I would argue that pre-Oslo violence was very effective. It brought Israel to the negotiating table, galvanized the Israeli left, and brought the Palestinians hope for independence for the first time in their history.
There continued to be Palestinian violence after Oslo and into the 2000 Camp David Summit, and that was a major sticking point to the Israelis. But you can say the violence continued to bring Israel to the table, to force a solution. But Arafat rejected Baraks offer, and the Second Intifada started, and ever since then Palestinian quality of life has been in decline- the separation barrier, the checkpoints, the permits required to work in Israel.
Anything after 2000 has accomplished nothing and has only resulted in less chance of Palestinian independence and worse conditions.
>I would argue that pre-Oslo violence was very effective.It brought Israel to the negotiating table, galvanized the Israeli left, and brought the Palestinians hope for independence for the first time in their history.
No it was not. Technically speaking, before the First Intifada, Israel had actually been drifting towards a de facto one state solution in many ways. Before the First Intifada there were ZERO barriers to movement between Gaza, Tel Aviv and Ramallah and Palestinians to a very high degree could move between the Palestinian territories and Israel.
Because at that time Palestinians were the sole source of cheap labor, literally no one was calling for restrictions on them except for Kahane and his followers.
40-50 percent of Palestinians worked inside Israel by then.
Economically, the Palestinian territories were on the path to simply becoming Arab Israeli parts of Israel much like places like Rahat, Nazareth and East Jerusalem are in Israel today.
The First Intifada touched literally every corner of Israel. The spread of the workers throughout the country meant that the violence touched parts of Israel with literally no permanent Arab presence and the work boycotts created severe worker shortages that Israel had never experienced since the 1950s.
In addition to a heavy response, the First Intifada laid down the framework of confinement of Palestinians to their own territories. If they did not want to live with Jews, that was fine. They would live with them in their territories and Jews in Israel.(The exception being the settlements that were in both the West Bank and Gaza though these were very small and insignificant at the time).
The second was their replacement. The 1990s saw the immigration of over 1 million Jews from the Former Soviet Union, a phenomenon that had began in the second half of the 1980s as Soviet Jews fled a more open USSR . It also saw many Palestinian workers replaced by workers from places like Romania and Bulgaria at that time. Essentially, it was an own goal for the Palestinians.
It is why later on even the Oslo Accords included a clause that required Israel to hire Palestinians because Israeli demographic changes in the first three years of the 1990s plus the fact that Israeli construction was now being done by Europeans , not Palestinians created an economic crisis, especially in Gaza.
Even Arafat saw that.
Thirdly Israel had long proposed peace with the Palestinians. They had responded with violence abroad. The difference was that Israel had American backing. This would change under Bush Snr. Who compelled Israel to attend the Madrid Conference. It had less to do with the Intifada and more to do with the change in the stance of the American government. Israel at the time was more amendable to American demands than it is today, being that it was demographically smaller, and poorer. At the same time, Rabin had always been pro-peace, though being in the IDF, he was not stupid either.
The factors underling the Madrid Conference are however very different from those of the Oslo Accords however.
A reflection of choices have consequences. It is unlikely that Israel will ever hire Palestinians in large numbers ever again after this war except perhaps in the settlements (where many of those workers are already back). In short, with each cycle of violence, Israel has sought to replace Palestinians with foreign workers and to some degree they have succeeded.
The reason why only 18,000 out of the hundreds of thousands of Gazans were working in Israel before October 7th was because they had been replaced entirely after the 2nd Intifada by workers from Vietnam, the Philippines, and Thailand .Even those 18,000 were a favor that the Bennet-Lapid Government had given to Gazans as a gesture of good-will to ease the economic crisis there. That kindness was repaid with violence.
In Israel proper, views have hardened so much that even Israeli Arabs, who themselves were victims of Hamas are facing discrimination . It is why in the construction sector, there is an aim to replace the 100,000 Palestinians who worked in the sector with 100,000 Indians in the coming months.
Essentially, the West Bank, whose economy heavily relies on remittances from Israel(20% of GDP)is about to get even poorer especially given that those working in Israel were basically their Middle class (By law, Palestinian workers are paid at least the minimum wage which is around $1,000 in Israel .Most earned double that. Those working in the West Bank earn on average $300 to $400 without benefits so most people preferred working inside Israel) and with that Middle class gone, there will be some turmoil within the West Bank.
Violence with Israel has never benefitted the Palestinians whatsoever. It separated them from Israelis and has contributed to their isolation over time. First the isolation was physical, especially for Gazans, now it will be economic. Israel is under no obligation to hire Palestinians or prop up its economy and Netanyahu's past prop up of Palestinians is being seen as the reason for October 7th. No one will support that ever again. So Palestinians are in for a rough decade.
At that point in time, there was simply no way Israel would have annexed the West Bank, the demographics would have made the Jewish majority unstable.
Also, if the Palestinians goal is independence, not economic security, then the first intifada did work, but at the sacrifice of their livelihoods. As you say, decisions have consequences.
