Paul,

As already explained - and will be confirmed if you bother to research it - Hamas' existence was entirely predicated on the military occupation of Gaza and the failure of Israel to allow the formation of a Palestinian state. This should be indisputable.

I have not suggested that extremism simply disappears with occupation; I have specifically said that Hamas will disappear with the ending of the Israeli occupation.

Lev is ignorant of Hamas' charter: Whilst Hamas wants the obliteration of Israel, it also intends Sharia law to be honoured in every household: "Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day"

In the last couple of weeks, two NGOs appealed to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louis Arbour on the possible conflict between the 1948 Universal Declaration for Human Rights and the 1990 Cairo Declaration for Human Rights in Islam — with shari’a law as “the only source of reference” (articles 24 and 25).

Article 22 states: "Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah."

Their Appeal for a legal ruling was prompted by the message of the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, posted on the OIC website on Human Rights Day (December 10). It stated that the OIC was “considering the establishment of [an] independent permanent body to promote Human Rights in the [56] Member States in accordance with the provisions of the OIC Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an OIC Islamic Charter on Human Rights.”

Danielle,

Contrary to your unsubstantiated claims, I am thoroughly aware of Hamas' charter, including the proposal to establish an Islamic state. Indeed, it was my second post in this thread (Oct 9) this I pointed this out. I may as well mention that I am also well aware of the Cairo Declaration and the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the differences between them. If you're going to contribute, please at least attempt to provide something that is new, interesting and relevant.

Lev,

You state: "... you will remain irrelevant in public discourse for years to come ... "

I found this extremely amusing as it is not my intention to influence public debate in any way. I have no doubts that people are intelligent enough to find out facts and draw conclusions for themselves. Everything I have stated can be verified - indeed much of it is online. What is not online, can be verified in archival material, which all universities would store.

I am not at all surprised that you cannot see the significance of the current appeal before the UNHC on Human Rights regarding the Cairo Declaration for Human Rights. I am even less surprised that you would not see the significance of this, indeed, of the OIC itself, for any secular Palestinian state.

You deny that there would be bloodshed in establishing a Palestinian secular state! How very naive - you forget the early days of secular, communist Russia. Look at what is happening in the Palestinian territories now. Israel is not the cause of Palestinian killing Palestinian. Lust for power is.

The Palestinians want their own separate state - and doubtless would want to administer it their own way - without meddling interference and pontification from outsiders. People of goodwill recognise this and wish them well. It is outrageous that outsiders start dictating how the internal affairs of states should be administered.

Many people support dissidents who are fighting against oppressive regimes. However, they do not tell these dissidents how their countries should be run. This is the nature of respect for self-determination of peoples, and of democracy.

Danielle,

Your interest in being influential in public debate is already evident in this thread. Your numerous errors and particularly your love of wild tangents are already recorded in this thread.

As yet another example, you now claim that I "deny that there would be bloodshed in establishing a Palestinian secular state!" and attempt to draw a correlation with communist Russia, because we all know that the conditions in the Slavic kingdom some four score years ago are identical to the occupied Palestinian territories today.

Perhaps you would care to cite where I have made such a claim? You won't be able to because it doesn't exist; you have simply engaging in a falsehood and if you have a modicum of moral decency and intellectual honesty you would admit this.

You also suggest that it is "outrageous that outsiders start dictating how the internal affairs of states should be administered". This is the sort of argument I expect from the Chinese government or the Uzbeki government. Unfortunately for such states, universal human rights transcends these borders, and yes, advocates will engage in this "outrage". As for self-determination, a modicum of research will show you that this is normally accorded to nations - not states. You appear to having trouble distinguishing between the two.

Lev,

You state: “there is no evidence that a secular state would require a ‘draconian, totalitarian government and much bloodshed’ for implementation. None whatsoever.”

You avert your eyes to what is currently occurring in the Palestinian territory. You can’t ignore this, nor glibbly pass it over as due to Israel. When Israel departed the Gaza strip, the terrorism - not only against Israel, but also among the Palestinians themselves - increased dramatically.

And yes, human rights do transcend borders. You don’t give credit to the many dissidents, intellectuals and writers who are exposing the horrors of their regimes, and seeking change. Those who write to governments asking for clemency for such dissidents (gaoled, even on death row), know that it does great damage to accuse these governments of human rights abuses.

Change must come from within. Palestinians want a state of their own - but a secular state ...? ... a secular one-state solution? Neither the Palestinians nor Israelis want this. But then people like you “know” what is “best” ... You believe change should be imposed from outside. You do not spell out “how,” of course. Lots of rhetoric, no substance. Curiously, where are you and your ilk placed in all of this?

When you are confronted with facts, your accusations of “making things up” ... (which may have served you as a bully in primary school), does not constitute adult debate. Indeed, I am sure others here also see it pointless engaging in discussion with you. You manifestly demonstrate such tunnel vision as to be completely oblivious to the wider issues.