1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Suffice to say, any Jewish person at the mercy of Hamas would have a very brutal existence, should they have an existence at all. Palestinian religious leaders helped the Nazis recruit Muslim SS divisions to assist in the killing of Jews afterall. Palestinians and Nazis were united in their common hatred of Jewish people. Theres been nothing since to indicate they would be any kinder today.

'Argumentum ad Mufti' as I call it. The reason for the Palestinian lean towards the Germans was precisely the same reason they helped the Brits in WW1 - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The avowed anti-semitism of one of their leaders really is incidental. I might point out that the Lehi also approached the Germans for aid in the struggle against the British.

Sand wrote: »

But actions 60 years ago, or 40 years ago are a justification for literally anything though arent they?.

Thats you I quoted above bringing up the Mufti, isn't it?

Sand wrote: »

Hey, I am just trying to keep up with the high brow intellectual "ISRAELIS ARE NAZI BASTARDS!!!!" (.........)lves were simply an inheritor of a long tradition of European hatred of Jews].?.

Irony, eh? Good thing you got in with the "Palestinians are Nazis" counter....

Incidentally, the Brits elbowed him into the job, as far as recall.

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

Seriously man, you have already embarrassed yourself with that post. You can’t fix that now, so I’m not even bothering to read your links.
Your opinions are based on sensational headlines, half truths and blatant lies. You have shown that you don’t bother to really learn about the issues and you follow the oldest Palestinian propaganda trick in the book – if you say something plenty of times, people will eventually start believing.

You've crossed over to trolling posts now imo, denying facts that are put in front of you in black & white. All my links are from mainstream corporate newspapers, mainly British, including newspapers the "left" is usually scathing off for pro-American and pro-Israeli bias. You've yet to actually identify any half-truths or blatant lies despite me asking you to.

You could chose to debate them but you don't. Namecalling and putting your fingers in your ears isn't a substitute.

youcrazyjesus!

kraggy wrote: »

Apologies if this is the wrong thread for this but I'd like to enlighten myself about the middle-east.

Firstly, is it true that the Jews left modern day Israel/Palestine thousands of years ago but only sought to return in a Zionist movement in the 19th century and that this was later fast-tracked after WW2?

Secondly, anyone have a link to a simple history/timeline of the Israeli/Palestine conflict? (non-biased of course!)

Just read from a wide range of sources and make up your own mind. I wouldn't look on any source or book as definitive and don't take opinions as fact on here. Wikipedia is not perfect by any means but most people would be surprised by the facts they find in any remotely objective account of the conflict and it's probably a good place to start.

As for the current situation, I've been quite surprised by the balance found in all mainstream British newspapers like The Independent (although he's one of the world's greatest war reporters people will slag him off, but I like him - Robert Fisk of this newspaper, he's scathingly critical of every side in the conflict and is sympathetic towards ordinary Palestinians, to some this means bias but judge for yourself) and The Times and even in more surprising places like Sky News. Dominic Waghorne yesterday referred to a "massacre" of civilians by Israeli troops.

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You've crossed over to trolling posts now imo, denying facts that are put in front of you in black & white. All my links are from mainstream corporate newspapers, mainly British, including newspapers the "left" is usually scathing off for pro-American and pro-Israeli bias. You've yet to actually identify any half-truths or blatant lies despite me asking you to.

You could chose to debate them but you don't. Namecalling and putting your fingers in your ears isn't a substitute.

Let’s see what we have had so far…

You made a claim that the Palestinians asked for a ceasefire.
I replied saying that I haven’t heard about it, and asked for a link.
In response, you basically went on and on about how I don’t know what I’m talking about. Didn’t supply a link though
I asked for a link again.
This time, you got pissed off, and attached 7 links to prove your point, in hopes that I wouldn’t actually bother to read the articles.

To your surprise, I did read all of them, and proved to you the following, using your own links against you:
1. Your claim that Hamas requested a ceasefire is wrong.
2. You yourself don’t read the links you post – you skim the headlines.
3. Not only Hamas didn’t offer a ceasefire – Israel did, and apparently Hamas refused.