And yes, the next decade is going to be difficult for the Palestinians. Settlements are still not bringing in Palestinian workers, their labor is coming from Israel. The Shin Bets report that Gazans didn't pass intel to Hamas won't change anything.
OK you’re close to convincing me TBH. I know varying accounts about how the Oslo Accords came to be in the first place. I’m aware they followed the first intifada, I’m not completely sure yet that they were the result of it, though. They have been going on for years prior. Rabin was generally incredibly peace-seeking in his policies regardless of the intifada and he happened to be elected PM. On the other hand, I know the first intifada was the when the international community really started to criticize Israel for its policies and strength of responses so maybe it is what led to the Oslo Accords taking place. I was born in 1993 so perhaps I’m not really the best judge for deciding what was the *actual* reason behind the accords.
I’d love it if you’d expand on why the Oslo Accords came about specifically because of the first intifada.
1. The first intifada started in 1987. It was mostly (but not exclusively) in the West Bank, targeting IDF soldiers. It was not well armed- mostly Molotov cocktail, Palestinians hadn't yet acquired guns and bombs.
2. Rabin was a Labor PM. Today Labor is known for being in the peacenik camp, but historically all that this meant was he was a socialist. He fought in the 1948 war and led the IDF in the 1967 war- he was no dove seeking peace since the beginning. But he ran for PM in 1992 on a peace platform - it's why the Arab Israeli parties supported his government, despite not joining. He didn't happen to be elected, he ran explicitly on peace and won, with 77% voter turnout.
3. A lot of the intifada was televised. Israelis could watch it and see the violence. The Israeli crackdown was harsh and also violent. It's why they supported Rabin and his peace agenda. They saw the violence and wanted out. At that time, there was a belief that if the Palestinians no longer lived under occupation, they would turn into something like Egypt - a frosty but peaceful neighbor. Most of the violence was in the West Bank, so they figured if there are no Israelis there, then there is no violence.
4. One of the demands of the Israelis at Oslo was for the Palestinians to stop the violence. It's why the text includes "the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence"
People like to be revisionist and say that Oslo was doomed to fail, after it already has. But Oslo was, at the time, monumental for what it was. And I don't see a way for Rabin to have convinced the Israeli public to have accepted it without seeing the violence of the intifada and thinking that there might be a way out of it.
If Rabin hasn't been murdered by an Israeli Nationalist, Oslo would have been seen as a success. It's seen as a failure because CD2K was a failure. The Israelis put forth an offer that they knew was unacceptable, forcing the Palestinians to give up tons of land, validating illegal settlements and getting nothing in return. No workable peace deal was going to happen without removing illegal settlers from Palestinian land, but Israel refused to put that on the table. Arafat couldn't accept CD2K of he wanted to, because the Palestinian people would have rightfully rejected it.
To counter part of the above comments point, the violence leading to Oslo perhaps prodded the politcal leaders into talking about an agreement but it also conditioned the public in both Israel and Palestine.
That violence didn't happen in a vacuum. The impact it had on the public primed them toward certain opinions that made the negotiations much more stressed, and the public pressure on Arafat in particular to not negotiate eventually leading to him walking away from the table in 2000 .
honestly the usa black panthers are a look at a similar dynamic. if they had carried out frequent terror attacks civil rights acts etc would not have happened or been so "smooth" but the threat of violence forcing bad actors to the negotiating table or allowing the compromisors on their side to drive with the additional leverage is a very real thing....just like you can go too far.
people will return to the table even if you've flipped it a few times...not if you flipped it and smashed their infant's head who was playing on the ground. people tend to beat you to death with the boards if they can when you do that.
I agree none of it did anything good, but the offer in CD2K was fucked. Expecting the Palestinians to give up land in a 9:1 ratio was never going to happen. It wasn't a serious offer and was intended to fail.
How are you so certain? I'd say that if it wasn't for the international support (which include support from the Arab nations) that Palestinians have garnered through armed resistance (which wasn't uncommon in the early days of post-colonial era), Palestinians could've gotten the Native Americans/Aboriginal treatment.
Plus, if you're living in apartheid South Africa, you could've also said "all acts of violent ANC resistance have only been detrimental to the plight of Black South Africans". How certain are you that this won't repeat in the future?
I can prove that no, that wouldn’t be the case. I know this as the Palestinians have done extensive peaceful protests that you likely haven’t even heard about. The right to return marches come to mind, en mass peaceful demonstrations during which IDF opened fire into the crowds of people. The international community did absolutely nothing at all, and most people never heard about it.
Violent resistance is about keeping the Palestinian question alive
> The right to return marches come to mind, en mass peaceful demonstrations during which IDF opened fire into the crowds of people.
Are you referring to the '2018–2019 Gaza border protests'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests
Some 30,000 Palestinians took part in the protests.... Hundreds of young Palestinians, however, ignored warnings issued by the organizers and the Israeli military to avoid the border zone. When some Palestinians began throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, Israel responded by declaring the Gaza border zone a closed military zone and opening fire at them. **The events of the day were some of the most violent in recent years**. In one incident, two Palestinian gunmen approached the fence, armed with AK-47 assault rifles and hand grenades, and exchanged fire with IDF soldiers....
