A Theocracy is Born
After more than half a century of Israeli-Palestinian turmoil and violence, something truly remarkable has happened. The West Bank has succeeded in holding a free and fair election. George Bush’s goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East seems to be working. There’s just one problem. Sometimes democracy sucks.
The Palestinian people have handed an outright majority of their parliament over to Hamas, a Muslim terrorist organization hell-bent on the utter destruction of Israel and the formation of an Islamic theocracy with its capital in Jerusalem. How could this happen?
As Thoreau once said, “In the long run, we only hit what we aim at.” The Bush administration has been aiming at democracy. However, that’s a damn big target. American democracy is very different from French democracy, which is very different from Indian democracy, etc. Wishing for democracy without some kind of modifier is begging for this kind of problem. What we should be working for is secular democracy. However, at least under this president, that will never happen. Let me tell you why.
First of all, consciously or otherwise, overtly or covertly, this administration has sympathies that lean toward a Christian theocracy in the United States. That may be a full-blown Iranian type theocracy, or it might be something more subtle, but it doesn’t matter. Once you say the S word, you’re pushing religion out of government completely. The only way to push for secular democracy in the Middle East without enforcing the separation of church and state at home is to make the supremacy of Christianity over Islam a matter of policy. Even if we were willing to excise faith from government in the United States, we wouldn’t use the S word for fear of upsetting the Muslim fundamentalists. That’s the United States for you. We wouldn’t want to upset the Muslim fundamentalists. It sounds ridiculous to say, but you know its true. We don’t want to offend anyone, no matter how much they want to blow us to tiny bits.
So, where have we wound up? There is now a Muslim terrorist state on Israel’s southern border because of the spread of democracy. The repercussions are unimaginable. This dramatically changes my perspective on the whole affair. In the past, I have had some sympathy for the Palestinian cause. I wouldn’t say I ever sided with them, but I felt bad for them. I thought of the terrorist elements in their society as a minority that was standing between a mostly peaceful people and a homeland. Historically, Palestinians have been thought of as some of the most secular people in the Arab world. I stand corrected. The majority of Palestinians are religious extremists, and their wishes can no longer be considered. Israel made huge unilateral concessions, and the Palestinians repaid them by electing a government dedicated to their total elimination. I believed in the two state solution. I no longer see a compelling reason for Palestine to exist.
Let me recast the conflict for you. Israel is the 19th most atheist nation on Earth, which is pretty remarkable for a country founded as a Jewish homeland. By comparison, the U.S. is number 44. This is not a struggle of Jew against Muslim. This is a struggle of secularism against barbarism in the name of a god. Which side are you on?
The moral of the story for us here in North America is that we are in no position to oppose a freely-elected, theocratic regime while religion is still allowed to seep into the cracks of American government. If we are one nation under god, what ground to we have to stand on in criticizing another nation under another god. World peace may not be feasible in the presence of religion under any circumstances, but it is a definite impossibility until faith is confined to the churches, synagogues, mosques, hounfours, pagodas and ashrams.
~I AM~
January 26th, 2006 at at 7:29 pm
One thing you have to remember I AM is that a lot of Hamas’ popularity is owed to the fact that they deliver a lot of basic social services to the Palestinian people, while the Palestinian Authority is corrupt and ineffective.
I suspected that Hamas would make a big showing in the election. While it may me wishful thinking on my part, there is always the possibility that the leaders of Hamas, now being in a position where they are elected officials accountable to their people, will pull a “Nixon goes to China” and cut a deal with the Israelis that recognizes Israel’s right to exist in return for important concessions such as Israel easing its economic stranglehold on the West Bank which makes it virtually impossible for any commerce to take place there. Mass unemployment can be a major contributing factor to radicalism.
My preference is not for a two state solution, but a one state bi-national solution, in which Israelis and Palestinians are free to move and live anywhere in the country. That way, the Israelis can say they live in a country whose borders comprise the “Greater Israel” they wanted, and the Palestinians can say to themselves that a Jewish state called Israel no longer exists. Of course, that is probably just a pipe dream.
January 26th, 2006 at at 7:30 pm
Brilliant. I just finished writing something like this for my school paper’s opinion pages, basically reiterating what Sam Harris has said, but for a middle school audience; that we’re fighting religious extremism, not terrorism…and that the majority of Palestinians actually voted for Hamas. I desperately wanted to say that religion as a whole must be literal, but I live in an extremely politically correct town, and any form of “disrespect” in the school system is not well-accepted.
…we must be psychic twins.
January 26th, 2006 at at 7:36 pm
Seth:
I have thought that from time to time.
January 26th, 2006 at at 7:40 pm
…except when I was your age, I was still an idiot.
January 26th, 2006 at at 7:44 pm
They voted for a bunch of murderous maniacs…I see no reason why the voters should not be treated as such.
And as for The US and Democracy? “Careful what you wish for….”
January 26th, 2006 at at 7:50 pm
Since Iran’s president is saying that Israel should be wiped off the map, the wiseass in me wishes I had the resources to conduct a poll of the Palestinian people.
The question: “Would you support an Iranian nuclear strike to wipe out Israel if it meant that it would kill you and all of the rest of the Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?” I would be very interested to see what the response would be.
January 26th, 2006 at at 8:04 pm
I like reading your stuff I AM, but this is an idiotic rant. Tommykey has nailed the important aspect. The Palestinians voted for Hamas not because the fundamentalist wing of Hamas conducts suicide bombings, but precisely because the ruling party has been totally inept, corrupt and riddled with cronyism. It’s not an endorsement to wipe Israel off the map.
“I thought of the terrorist elements in their society as a minority that was standing between a mostly peaceful people and a homeland.”
Your original thoughts were correct. I suggest you read “Drinking The Sea At Gaza” by Amira Hass (an Israeli journalist) to see what Palestinian life is really like.
January 26th, 2006 at at 8:15 pm
I AM you sound a bit like Sam Harris. Or does Sam Harris sound like you? Regarless, you’ve made your point well. The world us unlikely to survive “religion” give the tools of destruction that exist now…
ARB
January 26th, 2006 at at 8:35 pm
donncha, Tommykey:
I’m sorry, but this argument sounds a lot like “I voted for Hitler because he gave me twenty bucks and I didn’t like the other guy, not because he killed six million Jews, so it’s OK.” Do you think the Palestinians are idiots? They’re well aware of the repercussions of rule by Hamas. The best you can claim is that the issue of terrorism is less unimportant to them compared to other issues in the election, and that’s just as bad as voting for Hamas because they kill Israelis.
ARB:
I’m almost ashamed to admit that I still haven’t read The End of Faith. It’s been sitting on my bookshelf for a few months now.
