The Intefada has failed, its time to surrender

[bizzwire]

**Olentzero:

bizzwire, nowhere am I either stating or implying that the Palestinians deserve rights that other peoples don’t. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that residents in any country should only be required to fill the responsibilities of a citizen without being granted some of the basic rights of a citizen, whether they choose to become a citizen or not. That this is how things are is undeniable; again that doesn’t mean I feel that’s the way things should be.

Oh. OK. I have no problem with this, although I would point out that in America, for example, non-residents are granted a great deal of the same rights that citizens enjoy.

[Olentzero]

@Tabby_Cat

"Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. " - Dictionary.com

OK, hold up now. You were using only “law” and “nature” previous to this; you said nothing about “tradition”. There was a tradition of abolishing slavery in the United States dating back to the time of the Revolution - the state of Vermont, at that time the Republic of New Connecticut, abolished slavery in 1777. Other Northern states followed suit; and it was in that tradition that the federal government put through admittedly weak compromises in order to stop the spread of slavery into states that joined the Union. Since there was a tradition of acknowledging that Blacks had a right to be free of enslavement, does that not mean the right extended to Blacks in the slaveholding South?

If you think that just because one country has a right, that all humans have that right… well, I got nothing to say to you. Good luck in convincing the Chinese that they have the right of free speech.

They do, whether the Chinese government wishes to acknowledge it legally or not. This doesn’t mean, however, that the Chinese population as a whole is sufficiently organized to exercise that right despite the best efforts of the government. But they do have the right to free speech nonetheless.

Or you can try to convince Bush that you have the right to take multiple wives, as per many muslim countries.

That actually contributes to the oppression of women and I wouldn’t call it a right as such. If someone claims the right to do something which denies other people even the most basic rights (like the ‘right’ of the Southern plantation owners to own slaves), it needs to be fought against.

Let’s start with an example, hmm? Do the Al-Qaida prisoners in Gitmo have the Geneva Convention rights?

Yes, they do, although the US military is preventing them from exercising such rights. Should they? Absolutely.

They do not have this right. It is not “Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.”

The British withdrew from Iraq and Jordan and allowed them the right of self-determination (somewhat; they installed an empire-friendly monarch before they went). Therefore, they established a ‘tradition’ of granting the right of self-determination to the people living within the British Mandate that therefore extended to the Palestinians.

If you’re arguing that you’re talking about the Palestinians having self determination as a “morally good” thing, and therefore justifying their actions, well, I gots ta tell ya - when you start killing people and justify it as being “morally good”, it stops being morally good. And is therefore not a justification.

sigh Have I not clearly stated, in this very thread, that I do not think the individual terrorism perpetrated by the Palestinians is the correct path towards fighting to exercise the right to self-determination, and have I not taken pains to clearly state, in this very thread, that a real solution to the Palestinian-Israeli question involves the Palestinians rejecting the tactics of individual terror? How can you even entertain the thought, then, that I’m trying to justify terrorist actions?

bizzwire - true enough, but there’s still that whole “taxation without representation” deal that presents, in my opinion, a glaring contradiction between words and action.

[Blalron]

@Tabby_Cat

Really? Tell me, did the blacks have the right not to be enslaved? Did the Jews have the right not to be mass murdered?

I’m sure that you can claim that the use of the word “right” merely meant morally good, as in

Dictionary.com

but is in no way does “morally good” mean that “we are due this, we are entitled to it”. Animals not being tortured is a morally good thing. But it doesn’t meant that they are entitled to it.

From your cite:

Right refers to a legally, morally, or traditionally just claim: “I’m a champion for the Rights of Woman” (Maria Edgeworth).

So, a slave’s claim that he deserves to be free is a moral claim, even if it wasn’t a legal claim prior to 1865. Therefore, according to your own cite, it’s possible to have rights without the law currently recognizing them.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by Tabby_Cat
Really? Tell me, did the blacks have the right not to be enslaved? Did the Jews have the right not to be mass murdered?

Well, tradition says that it’s wrong to mass murder people. Do you agree to that? As for slavery “this which is due by law, nature, or tradition” some people subscribe to the belief that some rights are due to you by nature. Our country was founded on the idea that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. See the Declaration of Independence, and the works of John Locke.

[Blalron]

When I think deeply about Tabby_Cat’s conclusions about rights, I find them to be disturbing. Would she say to an abolitionist in 1860:

**Tabby: Hey, why are you printing out pamphlets asking for negros to have rights? The law doesn’t recognize them as having rights, therefore they aren’t entitled to it!

