ScottW wrote:


(pyjamarama) wrote in message
.com...
Gee, I wonder if an abject fear of Bush-led US reprisals had anything
to do with it?

Naw, musta been nuanced dialogue, rapproachment and a sensitive,
diplomatic reading of the "root causes" of Arab impotence.

Sure.


Hamas chief says U.S. not a target

Rantisi backs off from earlier threat against AmericansThe Associated
Press
Updated: 6:57 a.m. ET March 24, 2004GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas has
no plans to attack American targets, the group's new leader in Gaza
said Wednesday, backing off earlier threats against Washington
following Israel's assassination of its founder.

Abdel Aziz Rantisi told reporters in Gaza that his group's militant
activities are aimed solely at Israel.

"We are inside Palestinian land and acting only inside Palestinian
land. We are resisting the occupation, nothing else," Rantisi said.
"Our resistance will continue just inside our border here inside our
country."


I would believe him if the Palestinians hadn't rejected an offer for
a Palestinian state. As it is, giving them a state would simply
provide a base for continuing terrorist attacks against Israel.
Hamas time as a leader of the Palestinians has long passed.

ScottW





Agreed. The reality is that if Arafat had not walked away from the Camp David
negotiations after rejecting out of hand perhaps the most generous offers for
return of land ever made by an Israeli government (land captured as a result of
defense against the latest in a series of Arab-lead invasions at the time),
they quite likely could have been enjoying statehood for several years at this
point - with, according to some estimates, about 95% of the land they wanted
for a state.
But as Hamas has made abundantly clear, peaceful coexistence with their own
state is *not* the primary objective of the majority of Palestinians, it would
appear.
Not much has really changed since 1948, unfortunately, when it comes to Arab
views towards Israel, at least amongst Palestinians.



Bruce J. Richman

ScottW wrote:

(pyjamarama) wrote in message . com...

Gee, I wonder if an abject fear of Bush-led US reprisals had anything
to do with it?

Naw, musta been nuanced dialogue, rapproachment and a sensitive,
diplomatic reading of the "root causes" of Arab impotence.

Sure.


Hamas chief says U.S. not a target

Not going to happen. Sorry. They siad it and you can't retract
your statement - I mean - who's going to believe a terrorist
organization? Seriously.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


ScottW wrote:

(pyjamarama) wrote in message
. com...

Gee, I wonder if an abject fear of Bush-led US reprisals had anything
to do with it?

Naw, musta been nuanced dialogue, rapproachment and a sensitive,
diplomatic reading of the "root causes" of Arab impotence.

Sure.


Hamas chief says U.S. not a target

Not going to happen. Sorry. They siad it and you can't retract
your statement - I mean - who's going to believe a terrorist
organization? Seriously.

Hamas is a terrorist organization and we should be doing everything
to eliminate their militant wing wether they directly attack the U.S.
or not.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


ScottW wrote:


(pyjamarama) wrote in message

. com...

Gee, I wonder if an abject fear of Bush-led US reprisals had anything
to do with it?

Naw, musta been nuanced dialogue, rapproachment and a sensitive,
diplomatic reading of the "root causes" of Arab impotence.

Sure.


Hamas chief says U.S. not a target

Not going to happen. Sorry. They siad it and you can't retract
your statement - I mean - who's going to believe a terrorist
organization? Seriously.


Hamas is a terrorist organization and we should be doing everything
to eliminate their militant wing wether they directly attack the U.S.
or not.

There's a war between Israel and Palestine.
Nothing can justify that Hamas is killing Israelite civilians I'm fully
agree with you.
But you cannot say they are terrorists just because of this way of
fighting except if you agree and apologize publicly that USA was a
terrorist nation during the WWII when your government have bombed
Dresden, Hamburg, Nagasaki and Hiroshima... and murdered, *without* any
military objectives, more than 300,000 civilians in this only 4 war actions.
The war is a very sad and dirty job your past and today ones aren't
cleaner than the Hamas one.
Remember that Jesus said "Que celui qui n'a jamais pêcher jette la
première pierre".

ScottW wrote:

Lionel wrote in message ...

ScottW wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
arthlink.net...


ScottW wrote:



(pyjamarama) wrote in message

le.com...


