Advertisement

Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

topic posted Sat, February 11, 2012 - 7:58 PM by  Tandy
Share/Save/Bookmark
god will it ever end? no matter what you think about israrel you have to understand why they dont want to put themselves in danger. elo will spend weeks saying that israel should talk to htem but look at this story!

---------Hamas "will never recognise Israel," Gaza prime minister, Ismail Haniya, said Saturday in a speech in Iran that is likely to complicate Palestinian efforts to form a unity government in the teeth of opposition from the Jewish state.

"They want us to recognise the Israeli occupation and cease resistance but, as the representative of the Palestinan people and in the name of all the world's freedom seekers, I am announcing from Azadi Square in Tehran that we will never recognise Israel," Haniya said.

"The resistance will continue until all Palestinian land, including Al-Quds (Jerusalem), has been liberated and all the refugees have returned," he said.
news.yahoo.com/hamas-neve...c3QD;_ylv=3
posted by:
Tandy
New York City
Advertisement
  • typical of you to dishonestly only report half the story, the reason they said this is because the political leadership of Hamas outside of Gaza just signed an agreement with Fatah, and there has been a known and growing split between the leaders of Hamas and its Gaza leaders.

    Technically the leadership has more power than the leaders in Gaza though it remains to be seen who will win. Bearing in mind they get most of there funding from Arab countries friendly to the leadership out of Gaza and who are more friendly with Fatah, the Gaza leadership may capitulate.

    In the meantime of course 80% of Arab Palestine has been destroyed and the last remaining parts are being destroyed by Israel as we speak, something clearly which doesn't concern you because there only Arabs, not Israelis or other proper people.

    I guess to you the destruction of Arab Palestine is just fine.
    • Re: Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

      Sun, February 12, 2012 - 10:17 PM
      <typical of you to dishonestly only report half the story, the reason they said this is because the political leadership of Hamas outside of Gaza just signed an agreement with Fatah, and there has been a known and growing split between the leaders of Hamas and its Gaza leaders.>

      You see what I wrote in that other thread? That part about how you will come up with excuses all the live long day. Riddle me this: So...how many missiles do they have in Gaza? So, you're saying that because OUTSIDE of Gaza they did something, the Israelis should feel comfortable with the GAZAN Hamas saying that they would "never recognize Israel"? What does it matter which side said that? They are threatening Israel. So if you're an Israeli, and you have friends or family that live near Gaza and their thousands of missiles, you really think that you would be comfortable with 'peace' with these people who swore the destruction of your country and the harm to your friends and family? This is why the Israelis feel like they do. Why they don't care about international opinion. They have to live and die with Hamas while you just get to opine.

      <Technically the leadership has more power than the leaders in Gaza though it remains to be seen who will win.>

      Technically and in actuality, the Gazan Hamas have the missiles. So the fuck what anyone else does. Will they be able to stop the missiles?

      <In the meantime of course 80% of Arab Palestine has been destroyed and the last remaining parts are being destroyed by Israel as we speak, something clearly which doesn't concern you because there only Arabs, not Israelis or other proper people.>

      Oh. Y'r so cute. Still harping on this same meme. You and your straw men. You cute thing you.

      <I guess to you the destruction of Arab Palestine is just fine.>

      Cute! Lovely. More straw men. By now, y'r strawmen must have a whole strawfamily. They're toddlers by now, 'eh? Aren't they cute when they start talking their own strawmen?

      I really didn't miss these discussions. Let's
      • <the Israelis should feel comfortable >

        Andrew funny enough my primary concern in life isnt the depth of comfort Israelis feel. They already have been given more than enough from the international community, yet funny enough they keep taking more. Thinking about making Israelis more comfortable when Arabs are sinking further into apartheid repression in the West Bank is something that only the likes of you do.

        and to you the destruction of Arab Palestine is a strawman, an irrelevance, lol, that just about sums it up doesn't it ? You destroy someones country and expect its going to have no effect on there behavior ? lol.

        Lets just see what happens in the UN. Israel are becoming pretty unpopular these days, and not just with the Arabs, they seem to have lost most of Europe's support, and most other support around the world.

        That kind of thing has a funny way of gaining momentum and ending up some place, lets not forget what happened to South Africa and Gadaffi.

        As to Hamas, yes, part of them are wrong headed and uncomprising, part of them, clearly not the actual leadership, but i do understand when 80% of your country is destroyed that kind of has a funny way of messing with peoples heads.

        There is no way of knowing who is going to win this battle in Hamas - the political leadership of Hamas or the locals in Gaza, especialy if you consider many of the powerful Arab states who are the financial backers are with the more moderate branch.

        Yet miraculously Andrew seems to know which way its going to go.

        The fact is if Olmert were in now still negotiating with Fatah we would probably be on our way to peace and its doubtful that Hamas would have been able to sabotage that, with the Arab League who are there financial sponsors backing it.

        Netanayhu however is like a brick wall to that.

        I have nothing against moderate Israelis of which there are many, and when Israel finally kick out Netanyahu and the Likud, which looks quite likely soon, and they get someone decent in there is actually quite a good chance of peace.

        Hamas in Gaza may be a problem but I doubt it. Its pretty obvious why Netenayhau and the hardliners in Israel are so dead against a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah - unlike the majority of the Israeli public who actually want to talk with Hamas.

        So it seems you Andrew like Netanyahu are against what the majority of Israeli citerzens want, well that wont work for long in a democracy.

        the reason Netanyahu is so against the reconciliation is pretty obvious. Divide and conquer, clearly they hope to split them and to back the extremist into a corner where they keep sending rockets over so that gives them an excuse to steal Jeremiahs, as has currently been going on. We have seen with Netanyahus speech about Jerusalem being the new capital of Israel what he is after, and clearly its not peace.

        Yet if Fatah tame Hamas - as is looking likely, especially if players like Turkey and Egypt (if things go well there) if decent Israelis manage to push the extremist in Isreal out of the way, there is actualy a pretty good chance of peace over the next decades.

        For now the most interesting developments appear to be coming up in the UN and with players like France and other European countries taking a stronger lead.
        • <Andrew funny enough my primary concern in life isnt the depth of comfort Israelis feel.>

          Elo don't you start getting defensive. What I meant is that if we all want a peace plan to go forward don't you think that it would make sense to find the Israelis comfortable for those whom they need to negotiate? Surely you would agree with that.

          <They already have been given more than enough from the international community, yet funny enough they keep taking more.>

          Come on. Stay on task. We are talking about negotiations here, not anything else. What more do they want to be "given"? How about a negotiation partner that does not over and over again talk about their destruction. How is that for an expectation for what they should expect to be "given"?

          <Thinking about making Israelis more comfortable when Arabs are sinking further into apartheid repression in the West Bank is something that only the likes of you do.>

          Dude. Seriously. You want peace, right? Then you better get smart and expect BOTH parties to be serious about peace. You can't have peace when only one side wants peace.

          <and to you the destruction of Arab Palestine is a strawman, an irrelevance, lol, that just about sums it up doesn't it ?>

          No. Your saying, "...something clearly which doesn't concern you because there only Arabs, not Israelis or other proper people." THAT is a strawman. If you want to speak for me, I'll give you my password and take off and you can just speak for me all the time. That way, not only can you be right in your own head, but you can be right via me, too!

          <You destroy someones country and expect its going to have no effect on there behavior ? lol.>

          Jesus, Elo. Are we really going back to the same arguments that we had last year? Don't you understand that you just gave an excuse for how the Israelis act? If you attack Israel all the time with missiles and "expect its going to have no effect on there behavior", you are crazy, right? Are you incapable of understanding dual points?

          <As to Hamas, yes, part of them are wrong headed and uncomprising>

          And, you forgot homicidal sociopaths.

          <but i do understand when 80% of your country is destroyed that kind of has a funny way of messing with peoples heads.>

          There you go, man. Again. Not only excusing their behavior, but also coming up with an excuse for how Israel acts. I mean, they were attacked in '48, then how many more times majorly? Is it possible that all of these attacks and statements about destroying the country and all the inhabitants "kind of has a funny way of messing with peoples heads."? Come on, Elo. Surely you understand this so simple point. EVERY point that you make can go both ways. Please tell me that the last year has not been a total waste for you. Please tell me that you recognize that there are two sides to this coin and never will an agreement be reached without this recognition.

          <Yet miraculously Andrew seems to know which way its going to go.>

          Remember what I used to say? I was right. Your strawmen have bred and have resulted in a grip of strawbabies. Generational strawmen. No, I don't know which way it's going to go, but the safe money is NOT on the Gazans to put away their missiles and go back on their statements about wanting to destroy Israel. Even IF the national Hamas leadership's past statements about negotiations just being a ploy for the greater plan of destroying Israel, it's not like they are going to go into Gaza and wrest control from these homicidal sociopaths.

          <its doubtful that Hamas would have been able to sabotage that,>

          Elo - write down this day and link to this page...ready? All that they have to do is shoot a few dozen missiles into Israel during negotiations, which would result in Israel invading Gaza...which would sabotage any peace process.

          <Hamas in Gaza may be a problem but I doubt it.>

          Jesus. Seriously?

          <So it seems you Andrew like Netanyahu are against what the majority of Israeli citerzens want, well that wont work for long in a democracy.>

          Jesus. Seriously? What have I ever said that is the same as Netanyahu?

          <Yet if Fatah tame Hamas - as is looking likely>

          You still supplant your dreams for your reality. Fatah will never "tame Hamas".

          <This posting was deleted by Gerbil>

          Gerbil!? What'd you erase?




    • -------typical of you to dishonestly only report half the story, the reason they said this is because the political leadership of Hamas outside of Gaza just signed an agreement with Fatah, and there has been a known and growing split between the leaders of Hamas and its Gaza leaders.

      typical of you to only take the most optimistic view. so the gaza terrorists still want to destroy israel but because other sides are forced to be more diplomatic this is good news to you? only you could think like that.

      ----Technically the leadership has more power than the leaders in Gaza though it remains to be seen who will win.

      who cares? still the terrorists will have all of their weapons. even if they lose the bigger fight they will still control gaza right? with all of their weapons right? who is going to disarm them elo?

      ------I guess to you the destruction of Arab Palestine is just fine.

      god is that stupid. so stupid.

      @andrew---------Riddle me this: So...how many missiles do they have in Gaza?

      exactly! why would any intelligent person care what happened around this kind of news? the israelis sure wont feel as good as elo does just like he thinks that woman being able to vote is a big deal. so what that some in hamas may be playing politics? those iwth the weapons arent. theya re the ones that matter.

      ----------So if you're an Israeli, and you have friends or family that live near Gaza and their thousands of missiles, you really think that you would be comfortable with 'peace' with these people who swore the destruction of your country and the harm to your friends and family?

      he is not going to answer that. that kind of direct logic just is impossible for him to spin.

      ------They have to live and die with Hamas while you just get to opine.

      i have said the same thing to him many times. he does not care about people living or dying. he cares about some greater idea that to him is more important then living people. now living people who will die because of hamas in gaza. he stated a while ago that the dead people in egypt were speed bumps. i guess these israelis who will die from the hamas attacks are also just speed bumps.

      @elo-------Andrew funny enough my primary concern in life isnt the depth of comfort Israelis feel.

      see that too? he does not even consider how israelis will feel about terrorists that want to kill them but then he wants them to negotiate with them? does he even consider this? no of course not.

      --------Thinking about making Israelis more comfortable when Arabs are sinking further into apartheid repression in the West Bank is something that only the likes of you do.

      hav eyou read anything that we have been talking about for months? their comfort is what will cause there to be peace talks. how does this not occur to you? if your boss is telling you conditions to you keeping yoru job or some hiring boss is telling you conditions that will make the boss comfortable who do you think needs to be comfortable? the stronger side? the boss or the weaker side the applicant? i hire people all the time and let me tell you that i dont care about their comfortl level with my expectation. i tell them what they want because i am the boss in this situation. in this situation the boss is israel. they are stronger and they hold all the cards. but you just cant understand this because you only have eyes for the palestinians.

      -------and to you the destruction of Arab Palestine is a strawman

      hahaha. everyone has to deal with not just your strawmen but your total inability to understand what you are saying. you said --------something clearly which doesn't concern you because there only Arabs, not Israelis or other proper people

      that is what is called a strawman. its when you create your own reality or put words in someoen elses mouth to then attack them about it. that is what yo udid. it is so obvious. so now yo uare attacking someone for pointing out the facts. hahaha

      ---------You destroy someones country and expect its going to have no effect on there behavior ? lol.

      there you go again minimizing terrorism. hahaha. god you are so in your own circle. how bout this elo if the muslims attack israel so often how do they expect its not going to have an effect on their behavior? hahaha. you dont understand that do you?

      ------As to Hamas, yes, part of them are wrong headed and uncomprising, part of them, clearly not the actual leadership,

      you mean the ones in gaza? the ones with all the weapons? the ones that matter.

      --------but i do understand when 80% of your country is destroyed that kind of has a funny way of messing with peoples heads.

      maybe they shold stop before its 85?

      ---There is no way of knowing who is going to win this battle in Hamas - the political leadership of Hamas or the locals in Gaza,

      so you expect the gaza hamas to give in to the other guys? how do yo ucome up with this stuff?

      --------Hamas in Gaza may be a problem but I doubt it.

      of course you doubt it because if you had to give it any credence your whole argument would be ruined.

      -------the reason Netanyahu is so against the reconciliation is pretty obvious.

      miraculously elo seems to know which way its going to go. hahaha

      @andrew---------What I meant is that if we all want a peace plan to go forward don't you think that it would make sense to find the Israelis comfortable for those whom they need to negotiate? Surely you would agree with that.

      so true. he though likes to deal in fantasy. he thinks that if the palestinians have the support of the rest of the world the israelis will just conform and do what the rest of the world wants. maybe if hamas did what the rest of the world wanted there might be some truth to that.

      --------How about a negotiation partner that does not over and over again talk about their destruction.

      he doesnt care about that. thats why he keeps assuming the most rosy possiblities for hamas. if he was to have to believe that they were really the terrorists that the rest of the world considers them then he would have to admit that the israelis have a point. he cant do that!

      --------You can't have peace when only one side wants peace.

      again so true. hamas in gaza does ont want peace. they have the weapons. guess what they will do. be peaceful? no. but elo will just ignore any negative realistic news that makes his reality shaky.

      --------Don't you understand that you just gave an excuse for how the Israelis act? If you attack Israel all the time with missiles and "expect its going to have no effect on there behavior", you are crazy, right? Are you incapable of understanding dual points?

      i just said that too! he cant see that both sides have the same concerns and can use the same logic to make or kill a point.

      --------And, you forgot homicidal sociopaths.

      war criminals? can i add war criminals? hahaha

      --------Jesus. Seriously?

      he is serious. where have you been? he says things like this every day.
      • Re: Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

        Fri, February 17, 2012 - 10:03 AM
        <<typical of you to only take the most optimistic view.

        Actually he is telling the entire story, something you failed to do.

        <<just like he thinks that woman being able to vote is a big deal.

        You don't? I think all of those women who worked their tails off on women's suffrage, gaining the right to vote for women here in the US would vehemently disagree with you. All of the progression we have made in our own country on women's rights stem directly from women gaining the right to vote.

        << its when you create your own reality or put words in someoen elses mouth to then attack them about it.

        You mean like when you said Elo does not care about people living or dying? Stupid indeed.
        • Re: Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

          Fri, February 17, 2012 - 11:34 AM
          <Actually he is telling the entire story, something you failed to do.>

          Wait a minute. Elo telling the entire story? I suppose that if you consider telling the most rosy outlook possible the "entire story", then you may have a point. But, if we want to be fair, maybe we'd take an interest in hearing the Israeli side instead of just the Pal's side? THAT would be the "entire story". The "entire story" would revolve around what the REALITY is about the schism (as proposed) is between the two sides of Hamas, and how this would affect everyone involved. THAT would be the "entire story". Elo's call that Hamas are pretty much probably not a danger to Israel, and they they probably won't be a problem to any peace process is - and I am not kidding here - one of the most inane opinions that I have seen here since I have returned. Which I guess does not say much, but still...

          • <<I suppose that if you consider telling the most rosy outlook possible the "entire story", then you may have a point.

            Whatever you may think of Elo putting forth a "rosy" outlook, Tandy was only telling half of the story. Personally I think that reality falls somewhere in between the pessimistic and optimistic view of how things will develop in the region. Understand both sides and everything in the middle and we might have a chance of divining the future. :)
        • Re: Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

          Fri, February 17, 2012 - 12:55 PM
          .
          • <if you consider telling the most rosy outlook possible>

            again Andrew I fully acknowledge that the extremist leader in Gaza may win over the political leadership, Ive said that many times now no matter how many times you insist i haven't, however since Turkey, Egypt and others are backing the moderate leadership, and since the main backing of the extremist Syria and Iran are pretty much crumbling in influence, the moderates at least have a good chance.

            In fact I see moderates in Israel have a good chance too of kicking the extremist Likud and Netanyahu out also with there pretty low popularity.

            It really doesn't need to be a competition does it ? Id like to see moderation and compromise win the day in both places.
            • <Elo's call that Hamas are pretty much probably not a danger to Israel, and they they probably won't be a problem to any peace process>

              I dont know Andrew, putting yet more words into my mouth ? tut tut. i never said Hamas are not a danger to Israel, they obviously do present some danger - but there less danger clearly than Israel present to Arab Palestine who have already destroyed over 80% of it and incurred a death toll of twice the amount, and are destroying more of it as we speak.

              If the threat to both Israel and Palestine is to stop, then BOTH parties need to stop this. Not just one.

              As to the peace process Im with anybody who goes with something like what Olmert and Abbas almost done, until Netanyahu of course got in the way and completely blocked it.

              Do you claim Hamas blocked that deal ? Not so. Yes there is some chance that extremist in Gaza could block a deal. But its CERTAIN that Likud are currently blocking it.

              As the majority of Israelis want to do - and its there country Andrew not yours, we should at least give Hamas a chance and talk with them and see how it goes, the same chance that was given to Likud. Anyway, Hamas do not really want to play a direct role in the negotiations but let Fatah do it for them. Though again, yes I acknowledge there is opposition to that in Gaza.

              It should at least be tested. I wouldn't like to be on the side of that leader if they oppose a deal struck by Fatah, with the support of Turkey and the Arab league AND the political leadership of Hamas, with the Arab Spring in full belt.

              It should at least be tried, no matter what happens. But Likud have made it clear what they want, pretty much all of Jerusalem, and that's a non starter.
              • <<<just like he thinks that woman being able to vote is a big deal.

                You don't?>

                lol, id love Andrew to tell an American woman that it would be no "big deal" if all American woman were banned from voting.
                • <lol, id love Andrew to tell an American woman that it would be no "big deal" if all American woman were banned from voting.>

                  Oh, come on now, mon frere. Context. Context. I know context is difficult, but...voting there is fucking awesome for women but as I read through all of this, if they can't even get to the voting areas because some man won't let them, how great will that day be for those women as they sit in their house, not allowed to vote? Surely you see the context of this, right?

                  <<--------Yes there is some chance that extremist in Gaza could block a deal.>>

                  <hahaha. some chance? really? hahaha. just some?>

                  Yeah. That is something. Ha! Elo, I am just...confused...how can you write such a sentence? "some chance"? Really? There's 100% certainty that they would "block a deal". If a deal got anywhere close to getting somewhere, all they'd do is kidnap another soldier or let loose missiles, which would then cause Israel to invade, which would kill any deal. You...don't understand this?

                  <2 obviously in making it clear several times that the extremist could win im NOT only presenting "the rosey picture">

                  Elo - EVERY time that you posited options, those options were followed by your minimizing the effect of the Gazan terrorists. Every time. You admit that it COULD be a problem - and then came the rosy picture comment.

                  <Unfortunately Andrew, Tandy and the current extremist leadership in Israel think the can preach to the majority of Israelis that they should take the extremist path,>

                  Dude. Really? Seriously?

                  <Clearly as well as not believing in dialogue as a method of arriving of peace, there are also struggling with some basic aspects of democracy.>

                  And, another one?

                  <you also said a few times that you expect the more moderate side to win.>

                  Yes he did. That is a rosy picture.

