Just wondering if people here consider Hamas a terrorist organization.
As far as terrorism is concerned, Hamas have a long way to go before they can reach Israel's level. 47 years of illegal occupation = a crime against humanity under article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The deliberate targeting of unarmed civilians - a war crime. Dropping white phosphorous bombs on densely populated residential areas - a war crime. The deliberate shooting of medical personnel = a war crime. The destruction of civilian homes as a form of collective punishment = a war crime.
e.t.c, e.t.c.
It's a yes/no question. No need to add your opinion. i just want to know if you think that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
This kind of bile is unfortunately all too common amongst supporters of Israel. They pretend to be rational, reasonable people, yet all of their self-serving, convoluted legalese, is essentially no different to that expressed by the Nazis when deciding the fate of the Jews during WWII. They pretend to be civilized, erudite, and well-intentioned, whilst attempting to rationalize and justify the rightness of their desire to commit mass murder, and the ethnic cleansing of their neighbours.
Oh, o.k., so some random comments from a bunch of trolls is suddenly representative of supporters of Israel in general. And of course, we're all Nazis looking to commit genocide. That's not at all divorced from reality or just a plain shitty thing to say. Would you compare a black person to a plantation owner? But of course you never engage in name calling...
This is why this issue is so fascinating and absorbing to me. If it was simply a case of two opposing forces fighting a long-drawn-out conflict, then I probably wouldn't pay it so much attention. But what really interests me re: Israel-Palestine is the enormous amount of it's attendant bullshit and outright lies. Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder.
"Never in the history of the human race..." So supporters of Israel are the most racist and bloodthirsty people in the history of humanity. And you wonder why some might think that your comments have a tendency to veer into bigotry.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Oh, o.k., so some random comments from a bunch of trolls is suddenly representative of supporters of Israel in general. And of course, we're all Nazis looking to commit genocide. That's not at all divorced from reality or just a plain shitty thing to say. Would you compare a black person to a plantation owner? But of course you never engage in name calling...
Did you even read the article? It was written by Moshe Feiglin. He's the 'head of the Manhigut Yehudit [Jewish Leadership] faction in the Likud party and a new member of the Knesset.'
But you pretend that the calls for ethnic cleansing, and possible genocide of the Palestinians, are simply the work of 'a bunch of trolls'?
"Never in the history of the human race..." So supporters of Israel are the most racist and bloodthirsty people in the history of humanity. And you wonder why some might think that your comments have a tendency to veer into bigotry.
Once again, twisting my words. You have a habit of doing that.
Here's what I said: "Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder."
I didn't say that supporters of Israel are the most racist and bloodthirsty people in the history of humanity. I didn't say that Israel's supporters can be compared to the Mongol Hordes, or to the Waffen SS marching through Europe. I said that "Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder."
"Never in the history of the human race..." So supporters of Israel are the most racist and bloodthirsty people in the history of humanity. And you wonder why some might think that your comments have a tendency to veer into bigotry.
Once again, twisting my words. You have a habit of doing that.
Here's what I said: "Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder."
I didn't say that supporters of Israel are the most racist and bloodthirsty people in the history of humanity. I didn't say that Israel's supporters can be compared to the Mongol Hordes, or to the Waffen SS marching through Europe. I said that "Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder."
Yes. Exactly. You are saying that supporters of Israel are more accepting of racism and murder than any other group of people...ever. Which would logically seem to imply that they are more racist and bloodthirsty than any other group of people ever. Which seems to be a comment that would be very easy to consider kind of bigoted since it implies that Jews (i.e., "supporters of Israel") are a uniquely evil sort of people.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
It's a yes/no question. No need to add your opinion. i just want to know if you think that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Is Hamas is a terrorist organization - an organization who's sole aim and purpose is to commit acts of terrorism? No. Hamas was elected in a free and fair election in 2006, and has carried out extensive social work for the population under it's remit. It has also stated clearly on numerous occasions that it agrees with the international consensus on a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the terms laid out in international law. Has Hamas ever been responsible for acts of terrorism? Yes, just as the ANC were.
Either way, let's say for arguments sake that they are a terrorist organization - an organization who's sole aim and purpose is to commit acts of terrorism. Does that excuse and justify Israel's illegal occupation and encroaching land grab? Does that justify all of the war crimes committed by Israel over the past 47 years of the occupation? Hamas was only founded in 1987. What was Israel's excuse before that? You pretend that Hamas is the problem, and that they're the reason for the occupation and the expansion of illegal Jewish-only settlements? Really? Or are you just parroting the opinion of the glossy-lipped news reporters you hear on mainstream U.S television?
"Palestinian moderates will never prevail over those considered extremists, since what defines moderation for [the Israeli leadership] is Palestinian acquiescence in Israel’s dismemberment of Palestinian territory."- Henry Siegman
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
Let's not act as if this conflict began with Hamas. Israel was pursuing its aggressive settler colonial project decades before they, or any formal armed Palestinian resistance, even existed.
It didn't begin with Hamas. But Hamas is an impediment to its resolution so long as they insist on violence as a paramount virtue. I don't think that Israelis are ever going to trust Hamas (at least not in the foreseeable future) nor do they have any reason to given the organization's behavior. In lieu of trust in the organization's peaceful intentions, disarmament would allow Israelis to feel secure, in exchange for which the Palestinians get reciprocal security and a Marshall plan . That doesn't seem like a bad bargain to me.
The notion that this entire conflict is based on Israelis feeling "secure" is simply a fallacy. This is a settler colonial project, and Israel will not be satisfied until there is an end to any resistance to the pursuit of more Palestinian land, and further expulsion of Palestinians, along with the creation and continuing of a discriminatory system that treats Palestinians as second class citizens (within Israel itself) or even worse (since those in Gaza and the West Bank are not even given the "luxury" of citizenship and are forced to live stateless under occupation). Let's stick to what the reality on the ground is in this conversation, please.
