Comments on: If anyone, then Hamas

By: Joseph.E

Joseph.E — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 04:19:14 +0000

Hamas orders other arabpals factions to conduct terror attacks and fire missiles at Israel ,

So the Arab World would think that Israel loose the War .

But at soon as a cease fire deal is agreed upon , Hamas orders other arabpals factions to temporary stop terror attacks and fire missiles at Israel ,

So Hamas would look credible to the West .

Whether bearded Hamas or unbearded Fatah , both have the same goals against Israel .

Both must be expelled .

I think that when Sofer says “If anyone, then Hamas” is because Sofer hate hypocrites and Hamas will always give Israel excuse to strike .

In other words with Hamas , impossible to divide Israel and that is a defeat for the Quartet and a defeat for both the Israeli right and left parties .

Impossible to divide Israel also with Fatah , Fatah extortions are all or nothing .

But possible to divide Israel , If Israel gov’t unilateraly disengage from the lands Arabs and co. conspire to obtain .

A highly likely possible Israel gov’t move wich will force Israel to constantly mount counter terrorism operations , Cast Lead 1 , 2 , 3 , and so on .

By: Kashmiri Nomad

Kashmiri Nomad — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:00:26 +0000

Samson Blinded on why Israel must take Hamas as it's peace partner. Islam And The West

By: Danny the Admin

Danny the Admin — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:07:35 +0000

Before December, almost all rockets were fired by other factions, and Hamas tried to stop them. Besides, Israel promised to look into opened the border crossings, but didn’t, so the Arabs retaliated. Yup, they claimed opening the crossings was a condition of ceasefire.
Again, there’s no implication here that the Arabs are right or we should submit to them, but just a cold rationalization that Hamas is the only group worth talking to.

By: Danny the Admin

Danny the Admin — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:03:30 +0000

A curious accusation coming from Russia. When was the last time the Russians have treated any enemy as humans?
And yes, we don’t want to share our land, no more than you would share Kremlin or even Kaliningrad.

By: mark

mark — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:02:34 +0000

It’s true, you can make a agreement with Hamas. But when you won, keeping a state of war is better, so you dont have to treat your opponent as humans. When israel starts to negotiate, the world will see it doesnt want to share.

By: Happy Minyan

Happy Minyan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:05:44 +0000

Israel is eternal or what are we about? What other justification to the Eretz do we have?

By: Happy Minyan

Happy Minyan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:03:55 +0000

It is not reasonable to promote and threaten genocide. The fact that they say it and would follow through with it could suggest they are consistent and diligent, but reasonable? A madman can be consistent in his madness. Reason requires higher faculties, the ability to segregate passion from the interior monologue and arrive at conclusions that are weighed in the court of intellect. They are ruled by passion. Jihad, by their definition, is not reasonable.

By: birdy

birdy — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:46:40 +0000

maybe no state was eternal, but Israel is or should be….

By: Danny the Admin

Danny the Admin — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:27:28 +0000

No state was eternal, not even Rome.
And every peace treaty was basically a truce because no peace was eternal.
States prefer long-term truce (or call it, peace) to wars.
Again, what is the alternative? To depopulate Gaza?

By: King Solomon

King Solomon — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:26:25 +0000

Also, in the 6 month ceasefire that just expired.- they were firing rockets at Sderot etc.

they were not honroing the agreement.

did this only start after the border clsings?

was the border closings a condition of the ceasefire?