Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (182875)	3/4/2006 10:14:50 AM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

For hamas the question is whether running a state supercedes this blood war with israel Weren't they elected to power based on their stated strategy to destroy Israel? So, what would be the point in abandoning that winning strategy immediately after getting elected? Would only make them look like unprincipled morons and traitors in the eyes of their popular support base. Moreover, for hamas it's not a "blood war". To them, it's a religious war. They fully believe that they are doing God's work, under direct orders from the Almighty Himself. That's much tougher to stand up against than simply a blood feud.... which - conceivably - can always be settled. I also sense something constructive in what Russia is doing. Are they trying to resolve problems, or is their primary interest in simply becoming once again a world player - about that I'm not sure. Probably both... which is fine.

To: michael97123 who wrote (182875)	3/4/2006 3:40:13 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

For its part Hamas asked for return to 67 borders and right of return before they would talk peace with israel. Michael, this is ludicrous and a complete lie on the part of Hamas leadership, if not their entire organizational charter. Once again, I'm not some kind of Israeliphile, who will blindly accept whatever position their government adopts. But I AM a realist. And no nation, let alone one such as Israel's, is going to accept offering such a proposal with an enemy that has shown complete unwillingness to modify its political stance towards the existence of Israel as a state. The Hamas charter calls for the utter destruction of Israel: The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have the right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations , be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. .............. (Peace) Initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of this faith, the movement educates it members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware." .... There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiative, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game... Michael, we have to understand the mentality of Hamas, its beliefs, and that THEY HAVE NO FLEXIBILITY in negotiating with Israel so long as their charter FORBIDS peace negotiations. That is the basis on which they "negotiate", as well as the basis on which they offer only a "truce" and not a permanent peace. They are only interested in breathing space that will permit them to consolidate their power in the Palestinian Authority, and presenting political demands in exchange for "peace offerings" that they very charter prohibits. Until their charter is altered to accept the existence of Israel, they should not be negotiated with. As for the Russians "hosting" Hamas, it seems to be as I predicted, an attempt by Putin to make Russia relevant within the peace process, as well as providing Hamas some token recognition. However, this recognition is contingent upon many of the things I just mentioned. As for Iran, they have provided a "face saving" way out for both the West and Iran, while positioning themselves to have increasing influence in that part of the world. Russia certainly has more flexibility in dealing with Iran and creating value in the eyes of the international community as the country that offers a solution to the current stand-off on terms that are not quite satisfactory to either the US, or Iran's government. Admadinejad has quite a bit at stake with his nuclear ambitiions, IMO. He's risked quite a bit of political capital by moving towards domestic enrichment of Uranium. Such a capability would place Iran in the position of warranting FAR greater respect, as well as security for his regime (who wants to go to war with a nuclear power?). But being presented with a position where Russia holds power over his supply of Uranium means that he'll likely be thwarted from producing bomb-grade Uranium, but at the expense of very costly nuclear reactors that Iran really DOESN'T need. In a sense, it will make his government dependent, not independent, upon a secular power. And his hardline supporters are not going to like that. Which suggests that his "gambit" might actually lead to his eventual downfall and replacement by a more moderate government. Hawk