January 26th, 2006 at at 8:42 pm
I suggest you read “Drinking The Sea At Gaza” by Amira Hass (an Israeli journalist) to see what Palestinian life is really like.
All I need to read are the election returns, thank you very much. Now I hope that Netanahyu get re-elected in March (I think that’s when Israel’s elections are).
Peace is now an impossibility, and the US needs to stop giving Palestine money immediately. We cannot fund a terrorist government.
January 26th, 2006 at at 9:25 pm
No, it’s more like “I can’t get a job, I can’t feed my family, things in the Palestinian territories are totally f’d up and the government is doing SFA except line their pockets, so I might as well give these guys a try, they can’t be any worse.”
While Hamas have historically committed many attacks on Israel, they have held a ceasefire for the last year and since winning the election they have said that they will not attack Israel, but that they reserve the right to respond if Israel attacks them. They appear to be making a genuine effort to take part in the political process and they should be encouraged along this path, not frozen out completely. It took the British government years of dealing with Sinn Fein (while the IRA was still active) to get to the peaceful state Northern Ireland is now in. I agree that their historical statements with respect to Israel are unacceptable, but the opportunity exists now to persuade them to ameliorate their stance, and it’s an opportunity that should be grasped.
January 26th, 2006 at at 9:26 pm
I’m not justifying Hamas at all I AM, I am just not seeing it as black and white like you are, that’s all.
Personally, I favored Ariel Sharon’s approach, which was to physically separate Israel from the Palestinians instead of waiting for the Palestinians to get their act together.
January 26th, 2006 at at 9:27 pm
What does SFA stand for?
January 26th, 2006 at at 9:41 pm
Well, if Hamas takes over Jerusalem, I wonder if Pope Benedict will call for a new crusade.
January 26th, 2006 at at 10:07 pm
Sweet F*** All.
January 26th, 2006 at at 10:22 pm
I know it’s off thread, but I would love to see a headline in a newspaper that reads:
Roof Collapses in Convention Center during Psychic Fair
January 26th, 2006 at at 11:24 pm
Excellent article, I AM. I have posted it to my site as well, properly credited, of course, if you don’t mind.
January 27th, 2006 at at 3:14 am
I Am,
Great article. I, too, would never defend the Palestinians actions either, but I still find it possible to continue condemn the Israel government. I am somewhat reluctant to endorse Israel as a “secular” state, even in light of the findings you site. Hamas, and the various other extremist Palestinian Groups are only part of the Holy War. The Israeli Shas party, which is the ultra right-wing Religious party in the Knesset, while far smaller in seats than Hamas’s current landslide victory, is still equally responsible in maintaining the ugly religious aspects of what the press likes to euphemistically call the “Middle East Situation.” If you are to condemn the Palastinians for their election of Hamas, I think it only fair that you go back to condemning Israel for maintaining a system of government that continually supports Shas, who has been a fundamental (no pun intended) part of every coalition government since Shas’ formation in 1984. Even if the population is mostly secular, the government of Israel has rarely, if ever, been secular in its makeup or in its intentions.
Furthermore, as ugly as the Hamas is, I think it is likely the Palastinians are not endorsing religious fundamentalism in anyway with their current election. Rather, I think it is very likely the my-enemy’s-enemy-is-my-friend principle at work. I site Chalmers Johnson’s “Blowback”, which summarizes how repressive policy’s of the US and Japan had radicalized much of Asia’s population before and after WWII to embrace equally ugly regimes to Hamas without really endorsing their policies. It is hard not to draw parallels from these data in the Far East with similar situations in the Middle East today.
January 27th, 2006 at at 5:24 pm
The ruling Fatah government was definitely corrupt, and I don’t blame the Palestinian people for trying something new. Everyone in the Arab world is religious, and a change from Fatah to Hamas leadership isn’t going to change the religious dynamic too much I would think. One plus side is that while here in the US religion and corrupt politics go hand in hand, many Islamic leaders are against this sort of corruption and actually believe some of the good things that are in their book, unlike christians. While deluding yourself with religion is definitely a very bad thing, it’s better than being both religious and corrupt. And Hamas isn’t that much violent than many of the other “mainstream” parties. Here’s a picture of the ruling Fatah party getting ready for their election if it gives you any idea. And why should they reject violence? Violence is the only reason that anyone in the world gives a damn about their situation. Hell, we’ve got a pretty nice pad here in the US and we’re still the most violent country in the world. It seems strange that we should tell them to lay down their arms when we have more military than the rest of the world combined. Sure we don’t blow up buses with suicide bombs, we just use chemical weapons and bomb them from above.
Anyway, I can’t blame the Palestinian people too much. They voted in some murderers to office, but hey, we re-elected them here.
January 27th, 2006 at at 6:01 pm
Delta:
I’m sorry, did you just compare the U.S. government to Hamas? Dude, you’ve been in Berkely too long.
“And why should they reject violence? Violence is the only reason that anyone in the world gives a damn about their situation.”
When did you start supporting terrorism as a valid political tool?
“Hell, we’ve got a pretty nice pad here in the US and we’re still the most violent country in the world.”
I’m gonna have to call you out and ask for a source on that one.
January 27th, 2006 at at 6:13 pm
Oh, wow… Delta… Really? Hey, maybe instead of the death penalty, Timothy McViegh should’ve been made president.
January 27th, 2006 at at 6:36 pm
I think I have to jump in and support Delta, on at least some of this. This country was forged by a militia using guerrilla tactics against a superior opponent it considered an occupying force. The Palestinians consider Israel to be occupying their land by force. So it’s a little hypocritical to say, “well it was OK for us but not for them.”
The only real difference boils down to choice of targets. The Palestinians choose to attack what we consider innocent targets. (buses, restaurants, children, etc.) But, they don’t consider these to be innocents. In their mind these targets are just as valid as military targets, and are probably more effective in achieving their goal.
From my perspective, the Hamas gaining power is bad thing because it seemingly can only signal more unrest in the area, and that means more of our resources sent to play world cop. But, that is just our perspective. From a relativistic viewpoint (and how can atheists have anything but a relativistic outlook?) their actions are in their best interest not ours, so they are bad to us, but not them. It is therefore pointless to judge them. More important would be to find a way to make it be in their best interest (from their perspective) to seek a peaceful solution, and to do it without committing US troops to force the issue.
January 27th, 2006 at at 6:52 pm
From a relativistic viewpoint (and how can atheists have anything but a relativistic outlook?) their actions are in their best interest not ours, so they are bad to us, but not them. It is therefore pointless to judge them. More important would be to find a way to make it be in their best interest (from their perspective) to seek a peaceful solution, and to do it without committing US troops to force the issue.
