IAP Political Forum

On the one hand, Israel's concerns about the trickyness of the "land for peace" formula are justified. You give land now and must rely on the "word of honour" ever since. On the other hand, these concerns are explioted by the Israeli right-wing both in Israel and Washington. The argument that the Arabs will violate any treaty after the land is given is used to hammer any peace initiative. The international peacekeeping forces comprised of ever=reluctant Europeans have a history of failures in Bosnia and Lebanon. UN cannot be a warranty-provider for Israel.

But the US certainly can. Washington has never, not since the 1940s, had a shortage of enthusiasm regarding the M-East. And never a lack of pro-Israeli passions. In my opinion, it is because of Israel that Americans are now in Iraq. It is also because of Israel that Iran is in America's crosshair.

That pro-Judean zeal of Americans will have a better application in a bilateral defense treaty with Israel. The treaty should be conditioned upon the withdrawals into the 1967 line; within the internationally recognized borders, Israel will have security guarantees from the strongest nation of the world. That will remove most of the anxiety about never receiving peace aftergiving away land, and also remove the perennial excuses for refusing the land-for-peace agreements.

Some Americans won't greet such commitment. But the US is already heavily committedto Israel , why not formalize and rationalize this commitment? It might be the best answer to a number of questions in the M-East complexity.

The commitment to Israel is like the commitment to Kuwait.....the US is against invasion and occupation (by anyone else)..........

One big difference is that Kuwait hardly had a military structure during the invasion of Saddam and even now.
Israel on the other hand is a nuclear power receives multi billion dollar defense contract from the US annually and is quite capable of defending herself without the US intervention.

Well, why should Kuwait have a "military structure?"

She lives among friends.

Same cannot be said of Israel.

For the very same reason that Kuwait came under the attack from Saddam and was unable to defend herself against the invasion. Kuwait wasn't exactly "amongst friends" when that attack came along.

Besides Saddam (nutcase), what other Arab has attacked a fellow Arab?

Well you started this off by making the assertion that the US will give the same commitment to Israel as it gives to Kuwait. Then you went on that the US is against the inavsion and occupation by someone else. I see a flaw in this argument in that Israel has not been under occupation from another country whereas Kuwait has been invaded by Iraq. My whole argument is that you can not possibly draw a parallel between Kuwait or any other arab country for that matter with Israel because:

a) Israel is militarily capable to defend herself against any attack
b) She has the full backing and support of the US (worlds' only super power) should there ever be a threat
c) The military aid given to Israel makes her invincible and stronger than the whole arab league altogether
d) In terms of the US foreign policy one can not make the same distinction between Israel and arab countries. In other words Israel is in a different league from the rest of the arab states
e) One would have expected that after the invasion of Kuwait US would also invest in the military infrastructure of Kuwait as they are already doing with Israel.
 
To answer the question I wouldn't make the distinction by which other arab country has attacked another fellow arab but rather divisions between diffrerent religious factions that carry out the attacks on eachother. Look at sunnis and shi'ites divide in Iraq today under the US occupation and their constant daily barrage of attack on eachother.

a) on which grounds you assumed that?
b)there are two other superpowers that feed Arabs and other Muslims with snacks
c)Israel has no oil to sell thus it's income supposed to be lower than Arab countries but Israeli technology and hi-tech gives main push when US gets the priority in tech lists. Alike Israel does in US ones.
d)i don't know what you mean
e)One would and other wouldn't. Maybe you missed the part Patton tried to tell you about Kuwait being an Arab country that can live among Arabs while Israel is not. Moreover Kuwait has oil which it can sell and this is the main reason why US doesn't give Arabs a thing for granted.

Generally your idea about Middle Eastern conflict is distorted, you are very biased. When ppl like you bring even more chaos to already hot area.

I believe that to be true.


I believe that to be true also.


Tell me this....when the lines were drawn in the sand....who was at greater risk for invasion.....Kuwait or Israel?

