Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[Chairman Woodie]

The point of a peace process is to bring about a state of peace. If the Palestinians must renounce terrorism before they negotiate why would Israel negotiate once they had peaceful Palestinian leadership?

The political and economic benefits of peace outweigh the present situation. The motivations for Israel to negotiate include:

• Improved diplomatic relations with Arab countries, which could prove beneficial politically and economically;
• A change Israel's image and standing in various international forums, and;
• An end to the bloodshed, an aspiration of many Israelis.

 

[Mozza]

The political and economic benefits of peace outweigh the present situation. The motivations for Israel to negotiate include:

• Improved diplomatic relations with Arab countries, which could prove beneficial politically and economically;
• A change Israel's image and standing in various international forums, and;
• An end to the bloodshed, an aspiration of many Israelis.

Again you talk about the benefits of a peace deal but when the Palestinians renounce violence that state would already have been reached. So what concessions are Israel going to make when they've got peace?

 

[Chairman Woodie]

No. The Supreme Court held that combatants without uniforms are not civilians.

See: Recent Developments in Israeli Law (Cardozo Law School)

​

 

[Mozza]

An Israeli sniper has no clue that a person they are shooting is Hamas or not, besides which being a member of Hamas does not make it legal for Israel to execute them

 

[berbatrick]

No. The Supreme Court held that combatants without uniforms are not civilians.

See: Recent Developments in Israeli Law (Cardozo Law School)

​

I don't see how your link doesn't support the tweet. The judgement apparently quotes this:

1. In the course of law enforcement operations in Haiti, the United States clarified that the use of lethal force is permissible as a last resort for riot control even where the rioters are unarmed civilians

The rest of the judgement is about how Gaza is a combat zone where military laws apply. Hence, the tweet is correct.

According to the information provided to the Court by the Respondents, the rules of engagement permit “live fire” only for confronting violent disturbances that present an actual and immediate threat to IDF forces or Israeli civilians.

lol

 

[berbatrick]

An Israeli sniper has no clue that a person they are shooting is Hamas or not, besides which being a member of Hamas does not make it legal for Israel to execute them

Almost every Israeli Jew is current, ex, or future IDF. Legitimate targets?

 

[Super Hans]

You have either distorted or misunderstood the crux of Weisglass' comments.

Weisglass was recapping the long established Israeli position that there will be no negotiating with the Palestinians until their leadership abandons terrorism.

As the Palestinians were not prepared to abandon terror, and because the continuation of Palestinian terror had stalled the 2002 Road Map, Weisglass added, that unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was necessary to preserve this vision for a peaceful Palestinian state.

Weisglass concludes by saying Israel is not prepared make the sacrifices necessary under the Road Map "until the Palestinians turn into Finns" (i.e. renounce terrorism).

I’m not the one distorting his comments. The Israeli hasbara position is that the Gaza withdrawal was a gesture of peace (and all they got was rockets etc. etc. you know the spiel). Weisglass makes clear that the purpose of the withdrawal was exactly the opposite.

Regarding the “Finns” comment, I struggle to believe that you actually believe what you are saying as you ignore everything he says and grasp at that straw. That the oppressed party should not be negotiated with until it lays down its arms and Israel should have a monopoly on the use of force. That’s really what you are saying. That notion couldn’t be more ludicrous. Without getting into the ins and outs of international law (it's complicated), the gist is that in this situation it's closer to the opposite. Having acquiesced in the legally mandated norms for resolving the conflict, the Palestinians have every right to armed resistance. Whereas Israel, which rejects these norms out of hand, does not have the right to use force to continue the repression.

I think it appropriate here to repeat Nelson Mandela's words after he was offered conditional release by PW Botha in 1985 on the condition that he renounce violence:

He refused, stating that the ANC only adopted violence as a means of protest "when other forms of resistance were no longer open to us" and "What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people [ANC] remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter into contracts." Even after his release in 1990, but while Apartheid continued, he stated that armed action would still continue as a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid.

