I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state?
The problem is that Israel has learned to play both sides of the conflict:
When there is violence, they use it as an excuse to stall demands and improve living conditions, therefore exacerbating hate towards them.
When there is peace, no mainstream news outlet covers the region, and Israel is free to continue oppressing the Plaestinians as it sees fit. They do nothing for so long that someone eventually gets killed or a rocket is fired and then they go on an offensive.
It's absurd to think that Israel had noble attempts and bought into the idea of Palestinians ruling their own land. Israel merely determined that they did not want to deal with gaza anymore.
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
Going full Ghandi is not merely "putting down your weapons." It means mass action against the occupying state to force a realization of the relative moralities of the occupier against occupied in the minds of observers. Ghandian nonviolence would be if a thousand Gazans marched for the border and to an Israeli soup kitchen to stand in line for soup. Israel would disrupt this, and look like bad guys. And then more and more incidents like this where the claim to morality of the occupier is tested.
Israel's lack of willingness is immaterial. Britain didn't want a free India and the South didn't want blacks to have the vote. But nonviolence works, if there is enough leadership and an ability for the world to observe your struggle.
And it wouldn't take close to 20 or 30 years. 10 at the very outside, and honestly they could do it in 5. If the news was full of stories about this kind of protest, and the violence stopped cold, how long would even US support for the occupation last?
Tibet is incidentally a silly parallel: the Chinese government would never have been moved by outside pressure from the occupation of Tibet because they couldn't be hurt by that pressure. And now, anybody sanctioning them would just hurt themselves. Also, China's economy was/is hardly as tourism/goodwill dependent as Israel's.
On August 05 2014 00:28 DinoMight wrote: But total "neutrality" is also the kind of viewpoint that will lead nowhere. "Both sides are to blame." Great, now what?
Now you work on solutions and stop bickering like children arguing about who started it.
I disagree because of the bolded part. There is no international interest in Palestinians except when Israel is massacring Palestinians. Nobody important is willing to admit interest in the day to day oppression of the Palestinian oppression; "it's fine to quietly keep them in camps but killing them is going too far" seems to be consensus on the Palestinian issue. I believe this to be the main reason why Gazans are still firing rockets; it favors them because of what dinomight said in his post on the last page. Neither Hamas nor Israel have the moral high ground in their actions. However it is that periodic overreaction by Israel which brings attention to the day to day oppression of Israel vs the Palestinians.
On August 05 2014 06:35 soon.Cloak wrote:
On August 05 2014 06:13 Jormundr wrote:
On August 05 2014 01:59 TrainSamurai wrote:
On August 05 2014 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners. 2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas 3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future.
Yes now lets look at what happened in 2005
1. Withdrawal from Gaza 2. Settlements were being unsettled
If they're willing to displace thier own dam people I think your 3. would be obtainable soon after.
The problem is like I said before, Israel had a hand in causing the current anti Israel sentiment in Palestine, that is true and thats why they're so afraid of Palestine taking advantage of them retreating. But Palestine must understand that everything takes time, they must show Israel that they can be trusted.
If Palestine doesn't want to wait and demands everything under the moon then theres no chance in hell Israel will trust them and the whole thing repeats itself.
Of course getting them to agree to peace is the hard part... I'm just saying I think Israel really will accept a peaceful Palestinian state. The government can disagree but he only got into power because everyone was scared shitless of Hamas. He will be gone once they tone it down.
Let's take a look at your bullshit: Facing massive international pressure and a declaration by the UN on the illegality of their actions, the Israeli Knesset came up with the bold plan of removing 6 tiny settlements from the West Bank. Two of these settlements (Hermesh and Mevo Dotan) were eventually excluded from the plan. The end result was that four settlements (out of this many) were scrapped, totaling less than 500 settlers out of the overall 200,000 in the west bank alone.
Reread his post. He was talking about the withdrawal from Gaza, which was unilateral, and was on the order of 10,000 people. Say what you want about the settlements, but the disengagement from Gaza was a significant gesture of peace.
They took their people out because they planned on making it a prison...
C'mon, are you serious? You think Israel said "Gee, we would really like to blockade Gaza completely, but oh no, are people are inside. Better pull them out first before we lock up Gaza"? After the disengagement, hundreds of rockets were fired into Israel over the course of a few months, and Hamas was elected. It continued to spiral down from there. But to say that Israel had malicious intent when it pulled out from Gaza is absurd.