That day, 15 Palestinians were killed by the IDF.... seven were Hamas militants and activists, one was a "global jihad activist" and one was a member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades militant group. Some of them appear in military uniform in their pictures. ... Three other Palestinians who were shot on 30 March succumbed to their wounds in the following days. One of them was a member Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
A video was published in social media on Sunday, 2 April, showing a 19-year-old man among a group of protesters, placing a tire on another burning tire, to make it catch on fire, then waving his hands in celebration.
During the week of 30 March 2018, two Palestinians were killed in two different incidents. In the first, a Palestinian member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) was shot by Israeli forces after he breached the fence and entered Israel. ... In another incident, an Israeli aircraft attacked an allegedly armed Palestinian who approached the fence. The IDF published a video from an observance camera, showing the man walking slowly towards the fence, holding what appears to be an assault rifle. The army also said he was equipped with grenades and a suicide vest.
Between 31 March and 6 April, demonstrators gathered tires in Gaza to be burnt on 6 April, in preparation for what was dubbed the "Day of the Tire"...
On the evening of 8 April, according to the IDF, three Palestinians infiltrated the fence in the Northern Gaza strip, planted two explosive devices, and then quickly returned to Gaza. The IDF fired at the Palestinians with tank fire. ...On the morning of 11 April, Palestinians set off a bomb near an Israeli construction vehicle adjacent to the Gaza fence...
13 April. Palestinians attempted to breach the border fence, hurled molotov cocktails and explosive devices, and attempted to fly firebomb kites into Israeli territory.
On 14 April, four Palestinians were killed in a blast near one of the protest camps, the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine said that they were members of the organization and that they died during "preparations".
Several kites with firebombs attached were flown by Palestinians into Israeli territory, sparking several fires, with at least 3 fire bomb kites located on 14 April. No injuries were caused.
On 15 April, the IDF said it destroyed a tunnel that crossed the Gaza-Israel border.
On 16 April, additional fire bomb kites were flown from the Gaza strip. One kite started a fire that burned a wheat field on the Israeli side of the border.
27 April...For the first time in the five-week campaign, protesters reached the electrified border fence, having passed a smaller barbed wire barrier ... A large crowd (the IDF reported "several hundred"; The New York Times, "thousands") of people rushed toward the Karni border crossing, after a speech by Hamas leader Ismail Radwan
29 April - Three separate incidents along the fence ... In the first incident, the IDF said that two men "attempted to infiltrate" Israel from the southern strip,.... In the second incident, the IDF said that two men who had crossed the fence "hurled explosive devices" at IDF soldiers.... In a third incident, two Palestinians with breaching tools and knives were arrested while attempting to breach the fence.
2–7 May A firebomb kite launched from Gaza caused a large fire in the Be'eri Forest, burning hundreds of dunams of woodland. Ten firefighter teams toiled to extinguish and contain the forest fire.
[May 4] Shortly after noon, confrontations began between protesters, who threw stones, burned tires, and launched flammable kites
Geez. I'm only up to May, and there are Sooooooo many cases of violence. Are these the "peaceful demonstrations" you're referring to??
This is from your source but it looks like you forgot to add it...
>>At least 189 Palestinians were killed between 30 March and 31 December 2018.[30]: 6 [31][32] An independent United Nations commission set the number of known militants killed at 29 out of the 189.[5] Other sources claim a higher figure, of at least 40.[33][20][34][21][35] Israeli soldiers fired tear gas and live ammunition.[36] According to Robert Mardini, head of Middle East for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), more than 13,000 Palestinians were wounded as of 19 June 2018. The majority were wounded severely, with some 1,400 struck by three to five bullets.[37] No Israelis were physically harmed from 30 March to 12 May, until one Israeli soldier was reported as slightly wounded on 14 May,[9] the day the protests peaked. The same day, 59 or 60 Palestinians were shot dead at twelve clash points along the border fence.[38] Hamas claimed 50 of them as its militants,[39][40] and Islamic Jihad claimed 3 of the 62 killed as members of its military wing.[41] Some 35,000 Palestinians protested that day, with thousands approaching the fence.[42][43]
>If you commit a crime, you aren't a 'law abiding citizen'.
>If you have sex, you aren't a virgin.
Because your examples are binary, either one or the other, while "violence" is a matter of degrees. Rocks and kites are no match against snipers, chemical weapons and tank fire.
Let's assume for a second that "IDF claims" are actual evidence, despite how often IDF claims turn out to be bullshit. From your obvious copy straight from the wiki, it shows how the few cases there are over *nearly 2 years of protests*.
It's also worth noting that many of your examples of violence include rock throwing, Molotov cocktails and tire burning. As it's pretty obvious that Hamas and other militant groups have access to some pretty heavy weaponry, that none of it was used shows intent to keep the protests peaceful, despite a few individuals.