                  <no! number six! hahaha>

                  At least six. He just can't help himself - he never could. Moreso - he does not even understand the point that we are making. He can read what we write, he can read what I posted just a minute ago quoting his strawmen...but it's like a foreign language to him. He just can't get past his agenda & opinion.


                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    <voting there is fucking awesome for women but as I read through all of this, if they can't even get to the voting areas because some man won't let them, how great will that day be for those women as they sit in their house, not allowed to vote? Surely you see the context of this, right? >

                    now your saying voting for women there is fucking awesome, but there are still big problems with that, GOOD - that's been exactly my position all the way through. Initially however you said not fucking awesome but sarcastically "how exciting", I'm pleased ive finally manged to get you to see sense.

                    Of course i see the context which is why i have said over and over that there is much more to be done. What will probably happen is some woman will vote and some will be prevented, some will not even try.

                    I never once said there were not still huge problems. I made the analogy to woman getting the vote in 1918 after struggling for 100 years in 1818, but I said that sexism did not really start to go properly in the UK till the 1970s.

                    With this I am not even claiming that they are half way. But this is a huge step in that journey, probably something like 30%, and to achieve that in about 5 years of public struggle in probably the most sexist country in the world is nothing short of amazing.

                    Do they still have about 70% to go in that journey ? absoultly, ive made that point over and over and over again inspite of you constantly trying to say Im saying everything is done and dusted there and there is no more repression for these people to fight.

                    What i dont get is you trying to throw water on the people who are doing this change, who have with large personal risk made that 30% happen, saying things like "oh how exciting"

                    Just how long is that other 70% going to take ? who knows, but what we do know is the last five years and right now are moving at lightning speed.

                    My initial point anyway was that if we are seeing this kind of change in the worst of Muslim countries, then we can expect the Arab Spring to do even more in other countries like Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Libya, etc. Turkey is already well on its way to being a developed country.

                    As to Strawmen, the amount of times you have said and implied that Im ignoring or excusing repression there must put your strawman quota at more like 20, wouldnt you say ?
              • <Yes there is some chance that extremist in Gaza could block a deal. But its CERTAIN that Likud are currently blocking it.>

                Except; of course, that the head of the Likud party has been asking for peace talks for...oh...three years. And, the head of Hamas in Gaza has for three years attacked and threatened more attacks. So...how is Likud "currently blocking" a deal when they are ASKING to meet to talk about a deal?

                <we should at least give Hamas a chance and talk with them and see how it goes,>

                "we"? You are an Israeli? You can choose for an Israeli that they should again trust terrorists? Look what happened in Lebanon when they did this? Look what happened in Gaza when they did this. And, NOW you want them to do it again? Are you mad?

                <It should at least be tested.>

                Then I guess that the Pals need to meet for talks, 'eh?

                <It should at least be tried, no matter what happens.>

                You mean like Lebanon and then Gaza? Another Intifada? Is that the "no matter what happens" part that you mean?

                <But Likud have made it clear what they want, pretty much all of Jerusalem, and that's a non starter.>

                So, when you said, "t should at least be tried, no matter what happens.", you meant only for Israel. Non-starters should only be for Palestinians?
                • <So, when you said, "t should at least be tried, no matter what happens.", you meant only for Israel.>

                  no Andrew, yet again you try to lie about my position and argue against it, your onto strwaman 22 now i think, what I said is it should at least be tried is dialogue with Hamas, smoking the peace pipe, bringining Hamas in from the cold, decrimanlizing them, and allowing them to take part in the peace process even indirectly - they dont want to take part directly themselves but have said they will allow Fatah to do it.

                  That does NOT mean they should negotiate away the 13% of Arab Palestine that is actually left, is that really what you are asking them to do, give up the last remaining bit that hasn't been took from them ???? I mean for real ?

                  YES, that is a non starter.

                  How about Israel negotiate with Hamas the giving up of Israel ? Is that a non starter for you or not ? Because that's just about what is going on with regards to Netanyahu.

                  As to Likud asking for peace talks, ho sure, they would prefer to take the last remaining bit of Arab Palastine peacfully wouldnt they. Better publicity that way isnt it.

                  But sorry, that IS non negotiable. Just as Israels existence is non negotiable, at least, lucky for you, 80% of Isreal had not already been destroyed.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    <"we"? You are an Israeli? You can choose for an Israeli>

                    what "WE" are talking about is the occupied terriotires which indeed is NOT Israel and does NOT belong to them, and is of course a matter for the international community.

                    Americas dominance in that is fading, new players in Europe are stepping up to the plate in the EU and you can bet there is going to be more of that.

                    The world is changing Andrew, and sooner or later Isreal are going to have to change with it.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    --------As to Likud asking for peace talks, ho sure, they would prefer to take the last remaining bit of Arab Palastine peacfully wouldnt they. Better publicity that way isnt it.

                    if you saw the rest of these threds there is one where it shows that the israeli goverment offered in a deal 90% of the west bank. so that is not the last remaining bit of arab palestine is it? now what do you say?
                    • the 67 borders in there current negotiated form takes around 80% of Palestine off the Arabs, you can look up the exact figure, i belive its actually higher than that at 87%, but lets be generous to Israel and say the Palestinians are left with 20%.

                      Now if Israel after taking 80% of Arab Palestine off the Arabs - always against their will, many of whom got killed in the process, are now saying they want to take all of Jerusalem as there's too, when its deeply important to both peoples, against what the international community and UN say, you know what I personally would say to Israel ? Go fuck yourself Israel, you've already taken more than enough, come back when your serious about a peace deal.

                      The Palestinians do not need to give away even more to Israel in its current land greed frenzy because the tide of history is steadily turning against them and acknowledging the Palestinians right to get a decent deal. The Palestinians are well aware of this, and if you read more in a less blinded way you will know that they know the tide of history is turning in there favor.

                      These people will not be bullied and they should not be bullied.

                      The whole region from Turkey to Egypt to Tunisia is on ascent, moving upwards, and they have a good future to look forward to, the fact that they might have to wait another 20 years to see these changes through is not such a big deal when your a strong people who have bad a bad recent past but a positive future to look forward to.

                      I know some of these people, and i know there mentality, and the idea that there going to give in and eat shit just before there day comes is quite frankly laughable.

                      When Israel finally do turn - as they will almost certainly, many Israelis are highly intelligent creative people, they are just badly lead right now, but new leaders will step up to the plate soon enough, I really dont think its giong to take a long time in historical terms for relations to change between the two people in historical terms. The new generation will want to leave all that crap behind them, in both Isreal and Palastine once it is sorted out, and it will get sorted out over the next decade or two.

                      For over one thousand years the Muslim world was a safe heaven for Jewish people while for that same one thousand year period Jews were geting massacred in Spain or sent the gas ovens in Germany.

                      The cultures of the two people are very similar, the recent bad feelings are an anomaly because the west forced millions of people from there home against there will in Palestine. At the same time, the Muslim world has went through a bad time this last few hundred years, for many varied reasons you wont understand. A people who have already been humiliated by history take to humiliation by Israel badly. But all that is changing now.

                      There on the ascent now, and as much as you want to deny that, your denial will not make the slightest big of difference to their ascent.

                      I should imagine that any Turks who read your post about Turkey turning shit would;nt even get that angry, instead they would probably just have a good laugh, happy in the knowledge that there lives have improved rapidly last ten years. Which is the main reason why nobody can even come close to the AKP these last three elections. Do you even know how fast there GDP per person is growing, its moving fast, very fast.

                      My brother goes there every year with his kids and he tells me how dynamic and positive the place seems now.

                      Its the polticis of the UK and America that concern me, with rising inequalities, discontent, mental helath problems, bad crime and drug addiction rates related to inequality getting bad, the UK and America have the worst levels of child well being as recorded by UNICEF of all 23 developed countries. My family is doing well but no man is an Island. The environment you bring your family up in is important. Rising inequalities are just going to make all that worse.

                      I do think America and the UK are going to change from the course they have been on for the last 30 years, with inequality growing rapidly and gated communities pooping up, mental stress hitting the roof (check the stats on that), but i think its going to take a good 10 years, in the meantime my kids are living in hat society. If my business does well over the next few years Im off to somwhere like Spain, Italy or France with a nicer climate and cheaper property rates as i can run it from there.

                      But with regards to the Muslims, yes some countries like Saudi are still really backward in many regards, I certainly wouldnt want to live there, but even they are changing fast now. Im all for you asking them to move even faster on that, I kind of liked your line get out of the middle ages like Today, very New York, but the best way to do that would be to back the people pushing hard for reform there instead of mocking them like Andrew done.

                      Get in touch with reality Tandy.
                      • <the 67 borders in there current negotiated form takes around 80% of Palestine off the Arabs, you can look up the exact figure, i belive its actually higher than that at 87%, but lets be generous to Israel and say the Palestinians are left with 20%.>

                        C'est la vie. What do you want? To go back in time? One thing that you never mention is the part that was Jordan. Let's take a look at what historically was 'Palestine'. I have posted these maps many times over the years, let's see if you can grok what I am putt'n down for you.
                        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File...ine_5c.jpg

                        See how it goes into what is now Jordan? Egypt and even Lebanon & Syria. And I have seen other maps that it's even bigger. Much bigger. SO! It turns out that what YOU call 'Palestine' is just the post-'48 version. The Pals themselves used to have a much, much bigger area - but as usual you never discuss that. You don't ever demand that Jordan or Egypt give up land. You don't fault them for being awarded that land by the British & League of Nations. Just...Israel. Interesting. Just Israel. So, the options there are a) you don't know about what compromised historical Palestine, or...b) you are being dishonest or, c) hypocritical. Which is it? Oh. Right. A direct question. You won't answer that.

                        <The Palestinians do not need to give away even more to Israel>

                        It's not a matter of "need". They don't have a fucking choice. I know, I know - you think that someone can make them back off, but AT BEST it'll be the same deal from Geneva/etc. It's not going to be more. NEVER. EVER. That's the same pipe-dream that the last four or five generations of Pals have made. You just are the latest to dream this impossible dream.

                        <These people will not be bullied and they should not be bullied.>

                        Whatever. If they want their own country and their own borders as part of a comprehensive peace plan they will have to accept a deal that is offered to them. They have no ability to ask for more than what they are given.

                        <I know some of these people, and i know there mentality, and the idea that there going to give in and eat shit just before there day comes is quite frankly laughable.>

                        Yup. Price be goin'n before the fall. Israelis are fighting for their very lives, so no amount of pressure will affect them. Even the most liberal of them don't want to give more than what was part of Oslo. And here you are - championing further conflict.

                        <I already explained that to you.>

                        I don't want your 'explanation'. First you said that you doubted that Hamas was a danger, and then you tried to say that you never said that. You said two opposite things, Elo. Don't try to explain this away. You contradicted yourself and then some. Why not just admit it? Be a man and simply admit what is right in front of you. It's not like there is any question about it.

                        <There funding and support would dry up quicker than the African plains in a drought.>

                        Dude, I have written about this before. They have enough money. They are not going to stop. Not anytime soon.

                        And, y'r nonsense at finding other historical similarities is just laughable. All you are doing is finding reasons to rosify this situation. You are creating a reality that is only yours. It's not based on any reality. It's your agenda that has turned into your reality. And, you have no idea what I'm talking about.

                        <Who pays the bills ? why buys them rockets, who supplies them ?>

                        Hamas pays the bills through their black market. They buy weapons on the black market. They ain't a'gonna stop anytime soon.

                        <You think the people of Gaza will thank him when the run out of money if he trys to hold onto his power with dictatorship ? How did that go for Mubarak ?>

                        Why do you keep saying "he"? It's a group. It's a big organization. It's not ONE GUY. No, the people of Gaza won't stand up to them. They'll be wiped out if so. They NOW will kneecap someone if that person tries to stand up to them. If someone really does that they'll die like these people:

                        www.hrw.org/news/2009/04...lings-torture
                        www.reuters.com/article/20...dUSLT773276
                        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vittorio_Arrigoni

                        And, who would stop it? The Egyptians? The Israelis? Who'll stop it? They'll be taken out very quickly - there's nowhere to hide in Gaza.

                        <Are you really telling me that this one guy in Gaza, is going to resist the Arab Leauge, Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, the Hamas leadership, Qatar, and still remain popular at the elections if he plunges his people into poverty ?>

                        No, don't be silly. But, the rest of the group will join him. It's not one guy. That's another of your strawmen.

                        <Oh and you two carry on debating the word Rosy, very sweet.>

                        Ha. You minimize the effect of Hamas, and then just ignore your own efforts even though you wrote that you're not doing such a thing - even though I quoted you. It's like you just ignore anything that goes against your agenda-led belief system.

                        <i would be surprised. he never has yet!>

                        Tandy, he won't. His whole belief system is tied up in his agenda and hopes for the future. If he was to have to personally analyze reality he would find that there's a disconnect between HIS reality and ACTUAL reality. Really, all his 'this and that is going to happen in 3 - 20 years' is just his fantasies. He pays no attention to anything that goes against his belief systems.

                        <just like that. you just ignore antyhing that makes you look bad. you minimized the threat of hamas by painting a rosy picture and you wont admit it. this is how you go about your life right? sad. its harder to admit that you are wrong but you get more out of it when you do. its called evolution of the soul.>

                        I basically just wrote the exact same thing. Well, without that last line which is pretty great.
                        • Re: Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

                          Tue, February 28, 2012 - 11:52 AM
                          <They don't have a fucking choice.>

                          yes they do, they can tell Netanyahu to go eat shit till someone with a brain comes along again and offers them something like what Olmert offered.

                          < AT BEST it'll be the same deal from Geneva/etc. It's not going to be more. NEVER. EVER>

                          what are you even on about ? Geneva did not settle the issue of Jerusalem and in the most recent credible deal Olmert and Abbas worked out a plan to share it including a deal on the tricky holy sites. The Palestinians will accept that nothing less. As i say Andrew, nobody is even listening to Netanyahu anymore outside of AIPAC and certain nutty sections of the US (which have grown somewhat recently in the GOP). Clearly people like Obama, the EU, and the rest of the quartet have dropped the whole thing in terms of making serious efforts on it, though of course they have to keep up some pretense of coasting along. They know in reality its got no chance with Netanyahu.


                          <You just are the latest to dream this impossible dream. >

                          lol, what your even on about again, god knows, as i say, with people like Olmert we can talk, with people like Netanyahu and you who think the Pals will just accept anything thats forced on them its a big fuck off. Olmert and Abbas actually got surprisingly close to a deal.

                          <Even the most liberal of them don't want to give more than what was part of Oslo>

                          again, what are you even on about ? What specifically are you claiming i want "more" than what Olmert offered. Where did it say in Oslo all of Jerusalem would go to Israel ?

                          What Olmert offered and what Netanyahu is trying to ram down the Pals throats are two completely different things.

                          As the region moves along, with Syria falling, Iran looking in trouble, moderate Turkey and Qatar becoming more agile powerful players, Amar Moussa about to be president of Egypt, the chances of getting a decent deal when the hard line coallpose in Israel - as it will - looks pretty damn good.

                          You say the Pals have waited. So what ? Im sure there prepared to waite another hundred years if necessary - though with the speed things are going these last few decades that's extremely unlikely. It might just be another 3-5 years.

                          The Irish, a small people in terms of power, were up against the worlds superpower in Britain for well over 200 years and the British for much of that time right up until the end really were as arrogant as you about it all. In the end, the Irish got what they wanted. History changes things. One thing i can see time and again in your posts these days is your in deep denial of change going on in the region. Not only do you want to live in the war of 1973, 40 years ago, your blind to what changes in Syria, Egypt, Turkey, etc, etc mean. We can throw in the dwindling dominance of America on the world stage too.


                          <And here you are - championing further conflict. >

                          Id call that a strawman but frankly its just a bare faced lie isnt it. I didnt say conflict once. I cant answer for what Isreal will do with there guns but this is what i recommend for the Pals -

                          Violence against a superior Army is a losers game. No my position is the same as Abbas, reject violence but get more and more of the international community on your side and state your case well, thats working out quite good, already France challenged the US position in the UN recently on Palestine. You can expect a whole lot more of that to come, which is indeed why the extremists in power in Isreal were geeing so hot under the collar about the UN. Well tough, because the next stop is the UN.

                          Civil disobedience, not violence, would be a good idea though. You know the kind that got the worlds public swooning over Muslims in Egypt and the Green Revolution, pictures of isreals shooting on peaceful demonstrators would do the cause a marvelous good. Isnt doing Assad image much good is it.

                          But hey, I here Israel are thinking of bringing down the global economy via Iran, oh you want to see how quick Isreal lose friend then Andrew. That could speed all of above up enormously.

                          < Even the most liberal of them >

                          Again, you do not speak for liberal Israelis, many of them are behind the kind of deal that almost got through with Olmert and Abbas untill Jerk Brain Netanyahu messed it up.

                          Not only liberals but the majority of Israelis want to try dialogue with Hamas. So dont think for one moment you speak for them. If i want to know what they think, ill go to opinion polls Andrew not you thanks.


                          < Israelis are fighting for their very lives>

                          And can you explain to me why Israelis will die if they don't take all of Jerusalem. All i am asking for is something like almost got signed off between Olmert and Abbas. The idea that means death to Israelis is absurd.

                          Seriously Andrew, start making sense or I'm heading towards the exit as regards these conversations. I dont mind at all you disagreeing, but make sense, or its pointless. Much of what you said above makes no sense at all.

                          And you say no amount of pressure is going to make Israel budge. Thats bullshit, not all of them are extremist, many would happily agree to what Olmert offered.

                          Your probably right that international pressure will not make Likud budge, and your possibly even right that in there stupidity they will attack Iran.

                          But what that will do, like happened to G W Bush in America, is make the extremist in Israel very unpopular.

                          But the extremist are not all of Israel. When the hardliners of these last few years collapse, then the pals will get there deal. Which is again why I am saying its pointless wasting time on a clown like Netanyahu.

                          <Why do you keep saying "he"? It's a group. It's a big organization. It's not ONE GUY. No, the people of Gaza won't stand up to them. They'll be wiped out if so. They NOW will kneecap someone if that person tries to stand up to them. If someone really does that they'll die like these people: >

                          Point 1 is i can show you people in Gaza Hamas power who oppose the hardline stance and have said so publicaly, there not a monolitic block.

                          Point 2 is have you seen what they done to poeple who are opposing Assad, did you see what they done in Libya to those who opposed Gadaffi, in Tunisa, in Egypt....

                          Point 3 is some of the things such as the collapse of Syria and reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas are quite recent events, they will take time to fully play out.

                          Even if the extremists in Gaza win, and i never said they couldn't - its you not me who is in denial of one side of this coin - then at least both sides Fatah and the Arab nations and Israel should try and strike a deal as Olmert and Abbs were doing.

                          Then the pressure would be very big on Hamas, very big indeed. And once your focused down to one problem like that, sooner or later your going to crack it with the full weight of the world behind it.

                          < its harder to admit that you are wrong but you get more out of it when you do. its called evolution of the soul.>

                          Oh dear Tandy and Andrew are entering the new age, god help us, or god help the new agers more to the point. Its even harder for you two to know your wrong. I presented both the positive scenario about Hamas AND the negative, yet you two only presented the negative. But i already said that like about 10 times, dont ask my to say it again because Im geting very bored of that.












                          • Re: Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

                            Tue, February 28, 2012 - 10:39 PM
                            ------yes they do, they can tell Netanyahu to go eat shit till someone with a brain comes along again and offers them something like what Olmert offered.

                            so you are now here saying that the palestinians should not negotiate with netanyahu even though you earlier said that israel should negotiate with hamas. do you ever notice the crazy hypocrisy of you rstatements? ever? how your favorite side gets to do things that you blame the other side for doing the exact same thing do you notice this? no? how is that possible?

                            ------with people like Netanyahu and you who think the Pals will just accept anything thats forced on them its a big fuck off.

                            i dont think that anyone said anything about accepting anything thats forced on them. they wont even negotiate right? so they cant even have anything forced on them anyway.