It's also instructive to look at when suicide bombings of the Second Intifada started (which Weisglass is likely alluding to). Israel's crackdown on the Temple Mount demonstrations was, unsurprisingly, hugely disproportionate. IDF soldiers fired 1.3 million bullets in the first few days. Only after a month of the IDF slaughtering Palestinians did the first bombing happen.

The political and economic benefits of peace outweigh the present situation. The motivations for Israel to negotiate include:

• Improved diplomatic relations with Arab countries, which could prove beneficial politically and economically;
• A change Israel's image and standing in various international forums, and;
• An end to the bloodshed, an aspiration of many Israelis.

This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the costs of withdrawal absolutely dwarf the potential benefits. I can't recommend highly enough leading Jerusalem-based analyst Nathan Thrall's article here which analyses this problem https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-israel-palestine-peace-process-always-fails

 

[Synco]

It's also instructive to look at when suicide bombings of the Second Intifada started (which Weisglass is likely alluding to). Israel's crackdown on the Temple Mount demonstrations was, unsurprisingly, hugely disproportionate. IDF soldiers fired 1.3 million bullets in the first few days. Only after a month of the IDF slaughtering Palestinians did the first bombing happen.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad suicide bombings already happened throughout the 1990s, when the Oslo process was in full stride. It's safe to say that more attempts were spoiled by Israeli intelligence and countermeasures. The last attempts on bombing Israeli civilians were in late 1999 (not successful beyond causing injuries). The situation in 2000 only gave the opportunity to continue what was already an established tactic, after nothing more than a brief period of involuntary restraint.

 

[Chairman Woodie]

I don't see how your link doesn't support the tweet. The judgement apparently quotes this:


The rest of the judgement is about how Gaza is a combat zone where military laws apply. Hence, the tweet is correct.

The AP headline fails to accurately reflect the Supreme Court ruling. The Court did not refuse to declare it unlawful for soldiers to shoot at unarmed civilians. Rather the Court found, citing practice (U.S. Army Field Manual) and precent (al-Masri) that:

"7. If some demonstrators can be categorized as direct participants in the armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (armed attackers, members of terrorist organizations disguised as demonstrators, as well as participants who willingly act as human shields for terrorists) they lose their protection under art. 51(3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
​

In other words, the Court held that combatants (i.e. "direct participants") without uniforms (i.e. "armed attackers, members of terrorist organizations disguised as demonstrators, as well as participants who willingly act as human shields for terrorists") are not civilians (i.e. "art. 51(3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention").

 

[berbatrick]

The AP headline fails to accurately reflect the Supreme Court ruling. The Court did not refuse to declare it unlawful for soldiers to shoot at unarmed civilians. Rather the Court found, citing practice (U.S. Army Field Manual) and precent (al-Masri) that:

"7. If some demonstrators can be categorized as direct participants in the armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (armed attackers, members of terrorist organizations disguised as demonstrators, as well as participants who willingly act as human shields for terrorists) they lose their protection under art. 51(3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
​

In other words, the Court held that combatants (i.e. "direct participants") without uniforms (i.e. "armed attackers, members of terrorist organizations disguised as demonstrators, as well as participants who willingly act as human shields for terrorists") are not civilians (i.e. "art. 51(3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention").

That's literally everyone. If membership=terrorism and being part of the same march as a Hamas member = human shield, all Palestinians in that march exist presumed guilty of being participants in an armed conflict. That's also why I quoted the US manual because it is making the same point. The same dismal logic can be applied to Israelis and the IDF.

 

[Chairman Woodie]

I’m not the one distorting his comments. The Israeli hasbara position is that the Gaza withdrawal was a gesture of peace (and all they got was rockets etc. etc. you know the spiel). Weisglass makes clear that the purpose of the withdrawal was exactly the opposite.

Preserving "the vision for a peaceful Palestinian state" by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza is consistent with a gesture of peace.

