Ok if you're questioning moral high ground when it comes to military tactics, how can you not mention that Israel was attacked on Yom Kippur in 73?! Christ.
What bothers me so much is that I am supporting BDS against Israel to help bring about Palestinian statehood, and that's not enough for you guys. You want Israel shamed and humiliated. That's where in all honesty you completely lose credibility
Israel wasn't attacked. The only areas that were attacked were the areas stolen by the Israeli's during the 1967 war. The Egyptians had every right to reclaim their land. Did you not read what I posted above?
Kids anywhere dying is awful guys. Anywhere. South Aftica wasn't attacked six times in the first 25 years of its existence by neighbouring states.
Care to list those 'six times'?
And when you're done listing those 'six times' can you please tell me how even if Israel was attacked one time, how does that in any way justify or excuse it's illegal occupation and land grab? Thanks.
'...Cooperation with the Israeli authorities might lead to short-term relief but it also validates Israel’s “right” to terrorize and humiliate Palestinians with our consent, “we” being all people of conscience. Whether we are Palestinian or not, the call of the hour is non-cooperation and resistance against injustice.
Today, Israel and its supporters lay the blame for the violence in Gaza on Hamas. But Israel did not start its assaults on the Gaza Strip when Hamas was established in the late 1980s. Israel began attacking Gaza when the Strip was populated with the first generation refugees in the early 1950s.
Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, are not faced with an option to resist and be killed or live in peace. They are presented with the options of being killed standing up and fighting or being killed sleeping in their beds.
...Criticizing Palestinian resistance is unconscionable. Israel must be subjected to boycott, divestment and sanctions. Israeli diplomats must be sent home in shame. Israeli leaders, and Israeli commanders traveling abroad, must fear prosecution.
And these measures are to be combined with disobedience, non-cooperation and uncompromising resistance. This and only this will show mothers, fathers and children in Gaza that the world cares and that “never again” is more than an empty promise.
Ok if you're questioning moral high ground when it comes to military tactics, how can you not mention that Israel was attacked on Yom Kippur in 73?! Christ.
What bothers me so much is that I am supporting BDS against Israel to help bring about Palestinian statehood, and that's not enough for you guys. You want Israel shamed and humiliated. That's where in all honesty you completely lose credibility
Israel wasn't attacked. The only areas that were attacked were the areas stolen by the Israeli's during the 1967 war. The Egyptians had every right to reclaim their land. Did you not read what I posted above?
So Israel attacking an air force while it's grounded is heinous, but Egypt attacking a country during a day of fasting is just fine, huh, because as long as you're reclaiming land, you can do anything and kill anybody.
And what about the land Israel returned in 79?
Did you agree with the Avaaz petition's criticisms of Hamas, or were you holding your nose while you signed it?
So Israel attacking an air force while it's grounded is heinous, but Egypt attacking a country during a day of fasting is just fine, huh, because as long as you're reclaiming land, you can do anything and kill anybody.
Egypt didn't attack 'a country'. It sought to liberate it's own territory, which was stolen by the Israeli's in 1967.
Did you not read what I wrote before on this? Of course not. Because you refuse to engage with points that explain why your history and understanding is absolutely wrong. But you continue to push this false narrative.
Did you not read what I wrote before on this? Of course not. Because you refuse to engage with points that explain why your history and understanding is absolutely wrong. But you continue to push this false narrative.
No I read it. Israel did give the land back, though.
If Hamas lost the next election democratically, would you support a Fatah-led Gaza?
Did you not read what I wrote before on this? Of course not. Because you refuse to engage with points that explain why your history and understanding is absolutely wrong. But you continue to push this false narrative.
No I read it. Israel did give the land back, though.
If Hamas lost the next election democratically, would you support a Fatah-led Gaza?
I think EVERYBODY should support WHOEVER the Palestinians elect for their represenitives. Who the fuck are we to tell a people who to vote for or elect? Oh ya, I forgot, that's EXACTLLY what we do.
Some people claim that 'Both sides are to blame'. This is wrong in many ways. For one thing, it's wrong because there aren't 'two sides'. There's Israel and the U.S on one side, and the Palestinians on the other. The U.S stands isolated in the World in providing a rubber stamp to Israel's crimes at the U.N.
• Obama administration's first veto leaves US isolated • 'This will encourage Israeli intransigence,' says Palestine
Ed Pilkington The Guardian, Friday 18 February 2011
The Obama administration wielded its first veto at the UN security council last night in a move to swipe down a resolution condemning Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.