During these times of imminent war, do the Arabs that live in Israel live safely? Are they looked down upon by Israelis? Will they be rounded up and placed in a camp until wars end?
The Palestinian citizens of Israel are always looked down upon, not just during times of war, and are forced to deal with several laws that discriminates against them and treats them as second class citizens. For more information on this, you can check out Ben White's book on the subject.
Just wondering if people here consider Hamas a terrorist organization.
As far as terrorism is concerned, Hamas have a long way to go before they can reach Israel's level. 47 years of illegal occupation = a crime against humanity under article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The deliberate targeting of unarmed civilians - a war crime. Dropping white phosphorous bombs on densely populated residential areas - a war crime. The deliberate shooting of medical personnel = a war crime. The destruction of civilian homes as a form of collective punishment = a war crime.
e.t.c, e.t.c.
It's a yes/no question. No need to add your opinion. i just want to know if you think that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
As far as I am concerned, I disagree with the premise of your question. The issue here, as Byrnzie attempted to show you, is that the conversation has been framed such that Hamas is looked upon as a monolithic sinister boogeyman that has no complexity, while the Israeli government is afforded the luxury of being complex. Allow me to explain: Hamas is not simply an armed movement; it is also a social organization that works with charities to help Palestinians living under occupation, that has opened orphanages, that has started clinics and religious institutions for Palestinians -- it is also a political party. There are several dimensions to this organization. But due to the armed wing which is focused on resistance to Israel and the occupation, the entire organization is painted as "terrorist". On the other hand, the Israeli government is afforded the luxury of being considered a full multifaceted government with political parties, hospitals, institutions whether educational or religious, etc., along with a military that, as Byrnzie pointed out, is guilty of some of the worst war crimes of the century, let alone considered "terrorist".
The word "terrorist" itself is highly politicized. It is the same reason acts of violence carried out in the US by Muslims are "terrorism" and by other (often white) people are "isolated incidents" often carried out by those with "psychological illnesses". Let's not play games here.
If we want to call out Hamas for the targeting of civilians as an illegal act, and disagree with their strategy for combating the occupation and oppression by the Israeli government, then that is a fair conversation. But we should not forget the wider context in which this is being carried out -- it is the context in which an Israeli settler project to colonize land, take land away from Palestinians and relegate them to apartheid-like inhumane conditions, is taking place. When the ratio of Palestinians in Gaza killed to Israelis killed in this most recent conflict is 205:1 then we don't need to waste too much time talking about Hamas. When the history of the conflict spans decades before Hamas was even founded, to when the Israeli settler colonial project began, to it continuing, then we know Hamas is only a byproduct of decades of oppression.
Byrnzie pointed out that the ANC were considered a terrorist organization, and the Irish resistance was as well. But eventually people were able to separate their disagreement with their methods of resistance from the wider context in which it was taken place - and they were able to deal with them as political parties representative of an oppressed group simply seeking its rights. If we can separate Hamas' strategy from the wider context and simply address the conversation of Palestinians seeking equal rights, and Palestinians living in refugee camps for 60+ years simply wanting to return home to a country where the occupation is dismantled, then perhaps we can actually see some progress.
I would love to know what South Africans think of the Hamas-ANC comparison. I'm sure they'd be quite flattered...
You don't have to look far to see Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela quotes about how the struggle of black South Africans is incomplete without Palestinians gaining their rights, or how the situation in the occupied territories under Israel is actually WORSE than that in Apartheid South Africa. As for Hamas, see my post above.
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
Let's not act as if this conflict began with Hamas. Israel was pursuing its aggressive settler colonial project decades before they, or any formal armed Palestinian resistance, even existed.
It didn't begin with Hamas. But Hamas is an impediment to its resolution so long as they insist on violence as a paramount virtue. I don't think that Israelis are ever going to trust Hamas (at least not in the foreseeable future) nor do they have any reason to given the organization's behavior. In lieu of trust in the organization's peaceful intentions, disarmament would allow Israelis to feel secure, in exchange for which the Palestinians get reciprocal security and a Marshall plan . That doesn't seem like a bad bargain to me.
The notion that this entire conflict is based on Israelis feeling "secure" is simply a fallacy. This is a settler colonial project, and Israel will not be satisfied until there is an end to any resistance to the pursuit of more Palestinian land, and further expulsion of Palestinians, along with the creation and continuing of a discriminatory system that treats Palestinians as second class citizens (within Israel itself) or even worse (since those in Gaza and the West Bank are not even given the "luxury" of citizenship and are forced to live stateless under occupation). Let's stick to what the reality on the ground is in this conversation, please.
I don't think we agree about what that reality is since you insist on defining Israel's aims as the aims of its most extreme elements. I don't think that those aims are shared by most Israelis and would very much like to see everyone involved act in ways that help to empower moderate voices and marginalize extremists in both societies. Violence doesn't do that. It does just the opposite.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You are saying that supporters of Israel are more accepting of racism and murder than any other group of people...ever. Which would logically seem to imply that they are more racist and bloodthirsty than any other group of people ever. Which seems to be a comment that would be very easy to consider kind of bigoted since it implies that Jews (i.e., "supporters of Israel") are a uniquely evil sort of people.
No, what I said was this: "Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder."
I was referring to the propaganda campaign that accompanies Israel's ethnic cleansing and land-grab, as any honest person can plainly see. But don't let that get in the way of another desperate attempt to paint me as a racist.
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
Let's not act as if this conflict began with Hamas. Israel was pursuing its aggressive settler colonial project decades before they, or any formal armed Palestinian resistance, even existed.