Gee, I wonder if an abject fear of Bush-led US reprisals had anything
to do with it?

Naw, musta been nuanced dialogue, rapproachment and a sensitive,
diplomatic reading of the "root causes" of Arab impotence.

Sure.


Hamas chief says U.S. not a target

Not going to happen. Sorry. They siad it and you can't retract
your statement - I mean - who's going to believe a terrorist
organization? Seriously.


Hamas is a terrorist organization and we should be doing everything
to eliminate their militant wing wether they directly attack the U.S.
or not.

There's a war between Israel and Palestine.


No, there isn't. If there was all the Palestinians would be dead.

It's seems that they're still doing the maximum to prove the contrary.

Nothing can justify that Hamas is killing Israelite civilians I'm fully
agree with you.
But you cannot say they are terrorists just because of this way of
fighting except if you agree and apologize publicly that USA was a
terrorist nation during the WWII when your government have bombed
Dresden, Hamburg, Nagasaki and Hiroshima... and murdered, *without* any
military objectives, more than 300,000 civilians in this only 4 war actions.


This whole idea that wars must be waged cleanly and within the rules
seems to be a major reason why wars never seem to end anymore.
There are no victors and no vanquished.

I appreciate your pragmatism.

George M. Middius wrote:


Joseph Oberlander said:


Hamas chief says U.S. not a target

Not going to happen. Sorry. They siad it and you can't retract
your statement - I mean - who's going to believe a terrorist
organization? Seriously.


Seriously, attacking a U.S. target would be about the worst thing they
could do. Right now, the U.S. is caught in the middle -- we want to
support Israel, we MUST support them; but we're also committed to
achieving "peace" of some sort, which necessarily means some allowance
for the Palestinians to have a life and a land of their own. If Hamas
attacks us, they'll destroy their best chance of achieving their
political end.

Terrorist orginization=criminals to be hunted.

They aren't the Palestinean Authority(or whatever the government
there is calling itself).

I feel no pitty for their leader. He was an evil criminal who
lived by the sword and died by it.

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

(4) As
long as Arafat remains in power, it is unlikely that there will ever be a
Palestinian leader willing to negotiate further with Israel, irrespective of
what 3rd parties are involved.

The smart thing to do, then, would be to wait for the leaders of the
original war to all die off. What - ten years and they all are gone?
Seriously. ~1950 to 2010=60 years. Plus 20(adult) = 80.

No need to do reprisals. No need to get their shorts all bunched up.
Just wait for them to die of old age and then re-negotiate with the
new leaders.

Lionel wrote:


Agree, Arafat is surely a weak point but Sharon also...
This is why this conflict needs urgently US mediation, innocents are dying.

Two old bitter men who won't let go of their hate.

Thankfully they both will die of old age in a few years by the
looks of it.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

(4) As
long as Arafat remains in power, it is unlikely that there will ever be a
Palestinian leader willing to negotiate further with Israel, irrespective
of
what 3rd parties are involved.

The smart thing to do, then, would be to wait for the leaders of the
original war to all die off. What - ten years and they all are gone?
Seriously. ~1950 to 2010=60 years. Plus 20(adult) = 80.

No need to do reprisals. No need to get their shorts all bunched up.
Just wait for them to die of old age and then re-negotiate with the
new leaders.









It might not even take that long. My guess is that at some point in the not
too distant future, Israel will withdraw from Gaza, perhaps remove a few
settlements from the West Bank, and continue, of course, with the construction
of a protective wall.

Unfortunately, in the absence of a cease fire, it's unrealistic to expect
terrorists like Hamas and Islamic Jihad (as well as Arafat's proxies in the Al
Aqsa brigades) to stop their suicide bombing efforts, so reprisals would appear
to be necessary for both whatever small deterrent effect it might have and
also, of course, for internal political reasons.

As for Sharon and Arafat, either old age and/or increased dissatisfaction with
their inability to achieve any progress may result in a change of leadership.


Bruce J. Richman

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Lionel wrote:


Agree, Arafat is surely a weak point but Sharon also...
This is why this conflict needs urgently US mediation, innocents are
dying.


Two old bitter men who won't let go of their hate.

Thankfully they both will die of old age in a few years by the
looks of it.

Agree with you, Joe.