I couldn’t agree more with the second part of that. However, do you really think turning the parliament over to Hamas is in the best interests of the Palestinians? They were well on their way to getting the West Bank and Gaza. Now, with these election results, they’ve said “Screw that; We want it all.” What they’ll get with that stance is nothing. Hamas will never defeat Israel. It’s a pipe dream. Israel has one of the finest militaries in the world, and it’s a nuclear power. They’ve taken the recent promise of the success of a two state solution and wiped out their gains in one fell swoop.
January 27th, 2006 at at 7:16 pm
No, but sometimes desperate people do stupid things. Here, in the US we can’t really relate to the poverty of most Palestinians. When people are really down and out and someone else can point a finger and say “it’s their fault!”, it can be easy to be persuaded. I agree with you that this is really in no one’s best interest. Unfortunately the Hamas did a better job of selling than their opponents.
January 27th, 2006 at at 7:26 pm
i dont see what is all this fuss about? im realy happy with hamas comming to power. this would be a great lesson for Palestinians to see the true face of theocracy. you are fooling yourself if you think you can get rid of religion that easily. coz it takes generations. im an atheist from IRAN and i can tel you that even though almost all iranian believe in god, they are mostly nonpracticing believers and are against the mixing of religion and government. they may have a theocracy now but this would curtainly change in the future and they would have a great lesson to draw from so this could NEVER happen again.
unlike european countries, people in middle east saw (or percieved) the height of their greatness at time of religion (islam) in power and lost it when corrupt and nonreligion governments took power. so they see a link between religion and solving their problems. this is not going to change that easiely but only the hard way. europe had to go through middle ages, middle east has to go through the same but in stead of centuries it would take decades.
January 27th, 2006 at at 8:55 pm
Yes, but the irony of that Roya is that the early Islamic caliphates were actually much more tolerant of Jews and Christians. The early Islamic empires inherited a lot of the body of scientific knowledge of the Hellenistic and Mesopotamian civilizations, and thus the Arab empires were in many respects far ahead of the barbarian kingdoms of Christian Europe.
It was when the Islamic powers, such as the Ottoman Empire, fell into decay that Christian and Jewish subjects were brutally discriminated against because their Islamic rulers feared that the rising Christian powers of Europe would use them as fifth columnists.
Granted, this is a rather broad brush description of a complex history, but it would be a mistake for Muslims of today to think that the Golden Age of the Arab caliphates was due to the fact that the Arabs back then were better Muslims.
January 27th, 2006 at at 11:23 pm
I totally agree with you Thomas, it is a complete mistake for modern Muslims to take this position. I think Roya’s statement is merely his perception of a common held Islamic belief, not an endorsement of correctness. Roya’s perception parallels my own perceptions exactly; I have had many Middle Eastern Muslim friends, and all pull out this same argument and ignore your historical observation completely. Unfortunately, all of the best correct historical examples in the world rarely effects the wrong views modern people make of them.
I think Roya’s first point is excellent. We should celebrate the Hamas victory, not disdain it. Idealists rarely stay idealists when they get into power*. In order to succeed, Hamas will either have to become far more moderate (i.e. secular) in order to gain international support or they will remain religious extremists and fail, thus establishing them as impotent with the Palestinian people. Either way, we (the secular world) are likely to gain more secularism in the Palestinian world in th elong run from this recent election.
While I acknowledge that extremists (i.e. Taliban, Pol Pot, etc.) often attract warfare in their single-minded pursuit of purity (which, yes, that would be very, very bad), that is not a guaranteed outcome, and I don’t know if it is the “norm” or the exception historically; frequently, idealistic leaders peacefully fail on their own too (which is my preference for Hamas). On the other hand, if Hamas simply sat in the background, out of power, they could easily maintain their legitimacy for a long time to come, along side their virulent religious extremism, and continue to attract and fan the spiritual fires rumbling in the common man.
* for those of you who demand proof of this idea at work, I give one example, referring to another idealistic movement – communism (and I mean REAL communists, not the Soviet or Chinese models). In particular, examine and contrast the way communists in Italy (Partito Comunista Italiano or PCI), who stayed fairly idealistic and fail to ever really mature into a real political force, with that of the French Communists (the parti communista francais or PCF) who moderated their extremism and became the post populous party in France today.
January 28th, 2006 at at 1:01 am
James Roden: “They voted for a bunch of murderous maniacs…I see no reason why the voters should not be treated as such.”
The same argument can be made for American voters…or about 50% of them.
Addie: “Peace is now an impossibility, and the US needs to stop giving Palestine money immediately. We cannot fund a terrorist government.”
We are a terrorist government, and even if we aren’t, your logic suggests we should have halted financial support of Israel years ago.
Yam:
“formation of an Islamic theocracy with its capital in Jerusalem”
As opposed to a Judaic theocracy with its capital in Jerusalem?
“Huge concessions” on Israel’s part would have been…oh, maybe not stealing the land in the first place.
Irregardless of the number of atheists in Israel, it is by no means a secular nation. Seen their flag lately?
“This is not a struggle of Jew against Muslim.”
You’re right here. It is the struggle of a superpower with nuclear weapons, jet fighters, and tanks hiding behind a barbarous religion, a pariah syndrome, and an even bigger superpower, against a modern day pariah with sticks, rocks, and suicide bombers, hiding behind another barbarous religion. NEITHER ARE SECULAR NATIONS.
I may be generalizing and ignoring some nuances, but the basics are that all three (US, Israel, and Palestine) are terrorist nations. America is on its way theocracy and the other two are (essentially) theocracies. But this isn’t as simple as theist vs secularist, because many other issues come into play.
January 28th, 2006 at at 2:56 am
even though, i agree with both of you Thoman and godsarefake, i dont think you can sell your veiws about historical facts to many middle easterns. as they are romantically attached to their past. in fact thats almost all they are proud of about themselfs (and their religion of course). and i have no doubt that they will bring about theocratic governments to most of the middle east if they could.
middle east is becomming more and more religious and its not showing any sign of slowing down. more women are covering themselves now then they did three to four decades ago.you also have a much higher proportion who attain mosques regularly. however its all the opposite in iran. its not that they are any wiser its just because of their circumstances. Islamic government didnt bring them prosperity in fact the opposite (oppression) so they are not so attached to their religion. i think other countries of the region have to go through the same. i dont believe in human rationality so much. i think they need first hand experience and then they may get it. French have their revolution and US has its constitution and past philosophers to give as reasons for separation of church and state when ever there is a talk of mixing religion with state. what do middle easters have? (maybe there is but im not aware of any)
by the way i thought my name does show that im a female
January 28th, 2006 at at 11:37 am
Be carefull what you wish for, it may come true. We living here in the USA always think democracy will cure things, we never can quite make that leap that some places may just be better off with some other system. So we now have “democarcy” in Zimbabwe, Palestine, Iraq,Venezuela etc. The serious disconnect is in Americans’ thinking that this means a more or less liberal capitalistic pro USA government in those places.
