Turkey threat to Israel ties over raid [PM: Hamas Freedom Fighters Not Terrorists]

Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he did not view Hamas, which runs Gaza, as a terrorist organisation.

In Friday’s televised speech, which analysts say will anger Israel, Mr Erdogan described Hamas as “resistance fighters who are struggling to defend their land”.

“I have told this to US officials… I do not accept Hamas as a terrorist organisation,” he said.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10236884.stm

[quote="gilliam, post:1, topic:200713"]
Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he did not view Hamas, which runs Gaza, as a terrorist organization.

In Friday's televised speech, which analysts say will anger Israel, Mr Erdogan described Hamas as "resistance fighters who are struggling to defend their land".

"I have told this to US officials... I do not accept Hamas as a terrorist organisation," he said.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10236884.stm

[/quote]

Kind of like the Kurdish 'freedom fighters' in southern Turkey, I guess.

Not that the Iranians would much care to define their Kurds as freedom fighters either. Maybe that was what the photo-op between Turkey and Iran was all about.

There is a realignment happening here, methinks. Is Obama up to the task of dealing with this?

They're not like the Kurdish 'freedom fighters' in southern Turkey at all. Unlike the PKK Hamas is resisting an internationally recognised illegal military occupation of lands belonging to the Palestinians which Israel has no right to as per numerous UN Security Council resolutions and a 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice.

Well, it is pretty obvious then why Muslims don't give a hoot if 35,000 of these Muslims Kurds are wiped off the face of the map by the Turkish Muslims.

No biggie, because the internationals doesn't care either.

Perhaps I’m missing the part of “The Covenant
of the Islamic Resistance Movement” which states: “We’re fine with pre-1967 borders Israel. The Jihad will end after these borders are restored”.

Please, let me know where that one is. Here’s a copy:

avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Hamas has repeatedly stated (including its leader just last week) that it will end armed struggle against Israel if it withdraws to its legal 1967 borders. They are not the obstacle to settling the conflict, the obstacle is that Israel in defiance of the entire world is refusing to withdraw.

[quote="Kadaveri, post:6, topic:200713"]
Hamas has repeatedly stated (including its leader just last week) that it will end armed struggle against Israel if it withdraws to its legal 1967 borders. They are not the obstacle to settling the conflict, the obstacle is that Israel in defiance of the entire world is refusing to withdraw.

[/quote]

You missed this little point from your article:

Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, has long maintained that it will enter into a long-term truce if Israel pulls out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and agrees to a right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees.

Emphasis mine.

For a nation of some 6 million (20% are Arab, in Isreal proper). What does allowing 5 million Palestinian Arab refugees into Isreal do?

What the previous 3 wars with Arabs didn't do: put an end to Isreal as a Jewish state.

Hamas wants to fulfill its Covenant:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)."

avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Isreal has withdrawn from Gaza entirely, and other than a few settlements in the WB, the West Bank, entirely. The sticking points remain a "right of return" for all Palestinian Arabs, and East Jerusalem.

In 1947, the British Raj fell, and the modern states of Pakistan, India, and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) declared their independence. 7 million Muslim fled the new Hindu majority state of India for Pakistan and East Pakistan. 7 million Hindus and Sikhs fled Pakistan and East Pakistan for India. Ever notice that none of the Muslims, Hindus, or Sikhs are living in UN camps, with perpetual refugee status?

The Arab League forbids any of its member states from granting the 2 million+ Palestinian Arabs living in UN camps in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan any citizenship rights as a wedge against Isreal.

[quote="Kadaveri, post:6, topic:200713"]
Hamas has repeatedly stated (including its leader just last week) that it will end armed struggle against Israel if it withdraws to its legal 1967 borders. They are not the obstacle to settling the conflict, the obstacle is that Israel in defiance of the entire world is refusing to withdraw.

[/quote]

"If the Jewish state withdraws from Palestinian land it occupied in the 1967 Middle East War."

From what I can tell there are a couple of issues there:

1) There are about 250,000 Israelis living in those lands now.

2) Moving to the 1967 borders would place 80% of the Israeli population within Hamas rocket range.

500,000 Israeli settlers in Palestinians lands actually, all of them being recognised as illegal by every country in the world except Israel and by all 15 judges on the International Court of Justice in the decision I mentioned earlier. Israel cannot lay claim to Palestinian lands by refusing to settle the conflict while illegally creating 'facts on the ground'.

