240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

[UGAalum94]

Yeah, there's was a time I might have been optimistic too, but that's not what I've actually observed in my lifetime.

It seems to be much more a case that whenever Israel makes a concession, anti-Israel groups see it as a sign of weakness.

I mean theoretically, Israel withdrawing from the Gaza strip and bulldozing Israeli settlements a few years ago ought to have done a lot of good, but no.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It seems to be much more a case that whenever Israel makes a concession, anti-Israel groups see it as a sign of weakness.

Exactly. It's a lose-lose situation for both sides.

Do I think there can ever be peace? I do. The people in Gaza have to see that Hamas isn't doing much for them, surely isn't living up to the "bringer of peace" type image they have tried to portray, and they have to be fed up enough to stand up to Hamas. Hamas is only as powerful as the people allow them to be. There has to be concessions on both sides.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

Exactly. It's a lose-lose situation for both sides. Not every Israeli agrees with what Israel is doing, and not every Palestinian agrees with what Hamas is doing.

Do I think there can ever be peace? I do, but I think the people have to be fed up with their leadership first. The people in Gaza have to see that Hamas isn't doing much for them, surely isn't living up to the "bringer of peace" type image they have tried to portray.

Where'd you see Hamas as a "bringer of peace" type thing?

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Where'd you see Hamas as a "bringer of peace" type thing?

I heard it in an MSNBC special a few day ago. They spoke to an ex-Hamas member, and he said Hamas members (and leaders) were killing each other in Gaza, and in Israeli prisons. So then the reporter mentioned something about how they aren't living up to what they claimed to be doing--bringing peace.

ETA: The reporter had said that is why Hamas gained power in Gaza in the first place. Honestly, I don't really know too much about Hamas, so i'm not sure if that is accurate or not.

[UGAalum94]

I don't think there would have been any reason for a person to have ever believed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Yeah, and while I agree that there are unfortunate consequences for some Palestinians, if you're (Israel) opposing a side willing to use women and children in suicide attacks, then even families are suspect.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't think there would have been any reason for a person to have ever believed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Yeah, and while I agree that there are unfortunate consequences for some Palestinians, if you're (Israel) opposing a side willing to use women and children in suicide attacks, then even families are suspect.

Ahh thanks. I guess I haven't learned not to believe everything reporters tell you! haha.

And that is definitely true about suicide bombers and such. I guess, to me it's more logical that they would be suicide bombers if they were traveling from the West Bank to Israel, instead of traveling within the West Bank (and without a British camerapeople).

[SWTXBelle]

I am concerned about the lack of media coverage in Gaza - if everything is on the up and up, why not allow reporters in? The International Red Cross has criticized Israel, which is almost unheard of. We are getting only bits and pieces of what is really going on, and of course it is being spun to death.

[SWTXBelle]

The Canadian/U.S. analogy would only be valid if you had the U.S. throwing up a blockade which prevented Canada from being able to secure basic necessities and for its citizens to be able to lead some sort of normal life. And yes, if "one hand tied behind your back" means not bombing U.N. schools, then yes, I expect them to do it. All that sophisticated military equipment, and they can't do better?

To achieve any sort of lasting peace, both sides are going to have to make some major concessions, and with the Israeli elections coming up I don't see it happening. I hope I'm wrong.

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't think there would have been any reason for a person to have ever believed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Yeah, and while I agree that there are unfortunate consequences for some Palestinians, if you're (Israel) opposing a side willing to use women and children in suicide attacks, then even families are suspect.

Interesting to note, in that article, is that Israel had no problem training and arming them in the 80s to counter act the PLO and Fatah. Now, their own project decides to bite them back.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

Interesting to note, in that article, is that Israel had no problem training and arming them in the 80s to counter act the PLO and Fatah. Now, their own project decides to bite them back.

I'm missing that in the article. Where is it?

ETA: I see it now. Newspapers articles assert there was funding from Israel, as opposed to Israel having no problem training and arming them threw me off. Even if we accept the reports as true, I get the idea from the article that rather than counteract the PLO and Fatah in fighting Israel that they wanted to be able to use Hamas's attacks as a way of reshaping the issue as purely religious. I don't know what to believe on the funding issue, but it doesn't appear to be "bite them back" situation. They, again if you accept the claims, always knew Hamas would bite:

"Various sources, among them United Press International,[106] Le Canard enchaîné,[citation needed] Gérard Chaliand[107] and L'Humanité[108] have claimed that Hamas' early growth had been supported by the Mossad as a "counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)".The French investigative newspaper Le Canard enchaîné claimed that Shin Bet had also supported Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO and Fatah. It speculated that this was an attempt to give "a religious slant to the conflict, in order to make the West believe that the conflict was between Jews and Muslims", perhaps in order to support the controversial thesis of a "clash of civilizations".[109]"

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle10456.htm I really wish they did have named sources.

ETC: it's creepy to me, but it seems a lot lot more involved that the kind of "the US armed Al Qaeda to fight the USSR" kind of stuff. It seems really odd to me that Israel thought they'd be better off with a religious vs. political enemy.

And it appears on further reading that to "counter" or "counteract" the PLO etc, may principally have referred to Hamas's more humanitarian efforts early on with hospitals and schools. It seems like Israel wanted to draw support away from the more political groups within the Palestinian community with an organization they expected to stay infiltrated in. I don't get the sense that they ever expected Hamas to actually fight the PLO with weapons. Going back that far, it would almost make sense for people to see Hamas as the more peaceful group, but at the time they were elected, not so much.