Have you looked around Israel's neighborhood recently? Unlike Israel, a disarmed Gaza and West Bank could rely on the fact that neighboring Arab states are not inherently hostile to them. Beyond that they could rely on international forces that could be stipulated as part of the agreement. Beyond that, as far out there as this sounds, they could rely on the IDF to a certain extent. Here I'm thinking about threats from groups like ISIS, which Israel certainly wouldn't want right on its border.
Beyond that, to be blunt, Israel is the far more powerful party. Any agreement is likely to favor Israel in some respect. That's just what happens when there is a power imbalance in negotiations. While I get that it sucks, I would think a much more constructive approach would be to think about how the Palestinians can get as much as possible out of a deal, rather than approaching the issue thinking that the two sides will ever come out even. That's a pipe dream.
I am actually impressed how far removed from reality your assessment is -- and I don't mean to be insulting -- but simply because you don't for a second take into account the fact that Israel's settler colonial project is independent of any Palestinian resistance to it. Israel does not continue its settler colonial project BECAUSE of Hamas' armed resistance -- Hamas resists through violent means DUE TO the Zionist project. Now of course we can disagree with Hamas on whether or not their strategy is effective -- clearly it isn't, and they would do better to gain international support by dropping it. But at the same time, I find it hard to advise those living under occupation how to resist the brutal Israeli repressive policies from the comfort of my American household, even if I myself am Palestinian and have faced difficulties in life due to that. The fact of the matter is, however, that Palestinian resistance which is a byproduct of Israeli settler colonial practices that brutally displace Palestinians from their homes, deny them freedom of movement, equal access to education and healthcare, a proper life altogether, and in fact often results in their direct killing, is not the point of contention here! You want an end to Palestinian resistance, then end the thing they are resisting! End the occupation and give them equal rights.
You basically justify (not on moral grounds) or at least excuse Israeli unjust policies on the basis that they are the "stronger party" and can therefore get away with it. Well don't expect Palestinians to simply back down and accept it. They will resist until they get equal rights. You can keep blaming the victims, or you can ask that the violence end by the stronger party ending their repressive policies and dismantling this brutal occupation, putting an end to the expelling of Palestinians from their homes to acquire land for racist means (by giving only Jews access to it), and allowing Palestinians who were expelled from their homes by Zionist forces a chance to go back. I don't understand how these principles are so hard to accept -- then again, Zionism by its nature is an exclusionary and discriminatory ideology.
I don't think we agree about what that reality is since you insist on defining Israel's aims as the aims of its most extreme elements. I don't think that those aims are shared by most Israelis...
Netanyahu says there will never be a real Palestinian state Philip Weiss on July 15, 2014
Lots of folks are talking about this. Last Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a press conference in Hebrew in which he stated that he would never accept Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank because Israel’s security needs are too great in an era of Islamic radicalism. His remarks have been summarized by David Horovitz in the Times of Israel, with limited quotations.
“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan,” Netanyahu said, leading Horovitz to say: “That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state.” Just Bantustans, what we’ve observed again and again in recent years.
Here are fuller excerpts of Horovitz’s account:
He made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank. He indicated that he sees Israel standing almost alone on the frontlines against vicious Islamic radicalism, while the rest of the as-yet free world does its best not to notice the march of extremism. And he more than intimated that he considers the current American, John Kerry-led diplomatic team to be, let’s be polite, naive.
Netanyahu has stressed often in the past that he doesn’t want Israel to become a binational state — implying that he favors some kind of accommodation with and separation from the Palestinians. But on Friday he made explicit that this could not extend to full Palestinian sovereignty. Why? Because, given the march of Islamic extremism across the Middle East, he said, Israel simply cannot afford to give up control over the territory immediately to its east, including the eastern border — that is, the border between Israel and Jordan, and the West Bank and Jordan.
The priority right now, Netanyahu stressed, was to “take care of Hamas.” But the wider lesson of the current escalation was that Israel had to ensure that “we don’t get another Gaza in Judea and Samaria.” Amid the current conflict, he elaborated, “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Abbas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands. This is not merely demanding a demilitarized Palestine; it is insisting upon ongoing Israeli security oversight inside and at the borders of the West Bank. That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state. A less-than-sovereign entity? Maybe, though this will never satisfy the Palestinians or the international community. A fully sovereign Palestine? Out of the question.
He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He was saying that it’s impossible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance….
“If we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria, like they tell us to,” he said bitterly — leaving it to us to fill in who the many and various foolish “theys” are — “there’d be a possibility of thousands of tunnels” being dug by terrorists to attack Israel, he said…
Netanyahu hammered home the point: Never mind what the naive outsiders recommend, “I told John Kerry and General Allen, the Americans’ expert, ‘We live here, I live here, I know what we need to ensure the security of Israel’s people.’”
Earlier this spring, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon sparked a storm in Israel-US ties when he told a private gathering that the US-Kerry-Allen security proposals weren’t worth the paper they were written on. Netanyahu on Friday said the same, and more, in public.
Netanyahu didn’t say he was ruling out all territorial compromise, but he did go to some lengths to highlight the danger of relinquishing what he called “adjacent territory.”
These remarks are what Jeff Halper reflected in his great post on our site last week, http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/israels-message-palestinians.html saying that Israel’s plan for Palestinians is to “submit, leave or die.” They demonstrate that the era of the two-state solution is past, and we have entered a period of full-on struggle for equal rights inside one state that was generated by an ideology of Jewish nationalism–Zionism. It is no surprise that Palestinians quoted by Pam Bailey on our site have cheered the Hamas rockets as a symbol of undying resistance to that discriminatory regime, which doesn’t hesitate to use violence. It is no surprise that Rana Baker at Open Democracy also praises the rockets and says that Palestinians will never yield to the Zionist vision.