Regarding the “Finns” comment, I struggle to believe that you actually believe what you are saying as you ignore everything he says and grasp at that straw. That the oppressed party should not be negotiated with until it lays down its arms and Israel should have a monopoly on the use of force. That’s really what you are saying. That notion couldn’t be more ludicrous. Without getting into the ins and outs of international law (it's complicated), the gist is that in this situation it's closer to the opposite. Having acquiesced in the legally mandated norms for resolving the conflict, the Palestinians have every right to armed resistance. Whereas Israel, which rejects these norms out of hand, does not have the right to use force to continue the repression.

I summarised the words of Weisglass. Here are his words:

[...] what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."
​

In other words, Weisglass is saying that the Americans and Israelis agreed that there would be no negotiations until "the Palestinians turn in Finns" (i.e. renounce terror). No different from my earlier post.

​

This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the costs of withdrawal absolutely dwarf the potential benefits. I can't recommend highly enough leading Jerusalem-based analyst Nathan Thrall's article here which analyses this problem https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-israel-palestine-peace-process-always-fails

Thanks. I'll have a read.

 

[Chairman Woodie]

If membership=terrorism and being part of the same march as a Hamas member = human shield, all Palestinians in that march exist presumed guilty of being participants in an armed conflict.

The Court is referring to those who engage in violence, are members of Hamas, but disguised as demonstrators. On human shields, the Court did not say that attending the march itself amounts to direct participation in the conflict.

That's literally everyone. [....] That's also why I quoted the US manual because it is making the same point. The same dismal logic can be applied to Israelis and the IDF.

If it was literally everyone, there would likely be an awful lot more Palestinians dead given the thousands that attended.

 

[Desert Eagle]

RIP Razan al Najjar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-will-launch-a-probe/?utm_term=.e4f5e3a4dca8

 

[Kaos]

Let me guess, her husband’s cousin’s barber was a registered member of Hamas so she might as well have been wearing a giant bullseye.

RIP.

 

[Mozza]

Preserving "the vision for a peaceful Palestinian state" by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza is consistent with a gesture of peace.



I summarised the words of Weisglass. Here are his words:

[...] what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."
​

In other words, Weisglass is saying that the Americans and Israelis agreed that there would be no negotiations until "the Palestinians turn in Finns" (i.e. renounce terror). No different from my earlier post.

​

Thanks. I'll have a read.

No, he said we agreed with the yanks we'd keep some of the settlements and might talk about some of the others. Here I was thinking Israel had to make an agreement with the Palestinians as to which settlements they could keep.

Israel is not interested in peace, as that would curtail settlement expansion

 

[Super Hans]

Preserving "the vision for a peaceful Palestinian state" by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza is consistent with a gesture of peace.

Come on. What Weisglass is saying is that Israel doesn’t want to face the difficult decisions (Jerusalem, refugees, settlers etc.) The “Finns” comment he tacks on at the end almost as an afterthought. Add to that, you’ve got Sharon talking about how the Gaza withdrawal will allow Israel to hold onto the West Bank settlements it wants to keep. How on earth can one conclude it is a gesture of peace?

I summarised the words of Weisglass. Here are his words:

[...] what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."
​

In other words, Weisglass is saying that the Americans and Israelis agreed that there would be no negotiations until "the Palestinians turn in Finns" (i.e. renounce terror). No different from my earlier post.

​

Are we really to hold the Palestinians to a higher standard than Mandela? Mandela refused to renounce violence and was on the US terrorist watchlist until 2008, as was the ANC. Should Israel also renounce violence or can they continue as normal?

Do you know why Mandela refused? (Other than he fact that he had the right to resist through force of arms)Because he knew that if he did, it would ease the pressure on the South African government to end apartheid. Basically, exactly like Israel and the occupation.

 

[2cents]

Are we really to hold the Palestinians to a higher standard than Mandela?

I think it appropriate here to repeat Nelson Mandela's words after he was offered conditional release by PW Botha in 1985 on the condition that he renounce violence:

He refused, stating that the ANC only adopted violence as a means of protest "when other forms of resistance were no longer open to us"

In what sense does the bolded apply to any of the groups claiming to represent the Palestinians over the decades?

 

[EyeInTheSky]

The people getting killed should stop with the victimisation, the people who have nothing to eat, whose exports are being blocked, who have little to none electricity should try and be a force for good and contribute towards peace and progress in the world.

ffs how did your brain come up with that solution?

