Cont..

You asked; “Are you suggesting the violence somehow advances the cause of peace?”

No so the Israelis should stop using it. However we know they would rather more Palestinian land than entertain a sustainable peace because that is exactly how they act.

You wrote; “Parts of Gaza may well be in ruins, but it’s mostly thanks to Hamas criminal actions and the support they get from westerners such as yourself advocating the continuation of violence and terror.”

Gaza is in ruins because of Israeli bombs, mortar shells, missiles, and artillery rounds. What criminal actions from Hamas are you talking about? They responded to the kidnappings and killings of their people in the West Bank. Why isn't an armed response to attack permitted by Hamas but it is when it is done by Israel.

You asked; “Are you seriously suggesting that the Gazans are better off and their West Bank brothers should follow them on their path to destruction?”

I ask; 'Are you seriously suggesting that the West Bank Palestinians are better off and their Gazan brothers should follow them on their path to destruction', one that sees huge chunks of their land stolen every year, with zero chance of statehood, never free from occupation and with zero rights including the right to defend themselves?

You wrote; “As for Fatah helping the Israelis to move in on Hamas members in the West Bank: as tempting as it might be to bring up Nazi Germany, unfortunately it’s completely irrelevant. Far from being on the same side, Fatah loathe Hamas just as much as they do Israel.”

The Vichy government hated the French resistance fighters.

You wrote; “The path you are urging them to follow is violent path to destruction, not to freedom. How has the violence over the past 10 years advanced the peace process one iota?”

Israel is not offering freedom but at best a form of soft occupation, a continuous theft of land, of the unabated cancer of settler appropriations. I would fight not to have a future like that as would most people. Why can't Gazans?

Dear SR:

I maintain my assessment that the quote you provided has no relevance to the point you are trying to make. Saying “Of course it does” does not make it any more valid. You have so far failed to provide any shred of evidence to back up your claim that Hamas terrorism will somehow advance the cause of statehood and peaceful coexistence, and this land appropriation quote adds nothing to support it either.
Here is another news article from a couple of days ago:

“The Jerusalem Local Building and Planning Committee on Wednesday approved a large construction plan for an Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem over the objections of right-wing city councillor”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.613997

Does this then prove the opposite – that the lack of terrorism from the West Bank encourages additional land to be given to the Palestinians there?
Sorry, you have to try harder.

“What violent takeover by Hamas are you talking about?”

I realise that you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the violence used by Hamas to take complete control over Gaza because it does not fit your narrative. This does not mean it didn’t happen. Here is one link documenting the violent takeover of Gaza by Hamas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)

Seeing how keen you are on looking up to Nazi Germany for illustrating your points, Hamas provides a good example for how the Nazis came to power: first use the democratic process to gain seats, then seize absolute power and eliminate all opposition by any means necessary.

If the above link still does not convince you of the violent nature of Hamas, maybe this will:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Hamas_political_violence_in_Gaza

There are thousands of such example all over the Internet. All you have to do is search.

Cont -->

--> Cont

Buried as an afterthought at the bottom of your paragraph you seem to finally admit that Hamas “…took the opportunity to violently seize control against the wishes of the majority of the Palestinian people”. Why then are you asking me “What violent takeover?” at the top of that same paragraph? Does this mean you both agree and disagree that the Hamas takeover of Gaza was a violent process? Do you take pleasure in presenting both sides of the argument and debating yourself? Please let me know who wins your argument in the end.

“And the attacks on Gaza continue unabated…”

“Gaza is in ruins because of Israeli bombs…”

You appear to be oblivious to the concept of cause and effect in relation to the Gaza war, yet you should know perfectly well that all strikes by Israel are in response to the continuous barrage of rockets into its territory, a criminal act that has been going on for many years. Can you name any other country on this planet that would have put up with a fanatic enemy sworn to its destruction lobbing daily rockets onto its territory, without retaliating to such attacks?

No rockets are fired at Israel from West Bank towns, and what a surprise, there are no Israeli strikes on any West Bank towns either. Even a blind person can see that the Israelis are responding to the continuous attacks from Gaza. Yet you shamelessly try to invert reality by suggesting that the Israeli response to the Hamas rockets somehow triggered the rockets in the first place?