"The Israeli Jewish public must understand that there shall be no security so long as they do not turn their anger and frustration at their very supremacist privilege and ideological system which is embodied in the Israeli government, left-wing, centrist, or right-wing. No one is asking them to leave, but they must accept Palestinian resistance insofar as they accept the arrogance which characterises the Zionist ideology. The radical potential of Palestinian rockets, of sirens going off, lies in these rockets’ ability to disrupt a system of privilege which Israeli Jews enjoy at the expense of colonised and displaced Palestinians. Rockets, in other words, are a radical declaration of existence and unmediated expression of self-determination."
Let me ask you, what are the Palestinians gaining from firing hundreds of missiles at Israel? How does this choice of action help them in any appreciable way?
"The Israeli Jewish public must understand that there shall be no security so long as they do not turn their anger and frustration at their very supremacist privilege and ideological system which is embodied in the Israeli government, left-wing, centrist, or right-wing. No one is asking them to leave, but they must accept Palestinian resistance insofar as they accept the arrogance which characterises the Zionist ideology. The radical potential of Palestinian rockets, of sirens going off, lies in these rockets’ ability to disrupt a system of privilege which Israeli Jews enjoy at the expense of colonised and displaced Palestinians. Rockets, in other words, are a radical declaration of existence and unmediated expression of self-determination."- Rana Baker [Open Democracy]
In my opinion both, Jews and Palestinians, have a right of self-determination, and living on the land, which both call home, I don't have a solution for the conflict, I only observe the fear and anger to one another goes deep. It Looks like there is no room for anything else then blaming the guild on the opposite side, but for all the citizens of Israel/Palestine, I hope there may be one soon. Cause everybody gets hurt and grieved at the moment.
I have a solution for the conflict. It's the same solution that's agreed upon by the whole of the international community - the whole World - and which is rejected by the U.S and Israel.
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.”
Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine - A/RES/68/15 Vote: 165 Yes, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Tonga)
So we have 165 countries on one side calling for a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the terms of U.N Resolution 242, and 6 countries - including Israel and the U.S - on the other; the U.S using it's power of automatic veto at the U.N Security council to block the settlement.
And by the way, three of those countries which voted against the Resolution are destined to disappear under the sea in the near future as a result of global warming, so the U.S and Israel will have even fewer allies in their opposition to a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
I'm glad that we can at least agree that violence is not a particularly effective tactic.
I don't think the occupation is justified or excusable because of Palestinian violence. And I agree that the Palestinians have a right to resist the occupation. I don't think that in exercising that right they are free to employ whatever means they choose. Deliberate murder of civilians is not a legitimate means of resistance.
I'm also not trying to justify or excuse injustice. I'm just noting reality. I'm a pragmatist, and I'm really much less interested in abstract principles of justice than in what is achievable. Israel is never going to agree to a right of return for all the refugees. That is the reality. Nor is the world going to insist on it. On an end to the occupation, yes. On Israel agreeing to essentially commit national suicide, no. So that leaves a two-state solution. And the question then becomes how are we going to get there. That's where Israelis feeling secure comes in. I'm not saying that the occupation is justified by Israeli security needs. I'm saying that Israel is more likely to end the occupation if they feel secure.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I'm also not trying to justify or excuse injustice. I'm just noting reality. I'm a pragmatist, and I'm really much less interested in abstract principles of justice than in what is achievable. Israel is never going to agree to a right of return for all the refugees. That is the reality. Nor is the world going to insist on it. On an end to the occupation, yes. On Israel agreeing to essentially commit national suicide, no. So that leaves a two-state solution. And the question then becomes how are we going to get there. That's where Israelis feeling secure comes in. I'm not saying that the occupation is justified by Israeli security needs. I'm saying that Israel is more likely to end the occupation if they feel secure.
Israel’s message to the Palestinians: Submit, leave or die Jeff Halper on July 11, 2014
'....it has fallen to Netanyahu to kill the two-state solution for once and for all. The first step was to decisively end Kerry’s initiative and any that might follow it. This Netanyahu did by raising his demands to intolerable levels. He declared that the Palestinians must relinquish their own national narrative and civil rights by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, and he held to the position that Israel would retain permanently East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and Israel’s main settlement blocs (about a third of the West Bank), as well as the water and natural gas resources, the country’s electro-magnetic sphere (communications) and all of its airspace.
He left the Palestinians with less than a Bantustan, non-viable and non-sovereign, a prison comprised of the 70 islands of Areas A and B of the West Bank, ghettos in “east” Jerusalem, tightly contained enclaves within Israel, and the cage which is Gaza – half the population of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River confined to dozens of islands on 15% of historic Palestine.
Operations Brothers’ Keeper and Protective Edge represent the imposition of a regime of warehousing, of outright imprisonment of an entire people. The seemingly blind and atavistic destruction and hatred unleashed on the Palestinians over the past few weeks is not merely yet another “round of violence” in an interminable struggle. It is the declaration of a new political reality. The message is clear, unilateral and final: This country has been Judaized: it is now the Land of Israel in the process of being incorporated into the state of Israel. You Arabs (or “Palestinians” as you call yourselves) are not a people and have no national rights, certainly to our exclusively Jewish country. You are not a “side” to a “conflict.” Once and for all we must disabuse you of the notion that we are actually negotiating with you. We never have and never will. You are nothing but inmates in prison cells, and we hereby declare through our military and political actions that you have three options before you: You can submit as inmates are required to you, in which case we will allow you to remain in your enclave-cells. You can leave, as hundreds of thousands have done before you. Or, if you choose to resist, you will die.
Warehousing is worse than apartheid. It does not even pretend to find a political framework for “separate development,” it simply jails the oppressed and robs them of all their collective and individual rights. It is the ultimate form of oppression before actual genocide, and in that it robs a people of its identity, its land, its culture and the ability to reproduce itself, it is a form of cultural genocide that can lead to worse. This is what Israel has left the Palestinians, this is the meaning of the bombing of Gaza, the terrorizing of the West Bank – and the ongoing destruction of Bedouin and Palestinian homes within Israel.