Israeli high officials had and still have the desire to expulse every arabs from gaza and take it. It's the hidden objective behind every attack, hence the "please flee before we bomb", with the untold desire that they will never go back to your houses.
On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote: I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state?
The problem is that Israel has learned to play both sides of the conflict:
When there is violence, they use it as an excuse to stall demands and improve living conditions, therefore exacerbating hate towards them.
When there is peace, no mainstream news outlet covers the region, and Israel is free to continue oppressing the Plaestinians as it sees fit. They do nothing for so long that someone eventually gets killed or a rocket is fired and then they go on an offensive.
This happens every 2-3 years for a month or so.
My history is a little rusty, but I don't believe Gandhi just sat quietly and did what he was told. What you're positing is a false dichotomy of either submitting to Israeli authority or trying to overthrow it by violence, which is impossible.
On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote: I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state?
The problem is that Israel has learned to play both sides of the conflict:
When there is violence, they use it as an excuse to stall demands and improve living conditions, therefore exacerbating hate towards them.
When there is peace, no mainstream news outlet covers the region, and Israel is free to continue oppressing the Plaestinians as it sees fit. They do nothing for so long that someone eventually gets killed or a rocket is fired and then they go on an offensive.
This happens every 2-3 years for a month or so.
My history is a little rusty, but I don't believe Gandhi just sat quietly and did what he was told. What you're positing is a false dichotomy of either submitting to Israeli authority or trying to overthrow it by violence, which is impossible.
Gandhi did great things, but he came after decade of fighting from various Indian nationalist group. The problem is, because of our hypocrisy, western history only talk about gandhi and not about all the other leaders such as Bose who were for armed revolution and who are, in their country, highly regarded as heroes of the independance.
On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote: I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state?
The problem is that Israel has learned to play both sides of the conflict:
When there is violence, they use it as an excuse to stall demands and improve living conditions, therefore exacerbating hate towards them.
When there is peace, no mainstream news outlet covers the region, and Israel is free to continue oppressing the Plaestinians as it sees fit. They do nothing for so long that someone eventually gets killed or a rocket is fired and then they go on an offensive.
This happens every 2-3 years for a month or so.
My history is a little rusty, but I don't believe Gandhi just sat quietly and did what he was told. What you're positing is a false dichotomy of either submitting to Israeli authority or trying to overthrow it by violence, which is impossible.
I'm not suggesting that Ghandi sat around doing what he was told. I'm simply rejecting that this approach (as was suggested by others) would not work, based on historical evidence of it not working in this conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
The problem is that nobody cares enough in times of peace to advocate for reform in Gaza and the West Bank and a free Palestinian state. And in times of conflict, the excuse given is that there can only be a free state for Palestinians once the violence ends.
The interntional community needs to do more to bring Israel to the negotiating table regardless of whether or not a terrorist organziation is launching rockets at them. Israel can't simply decline to negotiate with anyone the Palestinians present them simply because they are "associated with terrorists." Palestine has no standing army and is not an independent country. Any armed military resistence is considered Terrorism.
Do you think if the Palestinians started shooting the blockading boats rather than shooting at civilians it would change anything? Israel would handle it the same way.
Would kicking arabs out of Gaza/West bank really be that bad? I think it makes sense from an economic/cultural sense. Trading with Saudi Arabia/Israel and being culturally aligned with the west is whats in our best interest. Israel and Saudi Arabia are certainly the best horses to bet on in the middle east.
On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote: I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all. ... What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing. ... When there is peace, no mainstream news outlet covers the region, and Israel is free to continue oppressing the Plaestinians as it sees fit. They do nothing for so long that someone eventually gets killed or a rocket is fired and then they go on an offensive..
Gandhi didn't just not resist the British. The Indians had been not resisting (with occasional flares of violence) for a long time before. In fact, Gandhi actively, persistently opposed the British. He fought tooth and nail. People lined up to be beaten by British police. It got the world's attention. It wasn't inaction: it was nonviolent action.