And I’ll repeat what I’ve already said:
Your method of arguing your views is very simple – you believe that if you repeat something enough times, people will believe its true, even if it’s a blatant lie. When you don’t succeed, you resort to personal mocking, the true last resort of someone who time after time was proven wrong.

spiderdan

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You've crossed over to trolling posts now imo, denying facts that are put in front of you in black & white. All my links are from mainstream corporate newspapers, mainly British, including newspapers the "left" is usually scathing off for pro-American and pro-Israeli bias. You've yet to actually identify any half-truths or blatant lies despite me asking you to.

You could chose to debate them but you don't. Namecalling and putting your fingers in your ears isn't a substitute.

+1

I think its fairly obvious that that the main reason this is happening is the upcoming election, Livni has to look strong on Hamas or else Netanyahu and his right wing cronies will get in a really fook up any chances of peace.

Its a pity that Hamas are in power I admit but its a simple case of "have your cake and eat it'' the US and Israelis pushed for democratic elections and shock horror their was a result the didn't expect- they cant have it every way,

democracy in Palestine= Hamas, I dont buy into all the military coup stories, granted Hamas have blood on their hands but its very hard to tell what really happened.

The people have voted in Hamas after years of corruption with the PLO/ Fatah, they cant just turn around and say ''eh sorry lads that wasn't supposed to happen, no chance of peace- oh **** there's an election lets destroy Gaza''

Another very important fact that has been lost in this argument is that like so many previuos US governments (Taliban, Saddam Hussein) Israel sowed the seed for this group,

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10456.htm

Hamas came to into power with the assistance of Israel!!

I understand that this current wave is in retaliation to rockets being fired but come on how can anyone justify the figures of dead and injured in Gaza?? the title of this thread is very apt 1=155, Im sure that figure is getting more 4/5 times that now. No one life is better then another but this is disgraceful, how can anyone call it proportionate???

I reckon this will all calm down and we'll enter a cease fire as there are no other options for either side, The Arab states have their hands tied behind their backs as they're all in the US pockets, Israel will have to step down because

a- Livni cant have too much blood on her hands going into the election, IDF or Palestinian

b- What other option is there? Hamas will still be there, their support will strengthen as a result, they're going to have to negotiate with them eventually

The rocket attacks may stop but for how long? how long will it take for Israel to breach another cease fire? then what?

All this senseless killing and it'll achieve fook all, everyone will be in the same position as before the ceasefire was broken

The 2005 Cairo deceleration has to be implemented Hamas or not

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

3. Not only Hamas didn’t offer a ceasefire – Israel did, and apparently Hamas refused.

This is a lie.

And I’ll repeat what I’ve already said:
Your method of arguing your views is very simple – you believe that if you repeat something enough times, people will believe its true, even if it’s a blatant lie. When you don’t succeed, you resort to personal mocking, the true last resort of someone who time after time was proven wrong.

I've provided links both in relation to this attack and the long-term hudna ceasefire which you also poured scorn on, even after I posted links relating to it 3 or 4 times. When you bothered to check that assertion and realised it was watertight you moved the goalposts to saying you were talking only about a ceasefire surrounding the latest attack. I've provided at least two links which explicitly state "Hamas offers ceasefire" in relation this this. I can't do much more than that, it's not possible to make it any simpler.

Also, publically stating what minor steps the other party has to take in order to guarantee a reliable ceasefire (ie stop attacking us, open our border so we can bring in supplies, don't assassinate us during the ceasefire) is a ceasefire offer. Not only that, but they even said they would enter negotiations with Israel on any subject following it. If that isn't a viable ceasefire offer I don't know what is.

Not only that, Hamas has also accepted 3rd party ceasefire proposals. Israel rejects them. Here. Here. Here. Here. And here. (all American mainstream corporate media outlets).

And no I didn't skim the headlines, having quoted from within the articles in the links. Stop lying please. Lying about what's in front of you in black and white does your cause no good, in fact it makes you look quite mad.

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

And no I didn't skim the headlines, having quoted from within the articles in the links. Stop lying please. Lying about what's in front of you in black and white does your cause no good, in fact it makes you look quite mad.

Again, I read all the articles you submitted.
And, again, I don’t think you really read the articles – I think you look at the headlines, and skim the rest.