                            ----------You say the Pals have waited. So what ? Im sure there prepared to waite another hundred years if necessary

                            god that is so sad. i am sure also that they are prepared to wait as long as it takes to get what they want even if it means that they are wasting their whole lives. i doubt that the palestinian people are so happy to wait as their goverment is.
                            • Re: Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

                              Wed, February 29, 2012 - 12:11 AM
                              < they wont even negotiate right?>

                              they did negotiate try and negotiations with Netanyahu, for around a year, as did George Mitchell and Obama, he offered them shit, there is no point in continuing to negotiate with Netanyahu when he is refusing to compromise on issues like Jerusalem and when he is offering what just about everyone in teh international community knows is completely unacceptable.

                              As i say i do business Tandy, there are some people you try and sell to or do a deal with and you know no matter what you say to them there going to waste your time, then you move on, you dont waste too much time on them once you tried and you know your not geting anywhere, Netanyahu has proven he is one of them people. Even Obama and his team hardly are trying now as they know its a non starter.

                              They only reason Netanyahu wants to talk is an international face saver, that while he is stealing more land he can try and claim he wants peace.

                              That is a very bad game for the Pals to play as it legitimizes land theft. Far better for them to take there case to the UN and gather internatinal support while the wait for someone reasonable back in.

                              When someone lilke Olmert gets in they will get what they want.

                              <so you are now here saying that the palestinians should not negotiate with netanyahu even though you earlier said that israel should negotiate with hamas. >

                              your getting confused but perhaps that is my fault i didnt make that very clear.

                              Hamas have said they dont want a direct role in negotiations. But me and Fatah would like them included in a deal that is struck so its a comprehensive peace. They have said they are happy to leave the negotiation to Fatah, and if there is a successful deal Hams will put that deal negotiated by Fatah with Israel to the people of Gaza in a referendum, if its successful they say they will honor it.

                              Yet Netanayhu has said, against what the majority of Israelis want - that Fatah cannot have peace with both Hamas and Israel. He wants them at war, as he wants to be at war with Hamas himself. He has said Fatah must chose, that they shouldnt even talk with Hamas, that Hamas have to be criminalized and left out in the cold.

                              It seems Netanyahu prefers war with Hamas, so that he can have an excuse then to continue trying to take all of Jerusalem and try and take more land in the west bank.

                              So what I am saying with Hamas is that Israel should allow Fatah and Hamas to reconcile and not put obstacles in the way as there trying to do.

                              In all recent polls the majority of Israelis have said that they want a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas and they want Hamas to be included - NOT excluded - from any peace deal as Netanyahu is trying to force on both Fatah and the Israeli people.

                              < want even if it means that they are wasting their whole lives.<

                              You know the Native Americans in your own country did what you want the Palestinians to do and negotiated away there rights, there land, gave in to the greed of a more powerful people and most of them bitterly regret where this took them.

                              They are now dominated completely by an alien culture. I know from a friend on tribe that this still deeply affects them and destroys there lives almost 200 years later. My friend was a professor at a US University yet he is still surrounded with racism and not accepted by the white mans culture that dominates completely his entire country. Yet his own culture is broken and finds it hard to live in a world that has been taken over by the "white man."

                              He made a film called "scrubbed white" about himself, the title of the film speaks for itself.

                              Of course the Native Americans had little choice because the Americans were just massacring them, and would have probably wiped them out completely had they not surrendered. Even Israel do not and will not go that far, to commit mass genocide. Also they were lied to many times and treaties broken. In the modern world Israel cannot do that.

                              Not only that, as i say, just a few years ago under Olmert a deal was almost struck.

                              There was 30 years of steady development building up to that Olmert and Abbas deal - things are heading in that direction. Adam who knew a lot about this too used to say the same thing, that a peace deal is not actually that far away now.

                              Netanyahu is just a tempory problem in that development. He will not agree to where the general consensus had been heading on a deal for 30 years, Netanayhu is not bigger than history and is currently unpopular in Israel. He is unlikely to last more than a few years.

                              So the idea that the Pals will sign away there rights to a hard liner like Netanayhu after waiting around 60 years of bitter struggle and hardship to get a deal is a joke.

                              You keep saying they will not talk to Netanyahu. Thats not true. They tried to talk. Obama and George Mitchell probably the best peace mediator in the world tried to talk.

                              All Netanyahu done was keep expanding settlements, especially in the most sensitive area East Jerusalem and offered them ridiculous things.

                              No reason to waste time on that, Netanyhau will be gone soon enough.

                              As i keep saying in the meantime there is a lot the Pals can do to pave the way for success when they deal with someone better. Get more international support in the UN, get more regional from key players and build on alliances there. Work at reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. Put more international pressure on Israel.

                              All that will help pave the way for success when Netanyhu goes.

                              There is the final point that the Arab spring generally seems to be going in there favor and changing regional politics generally in a positive way.

                              Egypt are not tired artificially to Israel now forced on them by America. They are not independent players. Turkey is getting stronger and better at playing the political game.

                              Currently Turkeys Prime Minster is said to have a better relationship with Obama than Netanyahu does.

                              On the other hand Americans dominance is waning. Europe is playing more of a role in the Quartet, and when Fatah go to the UN that will probably increase, alongside other players like Russia and the UN. And of course America have always been biased to Israel.

                              So all this points to a good chance of a deal in the near future.

                              There is every reason to be optimistic if you are a Palestinian about the future.

                              • Netanyahu is extremely right wing and is really no friend to the peace process, he is an impediment in my opinion.
                                • Exactly Jeff, I have no problem with Moderate Israelis but see no excuse for putting land above peace when already Israel have taken more than enough land off the Pals.

                                  If i am pushing the positive possibility of Hamas taking the path to compromise its only because the likes of Andrew and Tandy are in such deep denial of that side, as is official Israeli and US policy (the later mostly because of the AIPAC lobby) which is all pretty rich considering the majority of Israelis polled want to try and include Hamas in a peace deal. To me at least try, Israel will lose nothing to just try. Fatah in the early PLO days used to be just the same as Hamas.

                                  You know id have no problem with Israel or America insisting on Hamas accepting the right of Israel to exist as precondition if they same precondition was forced onto Israel, unfortunately Israel have already been allowed to destroy over 80% of Arab Palestine, which is still ongoing, seems like for many that's not a concern. The destruction of Arab Palestine is no big deal, the destruction of Israel equates to the end of the world. Thats certainly the way it all looks to me.
                            • <so you are now here saying that the palestinians should not negotiate with netanyahu even though you earlier said that israel should negotiate with hamas. do you ever notice the crazy hypocrisy of you rstatements? ever?>

                              So damned true. First her is here saying that Israel should negotiate even with the war criminal terrorists Hamas...but then he suggests that the Pals not negotiate with Netanyahu. My god. I don't think he understands the degree of hypocrisy & bias that occludes his ability to think clearly.

                              <how is that possible?>

                              He's been here for years doing that same thing. He used to be more reasonable, but it looks like he'd drunk the kool-aid.

                              <<----------You say the Pals have waited. So what ? Im sure there prepared to waite another hundred years if necessary>>

                              <god that is so sad. i am sure also that they are prepared to wait as long as it takes to get what they want even if it means that they are wasting their whole lives.>

                              No wonder people thought that you were me - I have said the same thing dozens of times. The Pals have spent generations waiting for Israel to collapse because one generation after another they were told that first it'd be the armies in '48. Then '53. Then '67. Then '73. Then Intifadas. Then false-start peace plans. Then Abbas. Now the Arab Spring. Over 60 years of sujugation and they; so says Elo, even if it means another 100 years. Man. That is some fucked thinking.

                              <they did negotiate try and negotiations with Netanyahu, for around a year,>

                              So says Elo. When, Elo? Care to source when that was? You mean that 10 month building moratorium when they did not meet for talks for 9 of those 10 months? Is that what you mean? When else did they try to meet with Netanyahu? He offered over and over to meet with no preconditions to meeting...they refused. I really want to see you source that claim.

                              <he offered them shit,>

                              Um...I am not aware of any negotiations that went far enough to be at all meaningful. But, then again - this is the guy that wants Israel to negotiate with the war-criminal terrorists Hamas, but is fine with the Pals not negotiating with the Israelis. Hypocrite.

                              <When someone lilke Olmert gets in they will get what they want.>

                              Ha. No they won't. They were within a few % points in context to border agreements under Olmert, and would neither side would move more. So...why do you think that NOW Israel will give MORE? You have already said that the Pals should not accept anything less than what they ask for...so...what are you talking about? Why do you dream that they will get MORE than what Olmert was offering?

                              <your getting confused but perhaps that is my fault i didnt make that very clear.>

                              Elo - you stated a number of times that you support the Pals NOT negotiating with Netanyahu, but you want Israel to negotiate with Hamas. You have said this many times. Now you are stating that you never wrote this? Really?

                              <seems you'd like to murder a million Gazans next now>

                              Jesus. You are lost. Nevermind.
                              • <<seems you'd like to murder a million Gazans next now>

                                Jesus. You are lost. Nevermind.


                                Tandy just offered to "flatten Gaza" with the US army, shes lost not me, and in case you didnt notice America have been doing a fair amount of that kind of thing the last ten years.

                                < You mean that 10 month building moratorium when they did not meet for talks for 9 of those 10 months? Is that what you mean>

                                right and how did all that get stalled, you know when Obama sent George Mitchell over and next Joe Biden, the famously pro Israeli politician who ended up having a big public fall out because instead of getting down to serious negotiations Netanyhu first pushed on with settlement expansions, then later declared all of Jerusalem was his.

                                Yesterday you agree that Netanyahu is an extremist that's a waste ot time to negotiations with, you say thats Hamas fault, now today you say the Pals should persist and negotiate with him no matter what, even when hes been so extreme that he pisses of Joe Biden, a pro Isreali backer.

                                Really, Im not even bothering with this thread until you guys start to make sense. As to Tandy threatening to "flatten Gaza" with her little Rambo speech, i mean really, i feel like Im stuck in one of them nutty US tea party meetings. More interesting debates going on in the other threads about Obama if you ask me.

                                And by the way you really gave me a laugh with your FDR brought change because of how people felt after the war, like when FDR was dead almost 10 years AFTER the new deal !!!! But i forgot, I know nothing about these things as you informed me.

                                <. Over 60 years of sujugation and they; so says Elo, even if it means another 100 years. Man. That is some fucked th>

                                No Andrew, again, they almost got a deal under Olmert before your precious little Netanyahu screwed that all up. Again not all Israelis are as extreme as you and Netanyahu. They will get there deal soon enough. Now its off to the UN.

                                But really i am wasting my time in here, let me out already...................
                                • ------------Tandy just offered to "flatten Gaza" with the US army,

                                  no i didnt. liar. you are a horrible person. I will respond to you just long enough to find what i actually wrote. I wrote ---------they are just lucky that they did not ever take us on or we would flatten gaza.

                                  where did I say that we did what you said? i meant that if if israel acted like america did we would treat gaza like we did iraq. we flattened much of iraq. i meant that they are lucky that the israelis did not act like we do. look up falujah. see what we did there. the nsee the difference between what israel did there. you really cant make sense. i dont think that you can make sense.go away.
                          • <What Olmert offered and what Netanyahu is trying to ram down the Pals throats are two completely different things.>

                            What a laughable statement. Netanyahu can't "ram" anything down anyone's throat. They still won't officially meet to negotiate. It's called a "negotiation". Netanyahu started with one take, and through negotiations you get somewhere else. That's how it works. Don't you want him to negotiate with Hamas? You mean, you are OK with what they want to "ram" down the Israelis' throats, I guess. Typical.

                            <What Olmert offered and what Netanyahu is trying to ram down the Pals throats are two completely different things.>

                            Idiots.

                            <Id call that a strawman but frankly its just a bare faced lie isnt it. I didnt say conflict once. I cant answer for what Isreal will do with there guns but this is what i recommend for the Pals ->

                            Who ever said violence? Do you know what "conflict" means? It means that two sides having difficulty with each other. You are championing them waiting "100 years" if that's their choice. That's stupid.

                            <But hey, I here Israel are thinking of bringing down the global economy via Iran, oh you want to see how quick Isreal lose friend then Andrew. That could speed all of above up enormously.>

                            And I support their actions. They can't have Iran having nukes. You'd have no problem with Iran having nukes, but I don't think the Israelis give a fuck what you think or what anyone else in the world thinks. If they think that Iran is going to get nukes, they will act. There is no question about that and if the global economy takes a hit because of it, well - that's better than is Iran having nukes. No question about it.

                            <Again, you do not speak for liberal Israelis, many of them are behind the kind of deal that almost got through with Olmert and Abbas untill Jerk Brain Netanyahu messed it up.>

                            Yes - Abbas has no part in fucking up that or any other deal. Got it. It's always one-sided with you. Still. After all this time. It's all the Israelis fault. Surely not Abbas' fault...

                            <And can you explain to me why Israelis will die if they don't take all of Jerusalem.>

                            Strawman. I never said a word about Jerusalem. That was your change of topic. I don't think that they shold take all of Jerusalem either. What the fuck is your point?

                            <The idea that means death to Israelis is absurd.>

                            The whole conflict is Israelis fighting for their lives. This has nothing to do with the Palestinians - this is all about how all of these people around Israel hate Israel being there and they will use the Palestinians as the tools that they are to damage Israel. That's the reality - the Israelis aren't fucking around. Let the Palestinians stay subjugated if they want. It's really their choice. A stupid one, but...they really never do miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

                            <And you say no amount of pressure is going to make Israel budge. Thats bullshit, not all of them are extremist, many would happily agree to what Olmert offered.>

                            Sure, "many" would, but that deal won't happen again. That's what you are missing. That deal is done & gone. They'll never get a deal that good again, and the more pressure put on them the more that they will dig in their heels. Sorry - you don't understand Israelis AT ALL.
                            • <but I don't think the Israelis give a fuck what you think>

                              and i dont think the whole world when it turns on Israel if it crash's the world economy will give a fuck that Israel don't give a fuck what they think.

                              Lets see how it pans out for "superpower" Israel then. Beside the fact that the US military is saying Israel don't have the ability to stop Iran properly anyway. Only the claim does America and the US military is saying that would be very unwise to use that ability.

                              Not that I am saying a Nuclear Iran is a good thing. Both Israel and Iran are rouge nations if you ask me, and they could both be just about to go into the super league on that.

                              oh and back onto your obsession with Rosy. You said Jeff thinks im being too rosy too, not that I read what he said that way but this is what i think of that.

                              I think that most of America acts like Hamas threatening the destruction of Israel is kind of like the end of the world, but when Israel destroys 80% of Arab Palestine to most Americans that seems like no big deal.

                              So what I say is most of America has an insanely rosy picture of Israel compared to the rest of the world and compare to the real reality, thats what i think about that.



                              • <Yes - Abbas has no part in fucking up that or any other deal. Got it. It's always one-sided with you. Still. >

                                It wasnt either Olmert or Abbas fault, the deal was close to completion but still incomplete, they wanted Obama to try and finalize it after the elections, then Netanyahu waltzed in and ruined the whole thing.

                                I think Olmert and Abbas were both sincere and both tried hard, and given more time, a year or two, there chances of success were good. Netanyahu is not "Israel" so why on earth your saying Im saying its Israel's fault only shows your very poor comprehension skills.
            • ---------again Andrew I fully acknowledge that the extremist leader in Gaza may win over the political leadership, Ive said that many times now no matter how many times you insist i haven't

              strawman search success! hahah. did he way ever that you never acknowledged this? what you said that i remember was that you expect that the more moderate positioned hamas group will probably win in the end.

              -------however since Turkey, Egypt and others are backing the moderate leadership, and since the main backing of the extremist Syria and Iran are pretty much crumbling in influence, the moderates at least have a good chance.

              how will the moderates disarm those that are in gaza with the weapons? what is your definition of winning here?

              -------I dont know Andrew, putting yet more words into my mouth ? tut tut. i never said Hamas are not a danger to Israel,

              elo you have said many times that you think that hamas are not a danger to israel. you have said this many times. you said that this moderate side will probably be the winners and something about how because theywill go along with any peace plan they are not a danger in the end. do you not remember saying that?

              --but there less danger clearly than Israel present to Arab Palestine who have already destroyed over 80% of it and incurred a death toll of twice the amount, and are destroying more of it as we speak.

              sure they are less of a danger to israel but that does not mean anything exept to you.

              --------Yes there is some chance that extremist in Gaza could block a deal.

              hahaha. some chance? really? hahaha. just some?

              --------we should at least give Hamas a chance and talk with them and see how it goes

              how do you talk with someone that always talks about destroying yoru country? should we have talked to bin laden? are you crazy! after 911 you want america to have talked to bin laden and alqueda? what kind of crazy talk is that!

              ------It should at least be tried, no matter what happens. B

              no matter means deadpeople elo. no matter? so dead people is worth it to you? trusting the un caused thousans of new missies in lebanon. was that trust worth it you thinnk? no way. if i was in israrel i would be pissed and remember the last time that the goverment trusted someone like that.

              -----lol, id love Andrew to tell an American woman that it would be no "big deal" if all American woman were banned from voting.


              strawman! those are two different things. it is no big deal that they now get to vote if theyt are not allowed to vote by their family. that is a different thing. how can you not understand this? progress can also be in small jumps you know.
              • <strawman search success! hahah. did he way ever that you never acknowledged this? what you said that i remember was that you expect that the more moderate positioned hamas group will probably win in the end. >

                you might want to re translate that into proper English, but

                1 Andrew said that I was only showing the "rose picture

                2 obviously in making it clear several times that the extremist could win im NOT only presenting "the rosey picture"

                3 clearly then its not a strawman.


                Seems Andrew has been teaching you some new words to play with, it helps if you can follow an argument and understand how to apply the concept though Tandy, try again.
                • -------2 obviously in making it clear several times that the extremist could win im NOT only presenting "the rosey picture"

                  you also said a few times that you expect the more moderate side to win.

                  ------Seems Andrew has been teaching you some new words to play with, it helps if you can follow an argument and understand how to apply the concept though Tandy, try again.

                  god you sound like dustin. and i notice that you never find the source of the strawmen. ever. hahaha. never.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    <you also said a few times that you expect the more moderate side to win. >

                    let me try to take you throw this in small baby steps.

                    I said the moderates could win, and i also said the extremist could win. I know it might be a bit complex, a choice of two options, but that is actually the reality. Its really not that complex, either could happen.

                    so yes, i said either the moderates or extremist could win. Thats because both could happen Tandy. Are you starting to understand it yet ?

                    Now you and Andrew on the other hand are completely ignoring and denying the possibility that the moderates could win. When i present the true reality, that either side could win, Andrew lies and says Im presenting only the rosy picture. Or he then accuses me and the Financial Times - one of the worlds most respected newspapers, of being a mouthpiece of terrorists. Ah ha, right.

                    By arguing against a false claim that Im only presenting the rosy picture, that false claim is a straw man. It really is not that complex.

                    In other words its a lie that he is arguing against, a false picture he has intentionly created of both my position and me, he is not arguing against what i have said in reality. .

                    And the reason that both of you want to present only half the story here, and deny the other half, is obvious.

                    You know i thought when Dustin left and Andrew came back here the bar would be raised a little in the debates. How wrong i was, and how badly my memory served me. If anything its got worse.

                    Dustin was many things but he rarely lied about my position. Andrew is doing that constantly, and it makes debate very pointless and tedious.

                    However if it means i spend less time in here he's probably done me a favor.
                    • -------I said the moderates could win, and i also said the extremist could win.

                      you said many times that you expected the moderates to come out ahead and you said that you did not think that the gaza hamas would be a problem in a peace plan. dont now try to say that you did not say this.

                      -------Now you and Andrew on the other hand are completely ignoring and denying the possibility that the moderates could win.

                      no. i just dont think that it will happen. what is win anyway? win what? they wont win in gaza thats for sure. so what is winning? you think that the more moderate hamas will overrun the gaza hamas and kick them out? you think that the gaza hamas wil just give up? no way.

                      -------When i present the true reality, that either side could win, Andrew lies and says Im presenting only the rosy picture.

                      he actually pasted your own comments. have you answered them yet? no? why not? if someone shows you your own comments and you dont respond what are we to think?

                      ---------And the reason that both of you want to present only half the story here, and deny the other half, is obvious.


                      hahaha. i cant wait for this one! wait! you didnt say what is obvius? what is obvious?

