The standard Western media and Israeli mantra is once again rife on this forum. It goes something like this: My hypothesis is that in the period in question Hamas went out of its way to avoid conflict. Yes, I know that during this period some of the most intensive rocket barrages since the Second Intifada were launched against Israel. So I suggest that we test these opposing views/hypothesis in detail, starting initially with the example from 2006 and ending in early 2009, paying careful attention to the timeline of actual events, and avoiding cherry-picking by proper consideration of cause-and-effect.
I don't think there is any question that FATAH, backed by Israel and with more than tacit approval from the US, "went after" Hamas after the election, causing Hamas to respond in kind. That Fatah was "surprised" by the viciousness of the response and the sound drubbing they recieved in gaza, they simply weren't paying attention. Yet another example of the incompetent leadership palestinians have been burdened with since day one. the whole Hamas crimes against humanity meme is questionable at best and nonsense at worst. Have hamas committed crimes? Yes of course they have. they have broken the PA basic law at will, conducted ex-judiciary executions, conducted terrorist attacks, trampled civil rights, etc. Hamas is neither as bad as Fatah/Israeli/Western apologists would have us believe nor as good as Islamist/palestinian apologists would have us believe. Like most, they are far far from innocent and while many might percieve justification for their actions, there is no amount of justification that can absolve them of many of their crimes.
Hamas blew up buses & restaurants full of Israeli civilians. Hamas now fires rockets at Israeli civilian communities. They are ripe for sentencing at The Hague for war crimes.
Hamas shot Fatah's people's knees. Hamas kill people and drag their bodies behind motorcycles. Evil pigs
Here you go some evidences about "Hamas is a terrorist organization": http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm If you will look in this link you could see that the US considered Hamas as terrorist organization frm 1997!! OR this: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=20&x_article=1618 Here you go a video about a Christian Arab from Beit Lehem that talks about what the Muslim Arabs is doing to the Christian Arabs: [video=youtube;YzCAqXrBGtU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzCAqXrBGtU[/video]
Both sides are wrong and right. Hamas is fighting for freedom and to lift the opressed people out of their conditions, who live in 3rd world conditions while the Israeli's are first world. Israel is right because they do own their ancestral land, and they can't tolerate rocket attacks on them and not do anything, Obama put it best, "No country in the world would tolerate missles rainning down on their own people".
Gazan's situation was far better before Hamas captured Gaza. Gazans are opressed by their leaders and Egypt.
I do not doubt that the US views Hamas as a terrorist organisation. They also viewed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. They also viewed Saddam Hussein as having a civilisation-threatening supply of WMDs. They also helped overthrow the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 which was the start of the continuing antagonism between these two countries. They also viewed the Indonesian dictator Sukarno as being worthy of their support which led to the death of 500 000 Indonesians .... I know, Faux News won't have informed you of that]. So could you please find more reliable sources of judgement than that of the US and its puppies. This is made worse by your choice of Camera as a reference source. It is like choosing Attila the Hun to speak on democracy. The whole point of this thread is to test how robust that claim is, and, as is my democratic right, I have chosen as my first test 2006-2009.
If you want to know if Hamas is a terrorist organization or not, you simply have to read the Hamas Charter which written there very simple that the way of Hamas is the Jihad way. Here you go: A site that regarding to the major terrorist groups: http://www.towson.edu/polsci/ppp/sp97/terror/groups.html http://www.adl.org/israel-international/israel-middle-east/content/AG/hamas.html
I have not disputed that the US has classified Hamas as a terrorist organisation. But we all know how flawed US judgements are: # Like helping to overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 .... # ... and then feigning innocence when Iran got the opportunity for pay-back ... # .... and then judged it warranted to support the evil dictator Saddam Hussein against Iran after he had already gassed Kurds and later did the same to Iran ... # .... and then blamed Iran for taking contrary action and supporting the opponents of the US in the ME # ... and the ultimate bad judgement of all on matters Middle Eastern, when it judged that same evil dictator to be .... uhm .... an evil disctator ... # ... and finally bared a collosal misjudgement when it told the world that he was about to unleash WMDs on the planet. Those kind of appalling judgements lead me to be utterly underwhelmed by whom the US judges to be terrorists. I reserve judgement based on facts, not blatant hypocrisy and violation of countless international laws
In my last comment to you I bolded the word The European Union, which means the UN, i didnt regarded to the US only! read again what I gave you. You are dissmising the fact that Hamas way is the Jihad way, and it was written in their charter, so an organization that support Jihad can not be not terrorist. Many terrorist attacks by Arabs and Muslims are regarded as an expression of jihad, many Muslim clerics encouraging suicide bombings and jihad against the West, and especially against Israel and the United States. Many of these clerics are under the protection of Arab governments, or are led by the extremist movements (such as discourse Ahmed Yassin, who headed Hamas). You know what the Rulings - Islamic laws say about Jihad? that any killing of a civilian as unjustified, immoral and contrary to the ethics of Islam FUNNY because Hamas according to outs-Islamic laws are doing things that are contrary to the ethics of Islam, FUNNY!
