Seeking Legitimacy and Peace

For year the US and Israel have been saying that they will not talk to Hamas because they are a terrorist organization and have no legitimacy. Finally, having realized that we were serious, Hamas decided to legitimacy themselves and run as a political party. Then, having won the election, and therefore, legitimacy as it has been described worldwide, Hamas offers to share power with the opposing party. It still refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, but Hamas IS the elected party and has the freedom to do as it pleases. Democracy has a dark side.

There are several ways this could go. The US and Israel could back down on their pledge not to talk to Hamas, mostly because the leader of the organization made an excellent point. What if leaders from all over the world stopped negotiating with various countries based only on who had been elected? And democratically, at that! This may not be a choice we like, but Hamas has been elected and they do run the country. Not talking with them could mean war. And the US will most likely support Israel militarily, which would probably result in a draft here. Our economy would take another hit that we can’t afford. Bad things would happen. So I’m hoping everyone swallows their pride and takes a seat at the table.

My thoughts are with Israel and the concern they must be feeling at this volatile time in their part of the world. May their courage, strength, and unwavering faith sustain them.


54 Responses to “Seeking Legitimacy and Peace”

  1. 1 Kathleen
    January 28, 2006 at 1:09 am

    I think it will be very interesting to see how Hamas and the world will convince Israel that they should negotiate with Hamas when their stated mission is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. Moderates in Israel took a licking today. After removing the settlers from the West Bank as a step toward peace, this speaks volumes. And, to top it all off, the Palestinians are paying Arafat’s widow millions to tell them where Arafat hid the monies he stole from his own people. Corruption with a capital C.

    I am with you on this. I am thinking of the people of Israel tonight.

  2. 2 daveawayfromhome
    January 28, 2006 at 8:58 am

    No one seems to have noticed one of Dubya’s more outrageous comments while dissing Hamas. A political party, in order to be viable, is one that professes peace, in my judgment, in order that it will keep the peace.”.

    Right, just what the Republican party, so ably represented by the Bush Corporation, has been doing on a daily basis for the last few years – keeping the peace.
    Oh wait, well, except for that little “pre-emptive” invasion thing. But that was done to promote Peace, right, unlike those bad old Palestinians, who are fighting simply because they’re a bunch of right bastards. Like British soccer fans, but with guns and strap-on bombs.
    Nope, no peace there.

  3. 3 Saur♥Kraut
    January 28, 2006 at 1:30 pm

    having realized that we were serious…

    What, Polanco, have you gone and joined Hamas now? Just remember where the safety is on the gun. ;o) Kidding. I just got a kick outta the way you worded it.

    Ditto to Kathleen, as usual. But I wasn’t surprised whatsoever. The nice thing about being a Christian is that you know (wo)mankind is basically corrupt and a continued disappointment, therefore there are no surprises.

    Anyway, after thousands-and-thousands of years of the arabic world hating the Jews, I found it incomprehensible that anyone would think that compromise or moderacy would work (or last) at all.

    One thing you can say about Hamas: They’re truly representative of the Middle Eastern arabic world: No surprises.

  4. 4 Saur♥Kraut
    January 28, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    One add’tl. point: This is probably the way the Iraqis would also vote, if the U.S. wasn’t breathing down their necks.

  5. 5 daveawayfromhome
    January 28, 2006 at 10:37 pm

    Nowhere does the definition of democracy include the words “according to the needs and wants of the United States of America”, except maybe in the minds of some Americans (who are a pretty self-centered bunch).
    We dont have to like their choice, they do.

    Yes, the conflict is thousands of years old, and while religion is mixed up in it all, that’s not the root of it, just an additional structural member. Moderacy can work, it’s just really, really hard. Unfortunately, the alternatives are war, pogrom, or that the Israelis pack up and leave (California, maybe). The last is very unlikely, the first already happening, and the Petroleum Crash that some doomsayers are predicting occurs, the last could happen.
    Moderation is the only hope for Life (though leaving would make more sense).