If you take out the fact that Saddam was a nutcase, there is NO reason to believe Kuwait would EVER be invaded by a neighbor.

I see a flaw in YOUR argument.

Hypothetically speaking Israel but the reality is different for the reasons I have already given you and considering that Kuwait is the country that was in actual fact invaded.


Hindsight is a beautiful thing Patton. No one would have expected Saddam that you call a 'nutcase' invade Kuwait given the fact that he was an ally of the West especially the US in the eighties. Politics of the region is complex and is not as black and white as it seems. One thing for certain rules of engagement between the US and Saddam had changed, which led to the invasion of Kuwait.

3 weeks before the invasion the Kuwaiti Emir recieved from Saddam's hand, amid euphorical exchanges of smile, hugs and bendings, the Golden Kalashnikof, the highest symbol of friendship and recognition.
Saddam was definetly a nutcase and what he did was an almost total surprise.

Isreal doesn't need the US army to prtect itself. As kactus said, Israel is militarilystronger than all its neighbors together. And since 1973 (35 years), none of them had the intention of retrying to invade Israel or even part of it.
Iran maybe but they are not neighbors and not very serious about it after all.

Israel's problems are Hamas and to a lesser extent Hizbullah but you don;t defeat these militias with the US army.

The new paradigm is that "interresting targets" be it for the americans or their oponents, are oil-rich countries. Israel has no oil and doesn't interest anybody anymore.
Kuwait, Iraq, Nigeria etc do.

And when Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the others continue to fire Kassam rockets and attempt suicide bombing attacks... WHAT THEN??    Are the "peacekeepers" going to deal with them??  ... Do you think the Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians will accept the US (or anyone else) going after/targetting terrorists any more than they like Israel doing it??

You seem to want to pretend that Hamas (and the like) will simply go away or become powerless if various peace arrangements are agreed to BY OTHERS (not Hamas)... or by someone on the outside monitoring them... Hamas has no intention of going away quietly...  Hamas will ultimately have to be delt with head-on... Something the current Palestinian leadership is unwilling to do.

the country from whose territory those rockets are fired will be held responsible. Hamas is presently firing rockets from a non-state territory.



I suggested a bilateral US-Israel pact, not "peacekeepers".


I'm talking about the situation AFTER Palestine is established as a sovereign country. It will be very different from the present one. Different rules, different attitudes.



I seem to want to suggest realistic constructive steps towards peace. If you feel my only mission is to diss Israel and defend Hamas, that's your take. I never heard from you anything realistic in this area, - for I don't see the demand for unconditional dismantling of Hamas, without any guarantees on geography and timing of Palestinian statehood, as realistic. I've suggested a number of things, - voluntary resettling programs, the Golan deal, the US-Israel defense pact. You suggested to keep on hammering Hamas. Well, this in itself will not give Israel peace. Not sure whether you seek solutions or excuses.

LOL... You must be kidding... So after years of terror, Israel is supposed to give them a state FIRST... THEN, when they continue to fire Kassams, and to attempt to terrorize Israel... they'll be "held responsible"??

They're being held responsible NOW... and Israel is restained from acting decisively against them... and no one else is doing much about them (Hamas)... So if they're given a state and continue to fire Kassams and terrorize Israel, then you'll support the US and Israel (in your Bilateral US-Israel defense Treaty) targetting the terrorist, destroying their terror infrastructure that the Palestinian ruling regime won't go after??   ;D ;D ;D ... Nonsense...


And you can support that "wishful thinking" with what?? Hamas is simply going to change their agenda??  The Palestinian people will simply forget the hatred they've been taught??  Hamas openly refuses to ever recognize Israel... And they're not going to go away quietly... 

They (The Palestinian leadership) had an opportunity to prove to the world... to show the world that they (as a people) could live in peace when Israel pulled out of Gaza... And what happened??

Again... you might want to read the Covenant of Hamas sometime..