What is this Jihad way that Hamas subscribes to? Jihad means "to struggle in the way of Allah". There are two commonly accepted meanings of jihad: an inner spiritual struggle and an outer physical struggle. However, there is consensus amongst Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression. The "lesser jihad" is the physical struggle against the enemies of Islam. The "Greater" is the inner spiritual struggle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad The United States Department of Justice has used its own ad hoc definitions of jihad in indictments of individuals involved in terrorist activities. "Jihad" is a loaded term—and a concept that illustrates a deep gulf of miscommunication between Islam and the West. But it is the jihad of the sword that has received the lion's share of global attention. The concept began when early Muslims were driven from their land by enemies, said Idris, and were first given permission and later ordered by God to fight those enemies. They were not, Idris stresses, given permission to fight non-believers or those who rejected the faith—only those who transgressed against them. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_jihad.html This thread is about a test as to whether by its actions, Hamas was indeed following a radical Western definition of Jihad, or a Muslim one. So let us continue. So far we have seen that Hamas, even though it was being persecuted by Israel and the US and not being allowed to exercise its democratically gained rights, maintained its self-imposed truce for 16 months. Is this the actions of the "Jihad of the Sword?" Is following that Jihad way for 16 months being a terrorist. So, what happened in June 2006? Why did they stop observing their truce? Did a Mullah jump up and scream "Banzai!!!"?
Really!!?? I am starting to understand now why you believe that the whole world thinks Hamas is a terorist organisation.
Oppression? which oppresion? in Gaza there is Arabic rule only! and still they want to eliminate Israel. ISRael let Arabs to speak whats in thier minds and doesnt stoping them to do so. In your link is written there this: By the way- according to the Quran Muhammad loved the Jews and let them to fulfill their religion, BUT one day he wanted to Islamized them and because they didnt want to he wrote in the Quran that the Jews needed to be killed by the Muslims. It happened in Saudi Arabia and even in the Quran regarding to the Jews that lived there by that it says that Muhammad said to someone something like that: "look how the Jews turning upside down in their graves". In 2011,193 states were bolong to the UN, so it means if the UN recognize Hamas as a terrorist organizatio, it simply means that all of the 193 states recognize it as one.
I hate to break the news to you Stuntman, but the UN does NOT recognise Hamas as a terrorist organisation. The EU, however, does, but not with much conviction. The EU is the European Union. The UN is the United Nations. They are not the same thing. Sorry, Stuntman
Yeah I know I'm sorry, I got confused Here is the Hamas charter: http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/e...f35f56d79c729663852571ca006c0f4e?OpenDocument Here something that they use from what HItler once said: IS THIS NOT A TERRORIST GROUP? a recist organization
No problem. I get facts screwed up often. I blame it on my grandchildren. I am busy testing exactly THAT on this thread. Don't pre-judge. Join the cause-and-effect investigation of the timeline. i can guarantee you that you will be surprised. like by Hamas maintaining a self-imposed truce for 16 months even though Israel had arrested its parliamentary representatives and obstructed it from assuming the government in the West Bank. Who was the terrorist in that? No ... please answer.
I already answered you about it and i'm answering you right now- the terrorist in the case you mention is Hamas, why? simply because Hamas previously from the errests that Israel did they killed Israeli cevilians, it means that Hamas supporters that Israel errested have Israeli blood on their hands, like Yasin. In 1992 Toledano, that was a soldier back then, got killed by Hamas supporters. He got kidnaped in Lod while he was on his way home from the army, 2 days after the kidnaped his body was found and because of that Israel errested the ones that killed him (Hamas supporters). In this case who was the terrorist? please answer. IM STILL WAITING ON YOUR ANSWER ABOUT THE HAMAS CHARTER!
