The political and economic benefits of peace outweigh the present situation. The motivations for Israel to negotiate include:
Again you talk about the benefits of a peace deal but when the Palestinians renounce violence that state would already have been reached. So what concessions are Israel going to make when they've got peace?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't see how your link doesn't support the tweet. The judgement apparently quotes this:
The rest of the judgement is about how Gaza is a combat zone where military laws apply. Hence, the tweet is correct.
lol
Almost every Israeli Jew is current, ex, or future IDF. Legitimate targets?
I’m not the one distorting his comments. The Israeli hasbara position is that the Gaza withdrawal was a gesture of peace (and all they got was rockets etc. etc. you know the spiel). Weisglass makes clear that the purpose of the withdrawal was exactly the opposite.
This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the costs of withdrawal absolutely dwarf the potential benefits. I can't recommend highly enough leading Jerusalem-based analyst Nathan Thrall's article here which analyses this problem https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-israel-palestine-peace-process-always-fails
Hamas and Islamic Jihad suicide bombings already happened throughout the 1990s, when the Oslo process was in full stride. It's safe to say that more attempts were spoiled by Israeli intelligence and countermeasures. The last attempts on bombing Israeli civilians were in late 1999 (not successful beyond causing injuries). The situation in 2000 only gave the opportunity to continue what was already an established tactic, after nothing more than a brief period of involuntary restraint.
The AP headline fails to accurately reflect the Supreme Court ruling. The Court did not refuse to declare it unlawful for soldiers to shoot at unarmed civilians. Rather the Court found, citing practice (U.S. Army Field Manual) and precent (al-Masri) that:
That's literally everyone. If membership=terrorism and being part of the same march as a Hamas member = human shield, all Palestinians in that march exist presumed guilty of being participants in an armed conflict. That's also why I quoted the US manual because it is making the same point. The same dismal logic can be applied to Israelis and the IDF.
Preserving "the vision for a peaceful Palestinian state" by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza is consistent with a gesture of peace.
I summarised the words of Weisglass. Here are his words:
Thanks. I'll have a read.
The Court is referring to those who engage in violence, are members of Hamas, but disguised as demonstrators. On human shields, the Court did not say that attending the march itself amounts to direct participation in the conflict.
If it was literally everyone, there would likely be an awful lot more Palestinians dead given the thousands that attended.
No, he said we agreed with the yanks we'd keep some of the settlements and might talk about some of the others. Here I was thinking Israel had to make an agreement with the Palestinians as to which settlements they could keep.
Come on. What Weisglass is saying is that Israel doesn’t want to face the difficult decisions (Jerusalem, refugees, settlers etc.) The “Finns” comment he tacks on at the end almost as an afterthought. Add to that, you’ve got Sharon talking about how the Gaza withdrawal will allow Israel to hold onto the West Bank settlements it wants to keep. How on earth can one conclude it is a gesture of peace?
Are we really to hold the Palestinians to a higher standard than Mandela? Mandela refused to renounce violence and was on the US terrorist watchlist until 2008, as was the ANC. Should Israel also renounce violence or can they continue as normal?
In what sense does the bolded apply to any of the groups claiming to represent the Palestinians over the decades?
Brain? That’s your first mistake.The people getting killed should stop with the victimisation, the people who have nothing to eat, whose exports are being blocked, who have little to none electricity should try and be a force for good and contribute towards peace and progress in the world.
ffs how did your brain come up with that solution?
What's your point? The evolution of every conflict is different. The point here is that both Mandela and the Palestinians have/had the right to resist oppressive regimes by force of arms. I mean, the whole Gandhi thing, it is an impressive ideal. But he was an extraordinary human being. And he demanded of his followers that “you’re supposed to march into the line of fire, smilingly and cheerfully, and get yourself blown to bits.” Well guess what, the Palestinians have been trying that (for decades I might add), and Israel, with some success, spins it to blame the victims. It's hard to tell Palestinians to stick with the non-violence when that happens.
I don't see how else it can be interpreted given the videos that exist - the shootings of marked medical staff, unarmed people walking away, etc. Given that those videos were taken in the event that inspired the case, I'm assuming that is what the petitioners had in mind when they challenged the rules.