                      ------However if it means i spend less time in here he's probably done me a favor.

                      why dont you spend more time responding to his direct quotes of yours? he quoted you you know? how can you say that he is making things up when he quotes your own posts? maybe he has done us all a favor. you should not be afraid to respond to your own words.


                      • <you think that the more moderate hamas will overrun the gaza hamas and kick them out? you think that the gaza hamas wil just give up? no way. >

                        your not understanding this.

                        Who pays the bills ? why buys them rockets, who supplies them ? You think the people of Gaza will thank him when the run out of money if he trys to hold onto his power with dictatorship ? How did that go for Mubarak ?

                        <After 2009, sanctions on Iran made funding difficult, forcing Hamas instead to rely on religious donations by individuals in the West Bank, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.[184][185] Since June 2011 funding from the Islamic Republic of Iran has been cut to show "displeasure at Hamas's failure to hold public rallies in support of President Assad" in the face of the Syrian uprising, and funding from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has been cut so the MB can diverts funds "to support Arab Spring revolts".[186] The shortages have meant that Gaza's 40,000 civil service and security employees were not paid July 2011.[>

                        Now this is all intensifying and changing rapidly.

                        Hamas are leaving Syria, Syria is crumbling, its probable Irans influence in Iran is about to die. Sanctions of course on Iran have very recently been enormously ratcheted up.

                        The leadership of Hamas have already chosen which way there going and its not with the extremist in Syria or Iran, there leaving. Going to Egypt most likely.

                        Qatar are getting financially very strong and more moderate each year. There also wielding more influence. Even the most extremist group in Egypt, the Salfest have said they want to honour camp david, unlike Iran who occasionally still mumble hints about destroying Isreal.

                        Now elections are coming up for Hamas.

                        Are you really telling me that this one guy in Gaza, is going to resist the Arab Leauge, Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, the Hamas leadership, Qatar, and still remain popular at the elections if he plunges his people into poverty ?

                        Lets not forget AL Jeezera who are very popular now are watching too, people find out what is going on now, there connected to the net etc.

                        Sure its possible this one guy in Gaza will resist, but in the long run, like 2 or 3 years - the time it will take to kick Netanyahu out in Isreal and replace them with him with someone more reasonable like the opposition, who are much more amiable to the Palestinians and more popular than Netanyahu ?

                        Unlikely, very unlikely.

                        Non of it matters that much until both parties are ready for peace. Nothing is going to happen right now. Both parties are not ready for peace now. In Israel we have an extremist in power. With the Pals with have a split over growing forces of moderation, the Hamas leadership, Saudi who want peace, Fatah, Turkey, Qatar, and this one little idiot in Gaza.

                        But clearly things are shifting rapidly in Palestine towards reconciliation and the power behind the moderates is growing while the forces behind the extremist - Syria and Iran are most defiantly on there back feet in disarray.

                    • <let me try to take you throw this in small baby steps.>

                      Cool. Take me "throw" this. Be gentle on me, please.

                      <Now you and Andrew on the other hand are completely ignoring and denying the possibility that the moderates could win.>

                      Homey G-Money. That's a strawman. When did I say that I am "completely ignoring" anything? Find it? No? You can't, can ya'? Anything is possible. You being right some day is even possible. Nothing is impossible.

                      <Andrew lies and says Im presenting only the rosy picture.>

                      Um...ha. You regret this at this point - after I just posted...what? Seven instances of you painting a rosy picture? Oops.

                      <However if it means i spend less time in here he's probably done me a favor.>

                      That's some cowardice. Support your point. man up

                      <Either scenario can happen here,>

                      Yes. Either. Which one seems to have more weight to you.

                      <When we say this you accuse us of being a mouthpiece of terrorism.>

                      I never said that.

                      <The fact is I am not denying the negative scenario.>

                      Sure, y'r "not denying the negative scenario", you're minimizing it. Y'r painting a rosy picture abut the more negative option. I posted seven instances.

                      <The reason you want to deny this is obvious.>

                      Yeah? What's that?

                      <Seems you'd prefer war.>

                      Ha! What a ridiculous statement. Y'r path is the path to war, mine is the path to peace. You just don't know enough to know enough.

                      <If they did, there days would probably be numbered, because they need financial support.>

                      No they don't. They can exist on their black market & savings. They're not going anywhere. That's reality. You have your own reality - a reality based on an agenda is no reality.

                      <You make the false claim that the extremist in Hamas will certainly win.>

                      I don't think that it's a "false claim". I see it as having a much, much higher probability than somehow the Gazan Terrorists agreeing to put down their weapons.

                      <Again Andrew you focus entirely on the sins of Hamas and act as if Israel are saints>

                      Wow. Strawman again!? Seriously, man. You really need to think before you type. I never said that they are "saints" or even anything in that context. You just up and made that one out of nowhere.

                      <Israel have killed twice the amount of Palestinians since this conflict began and have destroyed over 80% of Arab Palestine, yet you act like the aggression is only on one side.>

                      Perception. That's y'r perception. I never have said nor meant that.

                      <just against hardliners like yourself.>

                      I'm a "hardliner"? Ha!

                      <Reality and facts are always a good place to start.>

                      Too bad that your facts have no attached context.

                      <<So, when you said, "t should at least be tried, no matter what happens.", you meant only for Israel.>>

                      <no Andrew, yet again you try to lie about my position and argue against it,>

                      No, you said that preconditions are OK. You can't be fine with preconditions for just the Israelis - what about "no matter what happens"? Preconditions are what you are talking about. They need to meet to talk "no matter what happens", INCLUDING building in Jerusalem. Yet...you're for preconditions. So, when I called you on that, I was right. You are NOT for "no matter what happens" for the Pals, but you are for the Israelis.

                      <That does NOT mean they should negotiate away the 13% of Arab Palestine that is actually left, is that really what you are asking them to do, give up the last remaining bit that hasn't been took from them ???? I mean for real ?>

                      Yeah. They have to negotiate. That's their ONLY choice. You see a different choice? Somewhere between 90% & 100% of the area in question. That's their only option. They can't take it, they can't demand it - so they have to negotiate for it. Are you confused by this reality?

                      <YES, that is a non starter.>

                      Wait...so there ARE non-starters? I thought just above, when I said, "you meant only for Israel.", you responded, 'no Andrew, yet again you try to lie about my position and argue against it,'. NOW, you find a "non starter" for the Pals? So...that means that Israelis are also allowed to have non-starters? Really? You are agreeing that Israel should be able to have non-starters? Really? Are you serious? You want to think about this one before you answer? One side can have non starters but another can? Really? Seriously. Seriously?

                      <Is that a non starter for you or not ?>

                      I'm fine with them negotiating with anyone. I don't give a fuck. Just because one reports someone else's opinion, that does not make it the speaker's (or, in this case, the writer's) opinion.

                      <Clearly in the current virtual war situation both parties are a danger to each other.>

                      Dude, I just showed your contradictory comments.


                      First Comment: "Hamas in Gaza may be a problem but I doubt it."
                      Latter Contradictory Comment: "i never said Hamas are not a danger to Israel"

                      Wait...that second one contradicts the first........so, when you said, "i never...", you meant EXCEPT that one earlier, right? I look forward to your trying to weasel-word out of this one. Come on, have some backbone and agree that you made a mistake.

                      <Of course a deal will never be struck in the first place if Netanyahu is demanding to take the last remaining bits of Palestine that are left.>

                      Strawman against Israel & Netanyahu. He offered 90% of the areas in question and up for debate & negotiation. So...where is he "demanding to take the last remaining bits of Palestine that are left"? You...are wrong. Again. But, will you admit it? Come on, Elo! I have faith!

                      <You say i deny the negative about Hamas.>

                      Strawman - I never said that. Quote it. What I said is that you paint a rosy picture. I never said that you "deny the negative about Hamas". Man. You will come up with strawmen or outright fabrications with as many paragraphs as you have.
                      • <First Comment: "Hamas in Gaza may be a problem but I doubt it."
                        Latter Contradictory Comment: "i never said Hamas are not a danger to Israel" >

                        I already explained that to you. Israel are currently a threat to Pals, and Gazans a threat to Israelis, of course the biggest threat is to the Pals, but leaving that aside, yes I accept both present a threat to each other currently, but if a peace plan is successively struck, as may well have happened if Olmert wasn't sadly replaced Netanyahu, then there might be peace.

                        The leadership of Hamas are saying that if that peace plan was struck, and a referendum was backed, they would stop hostilities and honor it. Are you saying that the political leadership of Hamas, Fatah, all of the Arab Leauge, Turkey, the USA and Isreal, Russia and the UN, ALL Of them, are going to be blocked publicly and internationally by this one little leader in Gaza, lol, and you cant see why i have my doubts about that ?

                        There funding and support would dry up quicker than the African plains in a drought.

                        For decades in London bombs went off by the IRA, the IRA were a concret threat to Londoners, some of them had nail bombs go off in their face, there was one point were i was literally dodging streets with bomb scares on my bike. A peace deal was successively struck, the IRA, reluctantly at first, laid down there arms, now there are no more bombs in London.

                        You seem to think Hamas will never change. How so, the PLO changed, Fatah came out of a "terriost" organistaion same as them. One of the first leaders in Isreal was a terrorist himself organizing terrorist attacks against the British. I suspect the reason you think Hamas cant or wont accept peace, even though there political leadership say they will, is because there more muslim than Fatah.

                        The Muslim AKP in Turkey used to have a terrorist wing when they were repressed and crimalised like Hamas are. Now look at them, leading the most succesful country in the whole region, with spectacular growth, rapidly improving human rights, and well on there way to being a developed country in a time frame that will actually beat China, in terms of becoming a developed nation.

                        Whats more the majority of Isrealis want to try and bring Hamas in from the cold and smoke the peace pipe with them.

                        <Again Andrew you focus entirely on the sins of Hamas and act as if Israel are saints>

                        Wow. Strawman again!? Seriously, man>

                        Show me one post of yours where you mention any sins of Israel in this thread. In your constant highlighting of Hamas wicked and evil and full of unchangeable sin, that's clearly relevant to the conversation by way of comparison to your depiction of Hamas.

                        <That does NOT mean they should negotiate away the 13% of Arab Palestine that is actually left, is that really what you are asking them to do, give up the last remaining bit that hasn't been took from them ???? I mean for real ?>

                        Yeah. They have to negotiate. That's their ONLY choice. You see a different choice?

                        Yes i see a different choice. Tell Netanyahu to go fuck himself with his Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Go to the UN. Get better at playing the International political game, as Fatah are indeed already doing. There support in Europe and the world is growing fast.

                        Wait for the hardliners in Israel to collapse, as they will, just as G W Bush collapsed under the weight of his own extremism when time discredits that path. Wait for players like France, the UK, Russia and others to increasingly back the needs of the Pals and reject the ridiculous demands of Netanyahu that all of Jerusalem will go to him, all of Jerusalem is his - HA. Actually that would be better to say to him than fuck you, say HA.

                        Then above all, wait for a moderate to get back in in Israel. THEN they will get there deal, and a damn side better one than the ridiculous one Netanyahu is offering.

                        I do business Andrew, i negotiate sometimes with different parties. There are some people that you know you dont waste time on negotiating with because there offering shit and you know there always going to offer shit, you move on, to a better deal.

                        As I say, would you negotiate Israels right to existence away ? No, well i dont blame you. Just dont ask the Pals to negotiate away Jerusalem, because they will say HA.

                        They will say HA because they know, in time, there getting half of it. Just like the sensible Olmert offered.

                        Dude they waited over 60 years to get to that point, they can wait another 2 or 3 years till Israelis turff Netanyahu out of office.

                        In the meantime things are working in their favor. Turkey are getting stronger all the time and helping there cause. Egypt will probably come on board with that soon. Probably, give them a few years to settle down, Amar Moussa knows what hes doing and doesn't have his hands tied behind his back by the Americans and Mubark now.

                        No, Netanayhu would get nothing more than a HA from me if I was a Pal.

                        Now Olmert, Barack, Rabin, and people like that, or Tzipi Livni, give me them and Obama and George Mitchell, and sure Id get the peace pipe out cook some nice food and and talk.

                        Now keep flashing your little strawman light if it keeps you happy, Tandy seems to like it, but the Pals are going to get what there looking for eventually and Israelis and Pals will find peace. But there not going to find it with the current joker in office in Israel. No way Jose. Even Obama knows that.

                        So its off to the UN, with a whistle and stomp, and a working light. There is much too much work to be done between Fatah and Hamas, and in the region, and preparing international support for the big day to be wasting time with Netanyahu, thanks but no thanks man.




                        • <<First Comment: "Hamas in Gaza may be a problem but I doubt it."
                          Latter Contradictory Comment: "i never said Hamas are not a danger to Israel" >

                          I already explained that to you.>

                          and just to clarify that above, yes there both a threat to each other under the current cold war situation, however if a peace deal is stuck and agreed on by all parties then obviously the situation changes completely. War is different to peace.

                          The IRA were a threat to the UK when both groups were at war with each other, a peace deal was struck and the threat is no longer there.
                          • -------and just to clarify that above

                            that is nto a clarification that is a total change. at least admit it. be honest.
                            • what are you even talking about, i said Hamas are a threat to isreal currently, but that they would probably not be a threat to the peace process, I have said this for years, you guys really have trouble with just basic comprehension. both quotes of Andrews are said in them two different contexts.


                              • <what are you even talking about, i said Hamas are a threat to isreal currently>

                                No. What you ACTUALLY wrote was, "Hamas in Gaza may be a problem but I doubt it." Now you are saying, "Hamas are a threat to isreal currently". Which is it?

                                <study the context in which both of them were said. the first one refers to if Hamas could threaten the peace process. The other is when I respond to Andrew when I say Hamas are currently a threat to Isreal and Isreal are a threat to them.>

                                Great rewriting of the history that we can all read. Hey man, if that makes you feel right, then go man go.

                                <Again this one little local leader is very unlikely to be able to resits Hamas leadership>

                                "one little local leader"? Elo....jesus. He's the fucking head of Hamas in Gaza. He's the king of Gaza. He's not just some "little local leader", he's the head of thousands of militants in Gaza who have tens of thousands of rockets. Where do you get this stuff?
                                • Andrew you said you were not petty like Dustin but your behaving worse. If I had changed my mind i would just said ive changed my mind, no big deal, maybe Tandy would get all excited about that, see he changed his mind, ha ha ha ha ha, kind of thing, like in the school playground but i really couldnt care less. I notice anyway you dont quote the context off both of them remarks, they are iff you check as exactly like i say, but i really cant be bothered with this. I didnt change my mind, i have always thought this about Hamas for at least a few years. Yes there a threat currently in terms of security, but there unlikely to be able to block a peace deal if its done properly especially now Syrias influence is waning and Iran look to be increasingly in trouble. Hamas have stuck to cease fires in the past.

                                  Now i really dont want to have these petty squabbles about irrelevant things there boring. If it makes you really happy, yes im lying you guys found me out, i lied or was deeply inconsistent, and Im desperatly trying to cover my tracks, what a big fraud I am, Tandy can type out lots of ha ha ha ha's, but then really, can we move on to something less boring ??? I mean really.

                                  < He's the fucking head of Hamas in Gaza. >

                                  you talk about him as if he is a head of a global superpower. He isnt even head of Hamas, the political leaders are. So your predicting that he is going to lead Gaza to breakaway from the Hamas leadership are you and the Arab league ?

                                  Well, that could happen, but that will probably be the end of him in the medium term. Without backers and if the Hamas leadership publicly goes with the likes of Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, and Syria is gone, and Fatah join the rest of them, the Gazan people themselves may go against him. Who knows what can happen. You think it makes a difference his men will be armed, look at Libya and Syria, but really who knows exactly what can happen.

                                  One thing that any of us would be wrong about when talking about this is to imply some kind of certainty. You talk as if your certain that this "Gaza King" is going to ultimatly dictate Arab policy on Isreal, i think thats at best HIGHLY uncertain.

                                  Whats more all i am asking for, is that when Isreal get rid of Netanayhu, Israel take up negotiations with Fatah and the US, the Arab League, Turkey, the EU, Russia and dont act like Hamas are a big deal unless they start raining down rockets on Isreal or really try and block peace.

                                  But I completely support teh Pals not giving away all of Jersusulam and the other ridiculous terms Netanyahu will demand, barely anybody takes him serious on peace, non of the respected Analyst, even Indyke who is a die hard Isreali supporter and ex AIPAC member knows Netanyahu is no go on a peace deal. You can say the should always start negotations with no preconditions. (though Netanyahu for a start is demanding that Fatah are not even allowed to be friends with Hamas as a precondition). But they did try and negotiatie with Netanyhau, they tried for about a year, but his actions and what he was demanding were so ridiculous they quite rightly didnt want to waste any more time and energy on that, as he would use it as a screen to try and take more land while pretending to talk peace. This doesnt fool people who understand these matters but it does fool people in America who want to be fooled like Tandy.

                                  As soon as Isreal get someone even half decent back in though, great, lets get back on track and take off where Netanayhu broke things off in the direction they have been slowly heading over the last 30 years, ie peace.

                                  If however I am wrong about Hamas, and they do block peace, well at least the people who should try will have tried. Then we will know who the problem is then and the interntinal community should do everything they can to isolate and weaken them then. Problem is there already doing that.

                                  You know what Dustins take on this was ? That Both Hamas and Likud are equally blocking peace and that while he like you insited i was always looking overly optimistic at Hamas he agreed at least that Likud should be treat the same, ie that when Netanayhu refused to freeze settlments America should have reacted to taht exactly as they have with Hamas, cut all AID to Isreal, freeze them out of all poltical process, demonize them as they have Hamas, etc etc.

                                  I made the point that i would be happy for BOTH carrot and stick to be used with both people, Likud and Hamas equally, but with both of them, Likud or anyway this current hardline Israeli government, the should use the carrot first and the stick coming from behind in parrellel.

                                  Of course you will want only the carrot to be used with this hard line Israeli government and only the stick to be used with Hams. Which is exactly why America has always been such a lousy peace mediator on this, and probably one of the main reason after the last 30 years why we still havnt got a solution.



                                  • Being that Tandy has not been able to get on tribe.....until just recently......bump. :)
                                    • -----Being that Tandy has not been able to get on tribe.....until just recently......bump. :)

                                      hahaha. dont worry! i cant stay away that long! its not like tribe will just go away.

                                      @elo-------Tandy again I acknowledge both the positive and negative scenarios whilst on the other hand you, unlike most of the respected analyst out there, do not acknowledge the possibility of a positive path for Hamas

                                      you acknowledge both but you paint a rosy picture and always will give credit to those terrorists. they are just lucky that they did not ever take us on or we would flatten gaza. the marines would go in and take care of the problem before sunset. and i dont think that the gazan hamas terrorists will ever give up. no i dont. you come up with all sorts of excuses for why you thinmk that they will but i disagree. deal with it.

                                      -------It is hence you and Andrew who are presenting an unbalanced picture here, ignoring possibilities on one side of the picture.

                                      elo i ignore all sorts of things that i dont think is possible. i ignore aliens too! hahaha.

                                      -----As with Netanyahu as i say its a fruitless exercise talking for years with somebody who is offering deals that the international community know are non starters, completely unreasonable, and would never get accepted in a million years by the Pals.

                                      you mean like the palestinian nonstarters? you are giving htem an excuse to not even negotiate. you are the one that says that everyone should negotiate with everyone even those that are sworn to destroy you but then you will in the next sentence excuse the palestinians for not negotiating because of these nonstarters. how does this hypocrisy not tear your psyche apart?

                                      ------They tried and Netanyahu wasn't compromising and took a very hard-line position, even by Israeli standards.

                                      they tried? when? was there a secret meeting that you know of that i dont? hahaha

                                      @andrew-------Dude. All that they have to do it launch a few rockets if they see that any peace deal is going well. That'll cause Israel to invade/attack, and there goes any peace process. HOW do you miss this simple reality?

                                      that is so true! elo is just ignoring any kind of thing that would harm his side of this argument. he just up and ignores it. every time but then gets mad when he feels that someone does not do the same for him.

                                      --------Sure, when it aligned with their interests. A peace deal; at this point, DOES NOT align with their interests.

