Unfortunatly not. One of many examples I could give you is Rachel Corrie a young American girl who was doing just what you talk about. Unarmed she tried to stop the bulldozing of houses. The bastards ran her over. There are pictures out there if you want to search. What were the reactions? Well the people who agreed with her … well agreed with her and the other?
A poster on this very board said "Tragedy? The only tragedy here is that the Israelis will have to waste some water to clean off the treads of the 'dozer. "
If the Palistinians had a regular army that was superior to that of Israel, I would like to think that they would wage a regular war - as has been done on several occasions by Jordan, Syria and Egypt - with little in the way of horrible massacres or other atrocities on either side, by their regular forces. Indeed, many Israelis I have spoken to express admiration for their enemies, particularly the Jordanians, who fought very bravely with quite limited resources. Although the Egyptians were humilated in '67, this was (in hindsight) seen as a failure of leadership - the average Egyptian soldier fought well and bravely in '73.
If Hamas had a regular army that was superior to that of Israel, I would expect a bloody slaughter - judging by what they appear to want.
I do reject the Hamas cause, and so should anyone I think. I do not reject the Palistinian cause, and have every sympathy for their desire to have a state. What you seem to miss is that the two are quite incompatible, and that as long as Hamas is around blowing people up in service to their apocalyptic vision, the dream of a Palistinian state is less likely to be fulfilled, not more.
Nothing stops them from doing it. Of course, nothing stops the Israelis from attacking and massacring the Palistinians right now.
If they did, however, they would lose all support, and the government would certainly fall from the outcry within Israel.
The weakness of Israel is that, contrary to the caracture drawn by its enemies, it is not a monolythic fascist-style military dictatorship, but a very active democracy - meaning that public opinion counts. In the court of public opinion, non-violent protests would be quite effective. Suicide bombings, of course, have the opposite effect, strengthening the hand of the hard-liners at the expense of the liberals.
Of course this weakness is also an enormous strength as well.
Eyewitness accounts don’t tally with that hey why believe her friends they’re biased but so are the IDF people who where there and it’s not like they don’t lie about such things.
6 of one half a dozen of the other.
must remember to turn off sig
I don’t see them myself as I’ve turned all of them off in my settings and actually forget I’ve got one.
Would that were true. Ariel Sharon oversaw the massacres at Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon, and he’s now Prime Minister. Some Israelis may express regret, sincere or otherwise, at some of the more extreme treatment of Palestinians, but none are in disagreement with Israel’s greater goal - securing their country’s existence at the expense of a displaced population. How many UN resolutions against them has Israel patently ignored? Over 100 and counting, if I remember correctly. And Sabra, Shatila, and Deir Yassin are just the tip of the iceberg. A government like Sharon’s would have no problem attacking sit-ins and peaceful rallies, and they’d thumb their noses at the resulting world outrage. They don’t want peace any more than you claim the Palestinians don’t. They want the land and they’re going to hang on to it, consequences be damned.
More questions - when does enough become enough? Should the Palestinians simply keep staging sit-ins and peaceful protests, and continue to weather the armed repression the Israelis use against them, without lifting a finger? What will convince the Palestinians that this is the only way to change things when nothing appears to change? When does it become permissible to fight back with the means available to them, however primitive?
Laying aside the question of just how much responsibility he actually bears for those, let me ask the following: did he become Prime Minister before or after the violent Palestinian uprising? Did Israelis not elect Rabin and Barak as Prime Minister back when things were relatively peaceful, before they decided that due to changed circumstances, they needed someone like Sharon?
(Yes, there was an interval of Netanyahu between those two, but that did not necessarily represent a shift to the right by the Israeli public. He was running against Shimon Peres, who the Israeli public never trusted with running the country.)
B.S… Once again glossing over the questionable natures of all three of what you list as Israeli atrocities, they are still aberrations in Israeli military history rather than a pattern.
If that was their attitude, then why didn’t they expel the Palestinians long ago? The fact is that the reason the Palestinian intifada and its supporting organizations have survived as long as they have are testimony to the fact that the Israelis have not been holding a “consequences be damned” land grab. Certainly the deaths of Yassin and Rantisi should be enough to convince doubters that were the Israelis truly that greedy and ruthless, they could have - and would have - done much worse, much sooner.
Care to describe what kind of “Israeli armed repression” was going on while the Palestinians were actually being peaceful? Say, between 1994 and 1999?
Let’s see some proof that the Israelis have ever targeted a peaceful Palestinian population.
Not to get bogged down in historical trivia, but none of the massacres you have mentioned were actually performed by Israeli regular armed forces. Sharon may indeed have been culpable for not taking the necessary steps to prevent the massacre of innocent Palistinians is Sabra or Shatila, but no-one so far has accused Israeli troops of carrying them out. The perps were in fact Arabs - Christian militias.
Likewise, Yassin was the product of the terrorist group Irgun, which the Haganah, the predecessor of the IDF, fought an internal war against - successfully. I no more consider the Irgun to be “Israel” than I consider Hamas to be “Palistine”.