Abolitionist: But they deserve these rights. They’re human beings who ought to be treated the same as you or I am.

Tabby: Says who? Says you! Hah! The law says otherwise.**

This is the impression I’m getting from Tabby’s writings. If you truly believe that the law is the final authority as to what people deserve, and you aren’t entitled to anything other than what the law says you’re entitled to, I think that’s truly scary.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Olentzero

OK, hold up now. You were using only “law” and “nature” previous to this; you said nothing about “tradition”. There was a tradition of abolishing slavery in the United States dating back to the time of the Revolution - the state of Vermont, at that time the Republic of New Connecticut, abolished slavery in 1777. Other Northern states followed suit; and it was in that tradition that the federal government put through admittedly weak compromises in order to stop the spread of slavery into states that joined the Union. Since there was a tradition of acknowledging that Blacks had a right to be free of enslavement, does that not mean the right extended to Blacks in the slaveholding South?

How, exactly, do you “extend” the right to the south? By means of what? Certainly, it was in fact tradition to the exact contrary - it was “tradition”, if I may say so, to have slaves. How exactly are you extending this right?

They do, whether the Chinese government wishes to acknowledge it legally or not. This doesn’t mean, however, that the Chinese population as a whole is sufficiently organized to exercise that right despite the best efforts of the government. But they do have the right to free speech nonetheless.

I don’t see an argument here. Claims do not make an argument. When come back, bring plot.

That actually contributes to the oppression of women and I wouldn’t call it a right as such. If someone claims the right to do something which denies other people even the most basic rights (like the ‘right’ of the Southern plantation owners to own slaves), it needs to be fought against.

Nowhere does it say that merely because it oppresses other people, it’s not a right. This is not the matrix, and you do not get to bend the definition of “right” to suit your claims.

Yes, they do, although the US military is preventing them from exercising such rights. Should they? Absolutely.

Did you read that link? Really. Just because you say it doesn’t make it so, unless you happen to be called law, tradition, or nature. And I really doubt it.

The British withdrew from Iraq and Jordan and allowed them the right of self-determination (somewhat; they installed an empire-friendly monarch before they went). Therefore, they established a ‘tradition’ of granting the right of self-determination to the people living within the British Mandate that therefore extended to the Palestinians.

A MONARCH is self determination? You’re shitting me, right? A monarch is the very definition of non self determination. In any case, real self determination was accorded by the partion plan.

sigh Have I not clearly stated, in this very thread, that I do not think the individual terrorism perpetrated by the Palestinians is the correct path towards fighting to exercise the right to self-determination, and have I not taken pains to clearly state, in this very thread, that a real solution to the Palestinian-Israeli question involves the Palestinians rejecting the tactics of individual terror? How can you even entertain the thought, then, that I’m trying to justify terrorist actions?

Don’t make me quote you.

@Olentzero

Really? So I suppose you believe the US should be part of the British Commonwealth, and that France should still have a king? The right to determine who administers the land you own is part and parcel of the right of self-determination.

In response to how the state of Israel was formed. By it’s nature, a claim to a right is a justification for something. I claim the right of free speech, therefore, I am justified in speaking out against the government. If not the justificaion for the intefada, then, for what? If you think that the intefada is unjustifiable, then what why do you claim the “right of self-determination”?

The above statement seems to claim that the “right of self-determination” makes it due to the Palestinians who owned land in the area allocated to Israel before the partition plan the right to decide who administered the land. This is also supported by the claims that the Palestinian people had this “right” infringed in the UN partition plan because they were not consulted.

This was also in response to the post I made about the nature of administering land.

If you are not claiming the right in justification for the intefada, what are you claiming it for? The “cause of the Palestinians”? I quote again

@Olentzero

And they’ve had no say in how much land Israel decided to take for itself in 1948 and 1967, although they’ve done so in rejecting the Wye and Oslo accords in the 1990s. (Not that it’s stopped Israel.) So they formed organizations to fight for that right - unfortunately some of those organizations have embraced anti-Semitism and adopted the tactics of individual terror.

It seems to me that you are arguing to exercise the “right to self determination” against… What? Land in Israeli territory as given by the UN mandate, because the Palestinians owned the land, and because the Palestinians lived there and should be able to choose their own govenment?

I’m sorry if I’ve mistaken your argument, but if you would mind stating what exactly you are claiming against?