                                      why? i guess because their interests are to destroy israel right? in gaza at least.

                                      --You know what happens in Gaza if you go against Hamas?

                                      i sure would not want to be on the end of that. and i wont watch that video but i get the idea. that is horrific.

                                      ------THAT is a patent lie. They set preconditions that he could not/did not meet. During the 10 month term of a cessation of building in the West Bank, the Pals refused to meet to talk until the 9th month. Are you lying or don't know what you are talking about?

                                      i have seen this story. he will just trot out some story about the pals going to washington to meet with obama or something evne though they were not going there to negotiate but to meet the incoming president. to him that is them negotiating.

                                      -------F Israel AGAIN allows the peace plan to become more important than safety, Israelis will again die. Real people will die. Lebanon...Gaza...Israel took the high road, and paid for it dearly. No - they won't do it again. That much I guarantee you. Someone else will have to take the first step, because Israel ain't doing it again.

                                      totally. i have been reading all around this issue and to me i think that they need to negotiate but they should do it with someone that really will negotiate. no one in gaza is there to negotiate with. even the red cross leaves that place!

                                      ---------I literally and figuratively and actually could not give a fuck what he thought.

                                      hahahaahaha! oh i wish that he was still here to read that! hahaha

                                      -------Fine, take that up with Tandy. My name is Andrew...let Tandy defend her own statements. I have no interest doing that.

                                      well they thought that i was you for months so dont expect anything more from them.

                                      @jeff--------So yes, please do let Tandy defend her own statements.

                                      what half was i not telling?
                                      • <<you acknowledge both but you paint a rosy picture and always will give credit to those terrorists.

                                        At the very least, acknowledging the positive AND negative is a much more balanced analytical approach than only focusing on the negative. Subsequently I think the argument can be made that Elo is putting forth a much more balanced analysis than are you, even if it does trend "rosy".

                                        <<-------Fine, take that up with Tandy. My name is Andrew...let Tandy defend her own statements. I have no interest doing that.

                                        well they thought that i was you for months so dont expect anything more from them<<

                                        Sorry Tandy, but that is a lie being that I never thought any such thing.

                                        <<@jeff--------So yes, please do let Tandy defend her own statements.

                                        what half was i not telling?<<

                                        Read the thread and catch up, Elo posted the rest of the picture you left out. The entire story (even if painted in a rosy manner) is better than half the story.
                                        • ----At the very least, acknowledging the positive AND negative is a much more balanced analytical approach than only focusing on the negative. Subsequently I think the argument can be made that Elo is putting forth a much more balanced analysis than are you, even if it does trend "rosy".

                                          sorry but i dont see why showing all perspectives is better. my comment anyway was just about his always pointing towards the most rosy outlook as it goes with his dream of a happy peaceful middle east which i dont think is any reality. he says that turkey is getting more democratic as it turns more religious and the gaza hamas group wont interfere with a peace plan? he just ignores anything that would cause anyone to think in a dirction away from what he wants people to think. isnt that what the republicans do here?

                                          -------Sorry Tandy, but that is a lie being that I never thought any such thing.

                                          hahha. i meant a few people not you. they just means those that thought so.

                                          --------The entire story (even if painted in a rosy manner) is better than half the story.

                                          the whole story includes rosy options that probably are not going to happen. that is not better. thats like the republicans saying what will happen with their trickle down economics as an option for making things better. how is there saying that going to be better even if its more then half the story? we all recognize that the gaza hamas probably wont play along. they themselves said so so why should we not believe them? saying that turkey is getting better while it is getting more conservative is pretty rosy right?

                                          -------“The problem is bigger than the tables and chairs,” said Aydin Ali Kalayci, an executive member of Beydar, who runs a popular restaurant. “The problem is that the money is flowing now from the Middle East, so they want to make changes in our society. Time is running out for us.”www.chezchiara.com/2011/10/...both.html

                                          but i guess that elos brother is a better judge? no elo just always points to the most rosy view based on his already stated beliefs. just telling the whole story while minimizing the bad part is not more balanced at all. its called spin jeff. thats not balanced. spin is not balance.
                                          • <<sorry but i dont see why showing all perspectives is better.

                                            We are not talking about opinions or perspectives when we say you are telling half the story, you literally left out factual information that completes the picture. Be that as it may, even with a rosy spin, ALL of the story (factual data) is better than half the story. Would you prefer your history books only tell half the story? I am assuming not. What is happening in the world today is history in the making, so of course the whole story is better than half.

                                            Just to refresch your memory: uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...ad0f9d45

                                            <<my comment anyway was just about his always pointing towards the most rosy outlook as it goes with his dream of a happy peaceful middle east which i dont think is any reality.

                                            If he is presenting both positive and negative, with a heavy bent toward the positive, then obviously he is not "ALWAYS" looking at the most rosy outlook. Whereas you present zero positive information for your side of the argument, thus it is you that are always pointing toward the most negative outlook as it goes with your dream of a middle east shithole.

                                            <<he says that turkey is getting more democratic as it turns more religious

                                            The two ideas are not mutually exclusive Tandy. Democracy and religion can exist just fine together as long as there is a separation of church and state, and Turkey has that separation. They are not passing religious laws and they not imposing sharia in Turkey. So tell me, exactly how is Turkey anti-democratic based on religion?

                                            <<hahha. i meant a few people not you. they just means those that thought so.

                                            What people?

                                            <<the whole story includes rosy options that probably are not going to happen.

                                            There is a difference between telling the whole story and presenting different perspectives. You left out factual information that was contrary to your theme, that = telling half the story. Whereas a persons conclusion based on said factual information = perspective.

                                            <<saying that turkey is getting better while it is getting more conservative is pretty rosy right?

                                            Conservatism and Democracy are not mutually exclusive ideas. Our own nation is comprised of conservative and liberal people, it is literally half of our nation.

                                            <<but i guess that elos brother is a better judge? no elo just always points to the most rosy view based on his already stated beliefs. just telling the whole story while minimizing the bad part is not more balanced at all. its called spin jeff. thats not balanced. spin is not balance.

                                            All of us have our bias, so I think the claim of "spin" could be leveled at any one of us. The difference is that Elo is putting a spin on ALL of the data, you were presenting incomplete data and then putting your spin on it. The former being more honest than the latter as a technique of debate.
                                            • Re: Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

                                              Wed, February 29, 2012 - 11:47 PM
                                              <The two ideas are not mutually exclusive Tandy. Democracy and religion can exist just fine together as long as there is a separation of church and state, and Turkey has that separation. They are not passing religious laws and they not imposing sharia in Turkey. So tell me, exactly how is Turkey anti-democratic based on religion? >

                                              well said, and it should be remembered that two of the worlds most respected people were people who mixed politics with religion, Martin Luther King and Gandhi. As you say the separation of state and religion as institutions is important though, which is what they have in Turkey.

                                              On the issue of Conservatism Tandy thinks that liberalism is inherently superior to conservatism in a society. While I'm naturally a liberal I see there can be problems with both.

                                              In America economic liberalism has lead to a society where in Californian mulit millionaires sip champagne in huge mansions while the poor thousands outside die because they cant afford medical care. Where crime rates in some American cities are so bad that in whole sections of cities like LA and Philadelphia young kids frequently dont make it to 18 because of the extremely high prevalence of murder rates.

                                              The problem with and excess of liberalism can be lack of responsibility.

                                              I actually think its a wise choice for Turkey right now while its changing at a rapid rate for the people to hold onto to some extent to tradition and traditional values as long as that doesnt go to far,and inevitable it will go to far with a minority, but that minority in Turkey is small.

                                              That being said there is a raging open debate going on inside Turkey anyway between religious and secularist, traditionalist and modernists. As there should be when a country like that is developing and changing so fast.

                                              Turkey does have some way to go yet, its certain not the perfect society, but clearly as indicated in things like the highly detailed EU progress reports its heading in the right direction. Economically is moving with lightning speed and will be one of the first of the developed nations, before China, India and Brazil, maybe Russia, to have as high a GDP as western nations, thats probably only 20 years off.

                                              Im sorry to make such harsh comparisons to America, there are many things and people in America i like. America has the most noble prize winners in the world and is still a very creative place. But when Tandy touts superiority so much, especially in view of the recent behavior of America with things like Iraq, she leaves me no choice. Trust me, I am certainly not the only person in the world to get very tired of THAT side of America that Tandy is showing.

                                              Liberals in America of which there are many are great people, but its the bigoted arrogance of some who see America as inherently superior that has lead to mass destruction like Vietnam and Iraq and millions dead.

                                              If we are talking about model societies though to me its places like Sweden, Norway, Finland Japan who stand out. Whilst they are liberal they balance that liberalism with a strong sense of responsibility. Both a sense of responsibility of government and of individuals.

                                              • <<On the issue of Conservatism Tandy thinks that liberalism is inherently superior to conservatism in a society. While I'm naturally a liberal I see there can be problems with both.

                                                I like to use a train analogy, progressive liberals are the engine that drives our country forward, while far right conservatives are the caboose where the brakes reside, with everyone else in America falling somehwere in between. The engine is essential to move the train forward, conservatives by nature want to put the brakes on and slow that progression, which at times may help to keep us going off the rails. The problem right now is that the Republican party is riding the brakes.
                                                • Yeh I think right now conservatives in the US not only control the brakes, there in the engine room throwing water on the fire but fooling themselves that that water is fire for the country ! I think they deeply misunderstand what America needs. They actually don't want the train to move, because they would prefer the train was back in Americans 1984 or 1950 station, they think America was great and just fine then, they don't want the train to move but go backwards. A lot of that is a reaction to American dominance in the post cold war period starting to fade now through globalization, which is part of history, nobody is dominant forever. They misunderstand the problems and solutions to what America is facing now with globalization, social and equality problems, so just want to kill the engine and hope the train will go back to where it should be, safely in the 1950 or 1980 station.

                                                  I think its a bit different in a rapidly developing and modernizing traditional society like Turkey, that is still basically a poor country even though it wont be soon at the rate its changing.

                                                  Your analogy i think is better there, its kind of working a bit more like the train should overall. I think the AKP are tying to balance modernizing economics with traditional values of the society it governs, and its recently had a big lid opened on that society, because of real democracy, freedom has come now, if the people want to be more Muslim they can now, if another section of the society doesnt, they dont have to be. Them kind of splits and debates withn sociities when there changing are not always easy to manage and balance, I think the AKP are doing a good job of that.

                                                  Dont get me wrong though, Turkey is far from perfect, torture still goes on, the media is not completely free, but a developing country rarely is perfect, whats important to me on just about every criteria there moving forward.

                                                  But there is another important side to this Jeff, money, and economic liberalism. My Brother goes there quite often, he said the religious secular divide in Turkey is strongly a class divide, he meets and knows people from both groups, and my family in Istanbul (from my Fathers side, my Mother is English) actually has both groups in it, the tradition Muslim working class, and the young modern educated middle class.

                                                  He said that the middle classes have done well from Turkeys secular past and now from the new economic progress are doing even better, change is going fast in places like Istanbul and many of Turkys middle class are fine with that change because there doing fine out of it.

                                                  However with the working class some of this modernizing rapid change can seem more distressing. Many have come out of traditional villages and find themselves in sometimes ugly modern poor parts of rapidly growing cities. This is often why they look to the old ways of Islam, that can often emphasis stability, social community, and do not put material things at the center of existence, instead they put faith, values, and social community and stability as the center.

                                                  Of course there are many distortions around that and can be some negative sides to it.

                                                  But for sure for those who do not always do so well from economic liberalism and development, there can be may down sides to that economic development and modernization too !

                                                  Thats why they can often be deeply suspicious of western culture. It ties in with global economics.

                                                  In some ways the same reasons that many on Occupy Wall street are unhappy and angry at the way America has developed over the last 30 years is a smilar reason to why some of the working class in Turkey turn more intensely to Islam and reject some of western values.

                                                  However of course there is a middle ground, and probably most in Turkey fall into that middle group. I think the AKP is doing a pretty good balancing act of balancing things between these modernist secularists, into western style development, and traditional muslims.

                                                  And as I say, us in the more unequal western countries of America and the UK, would do well to ponder whats going on there.

                                                  While everyone want to have more money and a nicer house when that gets out of hand, when the competition between people gets out of hand, when consumerism becomes and obsession, then that can cause big problems.

                                                  Its not that all of them things are bad, they just need to be in balance. I think societies like Sweden, Finland, Norway, Japan, do a really good job of balancing them. And of course taking note of that is not about Americans or English people becoming Swedish and Japanese, we can look at there successful models but then do that in a a very American or English way. Germans and French are half way between us and them.

                                                  Anyway, as i say America has been there before, at the very least from 1933 - 1944, and from 1961-1979. But much of the period from 1900 -1980 was more progressive than conservative.

                                                  Funny how 30 years of deep consumerist market fundamentalism almost becoming a religion can make us forget that ! Look at like that you can start to understand why some in Turkey cling to Islam and tradition - even if they can be problems with that too. Again i think the solution is all about balance.






                                      • < they are just lucky that they did not ever take us on or we would flatten gaza.>

                                        Just remember when your talking about the US that not everyone is a war criminal like Bush who happily murdered well over 100,000s Iraqis, seems you'd like to murder a million Gazans next now, not much surprises there really, but again do not assume you speak for respectable Americans when you say "us" just as you don't speak for Israeli moderates. Again, they want to include Hamas in any peace deal, check the polls out honey.

                                        as to the terrorist thing, you are aware that one of the first Israeli leaders was a terrorists who got locked up by the British, i guess its OK for Israelis to do that though hey, and Fatah used to be a terrorist organisation anyway.

                                        But as usual the conversation is getting dragged into the gutter with threats to flatten Gaza etc. Really, whatever.

                                        • <saying that turkey is getting better while it is getting more conservative is pretty rosy right? >

                                          Tandy your really a lost cause, you have been able to point to nothing on Turkey other than that they have a Muslim government in, and we all know how much you like Muslims, like you want to flatten Gaza like they flattened Iraq dont you ?

                                          I remember well when you claimed that murder in US cities was normal unlike murder in Turkey - and you may want to note that Istanbul is now ranked as one of Europe's safest major cities.

                                          Your the one with extremist views. Your the one who would wave the American flag while thousands get massacred in Gaza as they were in Iraq.

                                          Really its words like yours that give the US such a bad name around the world. War mongers and the like. Obama is only just starting to clean up some of that name, but trust me, people in Europe have not forgotten the millions dead in Vietnam, the million or so dead in Iraq. I just have to ponder how many Americans would be revolted by your words to stop it colouring my attitude towards all America and Americans.

                                          A conservative government ? So what, there is a conservative government in power right now in the UK and in case you didnt notice right now you have two complete nutcases running for your presidency, Santorum and Gengrich who like Bush G W would no doubt happily massacre more Muslims to your glee.

                                          But you know what, its game over on all that, America cant afford to pay the bills anymore for its killing.

                                          not wasting anymore time debating with you. You talking about flattening Gaza like a cheap Rambo movie has really done it for me, like the "normal" US murders as opposed to the "abnormal" Muslim murders, i guess i should laugh really but its all just cheap. Why on earth i wasted time on that kind of thing in the first place really is beyond me.





                                          • <<Tandy your really a lost cause, you have been able to point to nothing on Turkey

                                            She has been flat out wrong about Turkey from the get-go, even claiming that they are instilling sharia law. Totally untrue of course, the separation of church and state in Turkey remains in tact.
                                            • -----even claiming that they are instilling sharia law

                                              i never said that. what is this a tag team of saying lies about me between you and elo? i said that they are putting in more religious laws. that link that i had was an example of that. why are you ignoring this? just do your own research!

                                              ------Totally untrue of course, the separation of church and state in Turkey remains in tact.

                                              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepa...ate#Turkey
                                              nomorespin.blogspot.com/2006/1...in.html
                                              blog.seattlepi.com/rickstev...entalism/
                                              www.islam-watch.org/index.php

                                              you and elo need to start researching something that is other then your own opinion. that wont ever teach you anthyhing.

                                              ---------I myself trend toward being optimistic, or "rosy" if you will. Be that as it may, I used the word IF not IS.

                                              well at least you agree that elo trends towards rosy. he still refuses to understand that but at least you do.
                                              • <<-----even claiming that they are instilling sharia law

                                                i never said that.<<

                                                Yes you did. The problem with our exchanges is that you often forget your own words, and in this case I am 100% positive you indicated that religious zealots have taken over Turkey and they are instilling Sharia law.

                                                <<i said that they are putting in more religious laws.

                                                Religious law wold = sharia law being that they are Muslim. And while the state may have some control over religion in Turkey, religion does not have any control over the state. Turkey is not passing in ANY laws based on religion as you have falsely claimed.

                                                <<------Totally untrue of course, the separation of church and state in Turkey remains in tact.

                                                en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepa...ate#Turkey<<

                                                Sure, it is a little different than here in the US, but they are still a secular Govt., as Wikipedia clearly indicates.

                                                <<well at least you agree that elo trends towards rosy.

                                                Optimism is good Tandy, without it nothing in the world would ever change. And while Elo may put forth 75% positive and 25% negative, you put forth 100% negative. That is NOT a blanaced or comprehensive analysis of the M.E., their culture, their Govt., and their religion.
                                      • <you acknowledge both but you paint a rosy picture and always will give credit to those terrorists.>

                                        Exactly. So what that he points to two options? That's like a school kid wanting extra credit because he adds up 5+5 to be 10 and 11. So what? When he rosifies the more negative issue EVERY TIME...so what that he gives two opinions?

                                        <they tried? when? was there a secret meeting that you know of that i dont? hahaha>

                                        Again - exactly. When did the Pals EVER negotiate with Netanyahu at all? There was a 10 month building moratorium which they chose to ignore for 9 of the 10 months. Then there was...uh... When else have they ever negotiated? When did they try? I honestly have on idea what you're talking about. Netanyahu offered three or four times in ONE YEAR to ask them to negotiate but they turned him down every time. I am starting to again believe that Elo has no idea what he's talking about.

                                        <At the very least, acknowledging the positive AND negative is a much more balanced analytical approach than only focusing on the negative.>

                                        Jeff - that's nonsense. Really. That's nonsense. How is it "balanced" when one of the options is just irrelevant? He offers two sides, but one he just says is a bad idea and his better option he minimized the dangers of his chosen peeps. Come on - that's not "analytical", that's just agenda & spin.

                                        <even if it does trend "rosy".>

                                        At least you admit that it's rosy. He does not seem to understand what is so clear to everyone else.

                                        Elo, what do you think about that? Even Jeff agrees that you are painting a rosy picture.
                                        • <<Jeff - that's nonsense. Really. That's nonsense. How is it "balanced" when one of the options is just irrelevant?

                                          I am confused, what options is irrelevant? I did not think I was even talking about "options".

                                          <<<even if it does trend "rosy".>

                                          <<At least you admit that it's rosy. He does not seem to understand what is so clear to everyone else. <<

                                          I myself trend toward being optimistic, or "rosy" if you will. Be that as it may, I used the word IF not IS.
                                          • <I am confused, what options is irrelevant? I did not think I was even talking about "options".>

                                            The two sides. The two opinions.

                                            <I myself trend toward being optimistic, or "rosy" if you will. Be that as it may, I used the word IF not IS.>

                                            No, you give optimistic options - he spins the story towards the rosy side. He creates a reality where the more rosy opinion/side/option is what he wants to portray as the more believable. That is spin. I give my opinion without a care for trying to convince anyone of anything outside of what are the facts. NOT, twisting some facts to create a more palatable argument in order to create a convincing story, a'la, 'Hamas won't interfere with a peace plan.'

                                            <------------Tandy just offered to "flatten Gaza" with the US army,>

                                            Don't let him get to you. He does not understand much.

                                            <Turkey is not passing in ANY laws based on religion as you have falsely claimed.>

                                            Did she say that they were? It's unmistakable that Turkey is moving into a more conservative direction, and worse...is losing the will to allow freedom of speech. Check this one out:
                                            www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx
                                            Or, this one...
                                            www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx

                                            Great, 'eh?

                                            <Sure, it is a little different than here in the US, but they are still a secular Govt., as Wikipedia clearly indicates.>

                                            Sure, but moving away from it. I'd be careful to stake your opinion on whether or not Turkey is turning more fundamentalist.
                                            • <<The two sides. The two opinions.