Assuming that apartheid and warehousing are absolutely unacceptable “solutions” and, indeed, are ultimately unsustainable, generating even more violence and conflict in the volatile Middle East, Israel has in fact left us with only one workable, just and lasting way out: a single democratic state in Palestine/Israel that guarantees the individual and collective rights of all its citizens. This is what we must struggle for. Israel’s military operations mark the beginning of the collapse of the Occupation. It is incumbent on Palestinian civil society, joining with their partners on the critical Israeli left, to urgently formulate how that state would look and, ensuring everyone in that land a part in its future, to begin the struggle to achieve it. Despite the suffering of the moment, public opinion the world over support us. Only our effective mobilization will defeat warehousing.
Actually, I disagree with Jeff Halpers conclusion. A two-state settlement is still achievable. It can be achieved by removing the U.S from the negotiations and by stripping it of it's right of automatic veto at the U.N, which it has used/abused in order to allow Israel to maintain it's criminal occupation.
Actually, I disagree with Jeff Halpers conclusion. A two-state settlement is still achievable. It can be achieved by removing the U.S from the negotiations and by stripping it of it's right of automatic veto at the U.N, which it has used/abused in order to allow Israel to maintain it's criminal occupation.
I'm not so sure you have a grasp of how international politics actually work. But whatever, keep venting.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
Let's not act as if this conflict began with Hamas. Israel was pursuing its aggressive settler colonial project decades before they, or any formal armed Palestinian resistance, even existed.
It didn't begin with Hamas. But Hamas is an impediment to its resolution so long as they insist on violence as a paramount virtue. I don't think that Israelis are ever going to trust Hamas (at least not in the foreseeable future) nor do they have any reason to given the organization's behavior. In lieu of trust in the organization's peaceful intentions, disarmament would allow Israelis to feel secure, in exchange for which the Palestinians get reciprocal security and a Marshall plan . That doesn't seem like a bad bargain to me.
The notion that this entire conflict is based on Israelis feeling "secure" is simply a fallacy. This is a settler colonial project, and Israel will not be satisfied until there is an end to any resistance to the pursuit of more Palestinian land, and further expulsion of Palestinians, along with the creation and continuing of a discriminatory system that treats Palestinians as second class citizens (within Israel itself) or even worse (since those in Gaza and the West Bank are not even given the "luxury" of citizenship and are forced to live stateless under occupation). Let's stick to what the reality on the ground is in this conversation, please.
I don't think we agree about what that reality is since you insist on defining Israel's aims as the aims of its most extreme elements. I don't think that those aims are shared by most Israelis and would very much like to see everyone involved act in ways that help to empower moderate voices and marginalize extremists in both societies. Violence doesn't do that. It does just the opposite.
You and most Israelis mite not share the extreme elements but the people that count, the ones who are deliberately killing and stealing lands, DO, and until those people are out of power and your country has a non hawkish party in power, that's te reality. Now imagine that, Israel being told to change their leaders if they want peace, imagine the irony in it....
Actually, I disagree with Jeff Halpers conclusion. A two-state settlement is still achievable. It can be achieved by removing the U.S from the negotiations and by stripping it of it's right of automatic veto at the U.N, which it has used/abused in order to allow Israel to maintain it's criminal occupation
I'm not so sure you have a grasp of how international politics actually work. But whatever, keep venting.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I understand that under the present circumstances the U.S will continue hijacking the U.N. But that doesn't mean that this situation will go on indefinitely, or that it should be allowed to continue. Also, the U.N should remove it's HQ from New York and base itself in another country.
Imagine - the U.S being denied it's power of automatic veto at the U.N??!! Then Israel would be forced to abide by international law, and by the will of the whole World.
No wonder this notion get's Yosi all upset.
Imagine it - the U.S veto being removed, and international law being imposed on the Israeli's!? No more would a peaceful settlement be obstructed and blown out of the water by the U.S.
In the meantime, maybe this explains why the propaganda campaign in the U.S needs to be kept at such a consistently high pitch. The U.S stands alone in the World in supporting and funding one of the longest criminal enterprises in history.
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
Let's not act as if this conflict began with Hamas. Israel was pursuing its aggressive settler colonial project decades before they, or any formal armed Palestinian resistance, even existed.
It didn't begin with Hamas. But Hamas is an impediment to its resolution so long as they insist on violence as a paramount virtue. I don't think that Israelis are ever going to trust Hamas (at least not in the foreseeable future) nor do they have any reason to given the organization's behavior. In lieu of trust in the organization's peaceful intentions, disarmament would allow Israelis to feel secure, in exchange for which the Palestinians get reciprocal security and a Marshall plan . That doesn't seem like a bad bargain to me.
The notion that this entire conflict is based on Israelis feeling "secure" is simply a fallacy. This is a settler colonial project, and Israel will not be satisfied until there is an end to any resistance to the pursuit of more Palestinian land, and further expulsion of Palestinians, along with the creation and continuing of a discriminatory system that treats Palestinians as second class citizens (within Israel itself) or even worse (since those in Gaza and the West Bank are not even given the "luxury" of citizenship and are forced to live stateless under occupation). Let's stick to what the reality on the ground is in this conversation, please.
I don't think we agree about what that reality is since you insist on defining Israel's aims as the aims of its most extreme elements. I don't think that those aims are shared by most Israelis and would very much like to see everyone involved act in ways that help to empower moderate voices and marginalize extremists in both societies. Violence doesn't do that. It does just the opposite.
You and most Israelis mite not share the extreme elements but the people that count, the ones who are deliberately killing and stealing lands, DO, and until those people are out of power and your country has a non hawkish party in power, that's te reality. Now imagine that, Israel being told to change their leaders if they want peace, imagine the irony in it....
