rarely works. Think of people as absurd optimist willing to bet if unlikely future chances than in cold hard current reality.

[Az]

The Hashemites had no inherent powerbase anywhere outside the Hejaz. They only gained power outside of the Hejaz by being the arab allies of the British. As far as I know, there were no large arab revolts by proto-palestinians or in Iraq, or by Syrians, or any Arabs not riding north from the Hejaz. So to say this family had any powerful say in the politics of the Coast before 1918 makes no sense.

Actually, they were all over the desert. Remember the movie "Lawrence of Arabia"? they attack Aqaba, a city on the southern tip of Jordan. That particular family might not have yielded much power, but there are many more other nomads.