I was talking about a sequence of steps that would increase peace incentives and decrease conflict incentives. Would make nationbuilding more attractive than rocket firing. Would let the steam out of the refugee camps. Would undermine Hamas both internally and externally. Would give Israel formalized defense warranties from the US. Building peace is a long laborious thing, - a very SYNERGETIC thing where one component activates, enhances other components.

Apparently, you are not interested in all that. You are interested only in justifying the occupations. Don't bother, cos Israel public relations specialists are labouring tirelessly on that already, and very successfully.

So you stick to your Hamas Covenant and won't see how various initiatives can make this Covenant irrelevant. You think you have found a perfect excuse for Israel to keep the land, - Hamas must be brought down first, and only after Ithat srael might (or might not) speculate withdrawals. Well, it might seem a good excuse to you, but it won't work. And you're totally uninterested in the things that will.

Israel needs no help defending against what you have described, therefore the treaty would be irrelevant.

You sound like a politician... talking in broad generalities, without really saying anything of substance... Talking of "ideals", while providing nothing of "real world" substance to back up such contentions...You're dreaming again... with no foundation to back up your dreams... 

"Increase peace incentives".. make "nationbuilding more attractive than rocket firing"... lol   ... I again refer you to the Covenant of Hamas, which calls for the destruction of Israel as a goal... A Covenant which denounces any Muslim nation who makes peace with Israel (clearly calling out Egypt at that point in time)... A Covenant detailing goals and an agenda which you apparently want to ignore, or pretend will all magically change because YOU say so or because Hamas members will suddenly change their attitudes....


And WHAT "initiatives" would those be??  Exactly WHAT "initiatives" are going to make members of an organization dedicated to Israel's destruction... dedicated to Israel never having legitimacy in their eyes, all of a sudden change their stripes??  ...   You're making it up as you go along.. WHAT evidence has Hamas given that these magical "initiatives" of yours would do anything to change their agenda??  The answer is nothing... Their reaction to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza speaks far louder than any unsubstantiated theories you might WANT TO believe... You just WANT it to be, and simultaneously want to ignore the daily evidence they (Hamas) give you to the contrary.

I asked you: And when Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the others continue to fire Kassam rockets and attempt suicide bombing attacks... WHAT THEN??  ... And your answer was basically that they'd be "held responsible"... lol... Peisi... the more you drift into your fantasy world of "what you WANT it to be", the more you seem to lose touch with the reality on the ground...

Fatah/Abbas can agree to peace terms... and assuming it doesn't include Israel's elimination, Hamas will ultimately find excuses to continue the violence, launch Kassams, and plot terror against Israel...Hamas, as a group, makes no secret of WHO they are, WHAT they want, and HOW they seek to achieve it... SOMEONE will ulimately have to target them and their leaders in a decisive manor... This is a reality that apparently YOU don't want to recognize.... You seem to want to pretend that peace treaties with this or that group... or certain borders concessions, etc.. will make Hamas pack up and go away... or magically change their agenda so that they blend in with the magically peaceful rest of Palestinian society... Again... you're dreaming. 

having brushed aside a number of my ideas in a fairly apologetic (regarding the occupation) way, you now accuse me of saying nough of substance. aha


either you're being perpetually insincere, or there is a machine automatically sending same spam in response to anything. I am speaking about making the Covenant irrelevant wheareas there would be no entity interested in trying to enforce it/ I was speaking about creating a new reality where incentives to go one way would be much stronger than incentives to go the other way, where the destruction agenda would be udermined both internally and externally, where radicals would turn into spoilers disrupting normal existence of THEIR OWN people, and be suppressed by THEIR OWN people. Totally different map of interests and possibilities. And you come back with the Hamas Covenant again, like it's a self-fulfilling prophesy, like this piece of paper is a self-sustainable force programmed towards certain end and acting independently of any human being and any social reality.

