*You will recall that the ANC was described in much the same terms that Hamas, etc. are now, back in the 1980’s. *
I have to disagree with this analogy here. The ANC only took up arms when in the early 60’s when it became clear non-violent protests were not doing any kind of damage to the Apartheid govt. From this editorial which compares the ANC and Hamas/Hezbollah
When Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress decided to take up armed struggle in the early 1960s, they did so reluctantly and only after they believed they had exhausted the possibilities of nonviolence. And the ANC carefully considered what kind of armed struggle it would engage in. It weighed the morality and the effectiveness of terror against innocent people, and it refused to go down that grotesque route, choosing instead to target the South African military and police and the infrastructure of apartheid.
The Palestinian struggle however has been marked with violence from day one with no chance at peaceful protest being even seemingly considered.
I support Israel and I am against Arab aggression towards Israel. I believe the Palestinian refugees and suicide bombers are pawns exploited by the surrounding Arab nations, who have more than enough space and wealth to provide decent living arrangements for Palestinian families while negotiating with Israel without violence.
That said, I would firmly support the right of any nation to openly declare war and fight the opposing army to the death. Fight and retreat to a military camp free of civilians? Go for it. Noble. Let history judge you fairly.
Attack and then hide among civilians? Cowardly. Worthless. Lower than dirt.
And why should they? Because they’re all a bunch of “arabs”, so it’s all the same?
Since Mexico has plenty of wealth and space, I can kick you out of Texas, and that’s not an issue since the mexicans can provide decent living arrangement for your family? And Mexico has some sort of duty to let you in?
That’s a whole debate in itself. Boils down to this:
If you believe this source, then they shouldn’t.
If you believe this source, then they should.
All my arguments are contained in the latter. My point was that despite the fact that my sympathies fall squarely with Israel, I have no problem with acts of aggression towards Israel that are not cowardly, worthless, or lower than dirt. Which is how I perceive Hamas and their ilk.
Problem is, as soon as you take a side, suddenly your side can do no wrong. Israel has a state policy of genocide and oppression, the Palestinians target innocent civilians. They are both murdering *ssholes.
Just pointing the finger at whoever you think is guilty of the bigger atrocity isn’t going to help these people live together.
Your link is to the home page of the site. Could you be more precise about the reasons why other arab countries would have a duty to provide land, living arrangments and whatnot to the Palestinians? Or at least to some article or page supporting your statement?
Wait…so there’s trouble in the Middle East? When did this start?
Palestine and Israel have become like two kids on the playground who won’t stop fighting. At first you want to take one’s side because you grew up together or whatever but after awhile it’s like “fuck both y’all…We’re going to go play kickball”.
Skip:The Palestinian struggle however has been marked with violence from day one with no chance at peaceful protest being even seemingly considered.
To add to Azael’s counterexamples, an article on Palestinian pacifism. Note how political leaders on both sides have tried to undermine use of nonviolent resistance: after the 1988 nonviolence campaign in the mostly-Christian community of Beit Sahour,
The leaders on both sides apparently would rather have violence than nonviolence, because nonviolence might actually succeed at producing a workable compromise, and then their hard-line supporters would be all upset with them.
Why?
(Assume here a situation where the hit military troops of the ocupying forces).
Do they have an option?
What would that be?
If Your country would be occupied and there would not be any army to join, what would You do?
Lay down an wait for better times to come? That I would call “Cowardly. Worthless. Lower than dirt.”
What do You think would be meant by patriotism in this case?
I still think that the answer would be to send UN-sponsored/nominated forces and that Israel would be “guarded” inside 1967-borders. (If they can not do that themslves with a hundred time bigger military force, than the Palestinaians can ever put up.)
The options: 1) Civil obidiance => crushed at once by Israel (read the articles in given links)
2) Plead to the rest of the world to come there and put up some peace. (Like Clinton wanted, but Israel didn’t). Nothing new on this front.
3) Lay down and let the “settlers” take what they want.
4) Begin a querilla war aiming on officers and military targets. (Not cuvilians).
My opinion is 2) and 3)
So what would You do if Your country will be occupied?
Show contemt to the oath You have sworn in the army? (If You have been in the army). Now the Palestinians has no army,but if they make an oath about their country (homeland), would it change anything morally?
Exactly, on both sides of the equation there are people who want all or nothing. As long as those people keep messing things up for those who just want to live a normal life we have a stalemate. Unfortunately the all or nothing types are exactly the sort of people that start looking like good leaders when things get bad.
Unfortunately Azael the articles you linked too are all recent occurences.
Article 1 is about a non-violence campaign launched this year! Waaaay too late to have any kind of effect givent the Palestinian leadership seeming commitment to violence.
From article 2: Arafat’s militia leaders are convinced that violence pays off.
If the Palestinians want non-violent protest then they need to get some leaders who go along with them. However I doubt Arafat will be leaving office any time soon.
Article 3 doesn’t talk about any non-violent Palestinian protest much so I don’t see it’s relevancy. It’s comparing the 1987 Intifada with the 2001 one. Both were violent to say the least.
The armed attacks on Israel began almost immediately after Israel took control of the West Bank/Gaza Strip after the 1967 War.
Most of the troops involved were indian troops, damn good shooting stats though. The main problem with israel and the palastinians is a long memory, lets not forget the palastinians were only to keen to back egypt and syria when they thought the six day war was going to drive the israelies into the sea, then guess what, the arabs lost and they have been bitching ever since,
Naturally I would choose first: 2) Plead to the rest of the world to come there and put up some peace.
And if that did not help; nr 4 of the given options: 4) Begin a querilla war aiming on officers and military targets.
We are speaking of what happened, but waht can be done?
Is there anyone who can tell what (s)he would do, living as a Palestinian in Palestine? What is the options?
They have the option to stay clear of civilians and reap the consequences of their actions themselves.
So what would You do if Your country will be occupied?
If I had to attack someone for any reason, I would either stand my ground and fight, or retreat to a spot where I wouldn’t be putting non-combatants in danger. To do otherwise is cowardly and irresponsible.
Is there anyone who can tell what (s)he would do, living as a Palestinian in Palestine?
Living in those conditions, taught from early on that Jews are responsible for all the world’s ills, I would be a prime target for agents of Hamas to convince me that all my problems would be solved if Israel were gone. I would probably strap on a bomb and go blow up a shopping mall.