  6. 6 daveawayfromhome
    January 28, 2006 at 10:39 pm

    “and IF the Petroleum Crash that doomsayers are predicting occurs…”

  7. 7 BarbaraFromCalifornia
    January 29, 2006 at 12:46 am

    I was having this exact conversation with my husband this morning, and you said it best, democracy does have its dark side.

    When Bush says that his mission is in spreading democracy, do you think that this is what he had in mind? Democracy for terrorists?

  8. 8 Kathleen
    January 29, 2006 at 1:07 am

    Barbara, there are those who think that Hamas is an organization of freedom fighters, not terrorists. I say, tell that to the Israelies. Time will tell, but what I witnessed on tv yesterday has got to be terrifying to the citizens of Israel.

  9. 9 Underground Logician
    January 29, 2006 at 3:31 am

    Hamas, though duly elected, could never be legitamized as long as they assert their views of the destruction of Israel.

    We should never deal with them as long as they hold this stance.

  10. 10 Jessica
    January 29, 2006 at 6:37 am

    I’m on the edge of my seat, too.

    What if leaders from all over the world stopped negotiating with various countries based only on who had been elected?

    When a terrorist organization is no longer a splinter group that the government pretends to know nothing about–when that terrorist organization now IS the government, negotiation is impossible. When radical extremism becomes state policy, and the leaders of a nation preach ethnic cleansing, I should hope the leaders of the free world refuse to share a table with them.

    On the cynically optimistic side, I think both Palestine and Israel are in such political chaos right now that neither wants to start a war. Not yet.

  11. 11 Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
    January 29, 2006 at 7:32 pm

    When I saw the topic PC had started I knew that the majority of people here (not all) would side with the Zionist, human rights destroying, nuclear warhead equipped and violator of the agreed 1967 bounderies between Palestine and Israel (nevermind countless UN resolutions: more broken in fact than Iraq).

    Hamas is a political-military organisation that fights for the oppressed people of Palestine in their struggle against the oppression of the Zionism that runs rife through current Israeli politics, politics that have walled in, dis-enfranchised and through violent expansionist polices, stole vast tracts of land from the Arab peoples; hence the number of broken UN resolutions.

    I will not detail the atrocities carried out by the state of Israel upon the people of Palestine, but to say that I would choose the path of Hamas if my people were being repressed to such a degree, I would use any means to combat my foes and define my land as my own.

    I would draw your attention to the IRA and their fight for the removal of British troops from their land and also for a unified Ireland (the rough equivilent of the removal of Israel troops form the West Bank and Gaza Strip and then taking the whole of Israel for itself), I see many similarities here and I think that we shall see Hamas engage both in violence and politics at the beginning, they have a war to win after all. I think we will see a softening of the ‘wipe Israel from the map’ stance (just as the IRA/Sinn Fein dropped the united Ireland stance) and a move to political dialogue.

    Hamas’ success in the election is a great thing, it brings the ‘terrorists’ to the table and opens discussion’ talking to terrorists is the only means by which struggle can be ended; never through bloodshed.

    Some further points:

    Kathleen you mention the removal of settlers as a good thing, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place, this was little concession by Sharon. You also dismiss Hamas as freedom fighters, I have a few Palestianian friends, I shall get them to email you with the stories of torture and the dead children carried out by Israel.

    Saur: a history of the Arab world hating the Jews? There is plenty of history of Christians hating Jews and hating Arabs; this is a false view of the Muslim world and one that is bordering on the bigoted: you dismiss the Arabic world as Hamas, that’s like judging North America on the disgusting exploits of the asshat in charge.

  12. 12 the Innocent Bystander
    January 29, 2006 at 10:31 pm

    Israel has violent expansionist polices? From what I remember, this is not what I see at all. Let’s take the Six Day War for example. Not only did Israel defeat entirely all of it’s foes, but it gained quite a bit of land, as far as Sinai from what I recollect. Then, when the Israelites assured their victory, THEY GAVE ALL THE LAND THEY GAINED BACK TO THEIR ENEMIES! Is this the act of an expanisionistic nation?