Democarcy just gives folks the government they deserve at that instant.
These folks who voted for Hammas are as as much moronic sheep as the masses in the USA who thought Iraq=Al Qaeda and Bush is their savior from evil/has the ear of god so let us kill Saddam and destroy Iraq.
How can you blame them for being as stupid as us?
January 28th, 2006 at at 12:26 pm
I think I Am makes an excellent point concerning the paradox the neocon agenda. How can America encourage a secular democracy when it has nothing of the sort? It seems like a basic fact, but then again fact takes a backseat to faith here in America, in this foul year of Our Lord, 2006.
I admit I am ignorant to much of the current situation in Palestine. But I understand there is a tremendous level of poverty, and part of the appeal of Hamas is that they help the poor by delivering food and helping with other essential services. For that reason I do not agree with I Am’s statment that they are all religious extremists and should not be able to exist.
I am your typical gluttenous American. I enjoy drinking whiskey and wine bottled in other continents and I can get them whenever I please. I cannot comprehend having no job, few clothes and little or no food. Therefore I cannot fault those who vote for the people who bring that to them. From there point of view, the current government sucks, there are no jobs, they are always hungry, and they know they eat with the help of Hamas from time to time, and that is more help than they get from anyone else. I’m thinking out loud here. But could it be that Hamas appealed to a more basic desire for a better life than everyone simply voting for bloodthirsty terrorism and the annihilation of Israel?
This seems to be a very complex situation, and I do not pretend to have any answers. But you cannot build a healthy society on empty stomachs, and you cannot blame the poor for turning to religion when it is all they have. I try to comprehend their situation, and it is futile, because all I can comprehend being without is a bottle of single malt Bushmills. Just my 2 cents.
I Am, I think you have a tremendous blog. Keep up the great work.
January 28th, 2006 at at 1:54 pm
There is an episode of Star Trek TNG “The High Ground” that talks about terrorism and terrorists. In the episode, we see that the terrorists consider themselves freedom fighters, and the state considers them terrorists. These terms are definitely a matter of perspective. In the show, Data comments on how illogical it is to use violence and terrorism as a method of achieving one’s goals, but that, in the past, it has worked, which is why people resort to it. The episode is as pertinent today as it was when it was aired (long before 9-11).
I like how other commenters here mentioned that we cannot know what it’s like to be a Palestinian, so it would be hard to understand their situation and judge them accordingly. What we see is a bunch of people who we hear are militant religious terrorists that blow up school buses and shopping malls. So when they voted for the organization that coordinates these attacks, we can assume they were voting for religiously-induced violence. I have no doubt that many did vote for Hamas for this very reason. But I suspect people there are ignorant, suppressed, and frightened, and therefore not likely to make informed decisions.
The US military has been terrorizing Iraq for almost three years now. In that time, 100,000 or so Iraqi civilians have been killed. Even if only half of them were completely innocent, we still have killed more people in such a time than any concerted effort on the part of Hamas has killed Israelis. One organization uses TNT strapped to an oppressed and destitute Palestinian to blow up a restuarant, while the other drops a horrible mixture of fuel and chemicals to melt the skin of its victims. I see no difference between these actions. Civilians are being horribly killed in the name of freedom. The hypocrisy is almost overwhelming.
Can we, as Americans, judge the Palestinians? I don’t think so. I would have to agree with Delta. While we are certainly not denied a decent education in this country, and not quite as suppressed as other people, we are, however, definitely frightened, by the real or imagined threat of terrorism and the lies our government would have us believe. Americans actually voted for GWB, and legitimately or not, he was elected. He claims to speak to God, asking him for divine advice. Other members of his administration are religious as well, and popular evangelists are frequently involved with the White House. The support base is composed of righteous and fundamentalist xians. I think this means we elected a religious cabal to command the resources of the US. We cannot condemn the Palestinians without condemning ourselves as well.
January 28th, 2006 at at 2:30 pm
It sounds like we might have a solution to the overpopulation problem after all.
January 28th, 2006 at at 2:55 pm
To those who have been disagreeing with me:
I fail to even understand your position. You are quick to attack Christian fundamentalists at home while defending those who support Muslim terrorists abroad. You don’t see a distinction between a military operation and a suicide bomber taking out a bus full of innocent civilians. I fear that some of you have lost so much blood from your bleeding hearts that you have begun to lose consciousness.
I am no fan of George W. Bush. I think that has been obvious from my writings here. I happen to be one of the few remaining Americans who believe that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, but I feel that the way in which it has been conducted is an embarrassment. However, whether or not you agree with the war, I can’t fathom how a person could look at the United States military and see Hamas.
When another September 11 scale attack happens in the United States, and it will, will you defend the action because it’s an effective way to gain the world’s attention? Will you feel differently about it if a member of your family is among the dead? Will you excuse those who have supported Al Qaeda because they were poor and uneducated?
I will grant that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have blood on their hands. And frankly, the claims to the land offered by both sides are laughable. This is why I’ve never taken sides before. This is why I supported a two state solution. However, now there is a difference. The Jewish terrorists (yes, they exist) are a tiny minority of the Israeli population. The Israeli government doesn’t support them, it combats them. On the other hand, the Palestinians now have a government of the terrorists, by the terrorists and for the terrorists in the occupied territories. Those territories, might I remind you, were gained by Israel during defensive wars.
This issue is to me as abortion is to The Raving Atheist. I feel strongly about it, and nearly my entire base audience disagrees with me. If this position costs me readers, so be it. I oppose religious extremism everywhere, not only in my backyard. You can make all the excuses you want, but the bottom line is that the Palestinians have a parliament in which the majority party has the stated goal of destroying Israel and establishing a Muslim theocracy. Those Israelis who support a Jewish theocracy are barely a blip in the polls. If you come down on the side of Hamas, you are on the side of religious fundamentalist extremists. If you’re OK with that, then so am I.
January 28th, 2006 at at 3:03 pm
When did you start supporting terrorism as a valid political tool?
Not so much support, but more of an understanding. They are upset about their situation and choose military conflict over some other situation. If they were a military power, they could use their superior technology to win the battle without blowing themselves up. Then we would call it a “war” instead of “terrorism”. It seems that the only distinction between war and terrorism is the degree to which the attacker sustains damage himself. Both of these methods kill innocent civilians, which of course is absolutely horrible. But also, as LBBP said, attacking civilians is not simply a choice they make because they are sick humans beings, but because of both the fact that they are not capable of fighting the military and because civilian targets are more useful for their goals. Civilians care much more about the threat of themselves getting attacked than they do about their military getting attacked, and so are much more likely to introduce some sort of change if they themselves feel threatened. Both in the US and in other developed countries it’s the wealthy that control what’s going to happen and you can’t intimidate them by killing soldiers, who are essentially all from the lower-income portions of society. You have to hit non-combatants to affect them, but just because they are non-combatants does not mean they are not calling the shots. Take Al-Qaeda’s attack on the Pentagon and the WTC. Both of these targets represent the wealthy and powerful who control the military. Now they killed a lot of innocents in the process, and so of course should pay for they did, but I understand the target selection at least. If they had blown up a Pizza Hut in a poor section of Kansas, then I wouldn’t feel that way.