Unless you use the impractical, counter-productive standards set by Gandhi in 1922 (his response to Chauri-Chaura probably set back the independence movement by a decade), the fence crossing was largely non-violent (given the number of people gathered) and was met by 150 deaths. Approaching the fence and trying to cross it to demand your rights would be a classic tactic of non-violent civil disobedience.
I've said this previously on the forum and perhaps I wasn't taken seriously, but the only viable course of action for the protesters is to wear nothing but loin cloths when they approach the Israeli fence (which isn't the actual fecking border by the way) because anything else will be construed as a provocation and used forever as a reason to keep them subjugated.
Another alternative would be for the overthrowing of Hamas and replaced with something a little bit less Jew hating.
That whereas the ANC (according to Mandela's words above) only resorted to force after alternative means of resistance had failed, the opposite is true of the Palestinian factions - they have only adopted alternative means after force has failed. From the first national uprising in 1936 until the PLO's apparent renunciation of violence 52 years later, force was regarded as the only legitimate means of liberating Palestine by the dominant Palestinian players, and still is by the faction running the Gaza Strip. Now you may regard the distinction as unimportant, but clearly Mandela felt it worthwhile stressing the chronology of the nature of resistance to Apartheid, since, I presume, he recognized that it had a bearing on how that resistance, and the South African government's response to it, was understood.
The conversation above was related to events surrounding the second intifada, while the Mandela quote was a more general statement of principle relating to the entire movement against Apartheid. I'm not someone who denies that the Palestinians have a right to fight for their rights (including their national rights), by force if necessary (although I think their use of violence has on balance been counter-productive over the years, the 1936-1939 uprising, the 1947-48 war, and the 2nd Intifada being the primary examples). I'm simply arguing that the Palestinians have agency, and that the particular form their struggle has taken over the decades is relevant to understanding Zionist/Israeli behavior and actions and, by extension, the way the conflict has played out, however asymmetrical it may seem (obviously the reverse is also true).
A lot of 'Ifs" 2cents. Problem is that the Palestinians want to the destruction of Israel and it's Jews far more than a Palestinian state. And even if that wasn't the case, given what Muslims are doing to each other what kind of bloodbath could you imagine would happen if they came into Israel and it's Jews? And as for your 2014 piece, I assume that 'mandate Palestine' includes what is now Jordan. Otherwise, it's perpetuating the same geographic/demographic distortion thats got us here in the first place.
It won't make a fecking difference and you know it. You yourself don't consider them humans regardless of gender or age. Hamas is younger than I am, there was no progress without Hamas in the 70s and 80s, why would your narrative be any different with someone else in power?
Yeah, because you're such a shining beacon of tolerance.
Absolutely. As is the only non gay hanging, pray to what you will without getting your head sawn off country in the ME.
The PLO were doing all the killing then anyway. Before that, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was plotting with Hitler.
I'm not using any moral high ground. My position has not changed since the first time I joined this forum, you will always have an excuse to avoid peace even if it means you have to go back to the days of Maimonides to find an excuse.
The PLO wasn't formed until the 1960s, Hamas until the late 80s, your narrative is nonsense
Have I implied otherwise?
Your idea that the Palestinians have from the start turned to violence, bullshit
Feel free to actually counter the point. I've no idea what the dates of the creation of the PLO and Hamas have to do with it though.
Be honest, how would you respond if the Palestinians adopted a program of protest with a list of demands or a national charter along the same lines as those laid out in the ANC Freedom Charter?
I did
ok
Yeah, you just get your head blown off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein
It would become the next existential threat I imagine.
I'm aware. But are you saying that because suicide bombings had happened before (over a year since the last one) that then the bombings in October/November 2000 couldn't have been retaliatory? I think if you go back throughout the entire history of the conflict, both sides would say (and probably could make a convincing argument) that their use of violence was retaliatory. Which naturally takes us back to the root of the conflict. Colonisation. There's your aggressor.
See, you've zeroed in on that part of Mandela's quote where he justifies the use of violence as a last resort. But that wasn't the relevant part of the quote at all. The relevant fact is that he used violence. He was considered by the United States to be a terrorist. And most importantly that he was told to stop attacking us, then we'll talk. There could be a million factors at play that determine why in one country, on one continent, with different leaders and different oppressors, the oppressed more readily adopt armed resistance than in another entirely different country. But it's irrelevant in this discussion.