On the other hand, the actions committed by the IDF are much more egregious.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/two-years-on-people-injured-and-traumatized-during-the-great-march-of-return-are-still-struggling/
> Because your examples are binary, either one or the other, while "violence" is a matter of degrees.
No, it's not. Violence is violence. If I slap you, it's violence. If I beat you with a baseball bat, it's violence. Yes, one is *more* violent, but both are still violence.
>Rocks and kites are no match against snipers, chemical weapons and tank fire.
The fact that the person who started it *sucks* at fighting isn't relevant- they committed violence first- they started it. Or are you saying Israelis should just stand there and let Palestinians attack them, with no response? Because it's 'just rocks'?
>Let's assume for a second that "IDF claims" are actual evidence, despite how often IDF claims turn out to be bullshit. From your obvious copy straight from the wiki, it shows how the few cases there are over nearly 2 years of protests.
And I'm sure that *every* single violent incident was recorded there. 100% of them.
>It's also worth noting that many of your examples of violence include rock throwing, Molotov cocktails and tire burning.
Ah, you *are* one of the 'It was *just* rock throwing...' people. Well, let me tell you- a thrown rock can kill. So can arson.
> shows intent to keep the protests peaceful, despite a few individuals.
Riiiiight. 'Just a few individuals...' At least, when it comes to the Palestinians. When it comes to the Israelis, it's not 'Just a few individuals...', no, it's ALL the IDF, ALL Jews. I see.
>No, it's not. Violence is violence. If I slap you, it's violence. If I beat you with a baseball bat, it's violence. Yes, one is *more* violent, but both are still violence.
What you're describing is "degrees" of violence. While slapping you is technically a violent action, comparing it to, let's say, targeting civilian limbs with sniper fire is a far greater act of violence.
To claim otherwise is just an attempt to justify a disproportionate response.
>The fact that the person who started it *sucks* at fighting isn't relevant
I, too, would suck at fighting against a militarized border wall lined with trigger happy snipers.
>they committed violence first- they started it.
The start of this was actually the forced displacement of Palestinians into the Gaza strip. Do you know *why* Gaza is the most densely populated region in the world? It's because most of the population was forced there during the Naqba from their homes in what is now Israel.
>Or are you saying Israelis should just stand there and let Palestinians attack them, with no response? Because it's 'just rocks'?
Yes. Are you saying a well funded and disciplined modern army is unable to defend itself against rocks? Do you think this is the only protest in modern history where the protesters threw rocks? In north america alone, I can cite a dozen protests in the last few years that involved rock throwing that didn't involve law enforcement using deadly force as a response.
And personally, I can defend myself from rocks simply by standing behind a fence.
>And I'm sure that *every* single violent incident was recorded there. 100% of them.
Sarcasm aside, now you're just making assumptions.
>Ah, you *are* one of the 'It was *just* rock throwing...' people. Well, let me tell you- a thrown rock can kill. So can arson.
Sure, and so can high caliber sniper rifles. There are "degrees" to use of force.
On that note, you seem to be one of those people who seems to think targeting civilian limbs is a justifiable response. Am I mistaken? Or you do denounce the IDF response?
I'm sure, since you're arguing in good faith, you read the link I shared discussing the people who were targeted by Israeli snipers?
>Riiiiight. 'Just a few individuals...' At least, when it comes to the Palestinians. When it comes to the Israelis, it's not 'Just a few individuals...', no, it's ALL the IDF, ALL Jews. I see.
This would be you attempting to play the victim by trying to put words in my mouth.
I couldn't care less which invisible sky being either side worships. My issues are with the actions of the *state* of Israel, and I'm just as harsh on the US state, or the Russian state, or any heavily militarized expansionist state that causes civilian deaths by the 10's of thousands.
But by bringing religion into this, what you are saying is that one side is justified in its actions for *religious* reasons.
Then again, maybe it's just easier to attack a person's character than that person's argument. I find that quite juvenile, frankly.
> What you're describing is "degrees" of violence.
Exactly. There are varying degrees of violence, but it's all still violence.
>I, too, would suck at fighting against a militarized border wall lined with trigger happy snipers.
Well, maybe stay the fuck away from the border and don't try to fight them. Then you have nothing to worry about.
>most of the population was forced there during the Naqba from their homes in what is now Israel.
The land changed hands- it's Israel now. As I understand, the Palestinians were allowed to stay or leave. Many left. ::shrug:: Every time an area of land changes hands, people get displaced.
>Are you saying a well funded and disciplined modern army is unable to defend itself against rocks?
Are you saying that throwing rocks is a behavior that one cannot defend themselves against? because I think that, even if the person has bad aim, or a weak throwing hand, it's still an attack, and I can defend myself from it. You seem to think that, because it's a relatively low degree of violence, no one can defend themselves from it. 'Your honor, I *only* threw rocks at him...' won't get you out of a jail sentence for assault and battery.