In several years of debating with you, I heard only mechanistic scholastic dismissals of initiatives. Looking damn similar to Likudnik arguments why Israel shouldn't return the land. I'm losing interest in that. I might be interested to see a "road map" you might have, but not a scholastic exercise about "Why ISrael is right to continue occupation".

I also stated: You sound like a politician... talking in broad generalities, without really saying anything of substance... Talking of "ideals", while providing nothing of "real world" substance to back up such contentions....

I directly asked you: Exactly WHAT "initiatives" are going to make members of an organization dedicated to Israel's destruction... dedicated to Israel never having legitimacy in their eyes, all of a sudden change their stripes??

I also previously asked you:  And when Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the others continue to fire Kassam rockets and attempt suicide bombing attacks... WHAT THEN??   ... And your answer was basically that they'd be "held responsible"

"Increase peace incentives"(your words).. make "nationbuilding more attractive than rocket firing".(your words).. lol   ... I again refer you to the Covenant of Hamas, which calls for the destruction of Israel as a goal... A Covenant which denounces any Muslim nation who makes peace with Israel (clearly calling out Egypt at that point in time)... A Covenant detailing goals and an agenda which you apparently want to ignore, or pretend will all magically change because YOU say so or because Hamas members will suddenly change their attitudes...


That's been the HOPE all along.. But the Palestinians have yet to step up to the plate or show any meaningful signs of desiring to do so anytime soon... AND TO THE CONTRARY, IT WAS THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE who elected HAMAS into power knowing their agenda and violent history... (but of course, you'd blame this on Israel for not giving them everything they want.. It's always Israel's fault, right Peisi??)


Why am I hearing science fiction music in the background??   ;D ;D  ;D

inability to prolong same behaviour. Loss of external motivators for such actions. It's known that the hardline comes from Damascus much more than from Gaza. It's basics. Anyone with any bit of interest in the issue knows about the dissention between the more compromise-minded Gaza wing and the radical Damascus wing of Hamas. Syria defines Hamas' behaviour much more than the Covenant does. Syria's exit from the game means not only loss of capabilities, but loss of incentives as well. Basics.


new realities are created daily, you're missing so much not realizing that. And you ignored my suggestion to bring out constructive proposals. Why is it I never get the air of constructivity from you, only scholastic tricks aimed at excusing the occupation?

Why not a US/Israeli attack treaty. I'd sign that!

Then maybe you'd like to elaborate these "basics" Peisi... on the "more compromise-minded Hamas" in Gaza... The Hamas that really wants to stop the terror and accept Israel's right to exist while the "hardliners" in Damascus don't allow them too... lol  ;D ;D

How many organizations have YOU voluntarily joined who's BASIC AGENDA you don't agree with?? (After all, isn't that why someone... ANYONE would join an organization in the first place??).


So I anxiously await your quotes, documentation, and/or common sense evidence which would lead someone to believe that the "compromise-minded Gaza wing" (your words) wants to compromise and commit "high treason" against their Covenant....


Have I ever stated that??  You're making things up again to avoid the specifics... Or is your latest "fix" to everything a peace settlement with Syria??  lol
http://www.itsallpolitics.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,26/topic,2130.15/

The world changes daily... even every instant actually... Understanding that change happens, is far different than prognosticating what will actually happen without reasonable justification and historical evidence pointing to that likely result... 

Because YOU want something to be, doesn't make it so.


There you go again... Yes, I"m sure Israel just LOVES policing a violent society such as the Palestinians... And when they pull back, giving the Palestinians an opportunity to prove they could live as a peaceful neighbors, what did they receive Peisi??  (But of course, you'd like to ignor that actions on the ground preferring to prognosticate how they WILL ACT in the future, if given this and that... It'll all be different then... lol  SURE PEISI...  ;D

Do not confuse Hamas with a minority terror group anymore. The United States wasn't the only constituency that voted total morons to legislative majorities. Hamas received more votes and attained more seats than Fatah in their 2006 elections, there's a big hole in the front of your 'radical Damascus Wing' of Hamas theory there. They happen to have majority support and their behavior since anything but compromise minded. Please.