That is what the Palestinians need to do. Hamas has proven violence won't work; Fatah has proven diplomacy won't work. It's time to engage in mass action. The slightest overreaction from Israel to mass nonviolent protests would be broadcast around the world. The media is already ready for it. Literally the only defense Israel has is that Hamas is worse (which is true). Once that justification goes away and the voice of the Palestinian movement is active but nonviolent, they don't have a leg to stand on.
The EU's position would change instantly, for instance. Right now the EU has a lot of popular support for the Palestinian cause, but because of the violence and unsuitability of the PA and Hamas, this doesn't translate to diplomatic support. A charismatic voice on the ground could turn this around in an instant. Once it started getting results, people would abandon the Hamas strategy in droves.
The problem is that the Israelis don't want to give in diplomatically, and can't be forced militarily. The only option left for the Palestinians is nonviolent resistance.
Israel of course could resolve the problem on their end with diplomacy, but at this point they have little incentive to: bashing Gaza is popular and there is no reason for them to make concessions of any kind. Being pro-settler is important to the governing coalition as well.
On August 05 2014 07:44 Wolfstan wrote: Would kicking arabs out of Gaza/West bank really be that bad? I think it makes sense from an economic/cultural sense. Trading with Saudi Arabia/Israel and being culturally aligned with the west is whats in our best interest. Israel and Saudi Arabia are certainly the best horses to bet on in the middle east.
That is not true. Actually Israel was considered an asset for a long time and it is changing quite fast. Look at the point of view of ex-CIA like Michael Sheuer for exemple (his point of view is interesting to put in relationship with the potential war in Iran and what happened around it some time ago).
Israel love its allies :
Israel spied on the US secretary of state, John Kerry, during peace talks with Palestinians and Arab states last year, the magazine Der Spiegel has reported.
The German weekly said on Sunday that Israeli intelligence and at least one other secret service intercepted Kerry’s phone calls during a doomed, nine-month effort to broker a peace deal.
If confirmed, the report will further sour the diplomat’s relationship with Binyamin Netanyahu’s government and raise fresh questions about the vulnerability of phone communications to eavesdropping.
pretty sure Arafat walked away from a two-state offer that included a partition of Jerusalem, but I guess they valued their noble struggle of bombing pizzerias too much. Well, who can really judge?
Even know, the international community and a lot of posters are all too happy to say "look Hamas, you don't really mean those parts about jew-killing in your charter, we know what you really want is a two-state solution. Here, have a lollipop." Once again, infantilizing Palestinians. Because they're incapable of communicating what they want, right?
Israeli high officials had and still have the desire to expulse every arabs from gaza and take it. It's the hidden objective behind every attack, hence the "please flee before we bomb", with the untold desire that they will never go back to your houses.
option 1. they send warnings, its intentional ethnic cleansing option 2. they don't send warnings, damn jews intentionally trying to blow up civilians in their houses
here's another example of this formulation:
option 1. israeli soldiers don't rape palestinians, they are racists because they consider them subhuman (yes, I've heard this argument from an academic before) option 2. israeli soldier are committing war crimes
On August 05 2014 08:51 419 wrote: pretty sure Arafat walked away from a two-state offer that included a partition of Jerusalem, but I guess they valued their noble struggle of bombing pizzerias too much. Well, who can really judge?
Israeli high officials had and still have the desire to expulse every arabs from gaza and take it. It's the hidden objective behind every attack, hence the "please flee before we bomb", with the untold desire that they will never go back to your houses.
option 1. they send warnings, its intentional ethnic cleansing option 2. they don't send warnings, damn jews intentionally trying to blow up civilians in their houses
here's another example of this formulation:
option 1. israeli soldiers don't rape palestinians, they are racists because they consider them subhuman (yes, I've heard this argument from an academic before) option 2. israeli soldier are committing war crimes
Option 3 : don't bomb civilians. Your argument on raping is disgusting, do you even know what you are talking about ? The israeli army did use rape as a weapon of war.
It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape.
Here's a part of my previous post about the camp david negociation and Arafat so called unwillingness to settle.
About Camp David, it is pretty easy to put all the blame on Arafat. Look at what Shlomo Ben Ami has to say about that :
MY GOODMAN: If you can bear to make this response brief, Dr. Shlomo Ben-Ami.
SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, yes. Okay, the last third part of the book, as Dr. Finkelstein says, there is the diplomat, and this same diplomat still behaves in a way as a historian when he says in this book that Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem, because the Clinton parameters, in my view —
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Maybe you could explain to them what that is. I don’t think most people will know the Clinton parameters.
SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Well, the Clinton parameters say the following. They say that on the territorial issue, the Palestinians will get 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank, plus safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank to make the state viable. There will be a land swap. The 97%, which I mentioned, takes into account the land swap, where they will get 3% on this side, within the state of Israel, so we will have the blocks of settlements and they will be able to settle refugees on this side of the border. About Jerusalem, it says what is Jewish is Israeli, and what is Palestinian is — sorry, and what is Arab is Palestinian. It includes full-fledged sovereignty for the Palestinians on Temple Mount, on the Haram al-Sharif, no sovereignty, no Jewish sovereignty on the Haram al-Sharif, which was at the time and continues to be a major, major problem for Israelis and Jews, that these things mean to them a lot. And then, with the question of refugees, it says that the refugees will return to historic Palestine, to historical Palestine, and that Israel will maintain its sovereign right of admission. That is, it will have to absorb a number of refugees but with restrictions that need to be negotiated between the parties. But the bulk of the refugees will be allowed to return to the state of Palestine. This is the essence of the Clinton parameters.
About the Iron Dome (http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/7/31/part_two_theodore_postol_asks_is)
AMY GOODMAN: Let me quote from Reuters, July 10th: "Israel’s Iron Dome interceptor has shot down some 90 percent of Palestinian rockets it engaged during this week’s surge of Gaza fighting, up from the 85 percent rate in the previous mini-war of 2012." Professor Postol, your response?
THEODORE POSTOL: Well, first of all, I am sorry to say that the press needs to engage in more due diligence on these matters. Where does this number come from? The number comes from an Israeli spokesperson. Now, if I give a number—and, incidentally, I have a long record of being correct on these matters—you don’t hear the press coming to me and asking me, do I believe that number is correct? And if I don’t believe the number is correct, why would I not believe the number is correct? This is really—you can really put this back on the due diligence of the press with regard to this matter. They’re just not—they’re just accepting information from an interested party.
AMY GOODMAN: So can you explain further how this works, how the Iron Dome—how Raytheon built this?
THEODORE POSTOL: Well, the Iron Dome is mostly an Israeli development, although Raytheon is involved. The Iron Dome interceptor has to approach an incoming artillery rocket head-on. So if you saw an Iron Dome interceptor flying a near-vertical trajectory, that would indicate the Iron Dome interceptor is in a near-head-on engagement geometry coming at the artillery rocket. In that geometry, the interceptor has some chance of destroying the artillery rocket warhead. If you see the Iron Dome interceptor engaging the artillery rocket from the side or from the back by chasing it, then it has essentially a zero chance of destroying the artillery rocket warhead. So, if you look up in the sky and you look at the hundreds of videos we now have of the contrails of the—the smoke trails of the Iron Dome interceptors, you can see that almost all the time—there are exceptions, but almost all the time—the Iron Dome interceptors are traveling parallel to the ground, which means that the falling artillery rocket is engaged from the side, or the Iron Domes are—the Iron Dome interceptors are diving to the ground, which means that they are trying to chase artillery rockets from behind. All those engagements are zero probability of intercept. And we’re guessing—we’re guessing, based on what we have, that maybe 10 percent or 15 or 20 percent of the engagements are head-on. Actually, it’s not 20 percent; it’s closer to 10 percent.
Professor Ted Postol is a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a physicist and an expert in missiles and missile defense.
So using a civilian structure for military action = checkmate? There can be no justified action against it in your opinion?
Your argument on raping is disgusting, do you even know what you are talking about ? The israeli army did use rape as a weapon of war.
not denying that a lot of atrocities from the Jewish/Israeli/whatever side around the 1950s happened. The formulation is intended for current times though.
On August 05 2014 07:44 Wolfstan wrote: Would kicking arabs out of Gaza/West bank really be that bad? I think it makes sense from an economic/cultural sense. Trading with Saudi Arabia/Israel and being culturally aligned with the west is whats in our best interest. Israel and Saudi Arabia are certainly the best horses to bet on in the middle east.