                                              <I myself trend toward being optimistic, or "rosy" if you will. Be that as it may, I used the word IF not IS.>

                                              No, you give optimistic options >>

                                              IF = both options.

                                              <<<Turkey is not passing in ANY laws based on religion as you have falsely claimed.>

                                              Did she say that they were?>>

                                              Yes, in this thread and in past threads.
                                              • i dont want to get into one of your back and forth arguments but i posted two links showing how there are reactions moving towards the more conservative. you can ignore it or minimize the importance but that is your choice.
                                                • <<i dont want to get into one of your back and forth arguments but i posted two links showing how there are reactions moving towards the more conservative. you can ignore it or minimize the importance but that is your choice.

                                                  The only thing being ignored is by you, the fact that many countries, including our own, vaccilate between conservative and liberal. As a matter of fact, far from ignoring the fact that Turkey is currently trending conservative, we have both recognized that at the outset of this conversation. So tell me, how does our acceptance of this basic premise = ignoring anything?

                                                  Be that is it may, how is the Republican party any different with their B.S. religious ideas and proposals for religion interjecting in to our own politics?
                                                  • -----The only thing being ignored is by you, the fact that many countries, including our own, vaccilate between conservative and liberal.

                                                    this is not just htem going back and forth. this is a progression in turkey moving more conservative and show me a state that has turned less conservative please. i dont feel that anywhere moves less conservative anymore. at least its not that easy. iran might but the moderates there are not even allowed to exist politically right? so what am i ignoring or what are you ignoring?

                                                    ----Be that is it may, how is the Republican party any different with their B.S. religious ideas and proposals for religion interjecting in to our own politics?

                                                    i never said any connection to the two. so i dont even know what you rae talking about.

                                                    --Is your fear in Turkey that they are simply religious Muslims?

                                                    not at all. you and elo always expect someoen to be racist first. the fact is that religious muslims are more violent and lead to more violence recently then any christians in europe.

                                                    ------Why ignore this and project Turkey as if they are yet another example of a fundamentalist shithole when clearly they are not?

                                                    i never called it a fundimentalist shithole. i said that it is turning more conservative.

                                                    ------What I can say is that I know how you came by this Turkey bashing.

                                                    hahaha. ok i am ready! and i am looking forward to it!

                                                    --------So when examples such as Turkey were given to you, rather than admit your error, you have tried to paint Turkey as becoming engulfed in Sharia law.

                                                    hahaha. i never said that. ever. can you find for me where i used the word sharia next to turkey? i keep saying more religious or conservative not sharia. you used that word. isnt thata strawman?

                                                    ------Even indicating that they were CURRENTLY passing religious laws, but you have yet to tell us what laws you are speaking of.

                                                    maybe you should listen to npr. are they wrong? i guess so.

                                                    here is something fun for you! ------Ironically, even as European officials applauded reforms that, in August 2004, bestowed a civilian head and civilian majority upon the MGK, Turkey has become less democratic. Today, the AKP party with almost a two-thirds majority in parliament, rules Turkey like a one-party state. The party ignores the opposition and has abandoned efforts to reach out to any constituency beyond Anatolian Islamists. It awards state positions, for example, almost exclusively to Islamists.[10] Still, even as Ankara backslides away from democracy, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and President Abdullah Gül leverage the European Union accession process to create an illusion of tolerance and reform.

                                                    doesnt that sound wonderful? sounds like a country that is just movign back and forth right? that is what you are saying that this is just a phase? thats what vasillation is right? going back and forth? you think that this is just a short period? how long do you think this short period is? one year? ten? twenty or one hundred? www.meforum.org/2047/islam...pe#_ftnref3 i will stop being concerned when you show me what muslim country has become less conservative after moving in the direciton of more conservative.
                                                    • <<this is not just htem going back and forth. this is a progression in turkey moving more conservative

                                                      When one is in the midst of trending more conservative and yet does not know what the future holds, how is it you know that it won't trend more liberal again in the future?

                                                      <<show me a state that has turned less conservative please.

                                                      Every state in Europe, the United States has gone back and forth, Canada has vaccilated between more and less conservative.....and yes, even Turkey.

                                                      <<i dont feel that anywhere moves less conservative anymore.

                                                      Then why did the US elect Obama in 2008? The United States trended less conservative, simple fact. The trended more conservative in 2010, and now it is back on the swing toward Obama. You have to look at the big picture, history, and trends in order to evaluate these kinds of things. You can't just look at the narrow confines of what you see in front of your face, it is only a snapshot of the here and now and provides zero in the way of context.
                                                      • <Every state in Europe, the United States has gone back and forth, Canada has vaccilated between more and less conservative.....and yes, even Turkey.>

                                                        If I had to be a dollar, I'd bet that she meant amongst Muslim nations. I can't really think of one. And, yes - Turkey is heading more Conservative. There's really no arguing that. One can really argue all that one wants about some elements in a capitol city that are continuing in a Liberal manner, but if you listen to the news or read with an interest in seeing the actual truth as opposed to the truth that one wants to imagine, one will see many instances of the government and the people becoming more Conservative.

                                                        Oops...
                                                        www.bloomberg.com/apps/news

                                                        There's a hyyyyyysterical picture of "Islamic Bathing Costumes" in this one...
                                                        www.spiegel.de/internatio...163,00.html

                                                        Seriously. It's getting more Conservative. This point should really not be up for debate.

                                                        <The point is that what the religious party is trying to do in Turkey is not really that different than what Republicans are trying to do in our own country.>

                                                        Except, of course, we have that ol' Separation of Church & State thing going on... Sure, some states will try to pull some religious-based shit, but we're talking about a country where the dominant political party is universally seen as a Muslim party. Are the Republicans a "Christian" party? Yes, the Republicans are trying to make our country become more Christian/conservative, but surely you see a difference between the Republicans/Tea Party & the leading government of Turkey right now.

                                                        Y'r not Elo, Jeff. You're really not going to say to me that you see these two governments as equal or heading in an equal direction at an equal speed, right?

                                                        <Yes you did, and you repeated it just yesterday when you said they are trying to impose "religious laws". Of course "religious laws" in a Muslim country = Sharia law.>

                                                        No. I will speak up on that one - you cannot define for someone what they meant. Just because YOU say that it's Sharia Law, that does not mean that this is what she meant. I also think that they are pushing towards Islam-based laws... Does that mean that I thin that they are heading towards Sharia Law? Not anytime soon, but when they shut down pork butchers, when they pressure bars out of existence & shit, well...that is heading towards more religion, not less. So, YOU are saying Sharia.

                                                        <Sorry, but there is not even ONE example of religious or sharia law being passed in the quote you provided. You have thusfar failed to demonstrate your claim.>

                                                        I posted the end of the pork industry. You think that's it's a just a matter of gastronomy? At one point they were thinking about making adultery a criminal act. Religious or not religious?

                                                        Anyway - the country sucks in many respects:
                                                        www.bloomberg.com/news/2012...-view.html

                                                        That's not a country getting better...

                                                        <And yet separation of church and state in Turkey remains largely intact.>

                                                        "largely". Yes. For now. The good news is that over 40% of Turks do not want any laws based on Sharia, compared to just ~30% that do. So, that's good news.
                                                        • <<Seriously. It's getting more Conservative. This point should really not be up for debate.

                                                          Color me confused, but I don't see where I have indicated otherwise. As a matter of fact, I have clearly indicated that Turkey is currently trending more conservative, much like many countries (including our own) trend back and forth between conservative and liberal.

                                                          <<<The point is that what the religious party is trying to do in Turkey is not really that different than what Republicans are trying to do in our own country.>

                                                          Except, of course, we have that ol' Separation of Church & State thing going on... <<

                                                          As does Turkey. And?

                                                          <<Sure, some states will try to pull some religious-based shit, but we're talking about a country where the dominant political party is universally seen as a Muslim party.

                                                          And during the Bush years the predominate political party is universally seen as the Christian party.

                                                          <<surely you see a difference between the Republicans/Tea Party & the leading government of Turkey right now.

                                                          Of course they are different being that it is a foreign culture. And?

                                                          <<You're really not going to say to me that you see these two governments as equal or heading in an equal direction at an equal speed, right?

                                                          What specifically are you equating? Vague ideas like "getting more conservative"? How is it quantified? How is it compared?

                                                          <<No. I will speak up on that one - you cannot define for someone what they meant.

                                                          I am not defining what she meant, religious law in a Muslim country = Sharia, period.

                                                          <<I posted the end of the pork industry.

                                                          What specific religious law was passed to bring this about?

                                                          <<At one point they were thinking about making adultery a criminal act. Religious or not religious?

                                                          Adultry is a criminal act in 22 states right here in the good ol USA. And?

                                                          <<That's not a country getting better...

                                                          It depends on what specifically you are speaking of, "getting better" is rather vague.
                                                    • <<----Be that is it may, how is the Republican party any different with their B.S. religious ideas and proposals for religion interjecting in to our own politics?

                                                      i never said any connection to the two.<<

                                                      Come on Tandy, you know MUST understand when a person is making a logical correlation, please don't be purposefully obtuse. The point is that what the religious party is trying to do in Turkey is not really that different than what Republicans are trying to do in our own country.

                                                      <<--Is your fear in Turkey that they are simply religious Muslims?

                                                      not at all. you and elo always expect someoen to be racist first.<<

                                                      I never used the word racist, as a matter of fact I never even hinted at any such thing. It could not be racism anyway, Muslim is not a race. As Elo so eloquently pointed out, he does not think it is bigotry on your part, just a lack of understanding and experience with the Muslim religion. It is a proven fact that humans naturally are fearful of that which they don't understand. So in reality your assertion about expecting "someoen to be racist first" is disproven by our actual words.

                                                      <<the fact is that religious muslims are more violent and lead to more violence recently then any christians in europe.

                                                      One can be a liberal or even a moderate Muslim and still be religious. I know people that belong to the most liberal church possible, are very religious, and yet also very progressive. You are confusing being "religious" with "fundamentalism". Be that as it may, what statistics do you base the idea that Muslims are more violent than Christians? How many millions were killed by American and European Christians in Iraq via both war and sanctions? It is all relative, and part of what is happening in the Middle East is the direct result of decades of violence and repression imposed upon Muslims by the Christian western world. Being that they are militarily powerless, they have lashed out with terrorism. That speaks nothing of the lack of morality of such a tactic, but a desperate people will often resort to desperate measures. Social progression in the ME is a necessity, and that can't even have a chance of happening without Democracy. Period.

                                                      <<------Why ignore this and project Turkey as if they are yet another example of a fundamentalist shithole when clearly they are not?

                                                      i never called it a fundimentalist shithole. i said that it is turning more conservative. <<

                                                      You originally overstated your case regarding Turkey and have since backed off. Originally you said it was becoming a fundamentalist shithole and that they were imposing Sharia law. Now you have changed that to "turning more conservative" and trying to write "religious laws". Remember, this Turkey conversation began when you asked for one example of a successful Muslim Democracy. Turkey was given as an example, so you tried to discredit Turkey because their very existence hurts your argument.

                                                      <<--------So when examples such as Turkey were given to you, rather than admit your error, you have tried to paint Turkey as becoming engulfed in Sharia law.

                                                      hahaha. i never said that. ever.<<

                                                      Yes you did, and you repeated it just yesterday when you said they are trying to impose "religious laws". Of course "religious laws" in a Muslim country = Sharia law.

                                                      << can you find for me where i used the word sharia next to turkey?

                                                      Given time to search, most definately.

                                                      << i keep saying more religious or conservative not sharia.

                                                      This conversation regarding Turkey began long before you back pedaled on your claims about Turkey. You are correct in that you have recently changed your language, but that is not how you began this conversation. Now if you were originally in error, just say so and the conversation can move forward based on reality.

                                                      <<------Even indicating that they were CURRENTLY passing religious laws, but you have yet to tell us what laws you are speaking of.

                                                      maybe you should listen to npr. are they wrong?<<

                                                      Sorry, but there is not even ONE example of religious or sharia law being passed in the quote you provided. You have thusfar failed to demonstrate your claim.

                                                      <<i will stop being concerned when you show me what muslim country has become less conservative after moving in the direciton of more conservative.

                                                      There are many reasons to be "concerned", that is besides the point being that I am not asking you to not be concerned. But I have a very current example from one of the most backwards countries in the world. Women are being allowed to vote in Saudi Arabia. It is still a fundamentalist shithole, but that is one example of a trend toward less conservative. The Iranian youth are also becoming less conservative and are in fact educated and being heavily influenced by western culture.
                                                    • Just beginning my research, here is the first one I came across where you indicated that there is no separation of church and state in Turkey. Your earlier claims on Turkey becoming a fundamentalist shithole may take me some time to find.

                                                      1.) Tandy: "look at turkey. they are turning more conservative without the controls on separating religion from the state."
                                                      uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...5d952739

                                                      And yet separation of church and state in Turkey remains largely intact.
                                                • <<i dont want to get into one of your back and forth arguments but i posted two links showing how there are reactions moving towards the more conservative. you can ignore it or minimize the importance but that is your choice.

                                                  The only thing being ignored is by you, the fact that many countries, including our own, vaccilate between conservative and liberal. As a matter of fact, far from ignoring the fact that Turkey is currently trending conservative, we have both recognized that at the outset of this conversation. So tell me, how does our acceptance of this basic premise = ignoring anything?

                                                  Be that is it may, how is the Republican party any different with their B.S. religious ideas and proposals for religion interjecting in to our own politics? How is the current party with a religious bent in Turkey any different than the Christan Democrats in Europe? Is your fear in Turkey that they are simply religious Muslims? But your relative lack of fear for Europe is that they are Christians? Why ignore this and project Turkey as if they are yet another example of a fundamentalist shithole when clearly they are not?

                                                  What I can say is that I know how you came by this Turkey bashing. You had previously said there are no example of Muslim countries with separation of church and state and successful Democracy. So when examples such as Turkey were given to you, rather than admit your error, you have tried to paint Turkey as becoming engulfed in Sharia law. Even indicating that they were CURRENTLY passing religious laws, but you have yet to tell us what laws you are speaking of. Maybe you should just admit your error so we can have a balanced and forthright discussion about Turkey.
                                                  • < Is your fear in Turkey that they are simply religious Muslims? But your relative lack of fear for Europe is that they are Christians>

                                                    I think thats exactly what it comes down to, that and remember the US murder is normal and Turkish murder isnt kind of thing. To me its not actual racism but fear of the unknown, you know like all those weird men over there in Turkey with there beards and there preying 5 times a day to Mecca, MUST be weird, must be a problem, because they just look so god weird doing it, that kind of thing. Also its guilt by association, the Taliban and Al Quedia have given such a bad name to Muslims, even though there less than 1% of its population, that all Muslims get tarred to some extent by them.

                                                    While there ARE certainly some problems with Islam even in Turkey, as you say like there are some problems with Christianity in the US, there can be too much dogma, lack of flexibility, paranoia about modernity etc, people like Tandy and Andrew forget there can be good sides too.

                                                    Good sides like a strong work ethic and emphasis on responsibility, which is VERY evident in much of Turkey now and shows, like in China, why there growth is so spectacular this last 10 years. Then there is a strong sense of community. Also in the better of them, though certainly not all, there can be an emphasis on spirituality and responsibility to others. Clearly not always, but again id say to say there is no good in Islam is just wrong, especially in a country like Turkey.

                                                    Religion can produce good things, Martin Luther King and Ghandi are examples, and in Turkey teh Gulen schools certainly do much good, not just there but across the region.

                                                    Its a mixed picture, and i wouldn't deny the bad side of it, but to say its all bad is wrong. I have relatives over there, both modern secular professionalism people and traditional more working class Muslims, there a mixed bunch but certainly its some of the more traditional Muslims amongst them that are the nicest.




                                                    • ----people like Tandy and Andrew forget there can be good sides too.

                                                      ok then show me a progress that is positive. show me how there are less reporters in jail. show me where there less honor killings or less of a move to being more conservative. show me where this positive belief of yours is please. jeff you too. you guys start googling positive moves in turkey and see how long it takes you to find them. i just did a search and i could not find a lot very easily. does it not mean something to you that you have to really search for good news? then do a seach for concerns or bad news and see how many you get. i guess all the people who are afraid of a more conservative turkey are bigots like me right? hahaha
                                            • < he spins the story towards the rosy side>

                                              the original story of this thread is by the Financial Times, one of the most respected newspapers in the world, its not "spun" by me.

                                              If I am focusing on the possibility of the more positive option of the Hamas leadership wining over the Gazan leaders, thats because i want peace. Its true that the negative scenario instead my happen. However i still find it very hard to belive that the Gazan leaders can hold out against what the entire Arab community around it and a stronger Turkey want forever.

                                              But as i say, ist not just me but Joe Biden, Obama, Geroge Mitchelle and just about all of the quartet who have given up with Netanyahu. You admitted that already in the thread, and then later backtracked from that.

                                              My overall view of the Hamas - Isreal issue is clear. While Hamas certainly do have some uncompromising elements that harm, though not block, the possibilities of peace, which id like to see change as ive outlined in this thread, this is the clear reality on the overall situation -

                                              that while some of the worse elements of Hamas have THREATENED the destruction of Isreal (with a completely ineffective army), Israel have in reality already destroyed over 80% of Arab Palestine. That is a key fact as far as Im concerned. your ignoring of that harsh reality is certainly viewing Isreal through a Rosy perspective.

                                              But though i despair at elements like Likud, i am certainly postive about the long term prospects of another moderate party getting back in power in Israel and peace being found.

                                              You lied about my position and said that I blamed Israel for the breakdown of Olmert and Abbas peace. I did not. I made it clear that i thought both Olmert and Abbas were both very sincere in that and tried hard. If they had more time they had a good chance of succeeding, and i really liked Olmerts plan on how to promote it big time globally through PR once it had been signed off that would railroad through inevitable blocks from extremists ON BOTH SIDES, in Hamas, and within the settlers and Likud (clearly you will ignore the later).

                                              But this is the point. It was not "Israel" who blocked that peace, it was Netanyahu. Netanyahu does not = Israel. Infact there are others waiting such as Tzipi Livni in Isreal who may be in power in Isreal soon and not be a waste of time like Netanyahu.

                                              Right ive only come back in this thread because your as usual trying to distort my words, especially when you lied and said i blamed Israel for the breakdown in Olmert and Abbas peace. . Im only going to bother with this thread if you start being reasonable, and Im not holding my breath on that.
                                              • ---------the original story of this thread is by the Financial Times, one of the most respected newspapers in the world, its not "spun" by me.

                                                i dont think that you understand what spin means.

                                                ------If I am focusing on the possibility of the more positive option of the Hamas leadership wining over the Gazan leaders, thats because i want peace.

                                                everyone wants peace. just wanting peace has nothing to do with your rosy outlooks that you keep pushing. i want my friends to be safe but that does not mean that i will say that eating more greens will cause cancer.

                                                ------However i still find it very hard to belive that the Gazan leaders can hold out against what the entire Arab community around it and a stronger Turkey want forever.

                                                you find it hard because you dont get it. when hamas so violently harms anyone who even come close to coming up against them.

                                                ------that while some of the worse elements of Hamas have THREATENED the destruction of Isreal

                                                i think that they do more then threaten. they cant beat israel but they can kill lots of people. i dont think that israelis worry that hamas will kill al of them but they do fear their family or friends dying.

                                                ---You lied about my position and said that I blamed Israel for the breakdown of Olmert and Abbas peace. I did not.

                                                you did but i am not going to go back into that. you have shown over and over again that you say one thing and then dont understand what yourae saing. go back to ingoring this conversation.




                                                • Unsu...
                                                   
                                                  <i dont think that you understand what spin means. >

                                                  "In many respects, then, the archetypal netwar design corresponds to what earlier analysts (Gerlach, 1987, p. 115, based on Gerlach and Hine, 1970) called a "segmented, polycentric, ideologically integrated network" (SPIN):

                                                  By segmentary I mean that it is cellular, composed of many different groups...By polycentric I mean that it has many different leaders or centers of direction...By networked I mean that the segments and the leaders are integrated into reticulated systems or networks through various structural, personal, and ideological ties. Networks are usually unbounded and expanding...This acronym [SPIN] helps us picture this organization as a fluid, dynamic, expanding one, spinning out into mainstream society"
                                                  www.fathom.com/course/217...ssion2.html
                                                • <<everyone wants peace. just wanting peace has nothing to do with your rosy outlooks that you keep pushing.