Pot meet kettle ;D

Few quotes that i don't reference to avoid the furious spam cop of the forum

From Council on Foreign relations:

""Most day-to-day decisions within Hamas are made by its political bureau, which has eight to 10 members who mainly live in exile in Syria...The political bureau in Syria draws its strength from being Hamas’ main fundraising arm. With internal Hamas leaders cut off from the outside world, they are dependent on the exiled leaders to raise money.

And those external leaders tend to be the most hard-line: They do not want a settlement with Israel, and they insist on refusing to recognize the Jewish state. Those leaders, living in comfortable exile, can afford to be uncompromising. They don’t answer to any Palestinian constituency, and they don’t live among average Palestinians.

Before the Hamas takeover of Gaza, the West had a chance to engage with several internal Hamas leaders who were more open to dialogue than the exiled leadership. Those leaders include Ismael Haniyeh, the deposed Palestinian prime minister. Since the mid-1990s, Haniyeh served as a liaison between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza. There are other pragmatic Hamas leaders who were receptive to dialogue: Nasser Shaer, the former deputy prime minister and a professor of Islamic law, and Abdel-Aziz Dweik, speaker of the Palestinian parliament and a geography professor from the West Bank.

Hamas’ foreign protectors encourage its exiled leaders to maintain their hard-line positions. The Syrian regime has allowed leaders of Hamas and other Palestinian groups that reject peace with Israel to operate from Damascus for two decades. In turn, Hamas’ election victory bolstered Syrian President Bashar Assad in his own confrontation with the United States.""

From Fox News:

""Hamas often puts forward conflicting messages, partially because of differences of opinion between the Gaza leaders, the powerful military wing and the supreme leadership based in Syria...Mashaal said Hamas would accept a peace deal with Israel, provided it is approved in a referendum of all Palestinians""

more in the next post, to avoid big tracts of texts

P.:

If the spam cop is giving you grief try posting your replies without any links then go in and edit and put the links back in (assuming it's important enough :) ).

That should work.


Ahk

going further

From strategic assessments:

""Hamas Organizational Discord
Tensions and disagreements surrounding the shaping of the Palestinian agenda and control of the Palestinian Authority's centers of power have also surfaced within Hamas. Friction has emerged between the "outside" leadership of the movement, led by Hamas political leader Khaled Masha'al and his deputy Dr. Musa Abu Marzuk on the one hand, and the movement's "inside" leadership, whose most prominent representatives are Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud al-Zahar. The al-Aqsa intifada accentuated the differences between these two camps. The high price in human and economic resources that the Palestinian population had to pay, coupled with Israel's assassination of the senior leaders of the movement's domestic leadership, softened the local Hamas worldview and moderated its positions regarding the PA's relations with Israel. It is here one should look in order to understand why it was Hamas's internal leadership, not its external leadership, that supported the ceasefire agreement (hudna) and thereafter the "calm" (tahdiya).

With regard to key political issues related to recognizing Israel and complying with agreements between the PLO and Israel, the divisions between "external" and "internal" have been blurred, especially since the electoral victory. Masha'al and al-Zahar have supported more uncompromising positions than Abu Marzuk and Haniyeh. An interview with al-Zahar on al-Arabiya television on March 18, 2006 reflected the hard-line opinion: "If Hamas joins the government, it will do so on the basis of its economic, social, and political program, ...A more conciliatory tone could be detected in the words of Abu Marzuk in an interview published in the Washington Post on January 31, 2006. Abu Marzuk suggested that Hamas might be able to co-exist with Israel, on the condition that Israel surrender its aspirations of domination and that the United States agree to play the role of a fair and impartial mediator between the two parties.