Brain? That’s your first mistake.

 

[Super Hans]

In what sense does the bolded apply to any of the groups claiming to represent the Palestinians over the decades?

What's your point? The evolution of every conflict is different. The point here is that both Mandela and the Palestinians have/had the right to resist oppressive regimes by force of arms. I mean, the whole Gandhi thing, it is an impressive ideal. But he was an extraordinary human being. And he demanded of his followers that “you’re supposed to march into the line of fire, smilingly and cheerfully, and get yourself blown to bits.” Well guess what, the Palestinians have been trying that (for decades I might add), and Israel, with some success, spins it to blame the victims. It's hard to tell Palestinians to stick with the non-violence when that happens.

 

[berbatrick]

If it was literally everyone, there would likely be an awful lot more Palestinians dead given the thousands that attended.

No, I meant that any Palestinian who was shot was shot justifiably given these rules. Not that everyone who went out was shot.

The Court is referring to those who engage in violence, are members of Hamas, but disguised as demonstrators. On human shields, the Court didn't say that attending the march itself amounts to direct participation in the conflict.

I don't see how else it can be interpreted given the videos that exist - the shootings of marked medical staff, unarmed people walking away, etc. Given that those videos were taken in the event that inspired the case, I'm assuming that is what the petitioners had in mind when they challenged the rules.

Anyway I do not want to get into legal arguments for which I'm totally unqualified and I feel are totally irrelevant - it is a political question, not an internal legal issue. I only commented because I thought the AP paraphrase was accurate even after seeing the blog you posted, down to the use of the phrase unarmed civilians in the US manual.

In what sense does the bolded apply to any of the groups claiming to represent the Palestinians over the decades?

Unless you use the impractical, counter-productive standards set by Gandhi in 1922 (his response to Chauri-Chaura probably set back the independence movement by a decade), the fence crossing was largely non-violent (given the number of people gathered) and was met by 150 deaths. Approaching the fence and trying to cross it to demand your rights would be a classic tactic of non-violent civil disobedience.

 

[RedTiger]

I don't see how else it can be interpreted given the videos that exist - the shootings of marked medical staff, unarmed people walking away, etc. Given that those videos were taken in the event that inspired the case, I'm assuming that is what the petitioners had in mind when they challenged the rules.

Anyway I do not want to get into legal arguments for which I'm totally unqualified and I feel are totally irrelevant - it is a political question, not an internal legal issue. I only commented because I thought the AP paraphrase was accurate even after seeing the blog you posted, down to the use of the phrase unarmed civilians in the US manual.



Unless you use the impractical, counter-productive standards set by Gandhi in 1922 (his response to Chauri-Chaura probably set back the independence movement by a decade), the fence crossing was largely non-violent (given the number of people gathered) and was met by 150 deaths. Approaching the fence and trying to cross it to demand your rights would be a classic tactic of non-violent civil disobedience.

I've said this previously on the forum and perhaps I wasn't taken seriously, but the only viable course of action for the protesters is to wear nothing but loin cloths when they approach the Israeli fence (which isn't the actual fecking border by the way) because anything else will be construed as a provocation and used forever as a reason to keep them subjugated.

They're all going to die anyway so they might as well allow history to paint them as non violent protesters from this point on.

 

[Fearless]

I've said this previously on the forum and perhaps I wasn't taken seriously, but the only viable course of action for the protesters is to wear nothing but loin cloths when they approach the Israeli fence (which isn't the actual fecking border by the way) because anything else will be construed as a provocation and used forever as a reason to keep them subjugated.

They're all going to die anyway so they might as well allow history to paint them as non violent protesters from this point on.

Another alternative would be for the overthrowing of Hamas and replaced with something a little bit less Jew hating.

 

[2cents]

What's your point?