    Just a thought.

  13. 13 Kathleen
    January 30, 2006 at 1:23 am

    DGH: I knew I should not read this blog so soon after eating. I have always found fruitcake hard to swallow.

    Ah, come on. Not one good thought for the poor jews?

  14. 14 Jessica
    January 30, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    Daniel, I thought about the IRA in connection with this, too. The biggest difference though is that the IRA publicly renounced violenced (at least in voice) prior to forming a political party, and the IRA did not win a majority in any election.

  15. 15 Saur♥Kraut
    January 30, 2006 at 12:54 pm


    Saur: a history of the Arab world hating the Jews? There is plenty of history of Christians hating Jews and hating Arabs; this is a false view of the Muslim world and one that is bordering on the bigoted: you dismiss the Arabic world as Hamas, that’s like judging North America on the disgusting exploits of the asshat in charge.

    Point taken. Let me modify what I said by saying the majority of the arabic world. There are exceptions, and you’re correct about that.

  16. 16 Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
    January 30, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    Innocent right-wing bystander:

    The expasionism I am mainly referring to is the infringements upon the West Bank and the Gaza Strips and the people of Palestine. But I’m glad you mention the external borders of Israel as they still haven’t given back the land to Lebanon to the North and they still hold on to much land from the original partition in 1947. Please see this link for details:

    Kathleen: poor Jews? I will not commit the crime of patronising a great race, I have no issues with the Jewish people but with Zionism, just as I have no issues with the US people but neo-conservatism and no problem with the Chinese people but puesdo Communism.

    Jessica: The IRA did not renounce violence prior to political engagement, they just created Sinn Fein as a politcal wing so that the IRA could carry on bombing the UK. A clever twist.

    Saur: we’ll agree to disagree on this but apologies for suggesting bigotry, harsh words and not needed.

  17. 17 Saur♥Kraut
    January 30, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Daniel, when I disagree with you, I’ll say so. I actually don’t think you need to apologize to me for this. You were correct; it DID sound that way.

  18. 18 Kathleen
    January 30, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    “Kathleen: poor Jews? I will not commit the crime of patronising a great race, I have no issues with the Jewish people but with Zionism, just as I have no issues with the US people but neo-conservatism and no problem with the Chinese people but puesdo Communism.”

    Daniel, I was not patronizing the Jewish people. I think that was clear to anyone who read the posts.
    But, I am smiling at the rest of your statement as I am visualizing the pidgeon holes arranged in alphabetical order. . .

  19. 19 exMI
    January 30, 2006 at 4:51 pm

    I’ll accept Hams as a military force fighting for freedom whenthey attack military targets instead of busses and pizza joints.

    and yeah, I know all about Isreal’s wrongs. It is often thw old case of the Pot and the Kettle.

  20. 20 Notsocranky Yankee
    January 30, 2006 at 8:35 pm

    I don’t see how Israel and the US can choose not to deal with a democratically elected government. The Palestinian people have elected leaders they hope will protect their interests. That’s how democracy works.

  21. 21 Kathleen
    January 30, 2006 at 8:48 pm

    notsocranky: How should the Israelies negotiate with those who wish to murder them? It doesn’t fly. Example . . . the KKK are elected to lead the nation. How do blacks negotiate with them? As long as the intent, vow and mission of a government is to remove them from the face of the earth, what is to negotiate. There is no backing down on the right to live. Until they agree to allow for the right of the Israelies to exist there is nothing to negotiate.

  22. 22 Notsocranky Yankee
    January 31, 2006 at 12:03 am


    I’m not saying the Israelis should AGREE with them, just TALK to them. The courtesy of acknowledging that Hamas members were elected would be honorable. Ignoring them will only fuel the anger. It’s the old “Be the bigger man” theory.