Congratulations, this is as a matter of fact a violation of human rights and actually constituted as a crime against humanity. Displacing people because of their culture, religion or ethnic is a crime against humanity. This is the same reasoning that Hitler used against the Jews and I do not think it should be tolerated anywhere. It is really a shame that people feel they can post such atrocities unchallenged without any consequences.
On August 05 2014 09:36 Holy_AT wrote: It is really a shame that people feel they can post such atrocities unchallenged without any consequences.
TL is usually pretty good about moderating people who advocate crimes against humanity.
But yes, it's depressing that some people have so dehumanized the Palestinians as to think there's no problem with displacing an entire population. For whatever it's worth, I don't think such a displacement is the Israeli government's plan. Subjugation works just fine. There are a ton of Arabs in Israel proper already (of all kinds of religions), though discrimination is a major problem.
On August 05 2014 09:36 Holy_AT wrote: It is really a shame that people feel they can post such atrocities unchallenged without any consequences.
TL is usually pretty good about moderating people who advocate crimes against humanity.
But yes, it's depressing that some people have so dehumanized the Palestinians as to think there's no problem with displacing an entire population. For whatever it's worth, I don't think such a displacement is the Israeli government's plan. Subjugation works just fine. There are a ton of Arabs in Israel proper already (of all kinds of religions), though discrimination is a major problem.
Yes we all know how absolutely disgusting and how immoral Israel is being right now toward non-Israelite civilians while the non-Israelite haven't done anything as nearly as extreme to them.
On August 05 2014 09:36 Holy_AT wrote: It is really a shame that people feel they can post such atrocities unchallenged without any consequences.
TL is usually pretty good about moderating people who advocate crimes against humanity.
But yes, it's depressing that some people have so dehumanized the Palestinians as to think there's no problem with displacing an entire population. For whatever it's worth, I don't think such a displacement is the Israeli government's plan. Subjugation works just fine. There are a ton of Arabs in Israel proper already (of all kinds of religions), though discrimination is a major problem.
Yes we all know how absolutely disgusting and how immoral Israel is being right now toward non-Israelite civilians while the non-Israelite haven't done anything as nearly as extreme to them.
Nope, try again. I don't think that and neither does much of anyone else. Qassam is a bunch of filthy, civilian-killing, racist terrorists. But it doesn't excuse the Israeli administration's actions. I'm not picking a side between Likud and Hamas, and thank God for that. They're both explicitly chartered with a motive to ethnic cleansing. But I am on the side of Israel and Palestine's civilians, who have endured enough of this extremist bullshit. Either side could end this. Neither side has the vision or leadership to do so.
On August 05 2014 09:36 Holy_AT wrote: It is really a shame that people feel they can post such atrocities unchallenged without any consequences.
TL is usually pretty good about moderating people who advocate crimes against humanity.
But yes, it's depressing that some people have so dehumanized the Palestinians as to think there's no problem with displacing an entire population. For whatever it's worth, I don't think such a displacement is the Israeli government's plan. Subjugation works just fine. There are a ton of Arabs in Israel proper already (of all kinds of religions), though discrimination is a major problem.
Yes we all know how absolutely disgusting and how immoral Israel is being right now toward non-Israelite civilians while the non-Israelite haven't done anything as nearly as extreme to them.
Nope, try again. I don't think that and neither does much of anyone else. Qassam is a bunch of filthy, civilian-killing, racist terrorists. But it doesn't excuse the Israeli administration's actions. I'm not picking a side between Likud and Hamas, and thank God for that. They're both explicitly chartered with a motive to ethnic cleansing. But I am on the side of Israel and Palestine's civilians, who have endured enough of this extremist bullshit. Either side could end this. Neither side has the vision or leadership to do so.
The initiative begins with the one with the more muscular bully to end it or the bullied will take drastic actions. And the rest of the world knows that Israel is the bully in this case and that's why UN is taking Hamas' side (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-UNs-crimes-against-humanity-370060). And UN have 193 national ambassadors. Only those w/o any humanity or is an Israelite partisan are siding with Israel but deep down in their heart, they know the level of horror they are committing.