That whereas the ANC (according to Mandela's words above) only resorted to force after alternative means of resistance had failed, the opposite is true of the Palestinian factions - they have only adopted alternative means after force has failed. From the first national uprising in 1936 until the PLO's apparent renunciation of violence 52 years later, force was regarded as the only legitimate means of liberating Palestine by the dominant Palestinian players, and still is by the faction running the Gaza Strip. Now you may regard the distinction as unimportant, but clearly Mandela felt it worthwhile stressing the chronology of the nature of resistance to Apartheid, since, I presume, he recognized that it had a bearing on how that resistance, and the South African government's response to it, was understood.

Unless you use the impractical, counter-productive standards set by Gandhi in 1922 (his response to Chauri-Chaura probably set back the independence movement by a decade), the fence crossing was largely non-violent (given the number of people gathered) and was met by 150 deaths. Approaching the fence and trying to cross it to demand your rights would be a classic tactic of non-violent civil disobedience.

The conversation above was related to events surrounding the second intifada, while the Mandela quote was a more general statement of principle relating to the entire movement against Apartheid. I'm not someone who denies that the Palestinians have a right to fight for their rights (including their national rights), by force if necessary (although I think their use of violence has on balance been counter-productive over the years, the 1936-1939 uprising, the 1947-48 war, and the 2nd Intifada being the primary examples). I'm simply arguing that the Palestinians have agency, and that the particular form their struggle has taken over the decades is relevant to understanding Zionist/Israeli behavior and actions and, by extension, the way the conflict has played out, however asymmetrical it may seem (obviously the reverse is also true).

For what it's worth, I think the kind of protests we've seen recently in Gaza could be a potentially positive step in Palestinian measures, one I've been looking for since the 2011 protests. If they can evolve into a pan-Palestinian phenomenon encompassing Palestinians in the West Bank, Israel and the Diaspora as well as Gazans, if they can shake off the control of Hamas, Fatah and the other armed factions to become a properly grass-roots movement, and if they can rebrand the message as something more reasonable than "we're coming home to oust you off our land" (since we're discussing the South Africa analogy then perhaps they should take a look at the ANC's Freedom Charter for an example of how to do it), then that could possibly be a game-changer - I wrote this in 2014 on this very topic - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/israeli-palestinian-conflict.306471/page-178#post-16675517

 

[Fearless]

That whereas the ANC (according to Mandela's words above) only resorted to force after alternative means of resistance had failed, the opposite is true of the Palestinian factions - they have only adopted alternative means after force has failed. From the first national uprising in 1936 until the PLO's apparent renunciation of violence 52 years later, force was regarded as the only legitimate means of liberating Palestine by the dominant Palestinian players, and still is by the faction running the Gaza Strip. Now you may regard the distinction as unimportant, but clearly Mandela felt it worthwhile stressing the chronology of the nature of resistance to Apartheid, since, I presume, he recognized that it had a bearing on how that resistance, and the South African government's response to it, was understood.



The conversation above was related to events surrounding the second intifada, while the Mandela quote was a more general statement of principle relating to the entire movement against Apartheid. I'm not someone who denies that the Palestinians have a right to fight for their rights (including their national rights), by force if necessary (although I think their use of violence has on balance been counter-productive over the years, the 1936-1939 uprising, the 1947-48 war, and the 2nd Intifada being the primary examples). I'm simply arguing that the Palestinians have agency, and that the particular form their struggle has taken over the decades is relevant to understanding Zionist/Israeli behavior and actions and, by extension, the way the conflict has played out, however asymmetrical it may seem (obviously the reverse is also true).

For what it's worth, I think the kind of protests we've seen recently in Gaza could be a potentially positive step in Palestinian measures, one I've been looking for since the 2011 protests. If they can evolve into a pan-Palestinian phenomenon encompassing Palestinians in the West Bank, Israel and the Diaspora as well as Gazans, if they can shake off the control of Hamas, Fatah and the other armed factions to become a properly grass-roots movement, and if they can rebrand the message as something more reasonable than "we're coming home to oust you off our land" (since we're discussing the South Africa analogy then perhaps they should take a look at the ANC's Freedom Charter for an example of how to do it), then that could possibly be a game-changer - I wrote this in 2014 on this very topic - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/israeli-palestinian-conflict.306471/page-178#post-16675517

A lot of 'Ifs" 2cents. Problem is that the Palestinians want to the destruction of Israel and it's Jews far more than a Palestinian state. And even if that wasn't the case, given what Muslims are doing to each other what kind of bloodbath could you imagine would happen if they came into Israel and it's Jews? And as for your 2014 piece, I assume that 'mandate Palestine' includes what is now Jordan. Otherwise, it's perpetuating the same geographic/demographic distortion thats got us here in the first place.

