And yet you guys have killed more people than most of the middle eastern countries combined.
21 year old medic dead at the hands of the israeli butchers but lets blame hamas.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Well since you posted it, I thought you felt it was relevant. I still do, and as I argued above, I believe Mandela felt it to be very relevant, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered stressing it. Because telling someone "stop attacking us, then we'll talk" may appear reasonable or unreasonable depending on whether or not the attacker has previously expressed a willingness to talk. If the relevant fact is simply that Mandela believed the use of violence to be legitimate in certain circumstances, that strikes me as a rather mundane point to make, since it applies to all these types of conflicts.
In any case, for me it's the "million factors at play" that not only make each case unique and interesting, but are also crucial for understanding exactly how we got to this stage, and by extension the broad outlines of what we can expect in the future; but if you're determined to make the South Africa analogy stick, I can understand the lack of interest in any details which may complicate it.
There was also, as you know, violent resistance before the revolt which I deliberately didn't include, because the revolt was the first nation-wide, grass-roots action undertaken by Palestinian society as a collective, whereas earlier acts of resistance, violent or non-violent, tended to be more localized, sporadic affairs, even in the case of the Mufti's involvement in the 1929 violence. The revolt itself was violent from the start at the popular level, accompanied by the general strike called by the Arab High Committee - but the Committee couldn't really impose control over the course of events, which became more violent in 1937 at which time the more moderate Nashashibis were ousted and al-Husayni exiled.Super Hans said:
Fair enough, not the only means, just the primary means (i.e. from the new, 'moderate' Hamas charter - "Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance").Super Hans said:
I remember previously on here you stated that the Israelis have killed "millions" - what are your sources/figures for these claims?
You have a good memory or a lot of time on your hand if you remember a comment from 2016(just checked).Source?
How does that contradict my point?
If you recall what Chairman Woodie and I were debating, it was the Palestinian use of violence and the Israeli demand to have a monopoly on force. The Mandela quote happened to include Mandela's personal opinion and justification (and he had his own reasons for wanting to convince the world that his resort to violence (and refusal to abandon it) was a wrenching decision - but nobody can know for sure except Mandela himself). But that part of the quote had no relevance to what Woodie and I were debating. Your comment singling out that irrelevant part of the quote smacked of a subtle attempt to delegitimize Palestinian armed struggle. The hidden subtext is that Palestinians just couldn't wait to kill Jews.
Another point I think should be made is that the formation of MK was hardly the last resort to armed resistance by the natives that is ultimately the core of your argument. Mandela would have been well aware of how armed resistance to colonisation had turned out for the people of the region in the centuries preceding the 1960s. He had the benefit of seeing how non-violence had worked in India. It didn't however take him long at all to switch to violence.
I think it's hard to justify the implication that the resort to violence was too readily adopted. The Arabs endured significant provocations throughout the beginnings of zionist immigration. Here is Ahad Ha'am in 1891!:
"[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that only exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when a slave rules." 'Ahad Ha'Am warned: "We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation that neither sees nor understands what is going on around it. But this is a great error. The Arab, like all sons of Sham, has a sharp and crafty mind . . . Should the time come when the life of our people in Palestine imposes to a smaller or greater extent on the natives, they will not easily step aside."
When you refer to "the Mufti's involvement in the 1929 violence", what is it you are referring to? Surely you don't mean that he planned or even encouraged it? At most you could say he tried to rally his people to resist the obvious plans to dispossess them. The violence was coming one way or another, despite the mufti's pleas on the morning of the 1929 riots urging his community to keep the peace.
You're reading things into my argument that just aren't there. I've said in this thread and others that Palestinian resistance to Zionism was and is completely natural and understandable - in resisting Zionism initially they were behaving pretty much as humans throughout history have reacted to the attempt by foreigners to impose themselves on a native society. Previously on here I drew a contrast with how the Arabs of Syria/Lebanon etc. responded to the influx of Armenian refugees during and after WW1 to show that Arab opposition to Zionism wasn't fundamentally about hatred of infidels or xenophobia, but about rejecting a political project which aimed to make them a minority in their homeland.
What I find interesting are the particular forms this resistance has taken as the Palestinians have increasingly self-identified as a collective over the decades. I believe these distinguish it from other comparable cases and have had an impact on the nature of the conflict and Zionist/Israeli actions and behavior, and are too readily ignored or dismissed by people who seem to believe that only Zionist/Israeli behavior are relevant to how it has played out. In that respect, with South Africa in mind it's worth noting not only the difference in emphasis on the centrality or otherwise of armed struggle to the cause, but also the actual stated goals of the resistors - compare the ANC Freedom Charter with the PLO and Hamas equivalents. To dismiss, for example, the fact that by their own self-definition, the Palestinians and their cause are inextricably tied to the Arab and Islamic worlds in ways that impact upon how that cause is pursued is to not take the Palestinians seriously as a people IMO.