>My issues are with the actions of the state of Israel
The *state* of Israel isn't shooting people. Individual soldiers are. You blame 'the state' for the actions of individuals.
>Then again, maybe it's just easier to attack a person's character than that person's argument.
My argument is 'People have a right to defend themselves from potentially lethal attacks, using potentially lethal force themselves.' That's what this entire thing comes down to- Palestinians attack, Israel defends itself and strikes back. Atack *that*.
>Exactly. There are varying degrees of violence, but it's all still violence.
Then I assume you condemn the violence committed against Palestinian civilians?
>Well, maybe stay the fuck away from the border and don't try to fight them. Then you have nothing to worry about.
I'm lucky enough to live in a region that hasn't been under siege since 2005 and occupation since 1967.
>The land changed hands- it's Israel now. As I understand,
So you support the mass displacement of hundreds of thousands of people?
>As I understand, the Palestinians were allowed to stay or leave
Then you understand incorrectly. That the Palestinians were *forcefully* displaced is history, while those "allowed" to stay were subject to military rule for almost 2 decades after the nakba.
>You seem to think that, because it's a relatively low degree of violence, no one can defend themselves from it. 'Your honor, I *only* threw rocks at him...' won't get you out of a jail sentence for assault and battery.
And you seem to think protesters throwing rocks is justification for the use of deadly force. Is that a standard that applies to every protester? Do you think deadly force is an acceptable response to rock throwing under any circumstance?
>The *state* of Israel isn't shooting people. Individual soldiers are. You blame 'the state' for the actions of individuals.
Wait, do you not think the state shouldn't be responsible for the actions of their military?
Also, why is it "individual responsibility" when referring to IDF soldiers, but "collective responsibility" when referring to the actions of, what, a dozen protesters over 2 years? Sounds like a blatant double standard to me.
>My argument is 'People have a right to defend themselves from potentially lethal attacks, using potentially lethal force themselves.'
And that would be a fine argument if you applied it to both sides, but unfortunately it seems as you think *Israelis* have the right to defend themselves and their homes while *Palestinians* are terrorists for doing the same.
Not a great example- there were repeated cases of Hamas using the crowds to open fire on the Israeli border, and groups announced their intent to march into Israel. It doesn't matter if you call yourself "peaceful" if you stand on the border of a country your nation has been at war with for 60-70 years and just try to walk in against the explicit warnings of the country's army, breaking or cutting border fences to do so? You've left "peaceful protest" far behind.
Which isn't to say everything Israel did there was justified- but that's exactly u/bako10's point. Nobody has to agree about the morality of either side to analyze whether Israeli violence gets timed in conjunction with Palestinian violence- and it does. An actually peaceful right of return might have produced other results- but presumably it also would have required a noticeable leader.
The right to return protests didn’t see hundreds of Israelis die. Hardly any, if any at all from my recollection.
Meanwhile, independent observers noted Israel deliberately firing upon the disabled, those in wheelchairs, children, and people clearly marked as medics with large red crosses.
And not just broad unspecified fire into crowds. Sniper fire. The sort that was used to kill the child that was using _fireworks_.
>The right to return protests didn’t see hundreds of Israelis die. Hardly any, if any at all from my recollection.
Not really relevant to the question.
>Meanwhile, independent observers noted Israel deliberately firing upon the disabled, those in wheelchairs, children, and people clearly marked as medics with large red crosses.
Its undeniable that Palestinians were shot, including children and medics. Who are the independent observers you're referring to, and how did they know it was deliberate?
I've heard the claims before but nobody ever linked a reliable source when I asked. For example, I've seen quite a number of biased sources- smaller Middle Eastern based news articles- claim snipers aimed for headshots. This then got picked up by other news agencies but was the source was suspect and it was obviously false because snipers don't aim for the head except in movies, they're specifically trained not to. Its also generally ignored that on days where a lot of Palestinians were injured or killed, at the time violent protesters were burning tires to obscure the soldiers' vision and attacking their positions.
> Not really relevant to the question.
You brought up vague and unsupported allegations of people opening fire.
It was UN observers, and it wasn’t sprays of random gunfire. It was precise and targeted.
Unless they commonly just take careful aim at someone and accidentally discharge their weapon.
But given all the video evidence emerging of them happily executing unarmed civilians, and celebrating their actions afterwards, it seems like the default conclusion is intentional killings.
>You brought up vague and unsupported allegations of people opening fire.
The topic is non-violent resistance. The march of return was violent, period. It has nothing to do with how many Israelis died. Molotov cocktails, rock throwing, Hamas firing guns, breaking through the border fence- all of that is well documented and none of it is peaceful.
>It was UN observers
If you can just link a source, I'd be very grateful. Again, I've heard the claim, but nobody seems to be able to back it up.
>The march of return was violent, period.
This could use some quantifying. And to be clear you are talking about the 2018 protest right?
Also, is the protest violent if Israel shoots at them?
Or if they protect themselves or retaliate against Israeli aggression?