And I’m afraid we are way off tangent. Sorry, guys.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Blalron

From your cite:

So, a slave’s claim that he deserves to be free is a moral claim, even if it wasn’t a legal claim prior to 1865. Therefore, according to your own cite, it’s possible to have rights without the law currently recognizing them.

Apart from stuff like, you know, whose morals.

If you mean to claim it on the level of “it’s the right thing to do” (from the POV of someone against slavery), then sure. But that sure isn’t enforceable. Maybe you claim it as justification for setting them free - sure. But don’t be surprised when a slave owner claims the justification of the rightness of slavery in getting compensation from you.

@Blalron

Well, tradition says that it’s wrong to mass murder people. Do you agree to that? As for slavery “this which is due by law, nature, or tradition” some people subscribe to the belief that some rights are due to you by nature. Our country was founded on the idea that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. See the Declaration of Independence, and the works of John Locke.

I’m sure you’ll be surprised to know that the Khans went around mass murdering people. Very traditional. Or that people went on crusades and mass murdering people when they were of age. Very traditional too. Or that Indians made good target practice. Helluva tradition.

Ah, yes, Locke. You might be interested to know that he invested in a slave trading company. Fine young man, he was.

@John Locke

…what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

Therefore, man was free to do whatever he wanted. However,

@John Locke

And thus the common-wealth comes by a power to set down what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy of it, committed amongst the members of that society, (which is the power of making laws) as well as it has the power to punish any injury done unto any of its members, by any one that is not of it, (which is the power of war and peace;) and all this for the preservation of the property of all the members of that society, as far as is possible. But though every man who has entered into civil society, and is become a member of any commonwealth, has thereby quitted his power to punish offences, against the law of nature, in prosecution of his own private judgment, yet with the judgment of offences, which he has given up to the legislative in all cases, where he can appeal to the magistrate, he has given a right to the common-wealth to employ his force, for the execution of the judgments of the common-wealth, whenever he shall be called to it; which indeed are his own judgments, they being made by himself, or his representative.

And so now he does not. He has quitted his power… in prosecution of his own private judgement (sounds awfully like morals, donchathink) which he has given up to the legislative in all cases (sounds like the law here).

He did say, though, there there were inalienable rights - because we did not have those rights in the first place. Namely, the right to kill ourselves. This was also used in his condemnation of slavery (a bit of a two face, he was).

The Second Treatise of Civil Government

When I think deeply about Tabby_Cat’s conclusions about rights, I find them to be disturbing. Would she say to an abolitionist in 1860:

**Tabby: Hey, why are you printing out pamphlets asking for negros to have rights? The law doesn’t recognize them as having rights, therefore they aren’t entitled to it!

Abolitionist: But they deserve these rights. They’re human beings who ought to be treated the same as you or I am.

Tabby: Says who? Says you! Hah! The law says otherwise.**

This is the impression I’m getting from Tabby’s writings. If you truly believe that the law is the final authority as to what people deserve, and you aren’t entitled to anything other than what the law says you’re entitled to, I think that’s truly scary.

Somewhat right, and somewhat wrong. Of course, I believe that slaves deserved the right to freedom. However, they DID NOT have those rights until they were given them.

To use your phrase, “The law doesn’t recognize them as having rights, therefore they aren’t entitled to it!” - true. The law in China does not recognise the right of free speech, and they are therefore most certainly not entitled those rights. That doesn’t mean that it’s not desirable for them to have those rights, or that they didn’t deserve those rights. But they don’t have them

And we are on a way long hijack.

[Blalron]

@Tabby_Cat

I’m sure you’ll be surprised to know that the Khans went around mass murdering people. Very traditional. Or that people went on crusades and mass murdering people when they were of age. Very traditional too. Or that Indians made good target practice. Helluva tradition.

Yes, you will find instances of these in history. But there’s still a historical consensus that murder is wrong, actual instances of murder to the contrary notwithstanding. Also there was an international consensus that the people who ran the Death Camps committed crimes against humanity that could be punished regardless of the national sovereignty of Germany.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Blalron

Yes, you will find instances of these in history. But there’s still a historical consensus that murder is wrong, actual instances of murder to the contrary notwithstanding. Also there was an international consensus that the people who ran the Death Camps committed crimes against humanity that could be punished regardless of the national sovereignty of Germany.

Funny you should bring that up, because international law isn’t really law in the first place. Consider: Who makes international law? There is no international legislator that will legislate for the whole world. Who has the power to enforce international law? Well, I suppose America could go in and drop a few cluster bombs.

By signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party. Other States entitled to appear before the Court undertake the same obligation either by acceding to the Statute or by lodging a declaration to this effect with the Registry. Since, furthermore, a case can only be submitted to the Court and decided by it if the parties have in one way or another consented to its jurisdiction over the case in question, it is rare for a decision not to be implemented. Generally speaking, those States which accept the jurisdiction of the Court are ready to comply with its decisions, whereas those entertaining the possibility that they may not be prepared to do so in every eventuality avoid recognizing its jurisdiction in advance. A State — whether a Member of the United Nations or not — which contends that the other side has failed to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court may lay the matter before the Security Council, which is empowered to recommend or decide upon the measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment (Article 94 of the Charter).

International Court of Justice - The Decision

The sovereignty of Germany was taken into account. Germany submitted the people who set up the death camps to the ICJ. They must be submitted and the ICJ given jurisdiction before the ICJ can hear the case.

@International Criminal Court: Rome Statute

Part II of the Statute relates to the competence of the Court, which is restricted to the gravest crimes affecting the entire international community, in other words, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court is only competent in respect of crimes committed after its Statute came into effect, that is, 1st July 2002. Cases may be submitted to it either by the Security Council, or by a State Party, or by the ex-officio Prosecutor, acting on the basis of information received in particular from victims, NGOs or other sources it considers appropriate. When cases are submitted to the Court either by a State Party or by the Prosecutor acting in an ex-officio capacity, it may only exercise its competence when the State on whose territory the crimes took place or the State of which the person accused of the crime is a citizen have either ratified the Statute or accepted the Court’s competence by means of a declaration filed with the Court Registrar. Without doubt, the most important principle of the Statute of Rome is that the Court complements national jurisdictions and that it may only exercise its jurisdiction if the States concerned are unable or unwilling to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes which fall within the competence of the Court.

ICJ to be replaced by the ICC for genocide and other things that you’re thinking of. Note that they only have jurisdiction over countries that actually ratify the statute, or otherwise subject themselves to the court. Guess who’s NOT on it? Hint hint - it’s someone with their fingers in Iraq right now.

[Olentzero]

@Tabby_Cat

@Olentzero

How can you even entertain the thought, then, that I’m trying to justify terrorist actions?

Don’t make me quote you.

By all means, please do.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Olentzero

By all means, please do.

Already did. Read below what you quoted, thanks.

[Olentzero]

I’ve read through the section you indicated three times, and I frankly don’t even see where you’re trying to claim I support or condone individual terrorism. Yes, I support the intifadeh, but terrorism is not an intrinsic part of any uprising. To say “If you support the intifadeh, you therefore support individual terrorism” is a long stretch in the first place, since you have yet to conclusively prove an indissoluble link between struggles for national liberation and individual terrorism. That is, you haven’t proven you cannot have the former without the latter.

Finally, yes I am arguing that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination over the whole of Israeli territory, not just the West Bank and the Gaza strip. And, like any other oppressed people, the only way they can successfully exercise that right is to fight for it (and let me reiterate individual terrorism is not the way to fight for it!) not against all Israelis, but against people like Sharon and those who command the IDF and are directly responsible for the continued oppression.

Another point for debate: Here is a Yahoo! story detailing the response to the killing of Tali Hatuel and her daughters, and an ambush staged by Palestinian gunmen at a memorial service for the five women on Sunday.

Now, just to make things crystal clear, I do not condone the actions of these Palestinians. These were completely incorrect tactics and they did nothing to advance the fight for the right of self-determination.

Having said that, will anyone defend the bulldozing of 13 buildings, leaving 75 Palestinians homeless, as an appropriate response on Israel’s part?

[emacknight]

@Olentzero

Another point for debate: Here is a Yahoo! story detailing the response to the killing of Tali Hatuel and her daughters, and an ambush staged by Palestinian gunmen at a memorial service for the five women on Sunday.

Now, just to make things crystal clear, I do not condone the actions of these Palestinians. These were completely incorrect tactics and they did nothing to advance the fight for the right of self-determination.

Having said that, will anyone defend the bulldozing of 13 buildings, leaving 75 Palestinians homeless, as an appropriate response on Israel’s part?

I’m willing to defend it. To draw a distinction, Irael does not pick buildings at random, and they do not target purely civilian buildings in the hopes of angering the Militants.

They destroy bomb and gun making factories. They destroy buildings that cover tunnels used to smuggle bombs and guns into Palestine. And they destroy buildings used as sniper posts.