Cont -->

--> Cont

“What criminal actions from Hamas are you talking about?”

From previous discussions I realise that we do not see eye to eye on the subject of terrorism. You fully embrace terror acts and support them wholeheartedly, while I detest them. Your rationale for being such an enthusiastic supporter of terrorism is the off chance that some armed forces personnel of your enemy might possibly be killed among the scores of civilians in a night club or a packed commuter bus. This possibility, according to you (as well as Hamas, ISIS and similar distinguished societies) justifies any terror atrocity against civilians. I am therefore not surprised in the least that you fail to see the ongoing terrorist acts by Hamas against Israeli civilians as criminal. I find it only slightly more surprising to learn that you don’t even view the Hamas actions against Palestinians – the violent elimination of opposition, summary executions of Palestinian citizens, use of civilians as human shields etc – as illegal. In your twisted view of the world, Islamic terrorism is completely justified, but any resistance to it is illegal.

“They [Hamas] responded to the kidnappings and killings of their people in the West Bank”

Once again, you fail to see the simple relationship between cause and effect. The arrests of Hamas members in the West Bank was in response to the Hamas kidnapping and killing of the three Israeli teenagers. Are you suggesting that Israel should have allowed the perpetrators to get away with it – just because they are members of your favourite organisation? In any case, it’s not as if Hamas was overflowing with peaceful intents prior to this incidents. Their attacks against Israeli civilians have been going on ever since they completed the violent takeover of Gaza. Any arrests of their members by Israel is clearly unrelated.

Cont -->

--> Cont

"Are you seriously suggesting that the West Bank Palestinians are better off and their Gazan brothers should follow them…”

Yes. Absolutely. Without a shadow of a doubt. It is crazy to think otherwise.
Your alternative only leads to death and destruction. While it might be consistent with the mentality of Islamic extremism, it is not compatible with the logic of most sane people.
Palestinians in the West Bank experience economic growth, lower unemployment, increase in wages and prosperity and higher life expectancy. At the same time their brothers in Gaza experience poverty and high unemployment. They are ruled by a ruthless autocratic regime that runs death squads to perform random arrests and executions. A regime that uses all the available resources on terror infrastructure or to enrich its leaders rather than for the betterment of its people. Gazans have to put up with being used as human shields in the occasional violent conflict with Israel, triggered by their own fanatic governing body whenever it decides to escalate the violence.
Unless you are a complete lunatic and becoming a fanatical shahid is your ultimate goal, what way of life would you prefer – the West Bank or Gaza?

“The Vichy government hated the French resistance fighters”

Sorry, your example is still irrelevant. The Vichy government was installed and created by the Germans, owed its existence to them, and fully cooperated with them. Fatah was neither installed nor created by Israel. It makes its own choices when to cooperate with and when to oppose Israel. Any comparison between Vichy and Fatah does not hold water.

“Israel is not offering freedom but at best a form of soft occupation…”

Israel is acting out of self-defence. An independent Palestinian state could have been in existence since the 1940s if it wasn't for the continuous Arab belligerence against Israel.
It is the Islamic fanaticism that is the real cancer not only in the Middle East, but the entire world. The sooner we all realise the importance of removing this cancer from the world the better off we would all be.

Hi SR,

There's another well-established principle that seems to have been forgotten: that, if country A launches an attack on a neighbour country B, not only has country B the right to push any aggression back but also to seize the territory of country A from which the aggression has been launched. Thus, Israel's right to seize the Golan Heights after Syria launched attacks on Israel in 1967, and similarly Israel's right to seize the Sinai from Egypt.

On that principle, the regions in Gaza from which Hamas have been firing rockets against Israel can be occupied by Israel: certainly they would have an internationally-recognised right to launch counter-attacks of their own to eliminate the threat of more rockets from that territory.

Maybe Hamas, under pressure from Gaza inhabitants, has temporarily realised that to fire rockets into Israel invites retaliatory air-strikes and artillery bombardment. Ergo, stop the rockets, and the counter-offensive stops.

For how long is the $ 64 question.

Joe