There wouldn't be 'Hamas rockets' if Israel would agree to settle the conflict in line with the international consensus and stop brutalising Palestinians while trying to steal their land.

Edit: Also, if Israel won't withdraw from the Occupied Palestinian territories then unless it gives the Palestinians the vote it will mean an apartheid state. Do we really want to go there?

A little more on what it would mean to Israel to go back to the 1967 borders:

Israel can probably live with diplomatic isolation so long as the American public remains staunchly on its side. But it will have a harder time surviving the demographic transformation of its territory. If the Jewish state can’t extricate itself from the West Bank, it may be forced to choose between the quasi-apartheid of a permanent occupation, and the dissolution that would likely follow from giving Palestinians a significant voice in Israel’s politics.

Israel’s critics often make this extrication sound easy. In reality, it promises to involve enormous sacrifices, of land and everyday security alike — whether in the form of extraordinary concessions to a divided Palestinian leadership, or a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank that would be more wrenching than the 2005 retreat from Gaza.

What’s more, either approach would almost certainly invite stepped-up violence from the irreconcilable Palestinian factions and their Iranian and Syrian backers, who will see any retreat as a cue to escalate the struggle.

As Walter Russell Mead put it recently, Israel may “have to pay virtually the full price for peace … without getting full peace.” Nobody should blame Israelis for shying from this possibility.

nytimes.com/2010/06/07/opinion/07douthat.html

So, Kadaveri, would Hamas accept a return to the 1967 borders, with no right of return?

I doubt they would accept that, as Hamas demands the conflict be settled in accordance with international law, UN Security Council resolutions and the international consensus. Israel just rejects everything except an Arab surrender through brute force.

I think we all know that if it were up to the UN, Israel would not exist today. For a very, very long time now, the only nation consisantly defending Israel at the UN has been the US.

So saying that anyone is deferring to the UN about the existance of Israel is saying that they want Israel gone.

Actually, the UN resolutions are not “Security Council” resolutions, but General Assembly Resolutions, regarding Israel. I would point out that General Assembly Resolutions are non-binding. Security Council resolutions are binding to members.

In effect, Hamas would settle for the peaceful destruction of the Jewish state, instead of the violent one.

If those are the terms, peace will never happen.

Thank you for pointing that out. Perhaps those Palestinian Arab refugees can be repatriated into Gaza or the West Bank, or even absorbed into the Arab countries they currently live in, much like the 1 million Jews who fled or were expelled from Muslim lands were repatriated into Israel?

Edit to add: not to mention, “in accordance with international law, UN Security Council (you mean General Assembly) resolutions and the international consensus” would mean following the 1948 partition plan, and Jerusalem controlled by the UN.

I’m not sure what part of:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement…

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with…

avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Would concede those points…

[quote="gilliam, post:13, topic:200713"]
I think we all know that if it were up to the UN, Israel would not exist today. For a very, very long time now, the only nation consisantly defending Israel at the UN has been the US.

So saying that anyone is deferring to the UN about the existance of Israel is saying that they want Israel gone.

[/quote]

Really, where is your evidence for this? You mean every country in the UN except the US demanding Israel abide by international law is them all trying to destroy Israel? Really is every country in the world except the US trying to destroy Israel? Is the US really 'defending' Israel by standing alone in encouraging it to refuse a peace settlement and to continue illegal, aggressive and dangerous policies which are quickly turning Israel into an international pariah and pushing it towards a regional war? If anything it seems to be the US which is trying to destroy Israel by encouraging it to carry on with this lunacy.

[quote="Kadaveri, post:15, topic:200713"]
Really, where is your evidence for this? You mean every country in the UN except the US demanding Israel abide by international law is them all trying to destroy Israel? Really is every country in the world except the US trying to destroy Israel? Is the US really 'defending' Israel by standing alone in encouraging it to refuse a peace settlement and to continue illegal, aggressive and dangerous policies which are quickly turning Israel into an international pariah and pushing it towards a regional war? If anything it seems to be the US which is trying to destroy Israel by encouraging it to carry on with this lunacy.

[/quote]

I've already pointed out the demographics of what a right of return means. Isreal received peace from Egypt for pulling out of Sinai. What did it receive for the Gaza disengagement? Katyushas.

