June 16, 2003
No Peace While Hamas Exists
I’ve come to the conculsion that there will never be peace in the Middle East until Hamas (and Islamic Jihad, etc) are annihilated. Ariel Sharon is right to declare all out war on Hamas; each time it appears peace may be on the horizon, Hamas blows up another busload of women and children.
Ehud Barak some years ago offered the Palestinians 97% of what they wanted but they didn't take it. Why? Because it is the desire of the "Palestinian leadership" to wipe Israel off the map, not to peacefully coexist. Just last week a Hamas leader vowed once again to kill "every Jew in Palestine." I believe he was further quoted as saying "even your women and children are valid targets" or something to that effect. You can not reason or negotiate with someone or an organization that is so committed to the destruction of their enemy. The only way that Israel will ever live in peace is when they have destroyed (pre-emptively!) those Arabs who seek their destruction. (Or they offer to fling every Jew in Israel into the sea, but that would be counterproductive...)
Now, last last week I heard that President Bush and some other top-ranking officials are making noise that we may need to send troops to help Israel destroy Hamas. While part of me does agree with this position, I have to disagree overall. Israel is more than capable of wiping out Hamas, they just need to decide to do it. I think they have finally made that decision. What the US needs to do is give them free reign to do what is needed. Colin Powel and the President need to offer words of support, not calls for restraint, as Israel goes about their mission.
Posted by joeyGibson at June 16, 2003 10:41 PMPeace through strength eh? Isn’t that what history used to spout?
I don’t understand how you could use “peace” and “annihilated” in the same sentence…
Do you honestly think that any military force will be able to “annihilate” the entire “organization?”
And what means should be used to “annihilate” them?
Should Irealis invade the homes of anyone suspected to be part of hamas? I’d love to see how hamas could possibly be “annihilated” without provoking MORE conflict and outrage from more than just the Palestinians. To take such an idiotic stance would be disasterous for Isreal and possibly for the world.
Posted by: Jason at June 17, 2003 03:59 AMWith all the endless analysis, commentary and pure babbling by everyone from Tom Friedman of The Times to Bloggers, it’s really very, very
simple:
- Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al do not want a single Jew left in Israel. Please try and understand the simplicity of that concept before suggesting what everyone involved should do. It’s a fact.
- I certainly would encourage the Israelis to give up all of Palestine in this “enlightened, non-racist era” if every single “pro-peace” demonstrator, Euro-politician, et all would agree to the return of the millions of homes and businesses and buildings Europeans now occupy that were stolen from Jews.
Sorry, but its really not that complicated.
Posted by: Andy at June 17, 2003 08:10 AM“The only way that Israel will ever live in peace is when they have destroyed (pre-emptively!) those Arabs who seek their destruction.”
So let me get this straight: Pre-emptively commit genocide to thwart possible genocide? Darwin would be a happy!
Posted by: joestump at June 17, 2003 10:46 AMDarwin would be a happy!
It’s a sad day when Jews have resorted to the same tactics as Hitler and Stalin.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at June 17, 2003 11:22 AMOh come on! Hitler? Stalin? Give me a break… I never said that Israel should wipe out the Palestinians. I said that they should wipe out Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. Those orgainzations that are actively seeking the destruction of Israel and every Jew therein.
Posted by: Joey at June 17, 2003 11:51 AMI said that they should wipe out Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.
Ok, let’s be quasi-hypothetical here. Suppose they wipe out all of the terrorist groups. Then someone throws a grenade at a troop and dies anyways when they blow the person away (ex- this happened in Iraq not too long ago with a girl who left her village and was not associated with any group). The Israeli answer thus far has been to demolish her home, the home of her family and that of her neighbors, even if they are home at the time.
There cannot be justice without a legitimate judiciary process. To punish a whole group for the crimes of one person is ridiculous and IS EXACTLY what Hitler and Stalin did.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at June 17, 2003 12:03 PMStephen, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Advocating the death of other people as a solution to a problem is not any solution at all.
Hear that everyone? Killing people indiscriminately (and please don’t tell me that only going after Hamas isn’t indiscriminate) is not a solution. If America or Israel decide to ‘annihilate’ Hamas, how many more young Palestinians are going to feel persecuted and join the ranks of similar organizations? How many more suicide bombers will there be? These people are not insane, they are not crazy, they are fighting for a cause they believe in. In order to find a solution to this problem, you must examine the causes, you must examine the history, and you absolutely must take them into account when you plan.
You must address the issues of *both* sides of this conflict, because there are *two* sides. When the Israeli helicopters shoot missiles into cars, innocent Palestinians die. When Palestinian bombs explode in Jerusalem, innocent Israeli citizens die. The fact that violence is not the answer to this problem should be clear, and I find it disappointing to see so many posts on this board advocating it.
crutan
Posted by: crutan at June 17, 2003 12:33 PMWhat joeyGibson as well as the other Republicans who support such a violent “solution” don’t understand is that this doesn’t fix the cycle of violence. The current “Just kill all the bastards!” mentality doesn’t really work well within a document titled the “Roadmap to Peace”.
My solution is to use extensive intelligence and beat them peacefully using an international court system. This is exactly what helped curb mob violence in the US.
Posted by: joestump at June 17, 2003 02:15 PMI agree that Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc. should be destroyed. But not by physical means, not by death— trying this only adds to the violence in the long run.
The way to “kill” these groups is to remove their base of support. That base of support is not people who want to exterminate the Jews, but those who want to live in peace and security, with the same rights as virtually everyone else in the world.