That is exactly what I'm imagining, and I'm arguing that the Palestinians can either help or hinder that from actually happening.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Imagine - the U.S being denied it's power of automatic veto at the U.N??!! Then Israel would be forced to abide by international law, and by the will of the whole World.
No wonder this notion get's Yosi all upset.
Imagine it - the U.S veto being removed, and international law being imposed on the Israeli's!? No more would a peaceful settlement be obstructed and blown out of the water by the U.S.
In the meantime, maybe this explains why the propaganda campaign in the U.S needs to be kept at such a consistently high pitch. The U.S stands alone in the World in supporting and funding one of the longest criminal enterprises in history.
Right, because the UN has such a great track record at resolving armed conflicts. I can't decide if your faith in the UN is naive or delusional.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I'm glad that we can at least agree that violence is not a particularly effective tactic.
I don't think the occupation is justified or excusable because of Palestinian violence. And I agree that the Palestinians have a right to resist the occupation. I don't think that in exercising that right they are free to employ whatever means they choose. Deliberate murder of civilians is not a legitimate means of resistance.
I'm also not trying to justify or excuse injustice. I'm just noting reality. I'm a pragmatist, and I'm really much less interested in abstract principles of justice than in what is achievable. Israel is never going to agree to a right of return for all the refugees. That is the reality. Nor is the world going to insist on it. On an end to the occupation, yes. On Israel agreeing to essentially commit national suicide, no. So that leaves a two-state solution. And the question then becomes how are we going to get there. That's where Israelis feeling secure comes in. I'm not saying that the occupation is justified by Israeli security needs. I'm saying that Israel is more likely to end the occupation if they feel secure.
Once again, I think it's very convenient for someone like you who doesn't live under a brutal occupation, or a siege in which some of the worst conditions are imposed on you if you are even lucky enough to survive, to talk about what constitutes "legitimate" resistance. For all your talk of being pragmatic, you seem to insist that those who have very limited access to any form of resistance must stand up to the Israeli war machine in a hypothetical way that constitutes "legitimate" resistance despite limited resources on their side and one of the largest militarists on the other - how convenient it is to be born a Zionist rather than a Palestinian!
Your pragmatism ends at what serves Israel best, and how to quell Palestinian resistance at the expense of the hundreds of thousands of refugees and their descendants who were expelled by Zionist forces from their homes and still languish in refugee camps. You love to use dramatic phrasing like Israel committing "national suicide" by simply allowing refugees to return home and giving them equal rights - what dramatic phrase would you use to describe what Zionist forces did to the Palestinians? And for all your alleged pragmatism, you seem to insist on denying Palestinians the right to return home and have equal rights as an Israeli Jew - but not for pragmatic or "security" reasons, but in order to preserve an ideological vision that is entirely exclusive and at the expense of another group of people: a vision of a Jewish-majority country even if it meant and continues to mean expelling Palestinians, quashing resistance (nonviolent or otherwise) through brute force, or any other illegal manner that a settler colonial project entails: all in the name of "preserving Israeli security" of course....
Once again, I think it's very convenient for someone like you who doesn't live under a brutal occupation, or a siege in which some of the worst conditions are imposed on you if you are even lucky enough to survive, to talk about what constitutes "legitimate" resistance. For all your talk of being pragmatic, you seem to insist that those who have very limited access to any form of resistance must stand up to the Israeli war machine in a hypothetical way that constitutes "legitimate" resistance despite limited resources on their side and one of the largest militarists on the other - how convenient it is to be born a Zionist rather than a Palestinian!
Your pragmatism ends at what serves Israel best, and how to quell Palestinian resistance at the expense of the hundreds of thousands of refugees and their descendants who were expelled by Zionist forces from their homes and still languish in refugee camps. You love to use dramatic phrasing like Israel committing "national suicide" by simply allowing refugees to return home and giving them equal rights - what dramatic phrase would you use to describe what Zionist forces did to the Palestinians? And for all your alleged pragmatism, you seem to insist on denying Palestinians the right to return home and have equal rights as an Israeli Jew - but not for pragmatic or "security" reasons, but in order to preserve an ideological vision that is entirely exclusive and at the expense of another group of people: a vision of a Jewish-majority country even if it meant and continues to mean expelling Palestinians, quashing resistance (nonviolent or otherwise) through brute force, or any other illegal manner that a settler colonial project entails: all in the name of "preserving Israeli security" of course....
Just what I was gonna say...plus a few customary "bullshit"ˢ', "fuck"ˢ', "fucking'ˢ', and "asshole"ˢ'. ">
Comments
www.amazingathletes.com/northchi
And I didn't add my opinion. I presented some facts.
But you pretend that the calls for ethnic cleansing, and possible genocide of the Palestinians, are simply the work of 'a bunch of trolls'?
Here's what I said: "Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder."
I didn't say that supporters of Israel are the most racist and bloodthirsty people in the history of humanity. I didn't say that Israel's supporters can be compared to the Mongol Hordes, or to the Waffen SS marching through Europe. I said that "Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder."
Either way, let's say for arguments sake that they are a terrorist organization - an organization who's sole aim and purpose is to commit acts of terrorism. Does that excuse and justify Israel's illegal occupation and encroaching land grab? Does that justify all of the war crimes committed by Israel over the past 47 years of the occupation?
Hamas was only founded in 1987. What was Israel's excuse before that? You pretend that Hamas is the problem, and that they're the reason for the occupation and the expansion of illegal Jewish-only settlements? Really? Or are you just parroting the opinion of the glossy-lipped news reporters you hear on mainstream U.S television?
"Palestinian moderates will never prevail over those considered extremists, since what defines moderation for [the Israeli leadership] is Palestinian acquiescence in Israel’s dismemberment of Palestinian territory." - Henry Siegman
The word "terrorist" itself is highly politicized. It is the same reason acts of violence carried out in the US by Muslims are "terrorism" and by other (often white) people are "isolated incidents" often carried out by those with "psychological illnesses". Let's not play games here.