Seems like there is no reply to the question as to why Hamas broke its self-imposed truce with Israel in June 2006. Remember this is the organisation who had broadly held the truce even while its democratically elected parliamentary officials had been arrested by Israel and who had been obstructed by Israel from assuming rightful government in the West Bank. What would have happened had Israel been on the receiving end? Come on guys, let the scales fall off. Remember Isaiah 44:18. What happened was the following. Before reading on, try to imagine the same happening in reverse to Israel. Now isn't that the most peculiar thing? "Yes we were conducting artillery fire at the Gaza beach, but what killed the Palestinians on the same beach was not our attack". Jonas; Gilos; Stuntman; HBendor; Borat; Ronstar; how does that sound to you? OK, OK, maybe porcines can fly. Did a third party conduct an investigation? Yes, they did. Here are excepts from what they found: How does one tell an old shell from a freshly exploded one? Here is the Hamas response I can imagine the typical Zionist response: "Rockets are raining down on innocent Israeli civilians fired by the terrorists of Hamas. Israel WILL defend herself!! As I suggested, imagine that had happened to an Israeli family on a beach. What would the level of repercussions have been? So there you have it ... the reason why Hamas broke the truce that it had broadly maintained for 16 months. From that point on the usual tit-for-tat conflict erupted But who started it? Who is the terrorist? Hamas - guilty or victim? How about we next examine what happened to restore the democratic process in Palestine.
Hmmmm ....what is this all about? Wait a minute, what is this? Let us ask some questions before we get to the sanctions. Since February 2005 Hamas had been observing a self-imposed truce. What are the sanctions all about? Why? How justified? And why did Israel and the West prefer Fatah AND INTERFERE ON ITS BEHALF when Jewish Voice for Peace has noted the following: All of this is just so understandable. For 20 years the PLO/Fatah had gone nowhere in satisfying the needs of the Palestinians. UNSC 242 and 328 were stalled like perpetually stunned mullets and the settlements had doubled. Negotiating offers by the Arab countries had been spurned by Israel with US support. Oslo was in tatters and ripe for political cherry-picking. In fact, the reasonable person would have been astonished had the election outcome been any different. So in fact this anti-democratic Israeli-West interference sounds remarkably like sour grapes. It sounds like a punter who backed the wrong horse and blames the winning jockey. Not only that, but it sounds just so utterly unjust. And Hamas and the Palestinians naturally concurred. Reasoned and supported comments invited. Justifications of Hamas is a terrorist organisation just compound the silliness.
Lets see what the investigation that ISrael did after this accident: Source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-probe-gaza-beach-blast-not-caused-by-wayward-army-shell-1.190119 Here you go one more: Source: http://muqata.blogspot.co.il/2006/06/conclusion-hamas-bomb-caused-explosion.html Guilty, thank you! Bay the way- here what Amnesty International says about the information that the Arabs provide: Source: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.no/2014/05/amnesty-researcher-admits-that.html#.U3eE7MtZqDb BY THE WAY 2- I'm still waiting to your respond of what I provided you earlier.
So your claim is that the IDF admits bombarding the beach, but that one their shells did not cause the deaths Don't you find this to be absurd in the slightest? Would you have believed Hamas if they had claimed something similar and equally ridiculous? But let us not rely on subjective judgements. Let us examine the facts. The Human Rights Watch article that I quoted - http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10911/section/9 - from their rejection of the IDF version based on their own on-site investigations and analysis and from the observations of independent journalists, concluded the following [you already have been shown these details]: 1) The IDF self-examination did not include nor address any of the HRW evidence. In other words the IDF cherry-picked the evidence that they wanted to base their investigation on. Do you not find this to be fatally flawed? Wiki quote: In a 19 June press release, Marc Garlasco, the senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, declared the IDF investigation not credible, citing its complete reliance on information gathered by the IDF and exclusion of all evidence gathered by other sources 2) The IDF admitted shelling the beach on the day. They initially claimed that they had not shelled that particular beach, but were proved by HRW forensic evidence to be wrong. In addition, on 17 June, The Times (of London) reported that the Israeli Army had told them its report was flawed, in that it failed to mention two gunboat shells fired at 4:24pm and 4:55pm. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_beach_explosion_(2006) 3) The IDFs Major General Kalifi argued first that another type of weapon killed the civilians on the beach. When presented with Human Rights Watch's evidence during an interview, however, he modified his hypothesis and conceded that the cause of the blast may have been a 155mm shell. Stuntman, the Haaretz article that you quoted was written on 13 June, before all the evidence and interviews had been completed. It states The committee found that the Palestinians were not killed by an Israeli artillery shell. As you can see, the IDF subsequently admitted that this was incorrect. 4) The IDF tried to prove by the blood analysis certificate that the admission of the injured girl to hospital occurred before the shelling, but it was shown that the laboratory time was not adjusted for summer daylight saving. 5) After their initial claims had been disproved, the IDF then suggested that the explosion might have come from an older unexploded shell. HRW evidence showed that the lack of oxidation of the fatal shell proved this speculation to be wrong. 6) The IDF also tried to suggest that Gaza militants might have caused the explosion, using an old IDF shell. The lack of oxidation subsequently found on the shrapnel from the victims disproved this suggestion also. 7) HRW admitted that the explosion might have been caused by an (initially) unexploded IDF shell fired earlier in the day. Lastly I would suggest that pro-Zionist blogs are not the most reliable sources for factual evidence. I would personally disregard them, especially those dated 13 June 2006. Given that the Haaretz conclusion was admitted by the IDF to be incorrect, nothing remains of your attempted rebuttal. I promise to revert to you soon on your post #16: I am trying to find out more about the Association for World Education and the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) which you quote as your main source.