To sum the articles you submitted:
1. There is international pressure on Israel for a ceasefire. Not a Hamas offer.
2. The only offer Hamas has made is for a 48 hour ceasefire, which might be good for Hamas, but is against Israel’s interest.

When and if Hamas request a real ceasefire, not one which they plan on using to regroup and rearm themselves, then I’m sure Israel will consider it seriously. Any other offer for ceasefire is nothing more than a smoke screen tactic by Hamas, and they have proven it in the past.

There is a famous saying “Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me”. Hamas has been trying to fool Israel one time too many in this case, and now all the Palestinians in Gaza suffer because of it.

Even the surrounding Arab countries do not go out of their way to condemn Israel as they usually do, they mostly condemn the violence on both sides and request a ceasefire. Even they know that Hamas has pushed the envelope too far with their rocket attacks.

ionix5891

sHnaCk wrote: »

the territory of Israel was mapped out by God himself with an irrevocable covenant in the time of abraham. so it did exist.

GYUIS go home!

heres a GYUIS user copying and pasting rubbish, who registered today, as predicted by me earlier in thread it wouldn't take them long

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=5042931

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

To sum the articles you submitted:
1. There is international pressure on Israel for a ceasefire. Not a Hamas offer.

You're now failing to even follow what was written in the post you're replying to.

I stated "Not only that, Hamas has also accepted 3rd party ceasefire proposals. Israel rejects them".

"Not only that" means "in addition too", or "also" or "furthermore". I also made it even clearer what I meant by stating "Hamas has also accepted 3rd party ceasefire proposals. Israel rejects them".

It is an additional point which compliments the one I've made (by posting links that explicitly state Hamas has offered a ceasefire), in order to prove that Hamas is willing, has offered terms, but Israel rejects all efforts to broker a ceasefire.

Why on earth do you continue to ignore what's spelled out in front of you in black and white, in explicit English, in a link, as you yourself asked me to do is beyond me. Now you're also failing to comprehend what is stated in basic English in the flow of a post.

If anybody is curious just follow my previous posts. I've posted many a link.

The Saint

munchester29 wrote: »

Good point, might be worth mentioning that some say Jews drink christian baby blood.

Aw thats cute. From a review of a book by you're friend Benni Morris:

Morris' work undermines the common Israeli belief that its fighters were characterized by a "purity of arms." Israeli forces killed innocent Palestinian civilians, expelled villagers from their homes and, in at least a dozen cases, raped Arab women.

munchester29

The Saint wrote: »

Aw thats cute. From a review of a book by you're friend Benni Morris:

Benny Morris says many, many things. Personally (although I've used some of his quotes in the past myself to make a point), nothing he says is really reliable.

for example, he was also quoted saying:
“Under some circumstances expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."

So, do you agree with everything he says?

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

Benny Morris says many, many things. Personally (although I've used some of his quotes in the past myself to make a point), nothing he says is really reliable.

You've heard of Benny Morris but not Johann Hari? :rolleyes:

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You're now failing to even follow what was written in the post you're replying to.

I stated "Not only that, Hamas has also accepted 3rd party ceasefire proposals. Israel rejects them".

I think the important words here are “I stated”.
I’ve read those articles, and I stand by my words.

You need to understand something – the fact that you personally are happy with Hamas offering a 48 hour ceasefire and consider it a major breakthrough, doesn’t necessarily make it so, and definitely doesn’t mean that this is in Israel’s best interest and that Israel should accept it.

The only experience Israel has had with such short term ceasefires with Hamas, is the experience of continued rocket attacks and violence even during the ceasefire.

Now, if Hamas would come up and say that they are willing to negotiate a full ceasefire, with no rocket firing and no violence, then even if they demand harsh terms from Israel in return, I would say – great, a chance for something real, both sides have something to work on.

Until Hamas agrees to stop their violence, why would Israel stop their attack?

Jack Bauer999

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Just read from a wide range of sources and make up your own mind. I wouldn't look on any source or book as definitive and don't take opinions as fact on here. Wikipedia is not perfect by any means but most people would be surprised by the facts they find in any remotely objective account of the conflict and it's probably a good place to start.