...According to this approach, Hamas is an object with predetermined strategic priorities, firm political positions, and ultimate anti-Israeli goals. Its behavior, therefore, depends neither on Israeli positions nor on Israel's relations with Hamas...This approach perceives Hamas as an uncompromising body that is focused rigidly on ultimate goals and is willing to bring its politics to absurd extremes to achieve them. It is what breathes life into the perception that future Hamas actions are premeditated and thus predetermined, stemming purely from promulgated movement ideology.

A more realistic thesis will view Hamas as a movement that is operating within an ever changing historical context, aware of practical constraints, sensitive to its surroundings, attentive to circumstances, and subject to considerations of cost effectiveness. According to this approach, it is likely that internal, regional, and international pressures will lead Hamas to demonstrate a thought process that is more network-oriented than goal-focused, to display more political pragmatism than religious extremism, and to distance itself from its radical image in order to facilitate a strategy of intellectual openness. ''

Fact is, Fatah has become the negotiating entity in Gaza as well with Palestine proper. Hamas having been in several armed conflicts with Arafat's previous organization already. The US properly supports Abbas and open elections that took criticism as Hamas was elected majority rule. It's not a terrorist organization anymore, it's a full blown political party with the same goals and hate for Israel.

That's because when you do not kill or murder people to get your point across people listen and will help you. Fatah found that out the hard way and are paying the price as Hamas has turned on them. Truth is people have been calling Israel the aggressor because it is supported by the US. But Israel is willing and is showing that it is willing to live in peace with a Palestian state. Question is would a Palestian state allow Israel to live in peace? This shows who the real aggressors are.

It would be very nice if this these was confirmed by fact. So far everything the Hamas has done (from firing rockets over the border to attacking the onlyfuel terminal to Gaza - You realy need to be crazy to do such a thing, don't you?) infirmed this thesis.

Hanas has to first stop firing Qassams, not that they don't have the right to "defend themselves" but because it's a total absurdity.
Then we may start viewing this group as relatively normal poeple.

And quotes/opinions (as you've posted) are fine... but I didn't read/see any of them stating how Hamas in Palestine was showing any willingness to accept Israel's right to exist or agree to permenant borders with Israel as opposed to ontop of them...

...Hamas (inside of Palestine)... more "open to dialog"... "A more conciliatory tone"...   In other words, you have  nothing of substance to to show Hamas within Palestine desiring to accept Israel's existance and accept permenant peace with Israel...

WHAT WE DO HAVE in place of these quotes/opinions are direct quotes from Hamas leaders (outside and inside of Palestine) definitely confirming their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist and to fight/jihad on.

From your quoted source:

Haniyeh and Zahar... the "movement's "inside" leadership.. have both openly refused to recognize Israel.... They both make no secret of this in numerous quotes... But I suppose you (Peisi) can show us quotes from these "inside" leaders to the contrary??  DIDN'T THINK SO.  So here we are again... your "wishful thinking" versus the realities on the ground.

I asked you (to which you didn't answer): ...How many organizations have YOU voluntarily joined who's BASIC AGENDA you don't agree with?? (After all, isn't that why someone... ANYONE would join an organization in the first place??

... People don't generally join organizations to drastically change their agendas... they join them BECAUSE OF THEIR AGENDAS... because they generally support those agendas...

I asked you to elaborate on the "more compromise-minded Hamas" in Gaza... The Hamas that really wants to stop the terror and accept Israel's right to exist while the "hardliners" in Damascus don't allow them too...... And you bring the opinions of "open to dialog"... "A more conciliatory tone" , etc... I don't think even you would consider such opinions/evidence as meaningful in showing Hamas inside of Palestine as being significantly different...