My argument was based solely on the Mandela quote you posted. I don't know enough about the early years of opposition to Apartheid to show Mandela was wrong, but I'll take your word for it.
Again you're reading an implication that isn't there in my argument. It's not for me to say whether or not or at what stage force was justified in resisting Zionism, it's not a moral judgement I'm trying to make, that's just not the way I approach the history (or at least I try not to). I agree that broadly speaking the Zionists, like most Europeans of the time, regarded the Arabs generally with contempt if they regarded them at all, and that the mainstream and revisionist Zionist factions rejected compromise or negotiations with the Arabs during the mandate years (although they had, initially, different ideas on how to win Arab acceptance without actually talking to them).
Just his role in fueling the initial panic over the Western Wall which fed into the violence that followed. I mentioned him only because he's the only actor who could be described at that time as something of a national figure although, as I argued, I don't think it's meaningful to speak of a collective Palestinian national action until the course of the revolt of the late 30s.
The ANC fought a zero-um struggle against Boer/Afrikaner nationalism, but offered a form of nationalism, that was inclusive to any person born in the country regardless of their skin color. Both couldn't have existed at the same time, but it is very easy to pick sides in such a conflict. Thats why SA became the “rainbow nation” (ignoring all the problems/shortfalls of this approach) and not a state of black supremacy.
At least the claims are, that there is no form of nationalistic project that would appeal to both sides and that they are so incompatible that even coexistence is impossible. @2cents posted a interesting blog article about survey data, that seems to support these claims. Additionally some interpretations of panarab nationalism/Islamic theocracy and certain forms of Zionism seem to be pretty explicit about this. Hamas charter doesn't hide, that the establishment of a Palestinian nation in the borders of 67 wouldn't end their struggle. Considering that there is no realistic vision for a shared project (or even co-existence), picking sides means picking one national project over another. Any legitimization of violence has to take all of that into account. If the Palestinians would offer a convincing inclusive/peaceful vision of a future political arrangement, their claims that they have to use violence to achieve it would a lot more convincing.
@2cents i picked up the book about Lebanon. Very interesting.
At least the claims are, that there is no form of nationalistic project that would appeal to both sides and that they are so incompatible that even coexistence is impossible. @2cents posted a interesting blog article about survey data, that seems to support these claims. Additionally some interpretations of panarab nationalism/Islamic theocracy and certain forms of Zionism seem to be pretty explicit about this. Hamas charter doesn't hide, that the establishment of a Palestinian nation in the borders of 67 wouldn't end their struggle. Considering that there is no realistic vision for a shared project (or even co-existence), picking sides means picking one national project over another. Any legitimization of violence has to take all of that into account. If the Palestinians would offer a convincing inclusive/peaceful vision of a future political arrangement, their claims that they have to use violence to achieve it would a lot more convincing.
@2cents i picked up the book about Lebanon. Very interesting.
This is why over the years both sides have rejected the legitimacy of the other as a nationally-defined 'people' - with all the rights current international norms imply should be derived from that status - while emphasizing their own nationalist credentials, and have instead attempted to re-conceptualize the conflict through alternative lens. For Israel and its supporters, as the struggle of a reborn nation and a liberal Western state on the frontline of a war against Arab backwardness and Islamic supremacism; and for the Palestinians and their supporters, as resistance to a settler-colonial state pursuing a classic imperialist agenda against a hapless native people.
The day these misreadings of the conflict are cast aside and there is a genuine mutual recognition of the reasons why both peoples constitute legitimate nations with legitimate bonds with the land, suddenly all the sticky issues - Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders, etc. - will become a lot more manageable.
In the 1990s, did you support the Israeli right wing's efforts to fund and empower an extremist religious sect as a "counter-weight" ?
In the sense that in the dynamic of a decade-long violent conflict every action can be seen as retaliatory, no.
In the sense of the grand narrative you're promoting (Hamas as a mainly defensive actor, bearing resemblance to the ANC in nature), yes. Their goals are offensive in nature and compromise beyond a temporary retreat is treason. They have always made that clear to everone who wanted to know. From that standpoint, striking is a mere matter of opportunity, and (afaik) the brief period of relative restraint in the late 90s was the product of heightened pressure from the PA, Israel, and Jordan in light of the ongoing negotiations, not of the will to take a step back on Hamas's behalf.
Weisglass was saying that there would be no negotiations until the Palestinians renounce terror.
I have no knowledge of Mandela or Apartheid South Africa. Even if I did, I would avoid comparisons to South Africa or any other struggle or conflict.
The difference is Baruch Goldstein was an exception, not the rule.