I’m gonna have to call you out and ask for a source on that one.
There’s many different ways to define violent. I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to look at military expenditures for an indication. You don’t buy massive amounts of military if you don’t plan on using them. The U.S. rank in military spending shows that we spend much more money on military than anyone else does. Earlier I said that we spent more than the rest of the world combined, but looking at the numbers it looks like we’re a few billion off from that, but we still spend more than 7x anyone else. But if you think that the US needs this military to defend freedom or something, then I could see how you wouldn’t take this as very convincing. Sometimes the violence isn’t done directly by the United States, but is done by someone acting on our behalf. Sometimes it’s a brutal dictator that we put in power, or sometimes it’s our buddies who do the torturing for us, but it’s blood on our hands regardless. Sometimes many innocents (mostly the poor) die from blockades that we impose on countries. These blockades are usually a punishment for the leader of the countries actions, but it only kills poor innocent civilians. This is no better from the “bus terrorism” that you despise, and I would argue that it’s much worse.
I hope this helps to explain some of my statements, and I’m willing to discuss them further of course.
January 28th, 2006 at at 4:28 pm
I Am,
I don’t defend acts of violence; I abhor violence. I am chagrined that people would choose such a leadership. I agree with you that it is hypocritical of us to wag a finger at the Palestinians when we are in the midst of a soon-to-be theocracy. I believe the other posters do as well (although I may be speaking incorrectly for them). To understand what the Palestinian people may have been thinking, I must put myself in their shoes.
If I were a Palestinian, poor, uneducated, confined to certain areas, harrassed by Israelis, and the only solace I could get was from a religious institution, I may begin to endear myself to this institution. If people in this institution began fighting those oppressing me, I may further endear myself to them. We would call them freedom fighters, we would support them in our worthy and noble struggle. When the time comes, we would vote for them to represent our combined interests, religion-induced violence and all.
Their position does not make their choice acceptable, nor does it bode well for Israelis, the Middle East, and the world in general. To them, it makes sense, while to us it does not. I am disappointed in the outcome, but I don’t see how they could have made a better choice in light of their situation.
January 28th, 2006 at at 7:34 pm
I Am,
Are you serious?
If you come down on the side of Hamas, you are on the side of religious fundamentalist extremists.
For someone who claims to dislike dubbya, you nailed his most famous false dichotomy, “If your not with us, your against us” speech. Passion for the Middle East is a good thing, but don’t let your emotions fry your logic circuits.
January 28th, 2006 at at 7:45 pm
For someone who claims to dislike dubbya, you nailed his most famous false dichotomy, “If your not with us, your against us” speech. Passion for the Middle East is a good thing, but don’t let your emotions fry your logic circuits.
Actually, what I said is “If you’re with them, you’re with them.” Please explain to me how that can not be true.
January 28th, 2006 at at 8:05 pm
Delta: Take Al-Qaeda’s attack on the Pentagon and the WTC. Both of these targets represent the wealthy and powerful who control the military. Now they killed a lot of innocents in the process, and so of course should pay for they did, but I understand the target selection at least. If they had blown up a Pizza Hut in a poor section of Kansas, then I wouldn’t feel that way.
No, Delta… if you lived in the city attacked, if you had to walk to your campus, just blocks away from the smoldering rubble… if you had to see the pictures of the missing posted all over your neighborhood… if your neighbor had lost her husband - then it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference whether it was a Pizza Hut in Kansas or the WTC.
I can STILL smell the smoke in the subways some days. It’s not there, but it’s so singed into my memory, it became such a part of my awful daily routine for weeks, that it’s there - even on trains where you couldn’t smell it to begin with.
There isn’t a damn bit of difference. Don’t give me that bullshit about the WTC being a symbol of wealth. That’s a fucking excuse to allow behavior like this to continue. It’s that kind of thinking, that sort of rationale, that resulted in Al-Qaeda being able to pull off an attack like this to begin with… that, oh, those poor, oppressed people… it’s not their fault they’ve become violent, murderous terrorists… it’s the wealthy countries who are to blame.
We have choices to make in this world. There are plenty of extremely poor people right here, and they aren’t going to Saudi Arabia to blow up the wealthy over there. Life is not pre-destined. We control our fates. Plenty of dirt poor, oppressed people pull themselves out of it.
It’s just a matter of methods used. As long as people find the “causes” of these terrorists acceptable, or even just “understandable” we will never stop it.
I haven’t lived a single day since 9.11.01 where I haven’t remembered that day. I haven’t stopped wondering what’s next… will it be the subway? Biological? Chemical? I know it’s coming… just not when, or where.
The people who died that day were going to work. That’s all. They weren’t doing anything wrong, just as the people working at your hypothetical Pizza Hut… and frankly, you could justify that attack, too. Pizza Hut is a symbol of wealth, right? A big company, putting the little guys out of work, ala the attacks on various Starbucks…
You can justify anything you want to. You can find ways to “understand” a cause… and clearly, some of you are determined to do just that.
I won’t dishonor the memory of those who died on 9.11 that way…
January 28th, 2006 at at 9:39 pm
Well i’m an atheist but i allways simpatized with the Palestinian cause.. i say let Hamas wipe Israel of the map they are the real terrorists!!
– “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”–
January 28th, 2006 at at 9:46 pm
No, atheistBR, instead of one wiping out the other, they must both learn to live together.
January 29th, 2006 at at 2:01 am
Actually, what I said is “If you’re with them, you’re with them.” Please explain to me how that can not be true.
I Am,
Ah, yes, here we are back in semantic hell again.
That statement is true, and, if that is what you really meant by your original statement — despite the painful uselessness of such a point — then please accept my deepest, heart felt apologies for impugning your thinking as emotionally clouded.
HOWEVER,
it is worth noting that your statement above is not an accurate interpretation of your original statement. Those of us that were coming “down on the side of Hamas” were only discussing support of Hamas’s electoral victory and/or support of using certain forms of violence if that is all you have available, when you are fighting a war. Support of one, or both of these very specific issues does not automatically mean anyone is “being on the side” of Hamas and their religious fundamentalism, as your original statement implies.
It is not uncommon that two sides of an argument can have the exact same feelings and reactions to a current event, if they see the ramifications of such an event in two, completely divergent ways.