As for the current situation, I've been quite surprised by the balance found in all mainstream British newspapers like The Independent (although he's one of the world's greatest war reporters people will slag him off, but I like him - Robert Fisk of this newspaper, he's scathingly critical of every side in the conflict and is sympathetic towards ordinary Palestinians, to some this means bias but judge for yourself) and The Times and even in more surprising places like Sky News. Dominic Waghorne yesterday referred to a "massacre" of civilians by Israeli troops.

for anyone interested, theres a good doco by Robert Fisk called
From Beiruit to Bosnia which included shows some of the suffering
that the Ordinary Palestinians have had to endure becuase of terrorist Israel.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=from+beirut+to+bosnia&emb=0&aq=0&oq=from+beirut+to+bosni#

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You've heard of Benny Morris but not Johann Hari? :rolleyes:

I know him, and I've read his opinion piece that you linked to earlier.
Not too impressed by the man, and his opinion is nothing more than an opinion, and usually a biased one, for example:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=62&x_article=1497

SectionF

Is this reliable?
101 children murdered. 801 children killed or wounded. Does anyone care?

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

I think the important words here are “I stated”.
I’ve read those articles, and I stand by my words.

You stand by the fact you failed to grasp a very basic statement. That's ok.

You need to understand something – the fact that you personally are happy with Hamas offering a 48 hour ceasefire and consider it a major breakthrough, doesn’t necessarily make it so, and definitely doesn’t mean that this is in Israel’s best interest and that Israel should accept it.

A ha. So you're NOW saying Hamas DID in fact offer a ceasefire? So you were wrong? I've not gone mad. That's a relief. Yes that's fine, it doesn't necessarily make it so you're right and it doesn't necessarily mean Israel should accept it. I happen to think you're wrong, as does almost every single commentator and professional journalist I've read on the subject (bar the usual suspects like ****features Dudley Edwards and that Ian O'Doherty of course), and I believe launching such an attack in response is not in keeping with a country which has any interest in peace, but we can disagree, as long as basic black and white facts are acknowledged.

The only experience Israel has had with such short term ceasefires with Hamas, is the experience of continued rocket attacks and violence even during the ceasefire.

The only experience Hamas has had with such short term ceasefires (which Hamas itself initiated) with Israel, is the experience of continued assassinations, violence and blockades even during the ceasefire.

According to some commentators Hamas only fired rockets in response to Israeli violations. At the very least it's an equally valid way of looking at it.

Now, if Hamas would come up and say that they are willing to negotiate a full ceasefire, with no rocket firing and no violence, then even if they demand harsh terms from Israel in return, I would say – great, a chance for something real, both sides have something to work on.

Now, if Israel would come up and say that they are willing to negotiate a full ceasefire, with no assassinations, operations and no arbitrary day-by-day blockade, then even if they demand harsh terms from Hamas in return, I would say – great, a chance for something real, both sides have something to work on.

It's an equally valid of looking at it, at least. Especially given what's happened during the last 10 days. Hundreds dead and the whole civilian government infrastructure of Gaza destroyed.

Until Hamas agrees to stop their violence, why would Israel stop their attack?

Until Israel agrees to stop their violence, why should Hamas stop their rockets?

Again, it's at least an equally valid way of looking at it.

I can see both sides, you're living with the implicit understanding that Hamas = bad. Israel = good. I think Israel should get down off it's high horse, stop putting up smokescreens and using excuses not to get down to business and negotiate with Hamas. Hamas of course should declare a unilateral ceasefire and stop firing rockets. Don't give Israel the excuse it is always, always looking for.

The Saint

munchester29 wrote: »

Benny Morris says many, many things. Personally (although I've used some of his quotes in the past myself to make a point), nothing he says is really reliable.

for example, he was also quoted saying:
“Under some circumstances expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."

So, do you agree with everything he says?

But you have used him to make points in the past.:rolleyes: If you want to discount him as a source altogether I'm fine with that, just don't cite him when it suits you.
I find his histories to be good. It's his interpretation that is often the problem as you have stated above. He's a historian, not a professor of international law. He's also a right wing Zionist so his judgements are going to be tainted by this. However I think the historical aspects of his work are generally accurate. I can find other historians if you like tough.