  23. 23 Kathleen
    January 31, 2006 at 1:20 am

    Notsocranky: I understand the “bigger man” concept, but disagree that they should make that move. If they begin the conversations without getting the concession that they can “live” what would make Hamas relent to that mandate? I believe that the Israelies and the US should nudge the international community to put pressure on Hamas to concede that Israel should be allowed to be a state. Without that concession, nothing makes sense. Hamas has not shown me or most of the sane world that they are interested in peace. Example: If Germany should elect the Nazi party, we should isolate them and show them our big stick. It would be nice to think that a little conversation and wine would have disuaded Hitler from his mission. As Dr. Phil says, the best predictor of future is the past behavior.

    Please, don’t think that I am pleased as punch with Israel. I have a whole list of disputes. But, this is seriously disturbing.

  24. 24 Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
    January 31, 2006 at 10:02 am

    Kathleen: not pigeonholes, means by which to prove my point that I have no problem with the cute Jews. Reading your exchange with notso… I see you utterly entrenched in a position that in the world of negotiaiton is utterly untenable. You have to sit and talk to ‘terrorists’, just as the UK did when the IRA wanted a united Ireland a utterly unacceptable concept for millions of people. You have to talk, to have dialogue as Hamas are the elected represetatives of the people. Your ref to the KKK is silly and you know it, comparing Hamas to the KKK is offensive and shows how little you understand the issues at stake.

    Exmi: any means nessercary, just like when our forces target civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. This is war, there are no rules (please see UK/US troops torturing prisoners of war for reference).

  25. 25 Saur♥Kraut
    January 31, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    This is something that I frankly don’t have an answer to. My immediate instinct is to refuse to talk to Hamas and if I had to choose right now, that’s where I’d be since talking to them will only further legitimize them.

    For instance, what if we went through another scenario in Germany as we faced in WW2? What if the Nazis take power again? Do we seriously bother to discuss anything with them?

    Just because Hamas was elected doesn’t make them a legitimate gov’t., IMHO. Not all peoples of the world are sane, either. We can’t consider them to be equals to us any more than a fire ant is an equal to a black ant.

    Scott Adams (of Dilbert) published yesterday: You know the old joke about the dog that chases cars – “What would he do if he caught one?” I was reminded of that when I read that Hamas won an election victory. I imagine a room full of Hamas leaders looking at each other behind closed doors and saying, “Oh crap, we won.”

    And I imagine the Israeli leaders sitting around behind closed doors and saying, “It just got a lot easier to find the people we want to kill.”

    I have to think it will be difficult for Hamas to reconcile the whole “destroy Israel” platform with “We’ll all be at the Parliament building at noon talking about how to do it.”

    I’m writing this on Thursday the 26th. I predict that Hamas will start softening their position by the time you read this. Or maybe they’ll wait a few weeks just to make it seem like they thought about it. But it’ll happen.

  26. 26 Kathleen
    January 31, 2006 at 2:27 pm

    Daniel: having a bigger mouth does not make you right. Your bias is showing. Yes, you are a bigot, Daniel. Cute Jews? Silly and offensive, indeed. We are a little too aware to jump into the swill with you. Save that for the minions.

    Exmi is absolutely correct. I will consider calling them legitimate when their military targets cease to be “busses and pizza joints.”

  27. 27 Underground Logician
    January 31, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    There must absolutely be no negotiations with Hamas. None. Zippo. As long as their foreign policy is to destroy their neighbor through terrorism, then we must flex our military muscles and scare the hell out of ’em. If they renounce their intent to destroy the Jews and show good faith, then we consider it with extreme caution.

    Then, you’ll have the best peace possible with those who hate Jews, sustained by strength.

    DHG: When you were a kid, did you always give in to bullies on the playground, or were you a bully yourself? Just curious.

  28. 28 exMI
    January 31, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    Speaking from personal experience, while I was in Afghanistan and Iraq we never targeted civilians. sometimes the people we did target happened to be in the same place as civilians which is unfortunate but very few wars are carefully scheduled to be fought in places no one lives. Hamas activly targets totally non military targets. Not even strategic targets. Just places civilians can be found in large numbers. If Hamas wants to put snipers out to shoot Israeli soldiers at checkpoints that is their right. Soldiers are legitimate targets. Teenagers buying a pizza are not.
    As per your facetious reference to ” …UK/US troops torturing prisoners of war…” Please note that those who abused prisoners are generally in jail now. At least the US ones are.