                                                  One should prepare for the worst while pushing for the most positive outcome. As I have been consistently saying, without optimism the there would be no progression in the world at all.
                                                • <everyone wants peace. just wanting peace has nothing to do with your rosy outlooks>

                                                  peace will certainly never be found by dwelling on a negative outlook like you two do.

                                                  < when hamas so violently harms>

                                                  again, Israel have killed twice the amount of Arabs who got in there way of destroying 80% of Arab Palestine.

                                                  <---You lied about my position and said that I blamed Israel for the breakdown of Olmert and Abbas peace. I did not.

                                                  you did but i am not going to go back into that.>

                                                  Lying again, what i said is it was Netanyahus fault and I made it very clear that it wasn't Olmerts fault, Netanyahu is not Israel, the reason you dont want to go into that is because, as usual, your lying - if its not a lie quote where i blame Israel.

                                                  anyway, really don't know why i am bothering with this kind of stuff, debating someones lies, lol.
                                                  • <again, Israel have killed twice the amount of Arabs who got in there way of destroying 80% of Arab Palestine.>

                                                    So the fuck what? Israel kills more ONLY because they are BETTER at it, Elo. Just this week, Israel shot a few missiles and killed ~20 terrorists. The terrorists shot over 100 missiles and hurt one person - and these missiles by the terrorists (who you are defending in-effect) are aimed at killing INNOCENT people. Israel has killed ONLY terrorists and intends to target ONLY terrorists. There's a difference, you know. BUT...I don't expect you to understand this.

                                                    <anyway, really don't know why i am bothering with this kind of stuff, debating someones lies, lol.>

                                                    Dude, you can't even tell the difference between HOW people die and WHY they die. So the fuck what how many Israel have been killed? They die because they fuck with Israel. Don't fuck with Israel - you won't die. Get it? Don't fuck with Israel, get peace. Get it? Fuck with Israel - get war, death and no peace.

                                                    Get it?

                                                    Oh - these attacks are the things that put Netanyahu in power, by the way. The centrists who used to vote Liberal now go with him because they no longer believe the Palestinians and their claims for wanting peace. Why? Because the Palestinians speak to the world about peace and to themselves about destroying Israel. Gee...how shocking!
                                  • <Andrew you said you were not petty like Dustin but your behaving worse.>

                                    If I had any idea what y'r talking about, I'd probably try to reason that one out, but ... I'd need to care.

                                    <Yes there a threat currently in terms of security, but there unlikely to be able to block a peace deal if its done properly>

                                    Dude. All that they have to do it launch a few rockets if they see that any peace deal is going well. That'll cause Israel to invade/attack, and there goes any peace process. HOW do you miss this simple reality?

                                    <Hamas have stuck to cease fires in the past.>

                                    Sure, when it aligned with their interests. A peace deal; at this point, DOES NOT align with their interests.

                                    <you talk about him as if he is a head of a global superpower. He isnt even head of Hamas, the political leaders are.>

                                    So the fuck what? He runs Gaza. He has the power to make ANYTHING happen or NOT happen in Gaza. If he feels that the political leaders outside of Gaza don't align with what they want to do is Gaza - you really think that he'll care to break with them? come on now...

                                    <So your predicting that he is going to lead Gaza to breakaway from the Hamas leadership are you and the Arab league ?>

                                    I have no doubt that he will allow attacks to happen to Israel if they see that a peace process has a chance of success.

                                    <the Gazan people themselves may go against him.>

                                    You know what happens in Gaza if you go against Hamas?

                                    (Warning...this is one of the most horrific videos that I have ever seen)
                                    www.bestgore.com/torture/k...tia-video/

                                    Here's one by Amnesty: www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp

                                    How many more do you want? I can list probably 50 links like this. Remember what they did to the Fatah guys that were in Gaza when they took over? Really? You really think that anyone in Gaza would go against them? Really? There's on other government or military to move against these terrorists.

                                    <i think thats at best HIGHLY uncertain.>

                                    That's because your agenda works against your best abilities to reason.

                                    <But I completely support teh Pals not giving away all of Jersusulam and the other ridiculous terms Netanyahu will demand, barely anybody takes him serious on peace, non of the respected Analyst, even Indyke who is a die hard Isreali supporter and ex AIPAC member knows Netanyahu is no go on a peace deal.>

                                    Of course, but ... you have to know that groups like Hamas put Netanyahu INTO OFFICE!!! It was the security issues that caused Netanyahu to get back into power. And, it's the security issues that keep him there. The fucking idiot Pals just are playing into his power-hand. If they just worked with the Israeli center-left, Netanyahu would be gone, and they'd have a country. BUT - they don't miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

                                    <But they did try and negotiatie with Netanyhau, they tried for about a year, but his actions and what he was demanding were so ridiculous they quite rightly didnt want to waste any more time and energy on that, >

                                    THAT is a patent lie. They set preconditions that he could not/did not meet. During the 10 month term of a cessation of building in the West Bank, the Pals refused to meet to talk until the 9th month. Are you lying or don't know what you are talking about?

                                    <If however I am wrong about Hamas, and they do block peace, well at least the people who should try will have tried.>

                                    Here's what you don't get, and probably never will. IF Israel AGAIN allows the peace plan to become more important than safety, Israelis will again die. Real people will die. Lebanon...Gaza...Israel took the high road, and paid for it dearly. No - they won't do it again. That much I guarantee you. Someone else will have to take the first step, because Israel ain't doing it again.

                                    <You know what Dustins take on this was ?>

                                    I literally and figuratively and actually could not give a fuck what he thought.

                                    <Whatever you may think of Elo putting forth a "rosy" outlook, Tandy was only telling half of the story.>

                                    Fine, take that up with Tandy. My name is Andrew...let Tandy defend her own statements. I have no interest doing that.

                                    <It is hence you and Andrew who are presenting an unbalanced picture here, ignoring possibilities on one side of the picture.>

                                    Whatever.

                                    • Re: Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

                                      Tue, February 28, 2012 - 10:09 AM
                                      <<<Whatever you may think of Elo putting forth a "rosy" outlook, Tandy was only telling half of the story.>

                                      Fine, take that up with Tandy. My name is Andrew...let Tandy defend her own statements. I have no interest doing that.

                                      Color me confused, but that is exactly what I did. Contrary to your claims of not being interested, you interjected yourself in to my conversation with Tandy on the subject. So yes, please do let Tandy defend her own statements.
                                    • <Of course, but ... you have to know that groups like Hamas put Netanyahu INTO OFFICE!!!>

                                      Ok, now, we are talking, the fact that you accept the fault of Netanyahu considering how heated it has got in here you deserve credit for. If you notice, I have always through these thread admitted that the Gazan section of Hamas is at fault with its lack of wanting to compromise. You will say but i said they will not be a problem to the peace process but i will get onto that shortly.

                                      I have never tried to paint Hamas as fine as they are. All I done was present an FT article - one of the most respected papers in the world, about the fact that Hamas are CHANGING, at least a large part of it is changing, and that moderate part is aligning with moderate nations like Turkey and Qatar. Thats just fact Andrew. Sections of them DO need to change, or go, as the section in Gaza, other sections lilke there leadership are ok to me, if there willing to accept 67 borders which in of itself is a HUGE compromise for them people, considering they always and never did even want 46 borders, never mind 67, which were forced on them.

                                      You said in another thread Israelis never forget 73, do you think the Pals have forgotten the Nekba ? If we are to move forward both sides need to try and change.

                                      Ok so onto the problem section of Hamas -

                                      <Sure, when it aligned with their interests. A peace deal; at this point, DOES NOT align with their interests. >

                                      you will have to expand on that bit about why its not in their interest because thats one of the most important factors.

                                      For a start the region is very unstable now for Muslim leaders of any kind baring the AKP in Turkey. The people can turn on them if they dont like what they see, or they see them resisting the popular trend for democracy.

                                      You say but they might get tortured badly or killed if they oppose the Gazan leadership. Did you not notice what just happened in Tunisa, Egypt, Libya, and what is still going on in places like Egypt, still torture, still killings, still the people do not give in, and just note in Egypt SCAF who are the primary obstacle still have huge support from the US, so not that easy to overstep them. As a side point to this you also know Isreal engage in a lot of torture too, just saying.

                                      So if the Gazan leadership did publicly go against much of the more popular Arab and Muslim players, alongside Fatah (who are growing in popularity in Gaza) and the leadership in Gazan, against the regional players, tried to block the people, the idea that they can easily repress that doesn't seem too credible in view of the last 12 months. Torture and killing is not stopping people in Syria and thats probably a lot more intense than anything Hamas have done on a big scale so far.

                                      Maybe it could be snuffed out, maybe it couldn't, but again your certainty about that seems very suspect. I can also see that if Gazan Hamas attempted to do an Assad, then the response from regional players to that would be even more severe than what Assad is getting (and many think Assad is going to fall in the end, we will see)

                                      Second, I am talking about IF people like Olmert and Abbas got a deal, which they almost did, not so much right now.

                                      Would it really be in the Gazan Hamas leadership interest to oppose powerful regional players like Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi, if a deal was struck ? You have not explained why you think this is, especially if the extremist backers like Syria and Iran are thwarted, which apears the case right now.

                                      Olmert had a good idea, along with Abbas - but it was more Olmerts idea, to sell the peace like mad to the world in a huge PR stunt if they struck a deal, something like that if people like Turkey, Amar Moussa, Qatar, and Al jezzera were on bord along with the EU would make it difficult for Gazan hardliners.

                                      You say it would be in there interest to oppose. Why did Fatah moderate ? Because it became in there interest to do so. With the above scenario i just outlined, im struggling to see how it would be in there interst to oppose ? I'm all ears on that Andrew. And again, im not talking about certainly in there interest not to oppose, its you who seems to be claiming certainty.

                                      Not only is it a question of funding its also a question of regional politics AND popularity with the Muslims on the street when the mood is changing rapidly and is volatile. Again IF a deal was struck.

                                      I am more than happy to debate that with you. Unlike Tandy i do respect your knowledge on some of this. Lets just get down to talking about the facts there instead of trying to throw mud at each other.

                                      Now non of this is certain. I am not saying its certain Hamas in Gaza can not block peace. You talk like it is certain. Given above that doesnt seem that credible to me. Maybe I was overdoing it a bit when i say probably cant block peace, but i certainly dont think my picture of the Hamas situation overall can be described acuratly as "rosy". But if my depiction of Hamas is rosy then yours is certainly a bleak nightmare that denies any possibility of change, the kind of change we have seen time and time again with Fatah, with the IRA, with the AKP in Turkey who used to have a terrorist branch, hell even like i say one of Israels first big leaders was a "terrorist." As to Tandy's insistence that Turkey is sinking when just about everyone can see its on a pretty rapid ascent, to call her vision of the region and Muslims negative is an understatement.


                                      But the final point is, if we get a moderate like Olmert back in, Tipi Livin doesnt seem too bad, someone like that.

                                      Then i can not see anything but gains for Isreal and Fatah if they struck a deal even IF i am wrong on Gazan Hamas.

                                      For Isreal in particuarl it would be a win. If rockets came over they could put the deal on hold but that doesnt mean they have to get hostile to Fatah.

                                      What they could do then is globaly gain huge Kudos for reaching for peace. They could still protect themselves on security. But then they could point the finger with credibility at Hamas as the problem. If the big Arab players and Fatah has also worked hard on that deal. i can not see them jumping too strongly to the defence of Hamas, if anything, behind the scences, they would probably work to bring them down.

                                      Anyway, im really preaching to the converted with moderate Iseralis because that was happing anyway under Olmert, until Netanyahu got in the way.

                                      Ultimatly I guess what I am saying Andrew is moderates in Isreal should try and play the changes going on in the region to there advantage. Instead of resisting reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas they should postivly encourage it and try to work with players like Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, even Saudi, to try and leverage the extermination and lack of compromising out of there.

                                      And sure its also a responsibility of players like Fatah, Turkey, Egypt etc to try and do that too, but right now with Likud dominating its a non starter.

                                      What id really like to see Fatah do when they go to the UN is whilst im all behind them talking about Netanyahu's intransigence, they should also keep repeating like mantra what i am saying, that they have no problem with Israeli moderates and would welcome them back to talk.
                                • <<No. What you ACTUALLY wrote was, "Hamas in Gaza may be a problem but I doubt it." Now you are saying, "Hamas are a threat to isreal currently". Which is it?

                                  I just read the entire exchange, and in context it is clear that Elo was speaking of a possible threat to the peace process from Hamas in Gaza, not a threat to Israel from Hamas in Gaza.
                        • ------I already explained that to you.

                          no you didnt. one statement contradicts the other elo! your long explanation of your belief backpedaling has nothing to do with how you contradicted yourself there. its right there for you to see. you painted a rosy picture with the first one and then with the second one lied about the first statement!

                          -------The leadership of Hamas are saying that if that peace plan was struck, and a referendum was backed, they would stop hostilities and honor it.

                          which hamas? the ones in gaza said that htey will never stop their attempt to get all of israel for htepalestinians. it was posted here wasnt it? so which hamas? who cares if some other hamas people outside of gaza say this if the ones in gaza with the weapons disagree.

                          -----Are you saying that the political leadership of Hamas, Fatah, all of the Arab Leauge, Turkey, the USA and Isreal, Russia and the UN, ALL Of them, are going to be blocked publicly and internationally by this one little leader in Gaza, lol, and you cant see why i have my doubts about that ?

                          laugh all you want but those guy shave the weapons. who is going to take the weapons away from the gazans? please answer that for me elo who is going to take away there weapons? you think that the gaza hamas people will change their mind?

                          -------A peace deal was successively struck, the IRA, reluctantly at first, laid down there arms, now there are no more bombs in London.

                          elo tell me who the real ira were. you know abou tthem right? now tell me what is the same between the ira and the nongaza hamas and the real ira and the gaza hamas.

                          ---<Again Andrew you focus entirely on the sins of Hamas and act as if Israel are saints>

                          i wont speak for him but you have to actively act as if israel are saints to act as if israel were saints! hahahah get it? you cant accuse soeone of something for their lack of statements. what you should have done is say something like how you think because of his statements that he thinks that israel are all saints. that is what a thnking person would do but to just say it is putting words in his mouth. you dont like it when he does it to you right?

                          ----Show me one post of yours where you mention any sins of Israel in this thread.

                          that is a different thing. the lack of it does not mean that he thinks that israel are saints like you siad that he does. dont you understand the difference or dont care that you made t his mistake?

                          ------Yes i see a different choice. Tell Netanyahu to go fuck himself with his Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Go to the UN. Get better at playing the International political game, as Fatah are indeed already doing. There support in Europe and the world is growing fast.

                          tell me how you see this playing out. what will the un do? what can the un do? the us holds the ablity to stop ;any sanctions or any un pressure so what can happen in the un? european countries wont on their own do it so how do you see that will happen? i mean this please answer.

                          ---------Then above all, wait for a moderate to get back in in Israel. THEN they will get there deal, and a damn side better one than the ridiculous one Netanyahu is offering.

                          so you think that abbas will say yes to the deal that arafat said no too? why would he do that? why do you think that he would do that?

                          ------Dude they waited over 60 years to get to that point, they can wait another 2 or 3 years till Israelis turff Netanyahu out of office.

                          seems to me like every generation has said the same thing every few years now for sixty years. you are just this years version of it.

                          ----------Now keep flashing your little strawman light if it keeps you happy

                          you should be ashamed of yourself. you dont even care that you have all these strawmen. thats like lying and getting busted for it but just keep doign it for some reason.
                          • <no you didnt. one statement contradicts the other elo!>

                            study the context in which both of them were said. the first one refers to if Hamas could threaten the peace process. The other is when I respond to Andrew when I say Hamas are currently a threat to Isreal and Isreal are a threat to them.

                            This is getting so tedious, i have to explain everything over and over again to you two as you constantly try and distort what i say, i mean really whatever. Can we debate any relevant stuff on Israel Palestine or is it going to be ridiculous stuff like this all the time ?

                            First the Saudi thread where virtualy the whole thread was taken up, not by discussin what was actually going on in Saudi and whether the reforms might be succesful, how long it might take for other reforms to come through, what the reform movment was upto, how quick it was growing.

                            Instead we spend the whole thread debating whether I am supposed to be "excusing" repression or not. We spend it all debating me. I mean really I know you guys might find me fascinating but id rather debate the subject we are supposed to be talking about.

                            <laugh all you want but those guy shave the weapons. who is going to take the weapons away from the gazans? please answer that for me elo who is going to take away there weapons? you think that the gaza hamas people will change their mind? >

                            If the backers of Hamas in gaza withdraw there funding, and they can barely generate any income themselves, what you think there people are going to eat ?

                            The actual leaders of Hamas disagree with that guy in Gaza. The guy your quoting is just one guy. There are many guys i can quote senior in Gaza from Hamas who disagree with him. What makes you think He can keep all the weapons ?

                            Why do you insit this one guy is so all powerful. He has a fuck lot of oppostion already. So who takes the weapons off him ?Hamas take the weapons off him, other parts of Hamas who have already aligned themselves with a totaly different crowd to Syria and Iran and are aligning themselves with moderate Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi (saudi are actually a lot more moderate the peace process than Iran, you may not even know that so i better put that in for you, at least Andrew will know that. )

                            starting to understand now ? Probably not.

                            <that is a different thing. the lack of it does not mean that he thinks that israel are saints like you siad that he does. dont you understand the difference or dont care that you made t his mistake? >

                            Andrew and you are trying to paint Hamas as the bad guy. Its like me saying hey, this guy joe, he has killed 300 people, you shouldnt trust him, he will never make peace, how can he make peace when he killed all them people, how can he make peace when talks about the destruction of Israel.

                            Im merely pointing out that Israel have done worse than Hamas have, they have killed twice as many people and destroyed 80% of Arab Palestine.

                            Thats very relevant because you and Andrew say Hamas are a lost cause in making peace because there this "bad". Thats senseless reasoning when Israel have acted out even worse behavior.

                            <tell me how you see this playing out. what will the un do? what can the un do? the us holds the ablity to stop ;any sanctions or any un pressure so what can happen in the un? european countries wont on their own do it so how do you see that will happen? i mean this please answer. >

                            Ive already explained most of it.

                            The UN will build international pressure on Isreal to accept a peace deal and build negative international pressure against them keep destroying Isreal.

                            Its bullshit that sanctions have to be endorsed by the UN. The EU has already imposed some level of sanctions on Isreal because of the assult on Gaza, they withdrew special trading rights with the EU that they were going to give them. They can do a whole lot more than this.

                            Turkey has already withdrawn a huge amount of trade with Isreal. Turkey are by far the biggest economy in that whole region with an economy four times the size of Isreal, the amount of trade the have withdrawn from Isreal is equal in size to the money Isreal get from America, billions.

                            Egypt are about to put up the price of Gas to Isreal.

                            Need I go on ?

                            But this, important and big an effect as it will have as they esculate, ist not the most important point.

                            The most important point is the political pressure Isreal will feel on it, increasingly seen as a rouge backward state in its behaviour. Already there are many reports of Israelis feeling unpopular when they go many destinations on holiday, these things can have an enormous psychological effect on a country.

                            That aspect was supposed to be the one biggest factor that broke South African apartheid.

                            But here is the thing, not all Israeli leaders are jerks like Netanyahu, this paves the way for another deal when they get someone better in a few years in power in Israel. There are many Israelis concerned there on the wrong path regards to the Pals.

                            <so you think that abbas will say yes to the deal that arafat said no too?>

                            as you did with the Olmert Abbas incomplete deal again your trying to blame only one side, it was not just Arafat who wouldnt agree to what Isreal wanted there it was also Isreal not agreeing to what Arafat wanted.

                            Yet both sides have steadily moved closer to a deal. Andrew may actually admit that. You barely know much about this and you wouldnt even admit it probably if you knew it. Adam knew a lot about this and often said that peace was quite close, untill of course you get someone like Netanyahu stepping in the way.