On August 04 2014 22:59 WhiteDog wrote: Palestinians tried peace : + Show Spoiler +
Arafat walked away from the 2000 Camp David summit where he didn't even bother to try to negociate, and headed back to Palestine where he remained idle as the second intifada unfolded. He was not, by any means, a supporter of a negociated peace, but a warmonger who thought he would get better terms if he raised the pressure. The only Palestinian leader who can legitimately claim to be working for a peaceful solution is Abbas, and unfortunately for him, he came to power at a time when Israel was radicalising.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
How are radical zionists' actions in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's relevant in this discussion about the 2014 situation? The 2014 Palestine is not anything like the early Israel.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well.
That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying".
A colonised state you say? No, just a small piece of land tossed from one realm to the other throughout the centuries. And yes, I do say that if the Palestinians switched to non-violent resistance, they would get a lot more international support for their quest of statehood (or, more accurately, they would make it much harder if not impossible for any nation to unilaterally support the denial of a Palestinian state, including Israel).
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
Why the Palestinians have to disarm first? Those people have been without a homeland for almost 70 years now. Why do they have to prove anything? Shouldn't Israel disarm then as well? Why is it so impossible for Israel to elect a government that recognises those people's right to exist as a state or at least equals that they themselves have invaded and forced into apartheid? When will Israel apologise? Or stop repeating that they are the victims when in reality they are the perpetrators?
Palestine stood united just a few months ago, despite the efforts to cut off Gaza from the West Bank. You bet Abbas wasn't going to lead the united government into a war. Israel does not want to negotiate, the easiest way to achieve this is when you can complain that there's noone to negotiate with.
They have to disarm first because there is no other way to achieve their goals. The Palestinian armed struggle is a dead end, and trying to cry foul because the IDF is much stronger will not yield any results. Non-violence is the only path to statehood.
And when the time for the apologies between a fully-recognized Palestinian state and Israel come, it'd better be a reciprocal thing, because the jews are not the only side that has harmed the other over the last 70 years.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
Since your vision relies on Palestine taking the first step I don't think it has a chance. Israel is the only party with a functioning system to actually enforce any kind of peace-deal. Therefore the responsibility for finding a solution is in the hands of Netanyahu.
Is it ? In any war, both sides have the possibility to make the first step toward the resolution of the conflict.
On August 04 2014 23:58 radiatoren wrote: The problem is that the hate for Israel is so entrenched in some peoples minds that they will not accept peace. If Hamas stopped firing rockets, a new more extreme fraction would spawn to continue the rocket firing.
Yes, and that's why the far-right nutjobs like Avigdor Lieberman are pushing for the complete destruction of the Hamas leadership and infrastructure. They know that, should they succeed in removing Hamas completely, the vacuum will be filled by salafist groups who will be even more uncontrollable than Hamas was, which would then give Israel a pretext to keep pounding on Gaza.
About Camp David, it is pretty easy to put all the blame on Arafat. Look at what Shlomo Ben Ami has to say about that :
MY GOODMAN: If you can bear to make this response brief, Dr. Shlomo Ben-Ami.
SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, yes. Okay, the last third part of the book, as Dr. Finkelstein says, there is the diplomat, and this same diplomat still behaves in a way as a historian when he says in this book that Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem, because the Clinton parameters, in my view —
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Maybe you could explain to them what that is. I don’t think most people will know the Clinton parameters.
SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Well, the Clinton parameters say the following. They say that on the territorial issue, the Palestinians will get 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank, plus safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank to make the state viable. There will be a land swap. The 97%, which I mentioned, takes into account the land swap, where they will get 3% on this side, within the state of Israel, so we will have the blocks of settlements and they will be able to settle refugees on this side of the border. About Jerusalem, it says what is Jewish is Israeli, and what is Palestinian is — sorry, and what is Arab is Palestinian. It includes full-fledged sovereignty for the Palestinians on Temple Mount, on the Haram al-Sharif, no sovereignty, no Jewish sovereignty on the Haram al-Sharif, which was at the time and continues to be a major, major problem for Israelis and Jews, that these things mean to them a lot. And then, with the question of refugees, it says that the refugees will return to historic Palestine, to historical Palestine, and that Israel will maintain its sovereign right of admission. That is, it will have to absorb a number of refugees but with restrictions that need to be negotiated between the parties. But the bulk of the refugees will be allowed to return to the state of Palestine. This is the essence of the Clinton parameters.