[quote="Kadaveri, post:15, topic:200713"]
Really, where is your evidence for this? You mean every country in the UN except the US demanding Israel abide by international law is them all trying to destroy Israel? Really is every country in the world except the US trying to destroy Israel? Is the US really 'defending' Israel by standing alone in encouraging it to refuse a peace settlement and to continue illegal, aggressive and dangerous policies which are quickly turning Israel into an international pariah and pushing it towards a regional war? If anything it seems to be the US which is trying to destroy Israel by encouraging it to carry on with this lunacy.

[/quote]

Your relying on the UN for your moral compass on Israel. I am pointing out that if it wasn't for the US, Israel would have been so constrained and so minimalized as to be currently overrun by Arab extremists. It isn't hard to document, one only has to review the last few decades of Security Council Resolutions vetoed by the US:

And UN General Assembly Resolutions against Israel:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

The problem with using the UN as a moral compass on anything is that the countries in the UN (just about all the countries in the world) vote in the UN according to their own national interest. If they have a reliance on Arab oil (and most do) or have large Muslim communites (and many do), and no vested interest in Israel one way or another (as just about all of them have not), then it is an easy call for them to make to vote against Israel on just about anything.

The UN is a good example of why pure democracy leads to the opresson of the minority. In this case a minority who countries have been opressing for generations, that is to say, the Jews.

Israel is violating dozens on Security Council resolutions, for instance 242 and 338. Also, if you’re interested in defending Israel’s legitimacy I’d be very careful in dismissing General Assembly resolutions, as Israel’s birth certificate (as Abba Eban called it) was a ‘non-binding’ General Assembly resolution (181).

There’s no such thing a ‘peaceful destruction’ that’s just nonsense. Hamas says it’s willing to live peacefully with Israel if it would abide by international law, it’s clearly hypocritical to demand Hamas go beyond this when Israel won’t even agree to give Palestinians anywhere near the minimum they’re entitled to. If Israel were really so desperately looking for peace as it claims to be it would at least be willing to negotiate with Hamas over this yet it refuses to even discuss the matter.

The world is not demanding the 1948 partition plan anymore. The international consensus (agreed by every country in the world except Israel and the US) for resolving the conflict is for Israel to withdraw to its legal borders (those of 1967), a Palestinian state be established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital, a just settlement of the Palestinian refugee issue based on right of return and compensation and for all states to end belligerency. Since 2002 the Arab League has offered to go beyond this and offer Israel not just an end to belligerency but a full normalisation of relations (cultural exchanges, tourism etc) if it would agree to these terms.

I don't think Israel has much of a choice here. If it allows anything and everything to get into Gaza, Iran will simply send more missils to Hamas so Hamas can shell cities further away from Gaza.

If Israel goes back to the 1967 borders as some here advocate. Then many in the Arab world will see this as a victory for the side wanting to eradicate Israel and also a sign of weakness. Iran and their allies will see it as a time to push for total victory.

Iran knows what it wants and has told us for a long time what it wants and that is to get the "crusaders" out of the Levant. IMHO: Iran has eyes on using the Levant as western front against Iraq.

[quote="gilliam, post:17, topic:200713"]
Your relying on the UN for your moral compass on Israel. I am pointing out that if it wasn't for the US, Israel would have been so constrained and so minimalized as to be currently overrun by Arab extremists. It isn't hard to document, one only has to review the last few decades of Security Council Resolutions vetoed by the US:

And UN General Assembly Resolutions against Israel:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

The problem with using the UN as a moral compass on anything is that the countries in the UN (just about all the countries in the world) vote in the UN according to their own national interest. If they have a reliance on Arab oil (and most do) or have large Muslim communites (and many do), and no vested interest in Israel one way or another (as just about all of them have not), then it is an easy call for them to make to vote against Israel on just about anything.

The UN is a good example of why pure democracy leads to the opresson of the minority. In this case a minority who countries have been opressing for generations, that is to say, the Jews.

[/quote]

Every country in the UN except Israel and the US has not agreed on how to settle the conflict for decades because of 'Arab oil' (as if the US is not dependent on Arab oil...). For one thing the Arabs had plenty oil before the late 1970s when they came on board so why were the Europeans advocating what is now the international consensus long before this? The international consensus on how to settle the conflict is not just something plucked out of thing air, it's simply what you get when you apply international law, the Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions regarding the conflict.

Good luck in encouraging a tiny economically dependent country of 5.5 million people to wage eternal war against the entire world. It's like that could possibly result in Israel getting destroyed now is it?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.