                            Most of the fundamentals were already agreed by both Abbas and Olmert, INCLUDING the sharing of Jerusalem, and the sharing of holy sites. It really just needed about another year for them two to iron out the remaining details with someone good like Obama and Mitchelli, instead they got Netanyahu to screw it all up, but thats no big deal, as i say, hell be gone soon.

                            You can deny the possibility of peace as much as you want but its not actually that far off now, two things are important in that -

                            - they replace Netanyahu with someone better, which is going to happen

                            - Hamas and Fatah reconcile and the Arab players alongside key players like Saudi, Egypt and Turkey get a unified organised voice on this.

                            Both of them are likely to happen, not definite but likely.

                            One thing is absoultly certain though, the Arabs are not giving all of Jerusalem and any more significant land from the west bank - the kind of limts set in the Olmert Abbas deal. around 30 years of international power lead up to that moment. No way can somone like Netanyahu destroy that, its still there out there in concept and its going to get taken again up when they get rid of that fool, only conditions are likely to be even more favorable for it going through then re reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.


                            <you should be ashamed of yourself. you dont even care that you have all these strawmen. >

                            I can do nothing about the two of you having poor comprehension and trying to twist and lie about what i say. Andrew must have clocked in around 20 strawmen on the other post insisting both me and Jeff were excusing and ignoring repression and most of the ones you two have pointed out of mine are nothing of the kind but yet more distortions.

                            Instead of debating real issues like whats giong on in Sauid, and who might expect what to happen with the different players in this conflict, you waste time with all that, really im going to ignore anything like that from now on. Its kind of like Dustin without brains.

                            If i feel any shame its in that i waste so much time debating meaningless stuff like that with you two, but I intend to get down to some work soon, so hey.





                            • and here is the thing about this guy in Gaza. If he does lose the argument as Fatah and Hamas reconcile and stand in teh way of what Saudi, Egypt, the Hamas leadership and Turkey, someone will probably just sack him from his position, shoot him, or imprison him. Hamas and some of the Arabs sometimes settle things that way, didnt you notice ?

                              It was the IRA who sorted out some of the die hards that wouldnt accept what the leadership of the IRA wanted when they disided to disarm and go for the peace deal. Some of them were just killed.

                              But there are countless ways it could happen. Again this one little local leader is very unlikely to be able to resits Hamas leadership, Egypt, Sauid, Qatar, Turkey and others, especialy if he becomes unpopular with Gazans which would be pretty likely in the long term too.
                            • <<Instead we spend the whole thread debating whether I am supposed to be "excusing" repression or not. We spend it all debating me. I mean really I know you guys might find me fascinating but id rather debate the subject we are supposed to be talking about.

                              I have been saying this for months, less discussion of the person and more discussion of the subject matter. I don't care if it is people I agree or disagree with, when you spend the majority of your time discussing the person and not the subject it is a sign that your arguments are weak. From some people that sort of personalization was a constant barrage, which makes it difficult to take the high road and not respond in kind. I have been guilty of this as well, but am attempting to rise above it and not fall in to that trap once again. Everyone, can we please stop wtih the overly dramaticized personalization and focus on the subject?
                          • <<<you should be ashamed of yourself. you dont even care that you have all these strawmen. thats like lying and getting busted for it but just keep doign it for some reason.

                            All of you are guilty of creating multiple straw man arguments, including you Tandy. So please, everyone STFU and focus on reality.
                    • <<Dustin was many things but he rarely lied about my position.

                      He was constantly in the practice of lying about both my words and my positions. I think I spent more time swatting down his blatant lies than I did in actually engaging in substantive debate with the guy, so it is a breath of fresh air that he was kicked out of this tribe (for the 4th or 5th time if I am counting correctly)..
              • <--but there less danger clearly than Israel present to Arab Palestine who have already destroyed over 80% of it and incurred a death toll of twice the amount, and are destroying more of it as we speak.

                sure they are less of a danger to israel but that does not mean anything exept to you.>

                could you clarify this comment of yours, are you saying that even though Israel present more of a threat to the lives of Palestinian Arabs and to the very existence of Arab Palestine, that the only person who cares about them dying is having the place the live destroyed is me ?

                I think you'll find Tandy not everyone thinks your way - really, you should get out more. You really are good for a laugh sometimes though. I rarely get annoyed at your extremism, it is quite hilarious.
                • still I've got to say that its truly shocking that you believe the only person who cares if Palestinians are killed and Arab Palestine is completely destroyed is me, i mean wow.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    ------still I've got to say that its truly shocking that you believe the only person who cares if Palestinians are killed and Arab Palestine is completely destroyed is me, i mean wow.

                    number seven!
                    • <<--but there less danger clearly than Israel present to Arab Palestine who have already destroyed over 80% of it and incurred a death toll of twice the amount, and are destroying more of it as we speak.

                      sure they are less of a danger to israel but that does not mean anything exept to you.>
            • <again Andrew I fully acknowledge that the extremist leader in Gaza may win over the political leadership, Ive said that many times now no matter how many times you insist i haven't>

              OK. Let's analyze what you actually have written here. While you DID write that, you also wrote that you do not consider the Gazan terrorists to be as big of a problem and that you expected that they would go along. This comment was the apotheosis of wishful thinking. This is the kind of thinking which would lead to action which would lead to people dying. More than that - Hamas is just using this as a "tactic" anyway. They have stated this many times.

              <however since Turkey, Egypt and others are backing the moderate leadership, and since the main backing of the extremist Syria and Iran are pretty much crumbling in influence, the moderates at least have a good chance.>

              A "good chance" at what? To become part of the government of the West Bank? So the fuck what? What does that mean to Gaza? Zilch. Nada. None. Nuth'n.

              <I dont know Andrew, putting yet more words into my mouth ?>

              You wrote:

              "the Gaza leadership may capitulate."
              No they won't. This kind of argument is suggesting a more rosy outcome than is probable.

              "As to Hamas, yes, part of them are wrong headed and uncomprising, part of them, clearly not the actual leadership"
              Which "leadership"? The ones that matter? The ones in Gaza? They don't matter? Seriously? Are you serious?

              Here is my favorite line of yours:

              "Hamas in Gaza may be a problem but I doubt it."

              Really? You "doubt it"? Really? You doubt that they will lead more attacks if they don't get their way? You doubt that even though they have stated that they will destroy Israel and will never stop trying, that you "doubt" that they "may be a problem"? How do you come up with this stuff, Elo?

              So, I wrote, "Elo's call that Hamas are pretty much probably not a danger to Israel, and they they probably won't be a problem to any peace process"

              You then responded, "I dont know Andrew, putting yet more words into my mouth ?", how is that since I have only references your EXACT WORDS!?

              Again - here are your exact words: "Hamas in Gaza may be a problem but I doubt it."

              So...what words were I putting in your mouth? There are yours. Here are more of your words: "i never said Hamas are not a danger to Israel,"

              Wait....there you just said you "doubt" that they "may be a problem" in context to peace and security for Israel. So...when you say, "i never said Hamas are not a danger to Israel,", you forgot? You just forgot...? I mean, it was in this thread...you could have just looked through your own statements.
              • <A "good chance" at what? To become part of the government of the West Bank? So the fuck what? What does that mean to Gaza? Zilch. Nada. None. Nuth'n. >

                lol, a good chance of what do you think, obviously of taking the more moderate compromising position and of agreeing to 67 borders as the political leadership of Hamas have already said they would do if supported by a referendum.

                Its really not that complex though you claim not to understand it.

                Either scenario can happen here, Hamas could take the moderate path influenced by the political leadership outside of Gaza and players like Turkey, or they could go the way of the more extremist leader in Gaza and influenced by backed like Iran and Syria, but we all know whats happening in Syria, and Hamas office are currently leaving there.

                Ive clearly said both possibilities can happen, as the Financial Times has said also. When we say this you accuse us of being a mouthpiece of terrorism. More cheap shots of yours.

                The fact is I am not denying the negative scenario. That is a strawman of yours.

                But it is YOU who is denying the positive possibility. The reason you want to deny this is obvious.

                And again, your stance on this is against what the sensible majority of Israelis want - they want to try talk to Hamas and try and smoke the peace pipe with them. Seems you'd prefer war.

                As to when i said that I think Hamas would probably not be able to block a deal. Probably does not mean certainly. But the fact is they will be in deep trouble if they oppose the Arab League - if a deal was successively struck, the international community, as well as Fatah to that extent on a peace deal. If they did, there days would probably be numbered, because they need financial support.

                But again probably does not mean certainly.

                Its you who deals in false certaintity. You make the false claim that the extremist in Hamas will certainly win.

                Anyway, I really am getting bored of this, unless you raise the standard of your debate quite frankly im not bothering. As ive said, at least Dustin would not constantly lie about my position and the things i say, sometimes, but not every single post like you have done since you've come back in here. Thats very tedious and pointless.
                • <Really? You "doubt it"? Really? You doubt that they will lead more attacks if they don't get their way?>

                  Again Andrew you focus entirely on the sins of Hamas and act as if Israel are saints, Israel have killed twice the amount of Palestinians since this conflict began and have destroyed over 80% of Arab Palestine, yet you act like the aggression is only on one side.

                  Debate with you on this is pointless. You show very clearly why the international community is turning rapidly against Israeli now.

                  But I still believe that the majority of Israelis are going to push the current extremist leadership out and we will have a change in direction. As extreme and dishonest as many of your points are you certainly have not turned me against Israel or Israelis, just against hardliners like yourself.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    <Again - here are your exact words: "Hamas in Gaza may be a problem but I doubt it."

                    So...what words were I putting in your mouth? There are yours. Here are more of your words: "i never said Hamas are not a danger to Israel,"
                    >

                    My god your slow with that. Clearly in the current virtual war situation both parties are a danger to each other. Clearly though Isreal are a far greater danger to the Arabs in Palestine, we have seen that by the destruction of 80% of it and twice the death toll.

                    However being a threat to the peace process is something different if a peace deal is struck.

                    Hamas being a major threat to the peace process asumes they can block a peace deal, even though there leadership of Hamas have said they would support it if it passes a referunedum, even though the Arab leauge, if the peace process was successful are one of there main sponsors of it and of Hamas. Hamas popularity in the occupied terriotiries is currently sinking and Fatahs increasing.

                    The extremist backers who migh oppose a peace deal, Syria and Iran are not exactly expanding there influence, Syria is crumbling, Hamas are leaving there, and Iran are increasingly under siege from the international community and there internal domestic situation seems more unstable each month.

                    However, because no doubt you'll try and put more words in my mouth and create yet more strawman, non of that says Hamas could not block a peace process.

                    It merely means that in my view its unlikely to happen, if a deal was struck in the first place.

                    Of course a deal will never be struck in the first place if Netanyahu is demanding to take the last remaining bits of Palestine that are left.

                    I guess we will have to waite for someone sensible again in Isreal like Olmert. Netanyahu will be toast soon enough. In the meantime the Pals are taking there case to the UN where they have overwhelming support.

                    You say i deny the negative about Hamas. I dont, but without question you always completely deny any possibility of the positive.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    ---------Again Andrew you focus entirely on the sins of Hamas and act as if Israel are saints

                    strawman number 8! hahaha. where did he say or act like the israelis are saints? maybe you dont know what a srawman is? hahaha.

                    ------A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

                    unless you can show that he thinks that the israelis act as saints you have made another strawman! why dont you sotp this?


                • -------As to when i said that I think Hamas would probably not be able to block a deal. Probably does not mean certainly.

                  probably is i think what he meant by rosy. to say probably means that your opinion is going in that directdion whic his the rosy direction. so where did he put words in your mouth? you admit that you said probably. that is a rosy opinion.

                  -------You make the false claim that the extremist in Hamas will certainly win.

                  strawman nunmber 7! can you show this? i want to see where he said that. my guess is that if the hamas gaza go against the political side they will keep gaza. is that winning? if thats winning then they will win i guess. do you really see them giving up?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    <you admit that you said probably. that is a rosy opinion.>

                    Tandy, that's it. Exactly. It's not so difficult, right? Maybe he does not know what "rosy" means? That's possible.

                    <<-------You make the false claim that the extremist in Hamas will certainly win.>>

                    <strawman nunmber 7! can you show this?>

                    He won't do it. Has he ever?

                    <if you saw the rest of these threds there is one where it shows that the israeli goverment offered in a deal 90% of the west bank. so that is not the last remaining bit of arab palestine is it? now what do you say?>

                    Tandy, I asked him the exact same thing. We'll see if he responds. I doubt it, though.
                    • <<if you saw the rest of these threds there is one where it shows that the israeli goverment offered in a deal 90% of the west bank. so that is not the last remaining bit of arab palestine is it? now what do you say?>

                      without half of Jerusalem Netanyahu can go eat shit, the Pals will go to the UN, gather more support, especially from the EU, Turkey, Russia, Egypt and Qatar, work on a Fatah Hamas reconciliation - very important that one, establish a new set up on that that exculdes Syria, and when they got somebody sane back in government in Israel like Tzipi Livni of somelse who isnt up his own ass like Netanyahu, then they can do business.

                      Until then Netanyahu is just talking to himself, to AIPAC, Likud, and other Israeli hardliners, nobody else is even listening at this stage. Let him do it if it makes him happy, he will be out of office soon enough.

                      Oh and you two carry on debating the word Rosy, very sweet.
                      • hahaha. you just cant admit that when you said the last remaining bit you were wrong. hahaha.

                        --------Oh and you two carry on debating the word Rosy, very sweet.

                        just like that. you just ignore antyhing that makes you look bad. you minimized the threat of hamas by painting a rosy picture and you wont admit it. this is how you go about your life right? sad. its harder to admit that you are wrong but you get more out of it when you do. its called evolution of the soul.
                        • <<just like that. you just ignore antyhing that makes you look bad. you minimized the threat of hamas by painting a rosy picture and you wont admit it. this is how you go about your life right? sad.

                          None of us go about our lives like we debate politics with strangers in an on-line forum, so please stop speculating about peoples personal lives, you don't have a clue about how any of us live our personal lives.
                        • Tandy again I acknowledge both the positive and negative scenarios whilst on the other hand you, unlike most of the respected analyst out there, do not acknowledge the possibility of a positive path for Hamas, lead by there poltical leaders outside of Gaza, and supported by the likes of Turkey, Egypt and Qatar.

                          It is hence you and Andrew who are presenting an unbalanced picture here, ignoring possibilities on one side of the picture.

                          As with Netanyahu as i say its a fruitless exercise talking for years with somebody who is offering deals that the international community know are non starters, completely unreasonable, and would never get accepted in a million years by the Pals. They tried and Netanyahu wasn't compromising and took a very hard-line position, even by Israeli standards.

                          Fine, they are much better working on reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, going to the UN to gather more international support for there cause, declaring Palestine as a state which has overwhelming support in the world, talking with there regional allies like Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi, and then talking to Israel again when the Israeli voters throw the hard liner out which will not actually be that long now.



                    • Re: Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

                      Tue, February 21, 2012 - 12:43 PM
                      -------Tandy, that's it. Exactly. It's not so difficult, right? Maybe he does not know what "rosy" means? That's possible.

                      no he just gets upset and starts typing i think whatever is at the front of his mind without thinking.

                      -----Tandy, I asked him the exact same thing. We'll see if he responds. I doubt it, though.

                      i would be surprised. he never has yet!
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Hamas 'will never recognise Israel': Gaza premier

    Mon, February 13, 2012 - 11:22 PM
    Hamas doesn't recognize Israel as an independent state, neither does Rothschild :)



    Now the English were a lame lot for the first three years and more of the War; Britannica says that they could have halted the German advance quickly in the Belgium-French arena had they come out all at once with most of their forces, and yet they came in dribs and drabs. While the English appeared as though they couldn't afford men in Belgium or France, how is it that they had men to spare for the purpose of conquering both Jerusalem and Babylon, including Baghdad? It's clear in my mind that the Middle East was as much the Rothschild target as was Russia, for the two went hand in hand in their global-government scheme.


    Behold, in November of 1917, as the Russian Rothschilds were on the verge of signing a peace treaty with the Germans, the British Foreign Secretary, a Fabian co-conspirator, and occult-loving buddy of the Rothschilds, Arthur Balfour, writes a letter to Lord Lionel Rothschild asking him to accept his Declaration wherein the Jews could be re-instated into their ancient homeland. In the very next month, the English conquer Jerusalem. Then, just after the War, the Rothschilds set up a Foreign Affairs office in Britain and in the United States, with more to come in other nations, and filled them with Illuminatists under their care and watch...having the job of ratcheting the governments of the world into submission to the Rothschild plan for Globalism. So, you see, the restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land is part and parcel with the establishment of the Rothschild New World Order...because that New Order is intended to be the Biblical Millennium as per a Jewish-occult vision.
    www.tribwatch.com/redshield.htm
  • I have no problem with Israel existing in the borders stipulated by the UN when Israel was created. Anything else I have a problem with.

    I am sure if Israel gives back land Hamas will except it. Since Israel has not given back land, and continues to take more one can not blame Hamas.
    • <I am sure if Israel gives back land Hamas will except it. Since Israel has not given back land, and continues to take more one can not blame Hamas.>

      whats funny is a majority of Israelis kind of accept that in a way or at least want to open up a dialogue with them, the majority polled in Israel want to try and smoke the peace pipe with Hamas.

      Unfortunately Andrew, Tandy and the current extremist leadership in Israel think the can preach to the majority of Israelis that they should take the extremist path, not smoke the peach path, steal land, refuse to talk with them, and work war on them instead.

      Clearly as well as not believing in dialogue as a method of arriving of peace, there are also struggling with some basic aspects of democracy.
      • -------Unfortunately Andrew, Tandy and the current extremist leadership in Israel think the can preach to the majority of Israelis that they should take the extremist path

        hahaha. see? again you do it? hahaha. that is like your fifth strawman in two days. i dont think that at all. but you can say that id id. does that make you feel more right? hahaha

        -------Clearly as well as not believing in dialogue as a method of arriving of peace, there are also struggling with some basic aspects of democracy.

        no! number six! hahaha

        ------are you saying that even though Israel present more of a threat to the lives of Palestinian Arabs and to the very existence of Arab Palestine, that the only person who cares about them dying is having the place the live destroyed is me ?

        no. at least you asked htis time! hahaha. what i meant is that to you they are not enough of a fear that the fear of another round of terror should matter to the israeils. basically what i think you said was that since the israelis are more of a danger to the palestinians beause they are more powerful that they then are less? i dont know how to respond actually because what is less? how will we define what is less? the palestinians and the rest ofhte muslims around israrel present a lot more of a threat i think then the israelis are to the palestinians. and you use this word destroyed. what do you mean? by taking what they were given and then more after they were attacked they destroyed it? i just looked at maps of what was palestaine for hundreds of years and did you know that jordan was also palestine? so jordan also destroyed palestine right?
        • lets start with the fact that Israel have killed double the amount of Palestinians and Destroyed well over 80% of Arab Palestine, on the other side Arabs have killed half the amount of Israelis and destroyed non of Isreal, clearly the threat is less, far less, and the little left of Arab Palestine is being destroyed now as we talk, so Israel present a HUGE threat to Arab Palestine.

          Reality and facts are always a good place to start.
          • Unsu...
             
            <Palestine is being destroyed now as we talk, so Israel present a HUGE threat to Arab Palestine.>

            "The world-government is its real agenda. And that plan goes through the creation of the new ‘Roman Jerusalem’ which will kill off all its native Amelekites!

            The Palestinians are simply the newest version of the Amelekites "


            The first-principle of this modus operandi was captured in this pithy wisdom of David Ben-Gurion: “What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times”.



            “It is not a world that any of us would want to live in. Is such a world inevitable? It is not sure but there are two possible ways by which a world of 10 billion people can be averted. Either the current birth rates must come down more quickly or the current death rates must go up. There is no other way.” (Robert McNamara, Speech to International bankers as Head of the World Bank, October 2, 1970. Also cited by Antony Sutton in ‘Trilaterals over America’, pg. 79)
            bloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/category/the-secret-king-of-zion-%E2%80%93-house-of-rothschild-and-the-new-roman-jerusalem-by-zahir-ebrahim/

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"