According to their Covenant: "...Leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism is high treason" ... And you've presented nothing to lead one to believe that Hamas (inside or outside of Palestine) was prepared to commit this "high treason" against the ideals of their own organization.

machioveli wrote:

""when you do not kill or murder people to get your point across people listen and will help you.""

what a blissful speech on the grave of those you were never rewarded for being meek. Better say smth about the rewards that come after death.


sweet and touching like child's smile. Yea yea yea, I know, Israel indeed showed acceptance of the two-state solution (at least, when governed by the Left). The question is where the border between the two states will be. Some kids grow up and learn that the world is so different from what they thought, in particular, they learn about those legions of peace initiatives that broke over the border issue.

Realityman wrote



how do you expect an established member of a political party, on which he had made his life and career stake, to openly challange his superiors? Especially in an autocratic "bossy" culture... Especially if he's paid by those superiors? Does that happen a lot in even democratic countries?



if the only thing you're interested is quotes and documents, i have little to offer. I don't have quotes of Hamas offering recognition. Are we cooperating in researching reality or waging public relations wars on behalf of entities? Do you have quotes of any politician publicly proclaming his power-thirst and money-grabbing motivations for seeking office? Are we to assume that absense of such confessions indicates sterile altruistic reasons? Do you automatically take for granted the annunciations about the desire to serve the nation and make a difference in lives of millions and blah blah?? Do you always take rhetoric as reflection of true motives? Can you envisage that Hamas have other motivations besides fulfilling their Covenant? Why does it seem impossible that the cost/profit calculus and power-balance might lead Hamas in a different direction?


since you don't take this argument from me, listen to what Matthew  Levitt says in "Hamas from Cradle to Grave":

""Hamas aid buys the support of those who benefit from the group's largesse. Sheikh Ahmad Yasin himself proudly noted, "We don't go looking for people, they come to us." Citing one of the many examples of people won over by Hamas financial support, Yasin talked of a family of ten living in one room: "We gave them 1,200 shekels ($300). Sometimes it's a sack of flour, or at very least the taxi fare home" from visiting Yasin.[24] As the mother of ten children and a recipient of Hamas aid told a reporter, "All we know is they [Hamas] are the ones who bring us food."[25]

In the words of an Israeli defense official, "In the territories, there are no free lunches: those who receive help from the Islamic associations pay with support for Hamas."[26] Recipients of such aid know better than to ask questions when asked for a favor by Hamas da‘wa activists. Palestinians dependent on Hamas charity allow their homes to serve as safe houses for Hamas fugitives moving from place to place to avoid capture. They assist Hamas by ferrying fugitives, acting as couriers of funds or weapons, storing and maintaining explosives, and more. Hamas employs unsuspecting Palestinians to unknowingly launder and transfer funds on behalf of the group.[27]""

ready more on the topic in the article.

So no, people don't act as ideologically programmed zombies. Once again, the all-known causes of Hamas popularity: 1) Failure of Fatah to deliver statehood; 2)Extraagant corruptedness of Fatah; 3)Large social aid programs run by Hamas.  These are the causes responsible for attracting the bulk of supporters.

THANK YOU... Finally.

Think about that... You've presented quotes of others talking about Hamas inside of Palestine with a " A more conciliatory tone", "being more open to dialog", etc... YET YOU CAN'T PRODUCE EVEN ONE DIRECT QUOTE OR DOCUMENT OF ANY SIGNIFICANT HAMAS LEADER inside or outside of Palestine even hinting toward a change in their basic ideologies of never recognizing Israel's right to exist, or a permenant peace with Israel... HMMMM

In other words, you have baseless prognostications and opinions ( "more open to dialog"... "A more conciliatory tone", etc), to counter WHAT WE DO HAVE... And what DO WE HAVE??, numerous direct quotes from Hamas leaders (outside and inside of Palestine) definitely confirming their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist and to fight/jihad on.... Haniyeh and Zahar... the "movement's "inside" leadership.. have both openly refused to recognize Israel.... They both make no secret of this in numerous quotes... 