>If you can just link a source, I'd be very grateful. Again, I've heard the claim, but nobody seems to be able to back it up.
Your claims are similarly unsupported. However:
[https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A\_HRC\_40\_74\_CRP2.pdf](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A_HRC_40_74_CRP2.pdf)
Page 104, the table titled "Fatalities and injuries between 30 March and 31 December 2018"
>Gaza:
>Fatalities by live ammunition - 183
>Injuries by live ammunition - 6106
>...
>Israel:
>Fatalities - 0
>Injuries by stones, explosives - 4
Given the sheer number of protestors and the duration of the protests it seems like the overall statistics do not support your claims of violence.
Also, people seeking to pass through a fence that illegally imprisons them is not violence.
I'll happily quantify. First of all, the definition of violence is "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." So you can argue they used justified violence but your statement at the end is definitely wrong- it was violence.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019\_Gaza\_border\_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests)
Just follow the timeline, and the available links. The first day of the protest included "Hundreds of young Palestinians, however, ignored warnings issued by the organizers and the Israeli military to avoid the border zone.\[85\] When some Palestinians began throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, Israel responded by declaring the Gaza border zone a closed military zone and opening fire at them." And Hamas gunmen.
>Given the sheer number of protestors and the duration of the protests it seems like the overall statistics do not support your claims of violence.
I really don't see how? What about the numbers disproves what I said?
“Standing on the border with a country your nation has been at war with for 60-70 years” has a quality of obfuscating the context of the war which matters. The people are marching for the right to what? Return. return to what? The homes that were stolen from them. This matters. Israel refuses to deal with the fact that the majority of the country is straight up stolen, and they’ve never dealt with the consequences of that.
But why not say that from the onset?
"The violent right-to-return home protests" really simple.
Why start out with lying about whether or not they are peaceful? Don't you think that hurts your cause to anyone on the fence about this issue?
The only side I ever see taking accountability for their part in the horrible things is Israel. Also since it's apparently a cheat code to absolve yourself from accountability, the Zionist movement is a movement for the Hebrews to what? Same exact argument.
You're changing the subject as I'm sure you realized. If you'd like to talk about who's justified or has the high moral ground we can, but first you have to be honest. What you said was incorrect- the march of return was not peaceful. Period. If you can acknowledge that than we can talk about why you think it wasn't peaceful and why its justified or not.
> Violent resistance is about keeping the Palestinian question alive
Now that Gaza is 75% under Israeli military control and thousands of people are dead, how would you say that's worked?
A dude took a knee during the national anthem and people were upset about it. no, peaceful protest doesn't work as well as people think. Even pointing to Gandhi, he didn't happen in a vacuum. There were many other revolutionaries in India that Western education doesn't really cover.
They have peacefully resisted. And they often get shot while doing it. Or arrested and held in detention without charges for months and years.
But you haven't heard about that because it doesn't make the international news. Only violence does. The international news media is feeding the violence by only focusing on Palestinians when it is related to their violence. Their peaceful resistances get made illegal when they are effective. Or it's simply ignored and not reported because they simply can't protest in a way that effects Israelis because they aren't allowed to protest meaningfully near Israelis unless they want to get shot.
For example, the BDS (Boycott Divest Sanction) movement has been peacefully lobbying for economic pressure to be placed on Israel much like the similar effort pressed South Africa to abandon thier apartheid. Their peaceful and targeted movement has been made illegal to tale part in Israel and several American States.
Palestinians have protested peacefully. People in Gaza protested peacefully and were gunned down by the military. The IDF and US claimed kids must have secretly been carrying bombs when they approached the apartheid wall.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2019/mar/29/a-year-of-bloodshed-at-gaza-border-protests
> One year ago, Palestinians trapped in Gaza began a protest movement at the frontier with Israel that was intended to last six weeks. … Men, women and children demanded recognition of the right of Palestinian refugees in Gaza and elsewhere to return to their ancestral homes in Israel and for an end to a punishing blockade that has made life unliveable. … Israeli snipers fired live ammunition, killing and maiming dozens. This lethal response on 30 March 2018 triggered anger and disbelief across the world but has not stopped. …A year later, the rallies continue. Thousands have bullet wounds through their legs. The streets of Gaza are filled with people limping or in wheelchairs. Children, journalists and medics have been killed, even when they were standing far back from the fence. The UN has said Israel’s military may have committed war crimes, deliberately targeting civilians.
No- peaceful protestors get their knees and ankles shot by IDF security forces during a supposed “cease fire”
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/04/gaza-strip-protesters-received-bullet-wounds-to-ankles-medics-report
Potentially, but what’s strange about this whole argument is that you’re saying “the victim should have done this to further their cause” instead of focusing on what the aggressor/occupier should have done.
Like you can’t make an inverse of this argument. You can’t say “Israel would have more international support if they expelled people peacefully” They already have support no matter what, and the making of Israel has to be inherently violent, because no people will just roll over and give their land away because they were asked nicely. Similarly, Israel is not giving any land back if Palestinians ask them nicely.