Which is again another example of how the Intefada hurts the Palestinians. And to either surrender or switch to passive alternatives would mean that civilian homes were not used for resistance fighting. The Intefada’s use of “human shields” is a glowing example of their lack of respect for the Palestinian cause.

[Olentzero]

So, all 75 of the Palestinians whose homes were destroyed are directly responsible for the sniper attacks?

[emacknight]

@Olentzero

So, all 75 of the Palestinians whose homes were destroyed are directly responsible for the s
sniper attacks?

@emacknight

They destroy bomb and gun making factories. They destroy buildings that cover tunnels used to smuggle bombs and guns into Palestine. And they destroy buildings used as sniper posts.

You’ll notice more than just sniper posts, I included several other reasons to destroy a Palestinian home.

I will note that I do not have a blanket acceptance of Israeli acts, I’m sure that at least one of the 75 destroyed did not need to be, but that’s the beauty of making decisions from up here in my ivory tower.

One other reason I left out was “homes that provide a tactical advantage for the Palestinians, or a tactical disadvantage to Israel.” That ones a little more fuzzy. One example was a building they destroyed because it blocked the IDF’s view of a certain area.

I’ll say again, not all of Israel’s actions should be condoned, but you asked and I answered. Can you think of a reason to leave the buildings standing?

Those involved with the Intefada have to be aware of the consequences of their actions. They willingly choose to surround themselves with civilians. This disregard for civilian life is an example of how the Intefada has failed. By now the militants must know how Israel will react, so they must know that homes will be destroyed if used for terrorist activies.

[Shodan]

@Olentzero

As I see it, there are two basic questions here:

1. The legitimacy of the Palestinian cause.

2. The legitimacy of the tactics used in fighting for that cause.

I think you left out an even more basic question - “what is the Palestinian cause?”.

Because that was part of my earlier point - that different groups of Palestinians have different agendas.

Some of the Palestinians want to live in peace with Israel in their own state. Others want to destroy Israel, and take over the entire area as their state. Still others don’t care, and just want to live in peace.

Terrorism is aimed at converting those in the first and third groups to the second. This is often done by trying to goad the Israelis into cracking down in ways that impact the first and third groups.

If the only thing that all Palestinians wanted was their own state, then all Palestinians would renounce terrorism (which we are all agreeing is counter-productive to that cause) and probably accepted some version of the plan that Arafat rejected, at least as a starting point.

But that plan was rejected. Because it did not include what some proportion of the Palestinians have as their cause - the destruction of Israel.

@Olentzero

The first question hinges on whether or not one sees the Palestinians as an oppressed nationality. If you do, then you probably conclude their cause is legitimate. If you don’t, then you probably conclude the opposite. I presume, for the sake of argument - and please correct me if I’m wrong - that Israel does not see the Palestinian cause as legitimate and looks at it from the perspective of just another goddamn case of anti-Semitism - and have decided to declare war on it.

No, you are wrong, so I will correct you. As has been mentioned, many or most Israelis accept “the Palestinian cause” insofar as that refers to a state for the Palestinians.

But, insofar as “the Palestinian cause” refers to a refusal to recognize the existence of Israel as a state, and the desire to destroy her, yes, Israel does looks at that as another God-damned case of anti-Semitism (or anti-Zionism if you prefer), and is continuing to wage war against it. They don’t have any other choice.

So Israel is waging war against the terrorists. The terrorists are trying to maximize the damage, both to Israel and to the other non-terrorist Palestinians. Which is why so many Palestinians are killed by other Palestinians as “collaborators”.

Israel wants to wage war against terrorists. The terrorists want Israel to wage war against everybody. Therefore they engage in acts that are offensive to those with a normal moral sense - in hopes that they can get Israel to do the same, or at least to do things that can be presented as if they were the same.

IOW - the terrorists want to stop Israel from being able to pursue a separate peace with the rest of the Palestinians. Which is what is morally despicable. But it is not done in furtherance of any peaceful cause of a Palestinian state.

Because they could get that without violence and terrorism.

Regards,
Shodan

[Eric_the_Black]

Olentzero, this is clearly just another one of Israel’s destroy and scatter tactics. It’s blatant ethnic cleansing and completely inexcusable. To me at least.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Olentzero

I’ve read through the section you indicated three times, and I frankly don’t even see where you’re trying to claim I support or condone individual terrorism. Yes, I support the intifadeh, but terrorism is not an intrinsic part of any uprising. To say “If you support the intifadeh, you therefore support individual terrorism” is a long stretch in the first place, since you have yet to conclusively prove an indissoluble link between struggles for national liberation and individual terrorism. That is, you haven’t proven you cannot have the former without the latter.

