Quote:
|
First, I would argue with the term "greenlighting". It presumes that the US is the judge and jury of the world. I think many would disagree with that assumption. I know I would.
|
I think greenlighting is a pretty accurate word in this case to describe what the US is saying to Israel. Isn't the US "giving the green light to" Israel to do what she wants in this instance? How does the US giving its approval to the annexation of land and the barring of refugees from returning to their land presume that the US is the judge and jury of the world?
Quote:
|
I've read your linked article again and I don't see anything about Bush saying he supports Sharon's plan to take land that's not his.
|
Bush said:
Quote:
|
the "realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly" and should be reflected in any final peace deal.
|
Quote:
|
That's not true. Nearly 20% of Israel's population is non-Jewish Arab.
|
That doesen't change the fact that
most Palestinians are excluded from living on the land that is now Israel
Quote:
|
I'm confused. Isn't that line in the charter? So what if Muhammed said it?
|
Well Hamas is an
Islamic movement. It would thus make sense for their charter to have numerous Koranic references. As I've already said, I beleive this line has to do more with an "end of days" scenario rather than the political objectives of HAMAS.
Quote:
|
Are you seriously trying to claim that Hamas is a humane movement?
|
A large part of the HAMAS movement is about providing charity and assistance to poor Palestinians. In this sense Hamas is a humane movement. As for their political objectives, I dont really see how there is any moral difference between the political platform of Hamas as compared to the Jewish state of Israel. One is a Jewish state, the other advocates an Islamic one. To me, the obvious solution here is a secular state in which both parties can live in equality.