  29. 29 Notsocranky Yankee
    January 31, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    What will we achieve by refusing to talk to the Palestinians? Will ignoring their elected leaders make them go away?

    I think more Hamas would be voted in if anything. I’m just saying…

  30. 30 Kathleen
    January 31, 2006 at 11:27 pm

    notsocranky . . . Hamas needs to want to “negotiate” / talk to the Israelis. I am not likely to get my neighbor to talk to me if my goal in life is to kill him and his family. I need to give him assurance that he can talk to me and I will not kill him or blow up his house.

    Hamas, is a terrorist organization. The Palestinians knew that when they voted for them. In fact, that is the reason they voted for them. If that makes it nearly impossible to continue “negotiations” with Israel, then they are living their choices. Negotiations with the previous Palestinian government netted them the West Bank. Go figure. My suggestion would be that the UN or other nations not threatened by either act as a conduit for information. But, I can tell you this . . . If I were an Israelis I would be beefing up my defenses big time now. I would be demanding that my government tighten the hatches and make it clear that we will take any and all necessary measures to defend ourselves.

    We can all be grateful that our children are not going to school there or the mall for pizza.

  31. 31 Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
    February 1, 2006 at 12:58 pm

    Saur: I’ll say this, once again your post has some real xenophobic tones reagrding Arab peoples, esp the closing statement about certain people not being equal. You have to have dialogue to progress and PLEASE do not compare Hamas to the Nazi party; that is just offensive. And Hamas are elected by the people of Palestine so we have to respect that, we can’t just ride roughshod over their democratic rights because we don’t like who won! How crass is that? Many UK Labour MPs don’t like the Republican agenda but they have to deal with it to get things done and so they should.

    Kathleen: the cute Jews was in reference to your ‘poor Jews’ and the patronsing tone of your post. I was mocking you. I like how its OK for us to kill innocent people but not for Hamas. Is it because we’re white and not Muslim? Your final comment once again exposes your entrenchment in a world view that is not only untenable but destructive. Beefing up defensives? Good grief…

    UL: I’m glad you don’t work in international politics because you’d get no where, or actually you get even worse than no where. You’d respond with violence and the dead bodies of children would pile up even quicker than before. Hamas were elected in legitimate elections, therefore we have to engage with them at the talking table, just as we in the UK had to do with the IRA. Here’s a good fact, more children have been killed by Israel last year than the total number of people killed by Hamas last year. Your bully analogy is as vulgar as it is wrong: Hamas aren’t bullies anymore than the UK/US axis is with its use of force in Iraq.

    Exmi: I don’t buy it, you can’t tell me that us killing children is OK and them killing children isn’t. It’s all wrong and that’s war and while we’re on this what about the Israeli process of targeting civilians? Any comments on that? Hamas are at war with an invading force, please keep up. Neither can you dismiss the torturing as something done and dusted, it still goes on and how disgusting we did it in the first place.

    I’m so glad we’re the civilised one.

    Oh and remember that the UN gave up after 9 years of coming up with a definition for terrorism because too many of their members did it and I’m not talking the tiny nations…hint: UK, France, US, Russia…the list goes on.

  32. 32 Saur♥Kraut
    February 1, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    Daniel, I agreed with you previously, but I can’t agree with you now. Because now I am saying that not all people are equal.

    Believing that all people are equal is a nice little sophism, until you begin to see the obvious contradictions.

    If all people are equal, and all claims are legitimate, then we will have to become as The White Queen in Alice in Wonderland and make an effort to believe “seven impossible things before breakfast”.

    Since some of these people hold completely opposite views, there is no choice but to take sides. To say otherwise is to be disengenuous at best.

    Let’s take it as a more personal example: Is Jeffrey Dahmer equal with his victims? Is Hitler equal to the Jews?