 

[RedTiger]

Another alternative would be for the overthrowing of Hamas and replaced with something a little bit less Jew hating.

It won't make a fecking difference and you know it. You yourself don't consider them humans regardless of gender or age. Hamas is younger than I am, there was no progress without Hamas in the 70s and 80s, why would your narrative be any different with someone else in power?

 

[Halftrack]

Another alternative would be for the overthrowing of Hamas and replaced with something a little bit less Jew hating.

Yeah, because you're such a shining beacon of tolerance.

 

[Fearless]

Yeah, because you're such a shining beacon of tolerance.

Absolutely. As is the only non gay hanging, pray to what you will without getting your head sawn off country in the ME.

 

[Fearless]

It won't make a fecking difference and you know it. You yourself don't consider them humans regardless of gender or age. Hamas is younger than I am, there was no progress without Hamas in the 70s and 80s, why would your narrative be any different with someone else in power?

The PLO were doing all the killing then anyway. Before that, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was plotting with Hitler.
Your moral high ground just crumbled. Again.

 

[RedTiger]

The PLO were doing all the killing then anyway. Before that, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was plotting with Hitler.
Your moral high ground just crumbled. Again.

I'm not using any moral high ground. My position has not changed since the first time I joined this forum, you will always have an excuse to avoid peace even if it means you have to go back to the days of Maimonides to find an excuse.

The Palestinians have no hope, their best scenario is to allow your people to genocide them completely from the land and then historical empathy might allow their descendents the chance to make aliya back to a land they know only from stories in a couple of thousand years.

 

[Mozza]

That whereas the ANC (according to Mandela's words above) only resorted to force after alternative means of resistance had failed, the opposite is true of the Palestinian factions - they have only adopted alternative means after force has failed. From the first national uprising in 1936 until the PLO's apparent renunciation of violence 52 years later, force was regarded as the only legitimate means of liberating Palestine by the dominant Palestinian players, and still is by the faction running the Gaza Strip. Now you may regard the distinction as unimportant, but clearly Mandela felt it worthwhile stressing the chronology of the nature of resistance to Apartheid, since, I presume, he recognized that it had a bearing on how that resistance, and the South African government's response to it, was understood.



The conversation above was related to events surrounding the second intifada, while the Mandela quote was a more general statement of principle relating to the entire movement against Apartheid. I'm not someone who denies that the Palestinians have a right to fight for their rights (including their national rights), by force if necessary (although I think their use of violence has on balance been counter-productive over the years, the 1936-1939 uprising, the 1947-48 war, and the 2nd Intifada being the primary examples). I'm simply arguing that the Palestinians have agency, and that the particular form their struggle has taken over the decades is relevant to understanding Zionist/Israeli behavior and actions and, by extension, the way the conflict has played out, however asymmetrical it may seem (obviously the reverse is also true).

For what it's worth, I think the kind of protests we've seen recently in Gaza could be a potentially positive step in Palestinian measures, one I've been looking for since the 2011 protests. If they can evolve into a pan-Palestinian phenomenon encompassing Palestinians in the West Bank, Israel and the Diaspora as well as Gazans, if they can shake off the control of Hamas, Fatah and the other armed factions to become a properly grass-roots movement, and if they can rebrand the message as something more reasonable than "we're coming home to oust you off our land" (since we're discussing the South Africa analogy then perhaps they should take a look at the ANC's Freedom Charter for an example of how to do it), then that could possibly be a game-changer - I wrote this in 2014 on this very topic - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/israeli-palestinian-conflict.306471/page-178#post-16675517

The PLO wasn't formed until the 1960s, Hamas until the late 80s, your narrative is nonsense

 

[2cents]

The PLO wasn't formed until the 1960s, Hamas until the late 80s

Have I implied otherwise?

