Well if you go be the most recent deal on the table they’d have a non-viable sovereign state due to a lack of fertile land and water resources on their side of the wall. So it’s not as simple as just stopping from their POV.
Listen my answer to the question posed in the OP is yes they are terrorists but many people would call them freedom fighters even though they use terror tactics to the extreme.
Shock and awe and the like are form of terror tactics as well. That’s the whole point of it but I wouldn’t call the US army terrorists. Some do however.
It’s all about where you are coming from which AFAICS was UDS’s point.
Jumping Christ on a cracker, The Nazi’s never claimed they were opressed, they claimed they were born to lead, and the only way they felt they could lead comfortably was by wiping out their opposition. A big difference. Nice try though, skating very close to godwinising.
Not necessarily anything discreditable. It suggests that what you consider to characterise the PLO is that it resorts to terrorist measures. I would infer or assume that you condemn it for doing this, and that you do not regard this as justified by whatever ends the PLO claims to be, or actually is, fighting for.
I would not infer that you deny that the PLO could be fighting for national liberation; you might well accept that, but regard that as less important than the fact that they use terrorist tactics to do so. Hence, you characterise them as terrorists rather than as freedom fighters. The means they use matter more to you than the end towards whcih they aim.
And such a strategy will never allow them to achieve their goals. Israel will just keep killing many more of them in return. Can they keep their birth rate high enough to grow new terrorists? I don’t think so. The Palestinian leadership has to prevail over their terrorists and neutralize them if they truly want to have a chance at peace.
That didn’t stop the IRA thinking they could get their way by bombing the shit out of London or ETA thinking they could get theirs by bombing tourist areas in Spain.
Nobody is saying these tactics actually work. Doesn’t stop people using them though. Never has never will unfortunately.
As UDS said, the two are not mutually exclusive terms.
As others have said, “Palestinians” are not necessarily either, any more than “Irish” or “Basque” are.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad et al. are the terrorists/fighters. And even they do not solely target civilians (and I hereby utterly condemn them for doing so while recognising the legitimacy of their grievance). Just to days ago they achieved their most mililtarily successful operation for some years.
Yes, but it poses that in terms which assume that they must be either terrorists or freedome fighters; that they cannot be both; that to be one is to exclude the possibility of being the other. And I think that’s mistaken.
Let me be clear about this. Hamas are terrorists. This is true whether or not they are freedom fighters. Hence to assert that they are terrorists is not to deny that they are freedom fighters. If we want to deny that, we have to look at the aims they pursue, not the means they use.
I completely agree.
Well, no, not quite completely. I’m not convinced that there is a clear distinction between “terrorism” and “guerilla warfare”, as you imply. But I think in the overall context that’s a quibble.
“Organising strikes against purposefully non-military targets” gets them into, or certainly towards, terrorism regardless of the cause.
Not really relevant, I think. As far as I know Hamas isn’t organising the Palestinian government at all. That wouldn’t exclude the possibility of their being freedom fighters. Fighting for national liberation and organising a government are two separate exercises, and its certainly possible to pursue one and leave the other to someone else.
I agree that they are terrorists, but simply because they resort to terrorist tactics. I don’t need to accept your (to my mind needless complex) reasoning to arrive at that conclusion. I don’t accept that the points you raise are inconsistent with their being freedom fighters.
That’s arguable, but it’s a tendentious point on which observers might reasonably disagreed. It’s certainly possible that a Palestinian might reasonably come to the conclusion that the Israeli occupation was the first biggest obstacle to freedom and, if he fought the Israeli occupation for that reason, he would be a freedom fighter. The fact that you or I might disagree with his analysis of the situation wouldn’t make him any less a freedom fighter.
I don’t see why that’s impossible. It may be deplorable and unjustified, but its certainly possible.
Well, that’s a matter of fact, and probabably a matter of debateable fact, in any particular situation. If a Palestinian fighter reckons (a) that the Israeli occupation is the primary obstacle to national liberation, and (b) that terrorist attacks upon Israeli noncombatants will weaken the political will to continue the occupation and acts accordingly, then he is fighting for freedom. He may be depraved and immoral, he may be acting on assumptions or assessments with which we disagree, but he is a freedom fighter.
They have to fight for objectives which do not include freedom. The tactics they use don’t enter into it (except in so far as they cast light on the objectives pursued).