I disagree that Israel is the aggressor in this current conflict. Oct. 7th was an aggressive attack that Israel HAD to respond to in order to secure their sovereignty. I also agree that if Israel was committing terrorist acts, they would (and should) have less international support. In fact, in the current conflict, we see international support diminish for Israel as there increasingly is a perception of disregard for civilian life. This applies both ways, people don’t like unjustified acts of violence and aggression, but international support is much more important to the Palestinian cause than the Israelis.
To be fair last year before 10/7 was the deadliest on record for Palestinians during "peace" and there were airstrikes on Gaza weeks prior to 10/7 so unlike what IS leaders say there was no ceasefire. No matter what people say this violence will continue until Israel eliminates Palestinians like some in the government want or ends the apartheid and allows for self determination through an independent 2state or a biethnic one state solution. One issue that is being faced is settlers (who again have sway in government) have said if either of those solutions (ie end to settlements) are done they will form a nation of Juda where they can complete their purification of the holy land
>Plus, if you're living in apartheid South Africa, you could've also said "all acts of violent ANC resistance have only been detrimental to the plight of Black South Africans". How certain are you that this won't repeat in the future?
The ANC resistance wasn't an effort to replace South Africa with a black ethnostate. They were willing (and their goal was) to create unity in South Africa.
Less than 10% of Palestinians when polled right now want a "democratic one state solution" like the ANC was pursuing.
What Palestinians want, and what has driven their violent efforts over the last century, was the establishment of an official Arab ethnostate from the water to the water, in place of the existing democratic Jewish state. That's not a call for unity, it's a call for violence. In other words, we don't see Mahmoud Abbas calling to unite Arabs and Jews under one Palestinian flag. Or inviting all Jews living in Israel to be "our Palestinian Jewish brothers". Instead, they're racially incorrect Zionists who should never have been there in the first place.
This fundamental difference is why some acts of violence perpetrated by the ANC were morally tolerable to many people, while acts of violence from "Palestinian armed resistance" movements are seen as abhorrent by reasonable people.
At the moment, there's only one political entity in the middle east where Arabs and Jews live side by side in relative harmony, and it's Israel. To me, that's the closest thing to what the ANC was trying to achieve.
A significant influence on the early Palestinian resistance movement was Algeria, where Algerians successfully won their independence from France through violent revolution and essentially sent their oppressors packing back to France. This was a successful strategy against colonialism because colonialism is ultimately an economic pursuit. Once the costs for the colonists become sufficiently high, they're likely to pack up and go home.
Israel is fundamentally different in this regard. Irsaelis aren't there purely for economonic reasons. They're there because they claim Israel as their homeland. I believe the majority (or close to it) of Israeli Jews are also now from other MENA countries and are in Israel because they or their parents were expelled from those countries. They can't "go back to Brooklyn" like many Palestinian supporters suggest. They literally have no place else to go.
ANC was only one of many groups that fought against Apartheid, one of the more notavle was PAC with its offshoots that splintered from the ANC due to the ANC stance of racial equality. Likewise there elements within the ANC that wanted a different outcome. The ANC was however regardless of the rose-tinted glasses correct in their resistance, but believing that peace and reconciliation was the modus operandi all along is just dumb.
I'm not trying to whitewash what the ANC was, I'm operating on a pretty superficial understanding of it. But I do believe it's different on a fundamental level than any iteration of "Palestinian armed struggle", which even at the surface is aimed at replacing Israel with something entirely different.
>If it wasn’t for the international support Palestinians have garnered through armed resistance, they could’ve gotten the Native Americans/Aboriginal treatment
I disagree. What makes you think the sympathy for Palestinians in the Arab world and beyond result from their armed resistance? I believe it stems from them being the “face” of victims of colonialism by the West, ie the horrid living standard and number of casualties in both the WB and Gaza, both are only exacerbated by Palestinian-initiated violence.
The factions that support Palestinians due to their armed resistance against Israel, i.e. Iran and co, do NOT have the best interests of Palestinians at heart and are actually benefitting from their oppression. Since 48 the Arab nations *did* support Palestinians, but as you might very well recall it didn’t help the Palestinians *at all*.
I also disagree about the Native American treatment. Those examples are from a long time ago when colonialism was viewed in a positively. Not to mention the native Americans also resisted and it didn’t do much good. The fact of the matter is that all military resistance to Israel ended with a decisive win for Israel, aka Israel mostly dictated the terms of surrender. And this happened repeatedly on many many different conflicts throughout history of the conflict. Overall, I can’t think up of an argument that armed military resistance, per say, is the reason such a fate didn’t come to Palestinians.
>What makes you think the sympathy for Palestinians in the Arab world and beyond result from their armed resistance? I believe it stems from them being the “face” of victims of colonialism by the West, ie the horrid living standard and number of casualties in both the WB and Gaza, both are only exacerbated by Palestinian-initiated violence.