If we want to call out Hamas for the targeting of civilians as an illegal act, and disagree with their strategy for combating the occupation and oppression by the Israeli government, then that is a fair conversation. But we should not forget the wider context in which this is being carried out -- it is the context in which an Israeli settler project to colonize land, take land away from Palestinians and relegate them to apartheid-like inhumane conditions, is taking place. When the ratio of Palestinians in Gaza killed to Israelis killed in this most recent conflict is 205:1 then we don't need to waste too much time talking about Hamas. When the history of the conflict spans decades before Hamas was even founded, to when the Israeli settler colonial project began, to it continuing, then we know Hamas is only a byproduct of decades of oppression.
Byrnzie pointed out that the ANC were considered a terrorist organization, and the Irish resistance was as well. But eventually people were able to separate their disagreement with their methods of resistance from the wider context in which it was taken place - and they were able to deal with them as political parties representative of an oppressed group simply seeking its rights. If we can separate Hamas' strategy from the wider context and simply address the conversation of Palestinians seeking equal rights, and Palestinians living in refugee camps for 60+ years simply wanting to return home to a country where the occupation is dismantled, then perhaps we can actually see some progress.
I was referring to the propaganda campaign that accompanies Israel's ethnic cleansing and land-grab, as any honest person can plainly see.
But don't let that get in the way of another desperate attempt to paint me as a racist.
You basically justify (not on moral grounds) or at least excuse Israeli unjust policies on the basis that they are the "stronger party" and can therefore get away with it. Well don't expect Palestinians to simply back down and accept it. They will resist until they get equal rights. You can keep blaming the victims, or you can ask that the violence end by the stronger party ending their repressive policies and dismantling this brutal occupation, putting an end to the expelling of Palestinians from their homes to acquire land for racist means (by giving only Jews access to it), and allowing Palestinians who were expelled from their homes by Zionist forces a chance to go back. I don't understand how these principles are so hard to accept -- then again, Zionism by its nature is an exclusionary and discriminatory ideology.
Netanyahu says there will never be a real Palestinian state
Philip Weiss on July 15, 2014
Lots of folks are talking about this. Last Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a press conference in Hebrew in which he stated that he would never accept Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank because Israel’s security needs are too great in an era of Islamic radicalism. His remarks have been summarized by David Horovitz in the Times of Israel, with limited quotations.
“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan,” Netanyahu said, leading Horovitz to say: “That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state.” Just Bantustans, what we’ve observed again and again in recent years.
Here are fuller excerpts of Horovitz’s account:
He made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank. He indicated that he sees Israel standing almost alone on the frontlines against vicious Islamic radicalism, while the rest of the as-yet free world does its best not to notice the march of extremism. And he more than intimated that he considers the current American, John Kerry-led diplomatic team to be, let’s be polite, naive.
Netanyahu has stressed often in the past that he doesn’t want Israel to become a binational state — implying that he favors some kind of accommodation with and separation from the Palestinians. But on Friday he made explicit that this could not extend to full Palestinian sovereignty. Why? Because, given the march of Islamic extremism across the Middle East, he said, Israel simply cannot afford to give up control over the territory immediately to its east, including the eastern border — that is, the border between Israel and Jordan, and the West Bank and Jordan.
The priority right now, Netanyahu stressed, was to “take care of Hamas.” But the wider lesson of the current escalation was that Israel had to ensure that “we don’t get another Gaza in Judea and Samaria.” Amid the current conflict, he elaborated, “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Abbas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands. This is not merely demanding a demilitarized Palestine; it is insisting upon ongoing Israeli security oversight inside and at the borders of the West Bank. That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state. A less-than-sovereign entity? Maybe, though this will never satisfy the Palestinians or the international community. A fully sovereign Palestine? Out of the question.
He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He was saying that it’s impossible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance….
“If we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria, like they tell us to,” he said bitterly — leaving it to us to fill in who the many and various foolish “theys” are — “there’d be a possibility of thousands of tunnels” being dug by terrorists to attack Israel, he said…
Netanyahu hammered home the point: Never mind what the naive outsiders recommend, “I told John Kerry and General Allen, the Americans’ expert, ‘We live here, I live here, I know what we need to ensure the security of Israel’s people.’”
Earlier this spring, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon sparked a storm in Israel-US ties when he told a private gathering that the US-Kerry-Allen security proposals weren’t worth the paper they were written on. Netanyahu on Friday said the same, and more, in public.
Netanyahu didn’t say he was ruling out all territorial compromise, but he did go to some lengths to highlight the danger of relinquishing what he called “adjacent territory.”
These remarks are what Jeff Halper reflected in his great post on our site last week, http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/israels-message-palestinians.html saying that Israel’s plan for Palestinians is to “submit, leave or die.” They demonstrate that the era of the two-state solution is past, and we have entered a period of full-on struggle for equal rights inside one state that was generated by an ideology of Jewish nationalism–Zionism. It is no surprise that Palestinians quoted by Pam Bailey on our site have cheered the Hamas rockets as a symbol of undying resistance to that discriminatory regime, which doesn’t hesitate to use violence. It is no surprise that Rana Baker at Open Democracy also praises the rockets and says that Palestinians will never yield to the Zionist vision.
"The Israeli Jewish public must understand that there shall be no security so long as they do not turn their anger and frustration at their very supremacist privilege and ideological system which is embodied in the Israeli government, left-wing, centrist, or right-wing. No one is asking them to leave, but they must accept Palestinian resistance insofar as they accept the arrogance which characterises the Zionist ideology. The radical potential of Palestinian rockets, of sirens going off, lies in these rockets’ ability to disrupt a system of privilege which Israeli Jews enjoy at the expense of colonised and displaced Palestinians. Rockets, in other words, are a radical declaration of existence and unmediated expression of self-determination."