Yup.
No, unless it’s just about genocide.
No.
Yes. My point is that the tactics they use don’t determine the objective for which they fight (except in very limited cases; somebody who drops a nuclear bomb on Jerusalem is clearly not fighting for the protection or recovery of the Holy Places, for example).
FA:For instance, the PLO charter, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc, all state that the genocide of every Jew in Israel is their goal.
Cite? I repudiate terror tactics on the part of the Palestinians (even though I support their right to a viable state within pre-1967 boundaries), but I don’t think your assertion is accurate for all these organizations. In particular, the PNC has amended the charter to remove the statements about the goal of eliminating Israel in 1996; in fact, the PLO had de facto recognized of Israel since its official proclamation of a Palestinian state on the basis of UN Res. 181 as far back as 1988.
Like I said, I can’t support terror tactics being used or condoned by resistance groups under any circumstances, but I don’t think it’s accurate to claim that every Palestinian organization is officially committed to the elimination of Israel, much less the extermination of all Jews. Certainly there are many Palestinians in favor of such schemes, but then, there are also many Israelis in favor of eliminating the Palestinians:
Should Palestinians stop committing terror attacks on civilians? IMO, absoflickinglutely, as of right this minute, if not sooner. (That’s the same time scale in which Israeli settlements in the occupied territories should be dismantled, IMO.)
Would it get them anywhere if they did, as FA is claiming? IMO, doubtful. I think Sharon remains, and would remain, committed to his “pastrami sandwich” partition scheme:
On the other hand, ending Palestinian violence, especially terror attacks on civilians, might draw more attention to the nonviolent resistance that actually forms the majority of Palestinian opposition to the Israeli occupation:
IMO, when it comes right down to it, the chief factor holding up progress towards a genuine solution to the Palestine/Israel problem is lack of US pressure on the Israeli government to withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel is essentially under our control economically and politically; despite the unquestionable bravery and industry of their population, they could not survive without our aid and military backing. A majority of Israelis are in favor of a brokered solution like the Geneva Accord, but as long as the rightnik government can sustain the occupation without incurring serious pressure from the US, they’ll do so. And Palestinian terror attacks just play right into their hands.
ToF:And of course, as soon as Sharon makes moves to withdraw from the settlements, the Likud hamstrings him.
Yes, it’s always kinda bothered me when some people insist that Israel shouldn’t be making any concessions until all terror attacks stop completely—because otherwise “it shows that the Palestinians aren’t able to control their violent extremists”—but that Palestinians have to lay down their arms right away, no matter what Israeli extremists are inflicting on them. (It’s not just Likud opposition, either; it’s also Israeli troops and settlers killing unarmed Palestinians.)
Mind you, I agree that Palestinians should immediately completely stop all terror attacks, whatever provocation or oppression they continue to receive from Israel, because terror attacks on civilians are wrong. (I think I may have mentioned this before.) But that doesn’t mean that the implied double standard isn’t bothering me.
In reading through these posts one thing is clear, we’re unfairly labelling “Palestinians” as a group.
Within Palestine there are terrorists. These are the individuals that see the death of Jews as their goal, and killing pregnant mothers of 4 (5?) as the means to that end.
There are also legitimate freedom fighters within Palestine. Effective or not these are the groups that stand in front of tanks and resist oppression.
Labels aside the fact remains that there are inexcusable actions, no matter how noble the cause.
This is really the point we need to hammer home (for what ever good that does): terrorist actions are not excusable. Its not right for Palestine, nor Israel, nor the US Military.
A cop has the right to forcibly restrain a resisting perp, we can see him as a freedom fighter doing a noble thing. If he kills the wife and rapes the guy’s children he STOPS being noble.
Guerrilla war far is a legitimate tactic against a superior army. But terrorist attacks are NOT legitimate.
Guerrilla does not equal terrorism.
Freedom fighter does not equal terrorism.
Rebellion does not equal terrorism.
I respect if you empathize with the plight of the Palestinian, but we have to stop legitimising their actions when their actions are criminal, ditto for Israel, the US, and the IRA.
Palestinians have other options to fight for their freedom, if freedom is what they truly desire.