However, even if you were totally correct in your smear, one incident in the 1940s and another in the 1980s, in the entire history of a nation long at war, does not qualify to prove that Israel cannot be swayed by peaceful means, any more than the Mai Lai massacre proves that Americans are inherently bloodthirsty.
On a more personal note - where did you get the notion I claim Palistinians “don’t want peace”? Are you equating Hamas with all Palistinians? I don’t. I think Hamas works directly against the interests of the majority of Palistinians, who want peace - and the sooner Hamas is eliminated, the better. For Palistinians.
If the Sharon government truly did not care about committing massacres, and believed and behaved as you say, there would not be a single Palistinian left.
I take it then that you don’t think Martin Luther King was right, and think that the preferred solution to the racial problems of the 1960s was for Black people to blow up White kids at McDonalds?
After all, the peaceful marches and protests of Dr. King were met with terrible violence. Clearly, his approach didn’t work.
Just as obviously, Mandella was a fool to abandon terrorism. Why, South Africa would probably be democratic right now, if he just stayed the course and embraced - blowing women and children up.
Just like India would not be suffering as a part of the British Empire to this day, if Gandhi had not been such a wise-ass and got with the program - blowing up Brit women and children.
Which is why, to this day, right-thinking people around the world spit at the thought of Dr. King, Gandhi and Mandella - traitors and appeasers, who have done nothing to support the real cause of freedom - namely, strapping explosives on kids and sending them out to blow up other kids.
My impression is that civilized societies do not need to resort to terrorism to be heard. That is, unless they are fighting an undemocratic repressive regime. Can’t think of any examples off the top of my head though.
Well, I’m back very late to answer you - and others have done a far better job than I would - so I’ll keep it short:
I don’t think you’re asking the right question. Clearly the Palestinans are outgunned and must adopt appropriate tactics. It’s just that (as many others have pointed out) I don’t see where they think they are going using the Suicide Bombing tactic. I think that had they gone the whole nine yards of the Oslo accords, they would already have had a state. I think that had they come to an agreement with Barak at Camp David, they would already have had a state. I think that with the present tactics, they will not get a state for a long time to come.
I suppose you mean the second intifadeh, which was touched off in 2000 after Sharon’s visit, with a contingent of 1,000 heavily armed soldiers, to the al-Aqsa mosque. The mosque is a holy site to both Muslims and Jews, but it seems Israel would rather have the Temple Mount all to itself. Which leads to your next question:
Changed circumstances, eh? Hanan Ashrawi, in an article from Dec 2000, accuses Barak of a
Is she lying through her teeth?
It would seem to me that the Palestinians were already rather angry at Barak (and Netanyahu) for numerous provocations, and that Sharon, culpable for the massacres at Sabra and Shatila and directly responsible for the massacre at Qibya in 1953, merely added the straw that broke the camel’s back, as it were.
I refer you to an article in CounterPunch magazine, which lists some of the activities of Sharon, as follows:
1953 - given command of Unit 101, and is directly responsible for a massacre of 50 Palestinians at El-Bureig. UN Major-General Vagn Bennike reported that Sharon 's men threw bombs
1953 - Unit 101 goes to Qibya, in what was then Jordan. Historian Avi Shlaim provides one description of the aftermath:
Sharon defended himself by saying his unit thought all the inhabitants had fled, but a UN observer describes it this way:
And the Jordanian envoy to the US wrote a letter to the United Nations describing how
1967 - the pacification of Gaza after the war. Phil Reeves’ account is quoted at length in the article and should be read attentively. One quote does bear repeating:
1982 - Sabra and Shatila. Sharon did a lot more than just not pay close enough attention. The Phalangists were armed by the IDF and the massacre was carried out in plain sight of Israeli observation towers. (I had a rather large post devoted to the subject done a while ago, but it seems to have been swallowed up, perhaps in the Winter of our Missed Content.) If it was negligence, it was negligence of the worst criminal sort.
This little spectactle effectively ended his military career but he remained in the Knesset, where among other things he voted against the Oslo accords.
Now - my question to you is, if this one man’s record is an aberration in Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, how is it he was allowed to continue his military career instead of being dishonorably discharged in 1953? How is it this butcher continued to enjoy both a military and political career and is now the Prime Minister of the state of Israel, if his acts are aberrations? It simply does not make sense.
That’s how Israel was founded.
I’ve only quoted one man’s record, and that only partially, I’m sure. Israel has done much worse, and been doing so since before its founding. Again, I repeat - if Sharon’s atrocities were aberrations, he should not have gotten as far as he has militarily and politically.
Again, I turn to Hanan Ashrawi, who describes in another article from Dec 2000 aspects of Barak’s Palestinian plan:
Targeting a population can take more than just a military form. This report from the United Nations describes some of the results from Israel’s virtual encirclement of Palestine and cutting it off from the rest of the world through closures and checkpoints:
After all this, is it any wonder the Palestinians are fighting back?