In sum: A fair, just, and lasting peace settlement is what kills Hamas et. al. Anything short of that makes their existence inevitable.
Posted by: Martin at June 17, 2003 05:06 PMBut there have been offers of “fair” and “just” peace settlements, including giving up LOTS of land, and they don’t take. As soon as it appears that a peace settlement is possible, Hamas, et al, blow up another bus. They will never be satisfied.
And the Israeli’s will never be satisfied until all the Palestinians are out of Israel.
The Road Map is dead in the Red Sea.
Posted by: Rick at June 17, 2003 06:17 PMGeeze joey, haven’t the Israeli’s killed three Palestinians for every Israeli killed? So why aren’t you saying there will be no peace while Israel exists? Just showing your bias I guess. Oh that’s right, the Israelis are acting in self defence: that is such a lie! You could just as well say Hamas is acting in self defence. If you can’t afford helicopter gunships and tanks, and a bully is constantly attacking you with helecopters and tanks, you use suicide bombers to even the playing field. Palestinans have a right to fight back when theyr’e being screwed and slaughtered on a daily basis. Wake up boy!
Posted by: Michael D. at June 17, 2003 06:52 PMLet’s look at reality, Joey:
June 5: Aqaba Summit Closes
June 5: Hours after Summit, IDF demolishes house in Gaza Strip, one person shot and several lightly injured (Israeli army demolish Palestinian house in Gaza Strip, AFP, 5 June 2003)
June 6: IDF raids house, kills 2 Palestinians, injures 3rd Palestinian. Men were suspected members of Hamas.
June 8: Palestinian factions combine for attack on Israeli soldiers. 5 Israeli soldiers and 5 Palestinian fighters are killed.
June 9: Israel destroys 13 homes in Gaza Strip, leaving dozens homeless (New York Times, 10 June 2003)
June 10: Israel attempts assassination of Hamas leader Rantisi. 2 injured including Rantisi and his son, and one bystander, a woman, is killed.
June 11: Suicide bomb on bus kills 16, claimed by Hamas.
So, by just a cursory check of news reports, Israel destroyed 15 homes and killed 2 people before the first Palestinian attack, which was an attack on soldiers. Then Israel attempted an assassination on a Hamas leader, and the suicide blast in Jerusalem was the next day.
I am not saying that Israel shouldn’t be free to defend itself or attack terrorists. But at the same time you can’t say that Hamas’s bomb is what killed the peace process— it is a much more complicated picture than that. Furthermore, look back through the last 2 years and you will see that every time Hamas sits down with the more moderate Palestinians to discuss a cease-fire, a senior Hamas member is assassinated.
Posted by: martin at June 17, 2003 08:04 PMNo Peace while Likud Exists?
Begin? Sharon? They are terrorists too.
Question for everyone - why is the US so worried about Israel? Why have we supported them for so many years and what will the US gain from any peace agreement between the Jews and Palestinians? Oil? Olives? Olive Oil? Kiwi Fruit? Whether we destroy Hamas or stop the IDF, what reason would we have? Why should our Presidents spend so much time over there - except to stop any genocide which both sides are guilty of since Israel declared itself a state?
Posted by: huxley75 at June 18, 2003 03:46 PMhuxley75: neo-cons would say that it’s because they are a democratic ally in a hostile environment. Liberals would say it’s because they are blackmailing the US, or there is some other giant conspiracy. Whatever the case may be, there are some unanswered questions in a debate that many on the Right would rather avoid completely instead of address directly and truthfully. I’m inclined to side with the Left on this topic because for a country that the US gives $14B in cash loans (which never get repaid), military aid, and has vetoed every UN resolution against them, they sure do act ungrateful when we ask them not to openly kill Palestinian kids throwing rocks, to say the least.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at June 18, 2003 03:59 PMThe crux of the matter is that this is a religious conflict rather than a conflict over territory (where positions could be compromised and negotiated). The very existence of Jews negates the “truths” of their fanatical brand of Islam. And to have a Jewish government in what they view as their holy land will never be acceptable to them. Period. The only solution, short of violence on a massive scale not yet seen, is for the leader of Islam to publicly and unambiguously declare that the fanatics (Hamas, Al Queda, etc) do not represent authentic Islam.
Posted by: L N at June 19, 2003 05:26 PMI think Larry makes a very good point about this being a religious conflict. My point of view is that the U.S. should just keep out of it and take care of our own country first. Or better yet, we should let the free market decide and sell our military assistance to the highest bidder. I jest; but getting paid for our assistance is far better than just giving away billions of dollars each year with no real hope in ever getting that money back.
Posted by: Cam at June 19, 2003 06:42 PMThat must be why Israel lives in such a state of peace today, because their annihilation policy is so effective. What do you think happens to the children or brothers of people who are killed in their homes by a helicopter gun ship? If for every ten you kill you create ten more … a small understanding of exponents would help you grasp this.
They both do evil things to one another, its just the weird reporting that always makes the Israeli action a “response” to a Palestinian “aggression”. I don’t understand why we (america) can’t deal with them even handedly.
When i was 10 Yrs old my Mother gave me a whipping
when she was done i told her that did’nt hurt so she whiped me again this went on two more times till i said Mommy that hurt
You folks understand that
Can it really be so difficult to solve these problems? Surely what is required is a bit of “give and take”. It really is time for all this mistrust and hatred to go to bed!!
Posted by: Craig Brown at March 22, 2004 02:25 AM