The US stood alone among the 15 members of the security council in failing to condemn the resumption of settlement building that has caused a serious rift between the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority and derailed attempts to kick-start the peace process. The Palestinians have made clear that they will not return to the negotiating table until Israel suspends settlement building in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
The decision placed the US in a controversial position at a time when it is already struggling to define its strategy in a tumultuous Middle East.
The 14 member countries backing the Arab-drafted resolution included Britain and France.
The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said the decision to use the veto power – open to the five permanent members of the UN, of which the US is one – "should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity".
She said Washington's view was that the Israeli settlements lacked legitimacy, but added: "Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations."
But the isolated stance of the Obama administration risked the appearance of weakness in its approach to the search for Middle East peace and set it on a contradictory course to its earlier tough language against the settlements.
The Palestinian observer at the UN, Riyad Mansour, said the veto was unfortunate. "We fear ... that the message sent today may be one that only encourages further Israeli intransigence and impunity," he said.
Washington's controversial move clearly riled other members of the security council. Britain, France and Germany put out a joint statement in which they explained they had voted for the resolution "because our views on settlements, including east Jerusalem, are clear: they are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace, and constitute a threat to a two-state solution. All settlement activity, including in east Jerusalem, should cease immediately."
William Hague said he understood Israeli concern for security, but said that was precisely why Britain had backed the resolution. "We believe that Israel's security and the realisation of the Palestinians' right to statehood are not opposing goals. On the contrary, they are intimately intertwined objectives." The US has used its veto 10 times since 2000, nine of which involved backing the Israeli side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
dancinacrossthewater, while true, this article wasn't posted to draw attention to the necessity of the dismantlement of the settlements. Instead, I suspect Byrnzie is trying to show how, despite the fact that technically there are 'two sides', one side has restrictions applied to daily life (lack of clean water, lack of infrastructure-restoring supplies such as Portland cement and rebar, lack of the ability to leave what is politely called a 'war zone', high degree of uncertainty of being alive the next day), while the other is backed in the hundreds of millions of dollars by an enormous militaristic superpower who also happens to have (and regularly abuses their) veto power, providing unconditional support for Israel regardless of what's being asked.
So, are there two sides? Sure, technically, but the situation appears so one-sided that it almost reads as insulting to keep going back to "but there are two sides to every story".
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
dancinacrossthewater, while true, this article wasn't posted to draw attention to the necessity of the dismantlement of the settlements. Instead, I suspect Byrnzie is trying to show how, despite the fact that technically there are 'two sides', one side has restrictions applied to daily life (lack of clean water, lack of infrastructure-restoring supplies such as Portland cement and rebar, lack of the ability to leave what is politely called a 'war zone', high degree of uncertainty of being alive the next day), while the other is backed in the hundreds of millions of dollars by an enormous militaristic superpower who also happens to have (and regularly abuses their) veto power, providing unconditional support for Israel regardless of what's being asked.
So, are there two sides? Sure, technically, but the situation appears so one-sided that it almost reads as insulting to keep going back to "but there are two sides to every story".
i hear you, man. the us shouldn't be abusing their veto power on behalf of israel, that's for sure.
Where would you say Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria sit on this issue? If you're gonna frame this as Israel + US vs Palestine, whose side are the above countries on?
Egypt and Jordan aren't on the side of the Palestinians. So that leaves Lebanon and possibly Syria - two countries that are hardly in any position to pose any kind of significant threat.
I agree with you Byrnzie. What factors would you say account for Egypt and Jordan not advocating for Palestine more strongly?
I'm not trying to trick or bait you at all here. I have my own understanding of why these apparently natural allies of Palestibe in the region don't support it in they way they should, but I'm interested in your take.
I agree with you Byrnzie. What factors would you say account for Egypt and Jordan not advocating for Palestine more strongly?
If you agree with me then why did you mention Egypt and Jordan in relation to their alleged allegiance to Palestine in the first place? And why did you lump Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria all in together?
I agree with you Byrnzie. What factors would you say account for Egypt and Jordan not advocating for Palestine more strongly?
I'm not trying to trick or bait you at all here. I have my own understanding of why these apparently natural allies of Palestibe in the region don't support it in they way they should, but I'm interested in your take.
Let me take a wild guess: your theory has to do with Hamas?
I realize the question wasn't directed towards me. But if I may, egypt's change in relations with Israel has nothing to do with Palestinians or their strategy of resistance or anything like that. Egypt's dictator and ruling military class simply finds it more profitable to collaborate with Israel on business deals, and guess what, in these societies you don't collaborate on business deals without also collaborating on military and security. Because when you're robbing your country blind as the Egyptians were doing you also have to keep your population subjugated and unable to rise up. When finally the Egyptians did, Israel was terrified, and it's no coincidence that Sisi was in talks with intelligence officials with Israel on a regular basis from the earliest moments of the coup through the darkest periods of repression that followed it (which has yet to see any sort of resolution).