The Clinton parameters were by all accounts the best terms the Palestinians were ever like to have, and they were widely supported by both the Barak cabinet and the Clinton administration. Which means that if Arafat had bother to negociate at Camp David rather than turning heels when he understood that he wouldn't have some sort of spectacular big win, he might very well have obtained the same terms.
On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote: What was then considered as legitimate for zionist is now considered isllegitimate from palestinian, so yes it's relevant.
Terrorism was never considered legitimate for the zionists, and more importantly terrorism played no part in the fundation of Israel. If the Arabs are looking for inspiration, they may want to follow the examples of Mandela or Ghandi, for their methods seem to be much more effective than armed struggle.
On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote: Also It was (and it is) a coloniazed state, period. You can talk all you want about a "small piece of land" but it is the same history as the syrian, the iraqi had in this country, which is the history of colonisation.
Yeah, right, I had forgotten that the evil white European man was guilty of everything that goes wrong in the middle-east. But, prey tell me, why is it that the British and the French get so much scorn for allegedly screwing up this region by drawing new borders, while various islamic states and christian realms have been doing the same for more than a millenium ? For the average Palestinian commoner, was being governed from London really worst than being governed from Constantinople, from Cairo, from Medina or from Jerusalem ? How is it than that British rule in Palestine is referred to as colonisation and accused of every ills, while the Turks are exempt from all criticism ? They didn't grant the autochthons statehood neither, did they ? And aren't the muslims Palestinians illegal settlers as well ? After all, Palestine used to be a Greeko-semite, christian orthodox land, which was taken at swordpoint by the Rashidun caliphate and forcibly converted to islam.
Enough with the double standards, Europeans are not the only ones who took foreign lands for themselves and exploited them for profit and prestige, especially not in the middle east which has seen so many realms and empires being born and collapsing.
On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote: I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state?
A little leaven ferments the whole lump, and in Hamas' case we're talking about a lot of leaven. The Palestinian cause can hardly appear internationally as non-violent when a significant portion of it is sworn to destroy Israel and exterminate the jews, and engage in terrorist activities.
On August 05 2014 07:44 Wolfstan wrote: Would kicking arabs out of Gaza/West bank really be that bad? I think it makes sense from an economic/cultural sense. Trading with Saudi Arabia/Israel and being culturally aligned with the west is whats in our best interest. Israel and Saudi Arabia are certainly the best horses to bet on in the middle east.
Congratulations, this is as a matter of fact a violation of human rights and actually constituted as a crime against humanity. Displacing people because of their culture, religion or ethnic is a crime against humanity. This is the same reasoning that Hitler used against the Jews and I do not think it should be tolerated anywhere. It is really a shame that people feel they can post such atrocities unchallenged without any consequences.
It's really just a matter of what is in my best interests. Who would I rather have diplomatic ties to? Who would I rather trade with? Who's rule would I be more comfortable vacationing under? Sometimes you just have to pick a side that works better for you, and my preferred outcome is a victorious Israel.
On August 05 2014 07:44 Wolfstan wrote: Would kicking arabs out of Gaza/West bank really be that bad? I think it makes sense from an economic/cultural sense. Trading with Saudi Arabia/Israel and being culturally aligned with the west is whats in our best interest. Israel and Saudi Arabia are certainly the best horses to bet on in the middle east.
Congratulations, this is as a matter of fact a violation of human rights and actually constituted as a crime against humanity. Displacing people because of their culture, religion or ethnic is a crime against humanity. This is the same reasoning that Hitler used against the Jews and I do not think it should be tolerated anywhere. It is really a shame that people feel they can post such atrocities unchallenged without any consequences.
It's really just a matter of what is in my best interests. Who would I rather have diplomatic ties to? Who would I rather trade with? Who's rule would I be more comfortable vacationing under? Sometimes you just have to pick a side that works better for you, and my preferred outcome is a victorious Israel.
Sure the Israelite might be a favorable trade partner or military allies but this still doesn't exclude them from committing humanitarian crimes. If you want more monetary/business benefit by associating with them, that's fine. After all, its a jungle out there. Instead of trees, its now steels and rocks. But if you associate with them, you are also associated with humanitarian criminals and that makes you a supporter of such crimes and hence a criminal yourself.
EPT