Let me get this straight: you support the intefada, AKA state terrorism, but you condone individual terrorism. Un huh. Let me just get my head around this one.

Finally, yes I am arguing that the Palestinians have the right[sup]1[/sup] to self-determination over the whole of Israeli territory[sup]2[/sup], not just the West Bank and the Gaza strip. And, like any other oppressed people, the only way they can successfully exercise that right is to fight for it[sup]3[/sup] (and let me reiterate individual terrorism is not the way to fight for it!) not against all Israelis, but against people like Sharon and those who command the IDF and are directly responsible for the continued oppression.

[sup]1[/sup] No, they do not. Refute my argument above, or accept it.
[sup]2[/sup] Holy hell, I know this is GD, but damn! UN Mandate, hello?
[sup]3[/sup] The only way they can exercise that “right” is to fight for it? Um, if they have to fight for it, THEY DON’T HAVE IT. Dude! If I have to fight for an orange, I sure as hell DON’T HAVE ONE. Much less the excuse of having that orange giving me the right to fight for it! This is circular argument at it’s best.

[Olentzero]

@emacknight

I’ll say again, not all of Israel’s actions should be condoned, but you asked and I answered. Can you think of a reason to leave the buildings standing?

Yes, it’s called “disgust at collective punishment”. 75 Palestinians were made homeless as punishment for the actions of a handful of other Palestinians. Yes, at least one of those homes (surely not all 12) was used as a sniper outpost. Had it been sniping at IDF personnel or other non-civilian targets, I would say “War is hell” but still voiced my disgust at the collective punishment meted out by Israel.

Shodan, the foundation of Israel was accomplished through the destruction of Palestine. The population of Arabs throughout the whole territory of Palestine numbered one million, and they owned the overwhelming majority of the land, which they were putting to good productive use. That the Palestinians were dispossessed of that land, and not called away by broadcasts from surrounding Arab countries, has been well documented using declassified Israeli intelligence documents by Israeli scholars such as Benny Morris and Tom Segev.

“The destruction of the state of Israel” does not implicitly carry anti-Semitism within it - any more than the destruction of the Mandate of Palestine in founding Israel could be said to implicitly carry anti-Arab racism within it. Organizations that openly espouse anti-Semitic views and aims in their fight for the creation of a new state over the entire territory comprising Israel and the Occupied Territories are making a tragic mistake. Not all Israelis are responsible for the original dispossession, nor are all Israelis directly responsible for the continued aggressive expansion of Israeli territory and the continued oppression of Palestinians. The Palestinian intifadeh should not target Israelis indiscriminately, but neither should it adopt solely non-violent tactics, or even surrender.

Tabby_Cat - how else is terrorism manifested in the intifadeh besides individual attacks? What state terrorism is there to support?

The Palestinians do have the right to self-determination but not the ability to exercise it. Rights are not solid, tangible objects like oranges. Governments on’t have the power to grant rights or to take them away; they can only state that they either will or will not prevent people from exercising them by use of the laws they enact. You still have those rights whether your government says you can legally exercise them or not.

@Olentzero

the only way they can successfully exercise that right is to fight for it

was an incorrect way of expressing myself, and I shall try again.

The only way the Palestinians can successfully exercise the right of self-determination is to fight for the ability to exercise it. They have the right; Israel, however, is using force to prevent them from exercising it, necessitating the fights that have come before and will come again as long as this situation continues.

[Noone_Special]

@Olentzero

Finally, yes I am arguing that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination over the whole of Israeli territory, not just the West Bank and the Gaza strip

Let me get this straight: You support the dismantling of the State of Israel? If so, what do you suggest that I, personally, do with my life? My wife? My children? All of us grew up here (or are growing up here). We have no other place to call home. Why do you feel that it’s OK to disposess us of our home and country, but it isn’t OK to do the same to Palestinian individuals?

Having said that, will anyone defend the bulldozing of 13 buildings, leaving 75 Palestinians homeless, as an appropriate response on Israel’s part?

I don’t know the exact circumstances yet, and 5 will get you 10 that there has been at least some over-reaction here, but, basicly (as several other have noted), those buildings that are torn down are torn down for perceived tactical / strategical reasons - not as a wanton act of destruction. (Yes - perceived as in “possibly mistaken”. War is hell). Oh, and a demolished home and the resulting homelessness are (at least semi-)reversible losses. A pregnant woman and her four little girls dead is not in any way reversible!

Dani