Last edited:
She wore a medics coat, white gloves and had her hands up the entire time as she went to treat the wounded. Out in an open field, it was intentional. Cold blooded murder is their MO.
A lot of noise coming from the IDF in the last week pushing for a new approach to Gaza and Hamas:
Time Is Now for Deal With Hamas, Senior Israeli Military Officer Says
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...enior-israeli-military-officer-says-1.6137193
Army calls to lift some economic restrictions on Gaza, boost chances of quiet
https://www.timesofisrael.com/army-said-to-urge-lifting-economic-restrictions-on-gaza/
Israel Has to Talk to Hamas. Otherwise, It's War
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east...to-talk-to-hamas-otherwise-it-s-war-1.6154515
Time Is Now for Deal With Hamas, Senior Israeli Military Officer Says
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...enior-israeli-military-officer-says-1.6137193
Army calls to lift some economic restrictions on Gaza, boost chances of quiet
https://www.timesofisrael.com/army-said-to-urge-lifting-economic-restrictions-on-gaza/
Israel Has to Talk to Hamas. Otherwise, It's War
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east...to-talk-to-hamas-otherwise-it-s-war-1.6154515
I feel like a conflict is inevitable since Bibi feels empowered to take action while Trump is still in office.
I guess at some point, it gets tiring to shoot and kill harmless civilians...
According to this, Netanyahu may be willing to strike some sort of deal over Gaza in return for the help he's getting from the Americans and Russians vis-a-vis Iran's presence in Syria - https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/or...nians-syria-iran-netanyahu.html#ixzz5HDxEdxyl
In any case, the above links are as close a public acknowledgement as you're likely to get from official-type Israeli sources that Israel's post-2007 Gaza policy has been basically a disaster.
There is also this - https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/or...za-strip-yahya-sinwar-idf-demonstrations.html:
Hamas apparently postponed Tuesday's planned Naksa Day protest to align with tomorrow's Iranian-organized Quds Day.
"Israel conveyed a message to Hamas indicating that June 5 would determine the prospects of easing the Gaza siege and reaching a long-term truce. This is the first time since it imposed its siege on Gaza following the Hamas takeover of the Strip in 2007 that Israel has openly discussed an arrangement with Hamas.
An Israeli defense official who spoke with Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity said Egypt had spelled out this message clearly in the talks with Hamas that resulted in the current cease-fire. Israel is now considering a significant easing of its curbs on Gaza within the framework of a plan formulated by the IDF in coordination with the civil administration. Any comprehensive, long-term agreement with Hamas would likely include an opening of the Gaza border crossings with Israel and construction of a seaport. And while the IDF is obviously not involved in weighing the diplomatic significance of such plans, the political echelons run every proposal by the top military brass for input on the security implications...
...Reports have emerged in recent weeks of Hamas' proposals conveyed to Israel through Egypt and Qatar for a long-term truce in return for a major relaxation of the siege. Israel has yet to respond in detail, but it is giving them more serious consideration than it has to such proposals in the past. The IDF is not talking about a truce, instead using the term “regulation” that would entail clear rules for easing the crisis affecting Gaza’s 2 million Palestinian residents. A commitment by Hamas to accept Israel’s terms, as outlined by the senior IDF officer, could promote such an outcome.
The June 5 protest is a significant hurdle. Hamas is continuing its preparations for the event and does not seem inclined to give it up. If dozens of Palestinians are killed on June 5 in a mass attempt to breach the border fence, Israel will find itself once again facing harsh international condemnation as it did in recent weeks, likely precluding Israeli concessions and a long-term truce. To arrive at an arrangement with Hamas, the Israeli government will also have to prepare the domestic public and ensure political support by hammering the message that such a move will benefit Israel’s security. If Hamas opts for violent demonstrations against Israel, progress is unlikely."
An Israeli defense official who spoke with Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity said Egypt had spelled out this message clearly in the talks with Hamas that resulted in the current cease-fire. Israel is now considering a significant easing of its curbs on Gaza within the framework of a plan formulated by the IDF in coordination with the civil administration. Any comprehensive, long-term agreement with Hamas would likely include an opening of the Gaza border crossings with Israel and construction of a seaport. And while the IDF is obviously not involved in weighing the diplomatic significance of such plans, the political echelons run every proposal by the top military brass for input on the security implications...
...Reports have emerged in recent weeks of Hamas' proposals conveyed to Israel through Egypt and Qatar for a long-term truce in return for a major relaxation of the siege. Israel has yet to respond in detail, but it is giving them more serious consideration than it has to such proposals in the past. The IDF is not talking about a truce, instead using the term “regulation” that would entail clear rules for easing the crisis affecting Gaza’s 2 million Palestinian residents. A commitment by Hamas to accept Israel’s terms, as outlined by the senior IDF officer, could promote such an outcome.