Just curious but how closely did you read the ‘revised’ charter? In other words, did you believe that they really think Israel has a right to exist just because they say so? Let me quote some of the ‘revised’ charter that your link sent me to…(bolding mine)
What, I ask you, does the elimination of Zionism in Palestine mean? What exactly are they going to do to ‘eliminate’ all those pesky Zionists?
In other words, the State of Israel has zero right to even exist in their eyes.
Again, no legal basis for the State of Israel, sounds like they’re real commited to a two state solution, right?
Again, reject all solutions which are less than the TOTAL liberation of Palestine? So… they’re negotiating in good faith and want two states in the region, right?
Now that sounds like the PLO is declaring war on Zionism and asking other countries to join in…
And, for those who claim the PLO is not responsible …
[qupte]Article 26:The Palestine Liberation Organization, representative of the
Palestinian revolutionary forces,** is responsible for the Palestinian Arab
people’s movement in its struggle - to retrieve its homeland, liberate and
return to it and exercise the right to self-determination in it - in all
military, political, and financial fields and also for whatever may be
required by the Palestine case on the inter-Arab and international levels.**[/'quote]
In other words, the article you link to claims that more than half a decade ago Arafat confirmed that a Palestinian legal team was ‘working’ on a new charter… Where is it? Why isn’t the old one gone yet? If they’re really saying that genocide is bad, why not just take out the paragraphs I quoted above?
The problem is, Arafat says one thing in English, and another in Arabic, and most of the world eats it up.
And with all due respect, the second article you cite is also nearly half a decade old, and I submit that Arafat’s actions are not the same as his pronouncements.
P.S. I can get you enough quotes from Hamas et al to serve as a cite, or link to their official websites, either way.
P.P.S. My question still stands. The Nazis felt that their ‘bloodlines’ was being oppressed by other ‘lesser’ bloodlines and that they needed to kill all the other ‘bad’ bloodlines and rule the rest.
The PLO feels that their ‘bloodline’ is being oppressed by 'Jewish" bloodlines and that they need to kill all of them and rule Israel while calling it Palestine.
I fail to see how they’re all that different other than that people say “oh, the Nazis were not nice!” They have the same genocidal goal, what makes one a freedom fighter and the other an Evil Empire?
P.P.P.S. I’ve got a plane to catch later today and won’t be around for a while, but I’ll attempt to respond to everybody who responded at a later date.
Indeed.
Plus, you’re still not getting it. It’s not the goal that determines whether you are a terrorist but the actions with wich you try and achieve that goal.
To begin with, I am, to the best of my knoweldge, representing exactly what the Nazis goals were (eg. genocide and dominion). If you feel I am somehow mistaken that is one matter, but unless you wish to Pit me, I’d suggest that you don’t talk about my honesty or my motivations for making statements.
And, no, it is most certainy not even innacurate.
The Nazi’s war was driven by 1) very poor living conditions 2) the desire for genocide 3) the belief that they were destined to rule
But it was quite clear that they felt they were ‘suited’ to rule and that ‘lesser’ bloodlines were hurting German bloodlines. This is just a matter of historical fact.
(What exactly do you see as the principles of Nazism?)
I’m simply asking, why are the NOT freedom fighters? Because they had better force-of-arms? If their goal is to make the world ‘safe’ for their bloodlines, that sure sounds like freedom fighter rhetoric…
And, again, if the PLO’s real goal is genocide and it simply dresses that up in media-friendly buss words, does that mean that they too are really freedom fighters?
Suicide bombers, or any other kind of terrorists, seldom operate in isolation. There is a whole support network behind them, of weapon smuggling, bomb manufacturing, recruitment, planning and leadership, dissemination of information (i.e. the whole martyr thing – I’ve read they’ve even got a shop creating suicide bomb cards to kids – something like Pokemon cards) , etc. etc. of course it’s difficult to know what most Palestinians think (and fortunately not all Palestinians think killing children and pregnant women is a good idea), however I believe there have been a number of polls showing very high support among the general Palestinian Arab population for terrorists and suicide bombers as well as for their goal of total annihilation of Israel.
But it bears saying that they would still be around if the Allies restricted themselves to only attacking military targets, and took excessive pains to avoid civilian casualites. When the enemy has no compunction about ignoring the so-called ‘laws of war’, it is suicidal to tie a hand behind your back out of some misguided sense of humanity.