this conclusion came from the investigation that Israeli did after it, I'm not claimming anything! I just saying facts! Amnesty says that a Palestinian eyewitnesses often lie, and because of that I find it hard to believe those eyewitnesses. Not because I feel like it, but because a world human right organization says so. If the HRW admitted that the explosion might been caused be an unexploded IDF shell fired earlier in the da, it means that the bombing that the IDF did near the explosion is to blame is inccorect. An unexploded army shell can happen and even there is several of them in North Israel, but to blame Israel for the killing of that family is wrong, why? because simply the IDF launched missiles from the sea to Gaza to stop terrorists to launch missiles thawords Israel, Of course, but the blog I gave you rediracting you to a neutral sites. You need to respond on two things! (in my post #1 1) the Hamas Charter. 2) the case I gave you from 1992 and a question after it.
Repeating what the IDF claimed in a case where they were proved wrong on many important aspects, hardly serves as "facts". The IDF was proved wrong 1) that they hadn't bombarded that beach at all - proven false (not a fact); 2) then when they admitted it, they tried to make out that the injuries/deaths were sustained before their bombardment, which was subsequently also proven to be false (not a fact); and 3) they then turned about and claimed that it might have been an old unexploded bomb - the shrapnel from the bodies was unoxidised, so the IDF excuse was not factual; and when that failed they tried to make the victims into the guilty by suggesting, without any evidence, that 4) Palestinian insurgents might have constructed an "IEF" from an old Israeli shell and placed it on - also wrong because the material causing the deaths was unoxidised (i.e. not a fact). So they then claimed that the explosion MIGHT have been from an unexploded shell fired by the IDF earlier that day which was triggered by the later IDF afternoon barrage. Did you see that HRW agreed that the latter "MIGHT" have happened. It MIGHT have happened that way, but there is no supporting evidence. So the HRW still maintained that the most likely explanation for all the forensic evidence was a direct hit by an IDF shell. Now switch that around. If Israel had claimed that a Jewish family had been wiped out by a Hamas barrage, and Hamas' best defence was that it MIGHT have caused by an explosive fired by them earlier in the day, what would Israel have done? There would have been a MASSIVE onslaught on Gaza leading to the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians. Are you suggesting that, given the evidence, Hamas was not justified to do likewise; to retaliate? If not, please explain why Israel is allowed to attack Gaza when a few rockets are fired causing no deaths and no damage, but Hamas is not allowed to do likewise when almost an entire family is wiped out? If you do, I would be very interested to hear your reasoning.
First of all let me say that is "nice" to see how you only respond over things I wrote that is comfortable to you. You didnt respond to whole of what I wrote to you! Now my answer about your respond: So of it might was from early that day so it means that it wasnt when the IDF fired TO A DIFFERENT TARGET in the afternoon. Even if there is no evidence to it it doesnt mean it is not correct, it means that there is a possibility that is from an older firing. If Hamas or any other fanatic organization wouldnt try to launched rockets toward Israel so the IDF didnt need to fire from the sea, and you can see it today! Israel dont bomb Gaza if the Arabs dont launch rockets toward them. Hamas was not justified to do likewise, simply because the whole bombing by the IDF happened because that the IDF sew and had the intelligence from Gaza (the people of Gaza) itself to a men that want to launched rockets toward Israel, and thats why Israel shot frm the sea that day. Causing no deaths? really? 400 rockets were fired in 2005, and caused the death of 5 people. 1,700 rockets were fired in 2006 and cause the death of 2 people. 783 rockets were fired in 2007 and caused the death of 2 people. In Fabruary 2008 14 people got killed by Qasam rockets!! And let us not start of damaging the houses in Sderot, Askelon, Ashdod, and all the rest villages that got hit from rockets. Would you think that the US didnt need to do what they did in Afghanistan because 9/11? If you think they did right so your whole case against Israel bombing (terrorists targets) in Gaza is absurd! There is a Palestinian CHristian that lived in England (moved there from the West Bank) and describes this personal story: One of her story was about her uncle that he needed to pay money for protection because he was a Christian and not Muslim! She says there that one day her uncle sew how the Muslims launched misslies from Christian houses, and when he sew it he decided to stop pay for that protection, and what the Muslims did? shot him a front of his house and left him blind! AND THATS WHY IN GAZA EVERY OPARETION THERE IS A LOT OF INNOCENT DEATHS.