Anyway, Israeli soldiers tend not to rape and actually engage in it less than most armies. This is to their credit. But to say that it has never happened is naive. Most invading armies have done it and a lot more prolifically. This wasn't me having a go at the Israeli army over rape, just pointing out that your assertion that they "never" do it is untrue.

Also here's a case from 1997:

30.3.97 A Palestinian woman is raped when 2 Israeli soldiers search her house in Surif, near Hebron. The incident is referred to the IDE The soldier accused of raping her is interrogated and his weapon is confiscated. The IDF confirms that "indecent acts" have taken place.

The Saint

munchester29 wrote: »

I know him, and I've read his opinion piece that you linked to earlier.
Not too impressed by the man, and his opinion is nothing more than an opinion, and usually a biased one, for example:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=62&x_article=1497

You accuse someone of being biased and based on opinion and you link to CAMERA as a source. Now that's ironing. :pac:

munchester29

The Saint wrote: »

But you have used him to make points in the past.:rolleyes: If you want to discount him as a source altogether I'm fine with that, just don't cite him when it suits you.
I find his histories to be good. It's his interpretation that is often the problem as you have stated above. He's a historian, not a professor of international law. He's also a right wing Zionist so his judgements are going to be tainted by this. However I think the historical aspects of his work are generally accurate. I can find other historians if you like tough.

Ok, valid point. How about this then, on a different issue: A letter sent by Morris to th Irish times after being quoted once too many about "ethnical cleansing" of Palestinians:

"There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet of March 10, 1948, was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15."

My question - do you agree, based on Morris's research that Israel did not try to "ethnically cleanse" the Arabs in 1948, as many Palestinian supporters claim?

youcrazyjesus!

The Saint wrote: »

You accuse someone of being biased and based on opinion and you link to CAMERA as a source. Now that's ironing. :pac:

An opinion that the original opinion is wrong!

There's more:

"In a 2003 profile of the organization in the Boston Globe, Mark Jurkowitz observed: "To its supporters, CAMERA is figuratively - and perhaps literally - doing God's work, battling insidious anti-Israeli bias in the media. But its detractors see CAMERA as a myopic and vindictive special interest group trying to muscle its views into media coverage."

munchester29

The Saint wrote: »

You accuse someone of being biased and based on opinion and you link to CAMERA as a source. Now that's ironing. :pac:

The Saint wrote: »

You accuse someone of being biased and based on opinion and you link to CAMERA as a source. Now that's ironing. :pac:

Well, we all use the sources that support what we believe in, don't we?

Actually, I read some of his articles on the conflict, and the man is biased in my opinion.
Funny thing is, he is gay, and if he was living in Gaza, Hamas would have already shown him how cultured and open minded they are...

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

Well, we all use the sources that support what we believe in, don't we?

There's a difference between using the conservative (small c) British broadsheets as a source to using a discredited pro-Israel "thinktank" (or shoutinghouse).

Actually, I read some of his articles on the conflict, and the man is biased in my opinion.
Funny thing is, he is gay, and if he was living in Gaza, Hamas would have already shown him how cultured and open minded they are...

Wouldn't that weigh in favour of him not being biased?

BlaasForRafa

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Just read from a wide range of sources and make up your own mind. I wouldn't look on any source or book as definitive and don't take opinions as fact on here. Wikipedia is not perfect by any means but most people would be surprised by the facts they find in any remotely objective account of the conflict and it's probably a good place to start.

As for the current situation, I've been quite surprised by the balance found in all mainstream British newspapers like The Independent (although he's one of the world's greatest war reporters people will slag him off, but I like him - Robert Fisk of this newspaper, he's scathingly critical of every side in the conflict and is sympathetic towards ordinary Palestinians, to some this means bias but judge for yourself) and The Times and even in more surprising places like Sky News. Dominic Waghorne yesterday referred to a "massacre" of civilians by Israeli troops.

Robert Fisk is phenomenally biased plus he dosen't seem to bother with research. He asserted twice last week that Israel was using F-18's to bomb Gaza (they don't have any).

BlaasForRafa

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Until Israel agrees to stop their violence, why should Hamas stop their rockets?