    Understand that I’m talking equality in morality, where I still believe that there’s a right and a wrong. How could I believe otherwise? Someone must be right. Anarchy has never worked. This could be seen as fortuntate or unfortunate, but the truth remains – we don’t fondly reminisce in our history classes about The Golden Age of Anarchy.

    As a nation, we need to choose. We are not choosing arab vs. non-arab, or we wouldn’t have dealings with other arabic nations. Instead, we are forced to choose right vs. wrong.

  33. 33 exMI
    February 1, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    Killing children is not “okay” but if you cannot see the difference between deliberately targeting children and accidently killing them then there is nothing else to say to you.

  34. 34 United We Lay
    February 1, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    You’re right, that is the way the Iraqis would vote. This is a situation in which “The evil you know…” applies. The tension in the middle east is going to be nearly impossible to control very soon. As soon as the US pulls out of Iraq, they will descend into the depths. We made a huge mistake with this, and our children will be cleaning up the mess for years to come.

  35. 35 United We Lay
    February 1, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    I noticed. I thought it was insane. How could he even think of saying that? He just deligitimized the republican party.

    They don’t have to recognize Israel. Though I believe the Israelis should have their own land, they land they are currently on was taken out of Palestinian hands. If I was a Palestinian, I would understand their anger, but not their methodology. With qall that said, they are still a democratically elected government. If we are the people we claim to be, we must recognize them as legitimate. They didn’t take power by force. They could make the argument that they don’t have to recognize Bush because he was appointed, not elected.

  36. 36 United We Lay
    February 1, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    It was not their land to begin with.

  37. 37 Kathleen
    February 1, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    “With qall that said, they are still a democratically elected government. If we are the people we claim to be, we must recognize them as legitimate. They didn’t take power by force. They could make the argument that they don’t have to recognize Bush because he was appointed, not elected.”

    You have got to be kidding.

    I don’t think that anyone here said that they were not legitimately elected. The point is that Israel and the US can refuse to negotiate with them until they are assured that they can come to the table with something other than you should be dead and we will do everything in our power to see that that happens. Freedom of choice does not only apply to Palistinians. There is a country of people here that have their lives depending on the actions of their government. It goes both ways. If I were Israel, I would make them make the first move. Israels mission is not to wipe them from the face of the earth.

  38. 38 Saur♥Kraut
    February 1, 2006 at 6:02 pm

    Polanco, actually innocent is correct. There is precedent for it being Israeli land long before it was assimilated by other nations. The thing that ticked everyone off at that time is that the present occupants (at the time that Israel became a nation) had nothing to do with taking over the land from Israel, but ended up with the land being taken from them, just the same.

  39. 39 United We Lay
    February 1, 2006 at 6:51 pm

    Just because they can refuse doesn’t mean they should. There is just as much precedent to suggest that the land was not Israeli. The fact is, no one lived on that land as a people. They were always intermixed, so no one has a legitimate claim to inhabit it soley.

  40. 40 United We Lay
    February 1, 2006 at 7:05 pm

    Here’s the thing, land disputes will NEVER be settled with anything less than war. Look at how long the Irish have been hating the English. If someone walked into your house and said, “It’s mine.”, what would you do? Would you just leave and let them live in YOUR house? HELL NO! You would fight with every fiber of your being. That’s what they’re doing.

    We can say violence isn’t the answer as long as we want, but the only way to remove someone from your home who says they aren’t going is to kill them. Hamas is protecting their home, Israel is protecting what was given to them. It’s an unpolular position, but if I were Palestinian, I probably wouldn’t recognize Israel either. And if I were Israeli, I would probably long to have a homeland but know that it’s impossible. The land that I was given didn’t belong to me. I know Jews who say they would never live in Israel because it is stolen land. If every racial group wanted to take back the land that was stolen from the 500 years ago or more, we’d all be screwed.

  41. 41 Kathleen
    February 1, 2006 at 10:10 pm

    “We can say violence isn’t the answer as long as we want, but the only way to remove someone from your home who says they aren’t going is to kill them.”

    So what is there to negotiate?