January 29th, 2006 at at 1:20 pm
I do not support Hamas, or religious extremism in any form. My point is I understand why they were elected. When you live in extreme poverty, and have a corrupt government that has done nothing to help you, well guess what, eventually you’re going to vote for the alternative, whomever it may be.
January 29th, 2006 at at 4:05 pm
No, Delta… if you lived in the city attacked, if you had to walk to your campus, just blocks away from the smoldering rubble… if you had to see the pictures of the missing posted all over your neighborhood… if your neighbor had lost her husband - then it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference whether it was a Pizza Hut in Kansas or the WTC.
I can STILL smell the smoke in the subways some days. It’s not there, but it’s so singed into my memory, it became such a part of my awful daily routine for weeks, that it’s there - even on trains where you couldn’t smell it to begin with.
It seems as though you are arguing that proximity, either in the geographical or personal sense, makes your outlook on the situation more clear. I don’t think that I need to explain why this is not so. Unless the proximity entails enhanced knowledge of the event, then it only serves to make your opinions more grounded in emotion and less on reason. First off, if I had a close relative who was killed for any reason, I would lash out and possibly hold a position that I would definitely not be holding if it hadn’t happened to me. Secondly, for every person in NYC who has to see the rubble and remember the few thousand people who were killed, there is a person in the Middle East who is actually dying. And each one of their relatives would come on this blog and say “addict_no_more, if you had to see your child missing an arm because the military hit the wrong house on “bad intel”, then you wouldn’t feel this way”. You are justifying inflicting a great deal of damage and personal pain on others because of a much lesser emotions that you are experiencing.
There isn’t a damn bit of difference. Don’t give me that bullshit about the WTC being a symbol of wealth. That’s a fucking excuse to allow behavior like this to continue. It’s that kind of thinking, that sort of rationale, that resulted in Al-Qaeda being able to pull off an attack like this to begin with… that
Now this statement is absolutely obscene, and puts the nail in the coffin as to whether your views hold merit. Your claim that these thoughts are what allowed Al-Qaeda to attack is just mind-blowing. But it follows nicely in the new US slogan “dissent is treason”. People don’t do things because they’re inherently evil. Everyone does things for a reason, whether their reasons are good or not. Terrorists don’t “hate our freedom”, and to pretend that that’s the reason why they attacked is simply stupid. You have to analyze why they did these things.
I haven’t lived a single day since 9.11.01 where I haven’t remembered that day. I haven’t stopped wondering what’s next… will it be the subway? Biological? Chemical? I know it’s coming… just not when, or where
You need to relax. It’s been 4 years since the attack and nothing has happened. Nothing happened before the attack either. If you really wanted to prevent an attack you would try to actually deal with the situation, and actually look at causes, and not simply blow them off.
You can justify anything you want to. You can find ways to “understand” a cause… and clearly, some of you are determined to do just that
You “understand” the US cause apparently, and why it needs to do what it does.
I won’t dishonor the memory of those who died on 9.11 that way…
This is silly. Abandoning reason and compassion for other humans honors no one’s memory.
And I just realized that we have the “quote” feature now. What a shame, I’ll have to remember for next time.
January 29th, 2006 at at 8:02 pm
GO DELTA! You are the voice of reason to the very unreasonable….
I also took great umbrage to addict-no-more example of highly irrational thinking:
We have choices to make in this world. There are plenty of extremely poor people right here, and they aren’t going to Saudi Arabia to blow up the wealthy over there. Life is not pre-destined. We control our fates. Plenty of dirt poor, oppressed people pull themselves out of it.
…Obviously, poor people right here aren’t going to attack Saudi Arabia, because there is not any rational link between their poverty and Saudi Arabia. While it may be a highly contentious point to say poorness anywhere in the world is directly caused by any US, World Bank, or IMF policies, I do find merit in many arguments that attempt to connect the two, as do so many people of the world, conservative and liberal minded a like. To think that the policies of these very powerful Western institutions are completely blameless for the plight of the Palestinians, as well as many other non-Jewish Semitic people, is simply ludicrous and very uninformed.
Moreover, of course our lives are not pre-destined and we all make choices that affect our fates. But to suggest that everyone everywhere has the power to overcome adversity is just so “Christian” of you, it makes me cringe. You clearly have failed to understand the plight of the most destitute people of this world (i.e. the poorest 1/3 of the world population, none of which live here in the US, Canada, Germany, England, France, Japan, etc.). There is only so much any one person, or even a group of people, can do by simply applying ingenuity, sweat, and determination when there is no infrastructure, no money, no fair law enforcement, and violence all around you. Step down from your self-righteous horse already and realize there are places in this world that people have to live everyday of their lives, that may make your experience with 9/11 look like a walk in the park.
January 30th, 2006 at at 4:49 pm
Do the two of you realize how much money is in the Muslim world? Why is it our responsibility to see that their leaders make good use of that money, instead of building themselves palaces or fabulous hotels. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE are some of the wealthiest countries in the world. If the majority of the people in those countries are poor, it is because their obscenely wealthy leaders are failing them.
Nothing happened before the attack either.
If by nothing you are referring to the first attack on the WTC, the attacks on the embassies and the Cole, then I suppose you are correct. If by nothing happened after, you mean Madrid, London, Bali, etc… then I guess you are also right. Just because only one other attack happened here, doesn’t mean nothing will happen. Believe me, after the initial shock wore off, I learned to live my life in a new way. Simple things that, frankly, most people should do… like always have extra cash on me, carry a flashlight (learned that one during the non-terror related blackout). I carry potassium iodide… perhaps a bit over the top, but hell, why not? I do live quite near nuclear facilities, and we all know what happened in Russia.
I don’t sit around obsessing about it, just because I haven’t forgotten it… but it’s very easy to dismiss it when you didn’t experience it firsthand - and I was fortunate enough to not already be in classes when it happened. Does it mean I have an emotional connection to it? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean I can’t be rational about it.
There is nothing irrational about wanting to defend against terrorism. There is nothing irrational about finding it appalling that people support or are sympathetic to an election that results in a known terrorist group being put in power. Oh, I know you’ll just come back with that bullshit about Bush. Yeah, I hate the man, too. I’m sorry he’s our president, too… I am damn sure our military men do things they shouldn’t do - however, I’d bet you’d excuse that, too. After all, most of our military come from poor, minority backgrounds, right? The disenfranchised, sent to do battle for a war you don’t support… so if they decide to willingly and knowingly participate in prisoner abuse, or the murder of innocents, is that okay? Because they were forced to go over there, and they are poor? Or is it wrong, because even if they are poor, they are Americans, and so they should know better?
I find your positions as absolutely ridiculous as those of a theist’s about god. You say something is “Christian” of me - I find your willingness to understand, to turn the other cheek rather Christian-esque, frankly.
