Comments on: WSJ scoops the Times: Hamas is ‘Israel’s creation’

By: Jamie D.

Jamie D. — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

It's quite amazing. WSJ is now saying what, in years gone by, used to get many of us called names and banned from some of the more 'mainstream' (right/left, Rep/Dem didn't matter) discussion boards when the topic was broached.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

It was always quite uncontroversial, in fact, that Israel funded Hamas in order to create a rival to Fatah. This WSJ article is not of course 'superb', and here Phil relapses into his 'journalists, like dogs, have to constantly lick one anothers' arses' style. The article is in fact simply a recitation of IOF propaganda. Practically every other line contains an emotionally loaded keyword, intended to reinforce the pavlovian conditioned reflex that out there are hordes of dusky, masked 'Islamists', with sneaky but lethal weapons, just waiting for a chance to blow your grandma's head off as she quietly watches her TV.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and '80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank."

Pretty LIMITED extent of "Israel's creation".

Another "representative" Mondoweiss headline.

By: jim byers

jim byers — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Dear Richard W, Likud has been cited for giving money and quite importantly, during the first infatada the IDF would bulldoze the homes of Fatah parents when their kids threw rocks but would leave the homes of Hamas parents intact. The support of Likud is a huge blot on the true nature of Israel's intentions and clearly shows that the government at the time was NOT INTERESTED in peace and was in fact creating an impossible situation.

By: Dan Kelly

Dan Kelly — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

The support of Likud is a huge blot on the true nature of Israel's intentions and clearly shows that the government at the time was NOT INTERESTED in peace and was in fact creating an impossible situation.

Are there any examples of when Israel HAS BEEN interested in peace? I can think of none, and their leaders' own words often confirm the fact that they are not interested in peace, rather continued land grabs and constant humiliation/deprivation/outright slaughter in order to achieve their ends.

And yet Hamas and others resisting this brutality are known as the "terrorists" when in fact Israel's actions since its inception are the textbook definition of "terrorism".

But we live in a world of illusion.

By: MM

MM — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Richard, Israel was playing divide-and-conquer with the Palestinians. What don't you get?

By: MM

MM — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Richard, here's a more sensitive perspective on the WSJ article for you.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

hey, he's only a troll, don't confuse him with the facts.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Its a stupid exageration of a temporary and conditional relationship.

Definitely an irony, but thats as far as it goes.

Its not as painful an irony as the left excusing Saddam's executions of hundreds of thousands, or Iran's purges during its first three years of revolution.

Or, of the left's current infatuation with Hamas (service and militant wing each).

The lesson of both the irony of Israel "supporting" Hamas and the left supporting Saddam, Iran and Hamas, is that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a false assertion.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

The lesson to you, certainly, but not to us. It's you who's losing; we're winning.