The June 5 protest is a significant hurdle. Hamas is continuing its preparations for the event and does not seem inclined to give it up. If dozens of Palestinians are killed on June 5 in a mass attempt to breach the border fence, Israel will find itself once again facing harsh international condemnation as it did in recent weeks, likely precluding Israeli concessions and a long-term truce. To arrive at an arrangement with Hamas, the Israeli government will also have to prepare the domestic public and ensure political support by hammering the message that such a move will benefit Israel’s security. If Hamas opts for violent demonstrations against Israel, progress is unlikely."
Hamas apparently postponed Tuesday's planned Naksa Day protest to align with tomorrow's Iranian-organized Quds Day.
Why would the Palestinians renounce terror until there was a peace deal? That is the whole point of a peace deal, to agree to the arrangement that sees a ceasefire become permanent.
Of course you'd want to avoid comparison to apartheid South Africa because that is exactly what Israel has become
No. I wrote that I would avoid comparisons to South Africa (if I had the knowledge) or any other struggle or conflict. The reason I wrote that is because such comparisons have limits and make any debate/conversation more complicated.
Not this one since the parallels are clear. Aparthied South Africa was shit, aparthied Israel is shit, the same pressures need to be brought on Israel
Nikki Haley badly embarrassed in University for supporting Israel
Can you show your opinion grounded in fact?
The Palestinians would renounce terror permanently - not temporarily. This would form part of the guarantee for Israel's security.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You have three groups of people in Israel and the occupied territories, the Jewish Israelis who enjoy all rights and freedoms, the Palestinian citizens of Israel who enjoy some of the some rights but are in too low a number to effect the democratic process and whom the state discriminates to a lesser extent, and the Palestinians of the occupied territories who are treated like shit. This echos the ruling structure in South Africa of White Africaans, the Indians like the Palestinian Israelis and the Black South Africans. Like the apartheid regime was happy to use the labour of black South Africans, aparthied Israel is happy to use the labour of the Palestinians, before locking them away into small areas of self rule, which echo the bantustans of South Africa. This means you get their work, but they don't get the vote, therefore allowing the state to be directed by of only Jewish concerns
The temporary part is the ceasefire, the permanent part is the peace deal. This is the normal route when agreeing a peace deal
That is disgraceful. There is also a reference to “Shi’ite Iran” on these leaflets allegedly dropped over Gaza:
On the other hand nothing seems more likely to foment sectarian unity across the region than the sight of an IDF spokesman trying to stir this shit.
(Edit): It's also spectacularly dumb, given Netanyahu's much publicized 'outreach' to the Iranian people:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I wonder which message will receive more attention in Iran?
Last edited:
Sure sure. Just like the National Party wouldn't negotiate Mandela's release until he renounced terror.
I'm sure you would. Is there anybody today brave enough to say they supported apartheid? The time will come when Israel will be seen universally in the same light.
So in the rest of the Middle East, those that would saw your head off are the rule?
It's interesting that you see it that way. As I see it, the occupying power demolishing tens of thousands of Palestinian homes and committing daily war crimes and human rights abuses against a protected population, incarcerating 40% of the male population and torturing them on an industrial scale is the offensive behaviour, whereas the behaviour of Hamas, which came after decades of this, is a reaction to that. But what do I know.
Can someone confirm if he actually called them "rafidha"?
You need to read my post again. Note the text in bold.
Drawing comparisons to any other struggle or conflict, past or present, has its limits. Hence why I would avoid it.Chairman Woodie said:
You'd avoid it because the parallels are clear
Check out @IDFSpokesperson’s Tweet:
Oh shit, those brave boys, war is hell.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Oh shit, those brave boys, war is hell.
The lack of self awareness of the apartheid enforcers is staggering. They actually believe they are the victims as they, for years, have used brutal violence to prevent the people of Nabi Saleh from walking peacefully to their water spring, which the settlers in the illegal settlement of Hallamish have taken over and renamed after Meir Kahane. You couldn’t make it up.
The Palestinians must have roped in Hercules.
Really, that's just projecting your own political agenda on Hamas. They have never confined themselves to such a role. Here are some relevant parts from their 2017 charter on their basic goals regarding Israel (although I'm quite sure the problem isn't that you don't know them):
There's simply no denying their fundamental goals are offensive in nature, they say it themselves (as do Iran and Hezbollah, over and over again). They're just unable to follow through practically due to Israel's current overwhelming dominance and their relative isolation. The final sentence of 20. captures Hamas's present political strategy as a reaction to that situation, explicitly not giving up on the long-term target. But we were talking about 1993-2000 anyway, long before that strategy, so the old Covenant applies.
That can't be right. The Israeli's hate when things are named after a terrorist.