Because Israel can do it a hell of a lot better.

Hamas firing rockets at Israel is retarded from the point of view of looking after the welfare of "their people"

There are a number of reasons that Hamas are following this suicidally stupid path but they can be narrowed down to:
1: Iran supply them with the ordinance and are their paymasters and they have to do what Iran tell them to do.
2: They will lose face in the arab world if they are seen to surrender to "the jews"
3: They are an implicitly anti-semitic organisation whose vow to drive Israel and its population into the see blinds it to the reality.

youcrazyjesus!

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Robert Fisk is phenomenally biased plus he dosen't seem to bother with research. He asserted twice last week that Israel was using F-18's to bomb Gaza (they don't have any).

Robert Fisk is a fine journalist, the problem you and others have with him is that he criticises all sides and has sympathy for other humans. He is scathing about just about everyone and tears into the Arab states more than anyone. You're flat wrong.

Poor old Bob Fisk. Going a bit senile think. He confused an F-16 with an F-18. Can you believe that? Last week he confused Vista Home Basic with Vista Home Premium too. How I laughed.

Military designations are often misreported. Doesn't excuse a lack of attention to detail but it's hardly a deal breaker. You'll have to forgive him for confusing US and Israeli warplanes.

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

There's a difference between using the conservative (small c) British broadsheets as a source to using a discredited pro-Israel "thinktank" (or shoutinghouse).

That’s a matter of opinion. Sources you consider as biased can be considered as reliable by me and vice versa.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Wouldn't that weigh in favour of him not being biased?

In my opinion, it just shows he has no problem ignoring inconvenient truths. Could be other psychological explanations though, who knows?

munchester29

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Because Israel can do it a hell of a lot better.

Hamas firing rockets at Israel is retarded from the point of view of looking after the welfare of "their people"

There are a number of reasons that Hamas are following this suicidally stupid path but they can be narrowed down to:
1: Iran supply them with the ordinance and are their paymasters and they have to do what Iran tell them to do.
2: They will lose face in the arab world if they are seen to surrender to "the jews"
3: They are an implicitly anti-semitic organisation whose vow to drive Israel and its population into the see blinds it to the reality.

+1

bobbyjoe

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Because Israel can do it a hell of a lot better.

Hamas firing rockets at Israel is retarded from the point of view of looking after the welfare of "their people"

There are a number of reasons that Hamas are following this suicidally stupid path but they can be narrowed down to:
1: Iran supply them with the ordinance and are their paymasters and they have to do what Iran tell them to do.
2: They will lose face in the arab world if they are seen to surrender to "the jews"
3: They are an implicitly anti-semitic organisation whose vow to drive Israel and its population into the see blinds it to the reality.

Right.
Nothing to do with being forced from their homes into what is basicaly an open air prison, constant harrassment, no freedom of movement, etc etc ad nausium.

youcrazyjesus!

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Because Israel can do it a hell of a lot better.

Agreed. It can do a lot better. It can start by adhering to international rulings and international law and secure peace for it's citizens. The problem could be solved by midnight tonight in it's totality.

Hamas firing rockets at Israel is retarded from the point of view of looking after the welfare of "their people"

Agree 100%.

There are a number of reasons that Hamas are following this suicidally stupid path but they can be narrowed down to:
1: Iran supply them with the ordinance and are their paymasters and they have to do what Iran tell them to do.

They don't take orders direct from Iran. They are strongly associated with Iran. The occupied territories are very isolated, there's only so much outside support can bring anyway.

2: They will lose face in the arab world if they are seen to surrender to "the jews"

Agreed. There is an element of saving face to everything they do.

3: They are an implicitly anti-semitic organisation whose vow to drive Israel and its population into the see blinds it to the reality.

They didn't just wake up one day and decide to be anti-Semitic. The Palestinians have been through a very rough time, poverty + war + lack of secular alternative = radicalism led by religious extremists. It should be noted that Hamas were actively promoted by Mossad in the early days, as a counterweight to the PLO.

But whatever the truth about them, Hamas has offered Israel a workable and final settlement for the mandate which amounts to a de facto recognition of Israel, one even Ehud Olmert agrees will bring lasting to peace for Israel.