What appropriate tactics are available to them? Perhaps if this wasn’t actually a war, the sit-ins and rallies might be a choice. What else can they do to fight?
There is a war precisely because of the Palestinians abandoning the road to peace layed down at Oslo, and because of their decision to start the second intifadah in 2000. So saying that they must pick up any arms they can because they are involved in a war is kind of like the guy who killed his parents and then threw himself at the mercy of the court on grounds that he is an orphan… :rolleyes:
Awww did see burn the flag? What a bitch. She deserved to die then. Oh and you’re the lovely example of humanity that made the water and dozer crack so why am I not surprised about your feeling on the matter.
So what was the first intifadeh, a schoolyard spat? There’s been a war of occupation for 55 years now. This is just the latest round.
It’s taken me a bit of searching, but I’ve finally located the links I posted in a thread two years ago (ivylass’ “Israeli Palestinian Primer Please”, post #43) to maps detailing the proposed plans for Palestinian control of territory in the Oslo accord of 1993 and the Wye accord of ca. 1998. Both plans call for a fragmented and politically weak Palestinian state (the amount of independent control of territory by the Palestinians is tiny!) surrounded and permeated by territory under full Israeli military and civil control. Essentially, the Palestinians would have said “We accept the terms of our slow death by political and military strangulation” had they agreed to either of these proposals. Do you honestly think their rejection of Oslo has anything to do with irrational anti-Semitism or irrational Islamic fundamentalism?
Funny, then, that way back in 1948 the Zionist equivalent of the Palistinians of today appeared quite willing to accept a tiny, fragmented and un-viable partition of lands, as made by UN approval. What was the Palistinian response to that again? And why were the Zionists so apparently willing to settle for what you say is unworkable - and today’s Palistinians are, in your opinion, eminently justified in rejecting the same?
I think that the Palistinian’s rejection of peace plans has a lot to do with some rather shady motives on the part of their leadership - foremost among them, the desire to prolong the current leadership’s hold on power (and a steady income in the form of money from other Arab nations and charity from Europe) by protracting the current crisis indefinitely. Ironically, their biggest challenge comes from the lunatics of Hamas, who have zero interest in a “two state” solution, and who are willing to go much, much further in provoking the Israelis than Arafat would dare.
Arafat’s game is to keep peace negotiations trickling along with the one hand, scotch them when they appear to get too close to actually succeeding - while keeping the terror campaign going with the other, trying to prevent it from getting out of hand (else the Israelis will go completely nuts and kill him). This places him and his cronies at the fulcrum of power, forever.
He faces three challenges. The first and more deadly is from Hamas, who openly despise his game (and if you listen, are quite willing to say that he is a corrupt, worthless do-nothing); who have no interest in keeping terrorism to a trickle, just to put pressure on Israel; and who long for apocalyptic holy war. The Israelis are busy exterminating them, to Arafat’s public displeasure and no doubt private glee.
The second is from the Israelis and Americans, fed up with his game, who seek to render it irrelevant by imposing unilateral terms.
The third is from liberals and others within Palistine, who have realized by now that Arafat has no intention of actually changing anything or delivering a real peace, and who have been seeking to sideline him by making various appointments within the PA (all of whom are marginalized and outmaneuvered by Arafat). They are easily the weakest of the three; one reason being, any too-public disagreement with Arafat’s line leads to a visit from Arafat’s goons.
In short, the situation within the PA is much as it would have been within the Zionist camp, if the thugs and goons of the Irgun had won their internal battle with the Haganah, rather than losing it. Unfortunately, there will be no real peace in Palistine until the PA grows into a credible nationalist movement - that is, until the thugs and goons that currently run the show are turfed by Liberal, patriotic Palistinians who care more about the welfare of their fellows than about holding on to money and power.
Winging about the adequacy of any proposed peace deal is, in fact, totally irrelevant. As long as Arafat & co. keep power, no deal in the world, however favourable, will ever be sufficient. Given that Palistinian demands can (and according to some, quite legitimately) include having the Israelis pack up their bags and leave the ME, there will always be a “legitimate” excuse to shoot down any proposed peace in flames.
That won’t stop the gullible from continuing to think that Arafat is a hero, though.
I don’t know. Presumably not a very warm one. But there’s a key element you overlook - the Palestinians didn’t lay down that proposal the UN did. And looking at the list of member states here, it appears as though Palestine has never had representation in the UN, even in 1948. So you have an organization that isn’t even allowing your country to represent itself deciding what is going to be done with your land. Why should the Palestinians accept that?
The Zionists accepted it because they finally got a foothold in the land they wanted to claim, backed by international law. They gained ground. The Palestinians are justified in rejecting the same because it ultimately legitimizes the colonialist expansion of Israel into what used to be Palestinian lands. They’re losing ground.
That, Malthus, is the difference. It’s not really that hard to see.