Meanwhile, the Jordanians are not even independent, let's be honest. Their currency is tied to the dollar, their military and security officials are entirely made up of stooges working in cohorts with the United States and Israel, and the Jordanian repression of Palestinian resistance - especially nonviolent - is well documented.
These dictatorial countries are not any signal of actual Arab attitudes towards Israel. If you want any thoughts on that, just think back historically to every country Israel has bombed: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Sudan, Tunisia, Iraq, and the list goes on. Israel's war has primarily been against the Palestinians, but they have wasted no efforts on making their oppression known more widely. Just ask anyone living in Beirut in 2006. Since the conflict began, their strategy and this is also the strategy of western powers has been to prop up and support dictators who can quell Arab resentment and continue their repression while also benefiting them economically and through security agreements. This is also what they intend to do with the Palestinians - as they did with Abbas and the PA - and why they cannot tolerate a resistance movement like Hamas, or democratic elections that can place another party in power.
Of course, I see you disagreeing with this, but after all why wouldn't you? You've demonstrated many times already that you have wrong information on the Middle East. Remember those 130,000 dead Palestinians in syria?
Ok, it was 200,000 dead or displaced in Syria. Sorry. That's much better.
I thought the Arab spring was great actually, and wish Egypt had continued down the path of revolution.
I don't agree with the equation that Hamas = resistance = justice. Israel is not the evil ruling power in the Middle East. It's a country that's felt backed into a corner and has made awful errors that has killed people, but it's also a democracy where the rights of oppressed people like gays and lesbians, for example, are respected.
That doesn't make Israel a shining beacon of hope in the Middle East either. But Israel + Jordan + Egypt, and the US for that matter, aren't simply slathering oppression around the globe, while heroic entities like Hamas and Iran resist.
I guess ultimately what you guys are saying is that Israel, with US backing, is so repressive that the only way Palestine will ever become a reality is through constant violent resistance.
I see the way forward as through negotiation like what was occurring in Oslo in the early 90s. I don't believe Israel is oppressing Gaza for the fun of it, or out of simple racist ideology.
I can't prove you guys wrong, I acknowledge that. We won't know until Palestine becomes a state through one avenue or the other.
I don't think Hamas is closer to making it happen than Abbas or Arafat was, though.
Comments
We're going around in circles. We all support the Avaaz petition. That's great.
And when you're done listing those 'six times' can you please tell me how even if Israel was attacked one time, how does that in any way justify or excuse it's illegal occupation and land grab? Thanks.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/gaza-reminds-us-zionisms-original-sin/13775
'...Cooperation with the Israeli authorities might lead to short-term relief but it also validates Israel’s “right” to terrorize and humiliate Palestinians with our consent, “we” being all people of conscience. Whether we are Palestinian or not, the call of the hour is non-cooperation and resistance against injustice.
Today, Israel and its supporters lay the blame for the violence in Gaza on Hamas. But Israel did not start its assaults on the Gaza Strip when Hamas was established in the late 1980s. Israel began attacking Gaza when the Strip was populated with the first generation refugees in the early 1950s.
Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, are not faced with an option to resist and be killed or live in peace. They are presented with the options of being killed standing up and fighting or being killed sleeping in their beds.
...Criticizing Palestinian resistance is unconscionable. Israel must be subjected to boycott, divestment and sanctions. Israeli diplomats must be sent home in shame. Israeli leaders, and Israeli commanders traveling abroad, must fear prosecution.
And these measures are to be combined with disobedience, non-cooperation and uncompromising resistance. This and only this will show mothers, fathers and children in Gaza that the world cares and that “never again” is more than an empty promise.
And what about the land Israel returned in 79?
Did you agree with the Avaaz petition's criticisms of Hamas, or were you holding your nose while you signed it?
If Hamas lost the next election democratically, would you support a Fatah-led Gaza?
Here's one such example:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/19/us-veto-israel-settlement
US vetoes UN condemnation of Israeli settlements
• Obama administration's first veto leaves US isolated
• 'This will encourage Israeli intransigence,' says Palestine
Ed Pilkington
The Guardian, Friday 18 February 2011
The Obama administration wielded its first veto at the UN security council last night in a move to swipe down a resolution condemning Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.