  42. 42 Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
    February 1, 2006 at 10:35 pm

    Saur: I have an issue with you saying the Arab people are inherently ‘wrong’.

    Exmi: it’s all the same to me and if you draw lines then I know exactly what kinda person you are.

    Kathleen: our governments are as shitty as Hamas in the methods they use, the moral highground is made of quicksand.

  43. 43 Kathleen
    February 1, 2006 at 11:00 pm

    Daniel: I question your judgment when it comes to moral high ground.

  44. 44 Saur♥Kraut
    February 1, 2006 at 11:59 pm

    Daniel, But I am NOT saying that Arab people are inherently wrong. Where are you getting that?

  45. 45 United We Lay
    February 2, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    The only thing to negotiate is a way for the Israelis and Palestinians to share all of the land. Otherwise, there will always be war. And I question question YOUR judgement when it comes to the moral high ground.

  46. 46 exMI
    February 2, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    I guess you know what kind of person I am thena nad if you cannot see the difference between accidently killing someone and deliberately murdering them then I know what kind of person you are too.

  47. 47 Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
    February 2, 2006 at 4:52 pm

    Saur: just your comments on the fact not everyone is equal in a discussion about the repression of Arabs.

    Kathleen: question away, I knew you would.

    Exmi: you keep splitting hairs and I’ll keep tabs on the dead Iraqi and Afghanistan civilians who died by accident in a fake war on a noun and while we’re at it I’ll keep tabs on the Palestinian civilian dead as well which has always outnumbered the Israeli dead.

  48. 48 the Innocent Bystander
    February 3, 2006 at 12:43 am

    Of course their dead out-numbers the Israeli dead… the Israelis aren’t the ones blowing themselves up!!!!

  49. 49 United We Lay
    February 3, 2006 at 1:09 pm

    No, but the Israelis are the ones living on stolen land, granted, though, that it has not been stolen by them. War is war, Innocent. Terrorism is not the best option, but for these people, they believe it is the only war they can win. Like I said, if someone came into your home and said it belonged to them now and they weren’t leaving, you’d kill them too.

  50. 50 Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
    February 3, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    Innocent Right Wing Bystander I can’t believe that you would say something so idiotic, so crass and so utterly out of tune with the reality in the Palestine.

    It has nothing to do with blowing themselves up you maniac.

  51. 51 exMI
    February 3, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    Living on stolen land. Yes indeed. But the simplke fact of the matter is they are there and they aren’t going to leave. the sooner the Palestinians reaslize that the sooner some progress can be made.
    I suppose an continued attempt to kill the Israelis could contineu which of course will lead to furtehr reprisals by the Isralis agaisnt the Palestinians for an unending cycle of death and destruction. Hopefully someone will see the light eventually. I was shocked that Sharon seemed to be catching it and was making unilateral concessions. I have my doubts that they will continue now that he is incapacitated and the Palestinians have elected Hamas. We shall see.

  52. 52 United We Lay
    February 5, 2006 at 3:22 pm

    The only reason they aren’t going to leave is because they’re supported by the UN. If someone stole your home and then someone else told you to just accept it, would you? No freaking way! Like I said before, you would do everything you could to get them off your land, including blowing up your own home and rebuilding a new one if it came to that.

  53. 53 the Innocent Bystander
    February 7, 2006 at 1:03 am


    Picture this in a sing-songy sort of tone:

    “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

    Please. You’re making me blush.


    Your analogy is based on the idea that the home is “mine” to begin with. This is not necessarily the case with Palestine. Israel has just as good a claim to be there as the Palestinians do.

  54. 54 United We Lay
    February 7, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    They do not have a good claim. Israelis have not lived ont hat land for hundreds of years. Does that mean that American Indians get half of the US back to do with as they please?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Top Posts


I am not perfect. I do my best to practice what I preach, but I am human. My mantra is, "DO NO HARM". I may not always succeed, but I will always try. My goal is to be a better person today than I was yesterday.

Fair Use Notice

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Incidentally, this notice itself was swiped from Spiiderweb and Dave Away From Home

%d bloggers like this: