@NotHereForLong,
NotHereForLong;64485 wrote:Volunteer, you're making a false dichotemy. You're implying that we have to choose between supporting Israel's actions 100% or supporting the Palestinians actions 100%. We don't. You're also implying that all Palestinians (and Muslims in general) speak with one voice. They don't. You imply that they're unwilling to accept any compromise and that they want global conquest. The vast majority do not. Not only are these claims false. They are laughable.
The point is that people who choose their representatives by majority vote cannot then hide behind a false projection that they disagree with the actions of their elected leadership. If they disagree, then they and their supporters have the responsibility to speak loudly and clearly about that disagreement, just as those on the left did in the USA during President Bush?s time in office. Silence indicates assent. This is especially true when that leadership is so clear about their objectives.
Hamas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hamas:
The Hamas charter (or covenant), issued in 1988, calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the obliteration or nullification of Israel. Specifically, the quotation section that precedes the charter's introduction provides the following quote, attributed to Imam Hassan al-Banna: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." The quotation has also been translated as follows: "Israel will be established and will stay established until Islam shall nullify it, as it nullified what was before it." The charter's advocacy of an Islamic state in the territory of the Palestinian territories and Israel is stated as an Islamic religious prophesy arising from Hadith, the oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. In this regard, the charter states that "renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith. . ."
This wording has not been renounced by Hamas.
Fatah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fatah:
The word Fatah is used in religious discourse to signify the Islamic expansion in the first centuries of Islamic history -- as in Fath al-Sham, the "opening of the Levant" -- and so has positive connotations for Muslims.
According to the BBC, "Mr Arafat took over as chairman of the executive committee of the PLO in 1969, a year that Fatah is recorded to have carried out 2,432 guerrilla attacks on Israel."
Fatah used to be designated terrorist under Israeli law and was considered terrorist by the United States Department of State and United States Congress until it renounced terrorism in 1988. (The same year Hamas renounced terrorism is the year Hamas was born with an expressed intent to destroy the state of Israel. Was this coordinated? This seems like too much of a coincidence not to have been.)
Comments:
Fatah and Hamas are two sides of the same coin like the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and Sinn Fein. They work together to achieve their common aims. The terrorist attacks did not stop between 1988 and 2006. Did Arafat control Hamas?
These organizations have deliberate objectives. They are open about their methods and objectives. They have been open about them for more than 40 years. In that time, if there were people in those societies who objected to these aims and wished not to be associated with them, wouldn?t they have been able to organize, engage, and supplant the terrorist orgs or at least make their voices heard? Sure, they would if the people wanted that (e.g., disagree with the aims and/or methods). But they don?t seem to want that. What it seems is that they approve of the activities of Fatah and Hamas. If they disagree, they have a responsibility to push back in whatever manner they can for as long as it takes to make their voices heard.
Stating the fact that people in those countries who speak out are at risk and their families are at risk proves that the people in power are ruling through terror, not because they are doing what is right. The objection has been stated or implied in this thread that the ruling parties or people who are against Israel have a right to use any means they see fit because they are in the right. The people who argued for this point of view also argue that people who speak out against the ruling parties (Fatah or Hamas) or who speak out against their activities are at risk of death along with their families. Now which viewpoint is conflicted?