Millions of dollars in aid money are given to these countries you talk about. Not just by our government, but by others. Not to mention the money from private donors, like the smug, self-righteous Bono. Would you like us to go there and run their corrupt governments? Because that’s the only way I can imagine things changing in most of these places, but then we’d be “occupiers”… and I don’t want that anymore than anyone else. We have our own problems, right here at home.
True enough, I’ve never had to bathe or drink out of a dirty river, and I’m sorry for anyone who has to… but I was poor, lived with no running water or electricity and was even homeless as a child. I pulled myself out of it, without any help from my family or those who were supposed to take care of me, and I graduated from high school in the top five in my class. My childhood sucked, yes… which means I appreciate every damn thing I have, including the amazing man who gave me the chance to finally complete my education (though I’d have eventually done that on my own, too). Hell, half the time I appreciate that I can buy a freakin’ magazine now, without worrying about it.
Maybe the next time there’s a terror attack, we should hand out iPods, cell phones and some Godiva chocolates while the Palestinians dance and cheer in the streets over OUR innocent dead, while burning American flags and shooting their guns in the air. Perhaps that would help.
Or maybe they should use the money spent on their weapons and flags for burning to build some infrastructure. Just a thought.
Clearly, this is a matter on which we will never agree. I find your positions every bit as ludicrous as you find mine… you want to understand or sympathize with theist fundamentalists, that’s your business. I just hope it’s never someone you love they kill.
January 30th, 2006 at at 7:21 pm
Do the two of you realize how much money is in the Muslim world? Why is it our responsibility to see that their leaders make good use of that money, instead of building themselves palaces or fabulous hotels. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE are some of the wealthiest countries in the world. If the majority of the people in those countries are poor, it is because their obscenely wealthy leaders are failing them.
You’re absolutely right. There’s a lot of money in the Muslim world, and if the people in the Middle East could get it out of the hands of their brutal leaders they’d be in pretty good shape. Unfortunately these brutal leaders have the backing of the good ol’ US of A. Countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia get extensive support in the form of money and arms from the US. It’s hard to rebel against your oppressors when they are armed with advanced US weapons. Maybe you’d be able to “pull yourself out” of this situation by attacking the dictator’s army with some sticks you found in the forest, but I don’t think it would be that easy for most people.
The disenfranchised, sent to do battle for a war you don’t support… so if they decide to willingly and knowingly participate in prisoner abuse, or the murder of innocents, is that okay? Because they were forced to go over there, and they are poor? Or is it wrong, because even if they are poor, they are Americans, and so they should know better?
.
Are you arguing that being poor makes it okay for you to murder innocents? I’m guessing that you’re trying to attribute this position to me, just like you tried to attribute the position of handing out iPods to flag-burners and earlier tried to tie my position to making Timothy McVeigh President. None of these positions is anywhere close to anything that we’ve been talking about and you know it. Or perhaps you don’t.
I find your positions as absolutely ridiculous as those of a theist’s about god. You say something is “Christian” of me - I find your willingness to understand, to turn the other cheek rather Christian-esque, frankly.
First off if Christians truly did “understand” and “turn the cheek”, we wouldn’t have as many problems as we do with them. Those are not Christian values. And the desire to understand a situation should never be criticized.
And the fact that you grew up without water and whatnot still does not give you enhanced knowledge of the situation. You grew up in America, not some shithole where some US-backed dictator killed your parents because they tried to do some of the things that you think is so simple for people in the Middle East to do.
You are choosing to completely disregard the reality of the situation, instead relying on your emotions to guide you and setting up straw men so that you don’t have to consider the arguments of others.
Sounds a lot like I’ll pray for you to me
January 30th, 2006 at at 10:03 pm
Many of the problems that seem unsolvable in the Middle East at their root lies people who feel wronged by the other side so significantly that they can no longer think or understand things rationally. Violence always fires emotions and irrational behavior. When one is hurt, it is very difficult to avoid a feud mentality, where revenge means more to someone than discussing, or, better, solving the problem. However, if anything is ever going to progress in the Middle East, sensible and rational heads need to prevail.
The other great tragedy created by terrorist activities here in the U.S., beyond the dead and wounded, may have been the virtual loss of all remaining sensible, rational heads that may have been here prior to 9/11/2001. I count addict_no_more among those who died between the ears when Al Queda attacked us. I, for one, mourn the loss of her brain.
January 31st, 2006 at at 4:23 pm
Don’t cry for me, godsarefake. The truth is, you’re very amusing.
Wait, what’s that? Oh, sorry… just the echo of my own laughter ringing through my vaccant head.
January 31st, 2006 at at 4:51 pm
Don’t cry for me, godsarefake. The truth is, you’re very amusing.
Thanks! I try to please. You’re pretty dang funny yourself.
February 1st, 2006 at at 1:56 am
Is there a reason why my post is still waiting to be moderated?
February 1st, 2006 at at 10:13 pm
What does SFA stand for?
SFA = Sweet F word All
February 1st, 2006 at at 10:25 pm
The ruling Fatah government was definitely corrupt, and I don’t blame the Palestinian people for trying something new. Everyone in the Arab world is religious, and a change from Fatah to Hamas leadership isn’t going to change the religious dynamic too much I would think. One plus side is that while here in the US religion and corrupt politics go hand in hand, many Islamic leaders are against this sort of corruption and actually believe some of the good things that are in their book, unlike christians. While deluding yourself with religion is definitely a very bad thing, it’s better than being both religious and corrupt. And Hamas isn’t that much violent than many of the other “mainstream” parties. Here’s a picture of the ruling Fatah party getting ready for their election if it gives you any idea. And why should they reject violence? Violence is the only reason that anyone in the world gives a damn about their situation. Hell, we’ve got a pretty nice pad here in the US and we’re still the most violent country in the world. It seems strange that we should tell them to lay down their arms when we have more military than the rest of the world combined. Sure we don’t blow up buses with suicide bombs, we just use chemical weapons and bomb them from above.
Anyway, I can’t blame the Palestinian people too much. They voted in some murderers to office, but hey, we re-elected them here.
Delta,
I am an Australian so I cannot comment on American politicians, but I know one thing, I would rather be ruled by Bush than Hamas. At least the Fatah party tried unsuccessfully to reign in Hamas terrorism while they ruled corruption or not. Not that I see the Fatah as less of a terrorist group in that they have spent enough of the international aid on weapons rather than social services such as housing, employment creation etc.
February 1st, 2006 at at 10:51 pm
Delta: Take Al-Qaeda’s attack on the Pentagon and the WTC. Both of these targets represent the wealthy and powerful who control the military. Now they killed a lot of innocents in the process, and so of course should pay for they did, but I understand the target selection at least. If they had blown up a Pizza Hut in a poor section of Kansas, then I wouldn’t feel that way.