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.”
2013:
https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/ga11460.doc.htm
Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine - A/RES/68/15
Vote: 165 Yes, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Tonga)
So we have 165 countries on one side calling for a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the terms of U.N Resolution 242, and 6 countries - including Israel and the U.S - on the other; the U.S using it's power of automatic veto at the U.N Security council to block the settlement.
And by the way, three of those countries which voted against the Resolution are destined to disappear under the sea in the near future as a result of global warming, so the U.S and Israel will have even fewer allies in their opposition to a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
I don't think the occupation is justified or excusable because of Palestinian violence. And I agree that the Palestinians have a right to resist the occupation. I don't think that in exercising that right they are free to employ whatever means they choose. Deliberate murder of civilians is not a legitimate means of resistance.
I'm also not trying to justify or excuse injustice. I'm just noting reality. I'm a pragmatist, and I'm really much less interested in abstract principles of justice than in what is achievable. Israel is never going to agree to a right of return for all the refugees. That is the reality. Nor is the world going to insist on it. On an end to the occupation, yes. On Israel agreeing to essentially commit national suicide, no. So that leaves a two-state solution. And the question then becomes how are we going to get there. That's where Israelis feeling secure comes in. I'm not saying that the occupation is justified by Israeli security needs. I'm saying that Israel is more likely to end the occupation if they feel secure.
Israel’s message to the Palestinians: Submit, leave or die
Jeff Halper on July 11, 2014
'....it has fallen to Netanyahu to kill the two-state solution for once and for all. The first step was to decisively end Kerry’s initiative and any that might follow it. This Netanyahu did by raising his demands to intolerable levels. He declared that the Palestinians must relinquish their own national narrative and civil rights by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, and he held to the position that Israel would retain permanently East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and Israel’s main settlement blocs (about a third of the West Bank), as well as the water and natural gas resources, the country’s electro-magnetic sphere (communications) and all of its airspace.
He left the Palestinians with less than a Bantustan, non-viable and non-sovereign, a prison comprised of the 70 islands of Areas A and B of the West Bank, ghettos in “east” Jerusalem, tightly contained enclaves within Israel, and the cage which is Gaza – half the population of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River confined to dozens of islands on 15% of historic Palestine.
Operations Brothers’ Keeper and Protective Edge represent the imposition of a regime of warehousing, of outright imprisonment of an entire people. The seemingly blind and atavistic destruction and hatred unleashed on the Palestinians over the past few weeks is not merely yet another “round of violence” in an interminable struggle. It is the declaration of a new political reality. The message is clear, unilateral and final: This country has been Judaized: it is now the Land of Israel in the process of being incorporated into the state of Israel. You Arabs (or “Palestinians” as you call yourselves) are not a people and have no national rights, certainly to our exclusively Jewish country. You are not a “side” to a “conflict.” Once and for all we must disabuse you of the notion that we are actually negotiating with you. We never have and never will. You are nothing but inmates in prison cells, and we hereby declare through our military and political actions that you have three options before you: You can submit as inmates are required to you, in which case we will allow you to remain in your enclave-cells. You can leave, as hundreds of thousands have done before you. Or, if you choose to resist, you will die.
Warehousing is worse than apartheid. It does not even pretend to find a political framework for “separate development,” it simply jails the oppressed and robs them of all their collective and individual rights. It is the ultimate form of oppression before actual genocide, and in that it robs a people of its identity, its land, its culture and the ability to reproduce itself, it is a form of cultural genocide that can lead to worse. This is what Israel has left the Palestinians, this is the meaning of the bombing of Gaza, the terrorizing of the West Bank – and the ongoing destruction of Bedouin and Palestinian homes within Israel.
Assuming that apartheid and warehousing are absolutely unacceptable “solutions” and, indeed, are ultimately unsustainable, generating even more violence and conflict in the volatile Middle East, Israel has in fact left us with only one workable, just and lasting way out: a single democratic state in Palestine/Israel that guarantees the individual and collective rights of all its citizens. This is what we must struggle for. Israel’s military operations mark the beginning of the collapse of the Occupation. It is incumbent on Palestinian civil society, joining with their partners on the critical Israeli left, to urgently formulate how that state would look and, ensuring everyone in that land a part in its future, to begin the struggle to achieve it. Despite the suffering of the moment, public opinion the world over support us. Only our effective mobilization will defeat warehousing.
Also, the U.N should remove it's HQ from New York and base itself in another country.
No wonder this notion get's Yosi all upset.
Imagine it - the U.S veto being removed, and international law being imposed on the Israeli's!? No more would a peaceful settlement be obstructed and blown out of the water by the U.S.
In the meantime, maybe this explains why the propaganda campaign in the U.S needs to be kept at such a consistently high pitch. The U.S stands alone in the World in supporting and funding one of the longest criminal enterprises in history.
Your pragmatism ends at what serves Israel best, and how to quell Palestinian resistance at the expense of the hundreds of thousands of refugees and their descendants who were expelled by Zionist forces from their homes and still languish in refugee camps. You love to use dramatic phrasing like Israel committing "national suicide" by simply allowing refugees to return home and giving them equal rights - what dramatic phrase would you use to describe what Zionist forces did to the Palestinians? And for all your alleged pragmatism, you seem to insist on denying Palestinians the right to return home and have equal rights as an Israeli Jew - but not for pragmatic or "security" reasons, but in order to preserve an ideological vision that is entirely exclusive and at the expense of another group of people: a vision of a Jewish-majority country even if it meant and continues to mean expelling Palestinians, quashing resistance (nonviolent or otherwise) through brute force, or any other illegal manner that a settler colonial project entails: all in the name of "preserving Israeli security" of course....
But seriously, ^:)^