The US stood alone among the 15 members of the security council in failing to condemn the resumption of settlement building that has caused a serious rift between the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority and derailed attempts to kick-start the peace process. The Palestinians have made clear that they will not return to the negotiating table until Israel suspends settlement building in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
The decision placed the US in a controversial position at a time when it is already struggling to define its strategy in a tumultuous Middle East.
The 14 member countries backing the Arab-drafted resolution included Britain and France.
The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said the decision to use the veto power – open to the five permanent members of the UN, of which the US is one – "should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity".
She said Washington's view was that the Israeli settlements lacked legitimacy, but added: "Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations."
But the isolated stance of the Obama administration risked the appearance of weakness in its approach to the search for Middle East peace and set it on a contradictory course to its earlier tough language against the settlements.
The Palestinian observer at the UN, Riyad Mansour, said the veto was unfortunate. "We fear ... that the message sent today may be one that only encourages further Israeli intransigence and impunity," he said.
Washington's controversial move clearly riled other members of the security council. Britain, France and Germany put out a joint statement in which they explained they had voted for the resolution "because our views on settlements, including east Jerusalem, are clear: they are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace, and constitute a threat to a two-state solution. All settlement activity, including in east Jerusalem, should cease immediately."
William Hague said he understood Israeli concern for security, but said that was precisely why Britain had backed the resolution. "We believe that Israel's security and the realisation of the Palestinians' right to statehood are not opposing goals. On the contrary, they are intimately intertwined objectives." The US has used its veto 10 times since 2000, nine of which involved backing the Israeli side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
So, are there two sides? Sure, technically, but the situation appears so one-sided that it almost reads as insulting to keep going back to "but there are two sides to every story".
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I'm not trying to trick or bait you at all here. I have my own understanding of why these apparently natural allies of Palestibe in the region don't support it in they way they should, but I'm interested in your take.
I realize the question wasn't directed towards me. But if I may, egypt's change in relations with Israel has nothing to do with Palestinians or their strategy of resistance or anything like that. Egypt's dictator and ruling military class simply finds it more profitable to collaborate with Israel on business deals, and guess what, in these societies you don't collaborate on business deals without also collaborating on military and security. Because when you're robbing your country blind as the Egyptians were doing you also have to keep your population subjugated and unable to rise up. When finally the Egyptians did, Israel was terrified, and it's no coincidence that Sisi was in talks with intelligence officials with Israel on a regular basis from the earliest moments of the coup through the darkest periods of repression that followed it (which has yet to see any sort of resolution).
Meanwhile, the Jordanians are not even independent, let's be honest. Their currency is tied to the dollar, their military and security officials are entirely made up of stooges working in cohorts with the United States and Israel, and the Jordanian repression of Palestinian resistance - especially nonviolent - is well documented.
These dictatorial countries are not any signal of actual Arab attitudes towards Israel. If you want any thoughts on that, just think back historically to every country Israel has bombed: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Sudan, Tunisia, Iraq, and the list goes on. Israel's war has primarily been against the Palestinians, but they have wasted no efforts on making their oppression known more widely. Just ask anyone living in Beirut in 2006. Since the conflict began, their strategy and this is also the strategy of western powers has been to prop up and support dictators who can quell Arab resentment and continue their repression while also benefiting them economically and through security agreements. This is also what they intend to do with the Palestinians - as they did with Abbas and the PA - and why they cannot tolerate a resistance movement like Hamas, or democratic elections that can place another party in power.
Of course, I see you disagreeing with this, but after all why wouldn't you? You've demonstrated many times already that you have wrong information on the Middle East. Remember those 130,000 dead Palestinians in syria?
I thought the Arab spring was great actually, and wish Egypt had continued down the path of revolution.
I don't agree with the equation that Hamas = resistance = justice. Israel is not the evil ruling power in the Middle East. It's a country that's felt backed into a corner and has made awful errors that has killed people, but it's also a democracy where the rights of oppressed people like gays and lesbians, for example, are respected.
That doesn't make Israel a shining beacon of hope in the Middle East either. But Israel + Jordan + Egypt, and the US for that matter, aren't simply slathering oppression around the globe, while heroic entities like Hamas and Iran resist.
I see the way forward as through negotiation like what was occurring in Oslo in the early 90s. I don't believe Israel is oppressing Gaza for the fun of it, or out of simple racist ideology.
I can't prove you guys wrong, I acknowledge that. We won't know until Palestine becomes a state through one avenue or the other.
I don't think Hamas is closer to making it happen than Abbas or Arafat was, though.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-demands-release-jailed-american-teen-091921197.html