So until you can produce verified quotes or documentation (something of substance) of Hamas leaders (inside or outside) of Palestine showing a willingness some of their core/basic beliefs, you have nothing but opinions others and speculation which runs contrary to Hamas' own words...

Hey, I WISH it was different too, but that doesn't make it so.

if we were in 1989 and talking about the possibility of disintegration of the USSR, and I'd be saying "there are grounds to believe that groups of top officials in the autonomous republics may consider declaring secession and independence", I guess you'd demand "quotes" and "documents". Well, it was pretty hard for dudes from the Party to come out and say "Know what...? I think all this red stuff with Communism and the USSR thing ain't working really good...so it's cool to break away and declare independence...and seek membership in NATO/..." I am presently a member of a political party in Ukraine, and i know that, with all the intra-party dissentions, no senior party member will openly challenge the existing party directives. Party's views may change, and are changing, but corresponding announcements won't be made by lower-level officials who have no fundraising power. And even if they disagree and plan on breaking away, public declarations won't follow until decisive stages. It's all about cost/benefit and balance of power IN and OUT of the party, and possiblities for a maneuvre. My thesis is that if the Damascus-based hardcore wing loses its edge, and an ACCEPTABLE deal with Israel is within reach, Hamas members and even more so Hamas supporters will change the course. If you're uninterested in researching Realpolitik undeclared currents, sorry for wasting your time.

And it comes down to what Hamas supporters would consider and "acceptable deal"... Doesn't it??

This is precisely why I asked you to produce a quote.. a document... something more than hearsay that shows some substantive evidence of a Hamas leader inside Palestine (or out) would be willing to accept Israel's right to exist and stop the terror perminantly.

You're 'guessing" that Hamas will somehow change the substance of their agenda if they receive this concession or that... There is no evidence of substance leading one to believe this. 

...What we do have is evidence to the contrary ... What we do have are numerous quotes from Hamas leaders attesting to Hamas' wishes to never accept Israel's existance and to continue to fight on seeking Israel's destruction... What we do have is a Covenant detailing their agenda... which even chastizes other Muslim group who accept Israel or negotiate peace settlements with them. 


ABSOLUTELY... And the Ku Klux Klan may someday have Black and Jewish members... But there's no substantive evidence of this change being likely to takeplace anytime in the near future...

When you have evidence of Hamas being willing to accept Israel's existance, WITHOUT TERMS which would ultimately mean it's destruction, I'd be anxious, AND VERY HAPPY to see them... We can then debate how far they're willing to reform and what they'll actually accept in exchange for peace... BUT until we have evidence of this, Hamas has been very clear as to their agenda, and shown no meaningful signs of being willing to take any meaningful steps toward change.

... except Israel will find it hard for conditions to withdraw to the 1967 lines.  ;)

no. Acceptable to Palestinians, not Hamas.we spoke about that. didn't we?



so you basically don't read or listen analytic material. When a bunch of analytics get together, they pretty much discuss rumours and indicators and hidden currents and what's not. Have you heard Hillary Clinton say "Oh, I so much hope that the Jeremiah WRight scandal freaked off a lot of white people, and i can capitilize on that/"? Would it seem reasonable to suggest such thoughts affected her campaign persistence? Even if "there's no substantive evidence of this.."

LOL... And the Palestinian people elected Hamas... Didn't they??

As soon as the "Palestinians" you're referring to take power/control... THEN you can talk about what's acceptable to those "Palestinians"... Until then, we'll just have to listen to their elected leadership... which hold the power, control, and happens to fire almost daily rockets at Israeli civilians.. But you can keep "wanting" it to be different if that makes you happy.

And as I said, the Ku Klux Klan may someday have Black and Jewish members... But there's no substantive evidence of this change  being likely to take place anytime in the near future...

When you have evidence of Hamas being willing to accept Israel's existance, WITHOUT TERMS which would ultimately mean it's destruction, I'd be anxious, AND VERY HAPPY to see them.