No, Delta… if you lived in the city attacked, if you had to walk to your campus, just blocks away from the smoldering rubble… if you had to see the pictures of the missing posted all over your neighborhood… if your neighbor had lost her husband - then it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference whether it was a Pizza Hut in Kansas or the WTC.
I can STILL smell the smoke in the subways some days. It’s not there, but it’s so singed into my memory, it became such a part of my awful daily routine for weeks, that it’s there - even on trains where you couldn’t smell it to begin with.
There isn’t a damn bit of difference. Don’t give me that bullshit about the WTC being a symbol of wealth. That’s a fucking excuse to allow behavior like this to continue. It’s that kind of thinking, that sort of rationale, that resulted in Al-Qaeda being able to pull off an attack like this to begin with… that, oh, those poor, oppressed people… it’s not their fault they’ve become violent, murderous terrorists… it’s the wealthy countries who are to blame.
We have choices to make in this world. There are plenty of extremely poor people right here, and they aren’t going to Saudi Arabia to blow up the wealthy over there. Life is not pre-destined. We control our fates. Plenty of dirt poor, oppressed people pull themselves out of it.
It’s just a matter of methods used. As long as people find the “causes” of these terrorists acceptable, or even just “understandable” we will never stop it.
I haven’t lived a single day since 9.11.01 where I haven’t remembered that day. I haven’t stopped wondering what’s next… will it be the subway? Biological? Chemical? I know it’s coming… just not when, or where.
The people who died that day were going to work. That’s all. They weren’t doing anything wrong, just as the people working at your hypothetical Pizza Hut… and frankly, you could justify that attack, too. Pizza Hut is a symbol of wealth, right? A big company, putting the little guys out of work, ala the attacks on various Starbucks…
You can justify anything you want to. You can find ways to “understand” a cause… and clearly, some of you are determined to do just that.
I won’t dishonor the memory of those who died on 9.11 that way…
Addict has a point, there are plenty of poor countries not committing terrorist acts against other nations. The Palestinians get more aid per person from the international community than any other nation or refugess. What do they do with it? Build houses? No Feed the poor? No Create employment? No Improve infastructure? No. Yet they have the hide to blame Israel and richer donating nations such as America for their poverty when they use aid money for bombs to perpetuate terrorism that kills unarmed innocient people instead of to improve life in Gaza or the West Bank. You cannot expect others to be more interested in your welfare (particularly if you support terrorism against them such as Israel) when you do not take an active role in using aid money to improve conditions and you vote for those (such as Hamas) who are committed to mismanaging aid money on more terrorism.
February 1st, 2006 at at 11:29 pm
What does SFA stand for?
SFA = Sweet F word All
Somebody else already answered that for me like a week ago.
February 2nd, 2006 at at 12:22 am
Here is an interesting article about the Palestinian/Iranian terrorist regimes:
Iran hails Hamas victory
Link: Aljazeera.net
Hamid Reza Asefi, the foreign ministry spokesman said in a statement on Thursday faxed to journalists:”The Islamic republic of Iran congratulates Hamas and all the Palestinian soldiers and the great Islamic people.”
Iran and Hamas are allies and declared in December that they represented a “united front” against Israel. “The Palestinians have voted for the resistance and have shown their loyalty,” Asefi said…..
Although Iran is a vocal supporter of Hamas - as well as the Palestinian resitance group Islamic Jihad and the Lebanese Shia movement Hizb Allah - the clerical regime denies allegations it finances these groups.
Allies
But on 15 December, Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas political chief said during a visit to the Iranian capital that his group would step up attacks against Israel if the Jewish state took military action against Iran over its disputed nuclear programme.
“Just as Islamic Iran defends the rights of the Palestinians, we defend the rights of Islamic Iran. We are part of a united front against the enemies of Islam,” Meshaal said during the visit.
“Each member of this front defends itself with its own means in its region. We carry the battle in Palestine. If Israel launches an attack against Iran, we will expand the battlefield in Palestine,” he said.
“We are part of a united front, and if one member of this front is attacked it is our duty to support them,” he added, also praising Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, for his “courageous” anti-Israeli stance.
Since sweeping to power in a shock election win last June, Ahmadinejad has embarked on an all-out verbal assault against Israel.
He has labelled the Jewish state as a “tumour” that should be “wiped off the map” or moved as far away as Alaska, and has branded the Holocaust a “myth”.
February 2nd, 2006 at at 6:07 am
Social scientist said: There are plenty of poor countries not committing terrorist acts against other nations.
That depends on your definition of “terrorism” and “other nations.” Many countries go through civil wars all the time, using many of the same techniques wrongly called “terrorism” in the Middle East. Furthermore, do you consider Israel “another nation” from the one the Palestinians live in? I don’t.
Social scientist said: The Palestinians get more aid per person from the international community than any other nation or refugess.
I am curious on your source on this information, can you please post it? My research has turned up numbers that highly dispute this claim.
Social scientist said: What do they do with it? Build houses? No Feed the poor? No Create employment? No Improve infrastructure? No. Yet they have the hide to blame Israel and richer donating nations such as America for their poverty
Need I actually point out that Palestinians do not live in an autonomous country? Until Oslo passed in 1993, the Palestinians had NO self-determining power. They were, de facto, simply part of Israel. Many of these things you think the Palestinians needs to be doing with their money, they could not do without Israeli government agreement. Even now, with a limited form of autonomy, their hands are still severely tied in the occupied territories — even Gaza, the so-called “unoccupied” territory is still deeply controlled by Israel in some ways. Are you suggesting that it is wrong to hold the actual governing authority over a particular people responsible for the plight of the people they rule?
Social scientist said: when they use aid money for bombs to perpetuate terrorism that kills unarmed innocient people instead of to improve life in Gaza or the West Bank.
Again, need I where is your sources on this? Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (the latter being the direct controller of the Palestinian aid money we are talking about) are political enemies and I have never read anything linking aide money to terrorist activities, such as those by Hamas. “Terrorism” is funded through International channels of legitimate and fake corporations, international Islamic religious organizations, and individuals that are sympathetic to the terrorist activities of Hamas.
Social scientist said: You cannot expect others to be more interested in your welfare (particularly if you support terrorism against them such as Israel) when you do not take an active role in using aid money to improve conditions and you vote for those (such as Hamas) who are committed to mismanaging aid money on more terrorism.
There are legitimate arguments to why the Palestinians are screwing themselves and don’t deserve support. Furthermore, their are some legitimate implications to why the Hamas victory may also be a step backward for them. However, no one is discussing these things; instead, we are flailing around on misinformation driven by only what I can assume is driven from anger and fear.