 

[Mozza]

Have I implied otherwise?

Your idea that the Palestinians have from the start turned to violence, bullshit

 

[2cents]

Your idea that the Palestinians have from the start turned to violence, bullshit

Feel free to actually counter the point. I've no idea what the dates of the creation of the PLO and Hamas have to do with it though.

 

[2cents]

A lot of 'Ifs" 2cents. Problem is that the Palestinians want to the destruction of Israel and it's Jews far more than a Palestinian state. And even if that wasn't the case, given what Muslims are doing to each other what kind of bloodbath could you imagine would happen if they came into Israel and it's Jews? And as for your 2014 piece, I assume that 'mandate Palestine' includes what is now Jordan. Otherwise, it's perpetuating the same geographic/demographic distortion thats got us here in the first place.

Be honest, how would you respond if the Palestinians adopted a program of protest with a list of demands or a national charter along the same lines as those laid out in the ANC Freedom Charter?

 

[Mozza]

Feel free to actually counter the point. I've no idea what the dates of the creation of the PLO and Hamas have to do with it though.

I did

 

[2cents]

I did

ok

 

[Super Hans]

Absolutely. As is the only non gay hanging, pray to what you will without getting your head sawn off country in the ME.

Yeah, you just get your head blown off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein

 

[Super Hans]

Be honest, how would you respond if the Palestinians adopted a program of protest with a list of demands or a national charter along the same lines as those laid out in the ANC Freedom Charter?

It would become the next existential threat I imagine.

 

[Super Hans]

Hamas and Islamic Jihad suicide bombings already happened throughout the 1990s, when the Oslo process was in full stride. It's safe to say that more attempts were spoiled by Israeli intelligence and countermeasures. The last attempts on bombing Israeli civilians were in late 1999 (not successful beyond causing injuries). The situation in 2000 only gave the opportunity to continue what was already an established tactic, after nothing more than a brief period of involuntary restraint.

I'm aware. But are you saying that because suicide bombings had happened before (over a year since the last one) that then the bombings in October/November 2000 couldn't have been retaliatory? I think if you go back throughout the entire history of the conflict, both sides would say (and probably could make a convincing argument) that their use of violence was retaliatory. Which naturally takes us back to the root of the conflict. Colonisation. There's your aggressor.

 

[Super Hans]

That whereas the ANC (according to Mandela's words above) only resorted to force after alternative means of resistance had failed, the opposite is true of the Palestinian factions - they have only adopted alternative means after force has failed. From the first national uprising in 1936 until the PLO's apparent renunciation of violence 52 years later, force was regarded as the only legitimate means of liberating Palestine by the dominant Palestinian players, and still is by the faction running the Gaza Strip. Now you may regard the distinction as unimportant, but clearly Mandela felt it worthwhile stressing the chronology of the nature of resistance to Apartheid, since, I presume, he recognized that it had a bearing on how that resistance, and the South African government's response to it, was understood.

See, you've zeroed in on that part of Mandela's quote where he justifies the use of violence as a last resort. But that wasn't the relevant part of the quote at all. The relevant fact is that he used violence. He was considered by the United States to be a terrorist. And most importantly that he was told to stop attacking us, then we'll talk. There could be a million factors at play that determine why in one country, on one continent, with different leaders and different oppressors, the oppressed more readily adopt armed resistance than in another entirely different country. But it's irrelevant in this discussion.

That said, I think you have got it wrong about the Palestinian resort to force anyway. There was plenty of non-violent resistance before the Arab revolt, and the revolt itself began with strikes and protests. If you know the things that the British did to quell that revolt, then you won't be surprised that they resorted to violence eventually. The British made the Apartheid government look like Mother Teresa.

And "the faction running the Gaza Strip" have in fact embraced the tactic of unarmed resistance while still maintaining their right to armed resistance, so clearly force is not "regarded as the only legitimate means of liberating Palestine", even by Hamas.