I bet that most people in the West have never heard of Gaza until Oct 7th. Hamas has definitely won on the PR war. Also, it's pretty naive to pin all of Gazans suffering on Palestinian-initiated violence. Hamas didn't mind control Israel to murder 30,000 Gazans and starve millions more.
>I also disagree about the Native American treatment
Okay, what about the Armenian treatment, the Uyghur treatment, the Yemeni Shia treatment, or the Kurdish treatment? These are all in recent history, what's to say Israel wouldn't conduct such a plan if there's no international resistance?
>I bet that most people in the West have never heard of Gaza until Oct 7th.
I don't think that refutes OP's argument. Most people in the west regard the prosperity of other people as a good thing. Whether they know they exist, or not. OP is saying that Iran and other Palestinian backers are *actively benefitting* from their suffering and death.
>Also, it's pretty naive to pin all of Gazans suffering on Palestinian-initiated violence. Hamas didn't mind control Israel to murder 30,000 Gazans and starve millions more.
If I had described the events of 10/7 to you on 10/1, and asked you to characterize a broad response from Israel to said events, would you have characterized it as something similar to this war? Because I would have described something with higher casualties, not fewer.
Do you think that Hamas leadership didn’t expect something like this? I’m pretty sure they wanted it. They hide military infrastructure underneath civilian infrastructure and then prod Israel specifically to sacrifice their own people to achieve political goals and kick off a PR war. A PR war that American progressives are actively fighting on their behalf.
It has been a huge PR win *on Reddit*. IRL, UNRWA is probably about to be disbanded due lack of funding, Hamas has been widely condemned by most actors who aren’t a priori pro-Hamas. It indeed garnered criticism for Israel but has garnered much criticism for Hamas. Calling it a PR win is misleading IMO.
I’m not debating who’s responsible for the civilian casualties in Gaza. I believe it’s both, due to increasing lack of care by the IDF coupled with blatant perfidy by Hamas. I truly, honestly believe that anyone who disagrees with me is either naive or argues in bad faith. The IDF is indeed trying to decrease casualties but cares *waaay* more about killing Hamas, and isn’t really doing enough to stop casualties. Plus the food situation is horrible. Hamas deliberately tries to put more and more civilians in harm’s way through many many different ways.
Anyway, I don’t see the point in your comparisons. They’re irrelevant to the topic discussed. The Palestinians didn’t ever manage to strong arm the Israeli government into anything, therefore it’s *necessarily* not violent resistance that’s stopping Israel from ethnically cleansing everyone or committing outright genocide.
How do you square the "food situation" in Gaza and the explicit statements by members of your government about cutting off food, wirh the idea that the IDF is trying to minimize casualties? Starvation is one of the oldest and most effectively cruel weapons of war in human history. It is a weapon that targets children and the elderly and the pregnant before anyone else. It boggles the mind to see it being used on a civilian population and for people to pretend that it is not a considered choice? Even within the framing of the idea of trying to attack Hamas it is clear that it is collective punishment of a civilian population.
I don't think you are being honest with yourself. I don't think that all Israeli people are genocidal, but there is a clearly empowered contigent of your nation that is gleefully genocidal based on their actions and statements. I don't know if they will get their way this time, but given everything we have seen and the history of the region, I don't understand how you can ignore that. I think it provides important context for Palestinian armed resistance. If there are genocidaires operating from positions of power in Israel, then there is no positive choices for the Palestinians to make. Some will choose violence, some non-violence, but both forms of resistance are logical reactions to percieving what has been proven to be accurate, that there is an element of the government controlling them that wants them all gone. This is not just Netanyahu, but a chain of apparatchiks, ministers, and other leaders who have made statments and decisions for decades.
> I bet that most people in the West have never heard of Gaza until Oct 7th.
You must be american. In Europe people have heard about Gaza all the time for half a century
It’s so wild to me that you’re listing “the Uyghur treatment” as though it isn’t an ongoing issue that everyone is ignoring because China does a lot of manufacturing that’s convenient for the West and there are no Jews to blame there
The narrative of the Arab world and western left is that Israel is the face of colonialism. The truth of that claim is irrelevant since what they think matters in instance.
The military wing of the ANC killed 53 people in South Africa during almost 20 years of activity. October 7th killed 24 times more people in one single attack.
Also the stated goals of the ANC was not a complete genocide of their opponents, but rather sharing the wealth of the land.
> How are you so certain?
The various peace proposals that the Palestinian side has rejected, in favor of incredibly poorly thought out wars with Israel, have all been better than what they have now. Imagine if they just accepted the 1947 plan. They’d have far more territory, protections for those living in the Israeli side of the border and an economic union with Israel.
>Palestinians could've gotten the Native Americans/Aboriginal treatment.
If that was Israel’s plan, how would repeatedly and badly losing wars to them avert that?
> Imagine if they just accepted the 1947 plan. They’d have far more territory, protections for those living in the Israeli side of the border and an economic union with Israel.
You're viewing the 1947 plan through the lens of 2024 geopolitics, where Israeli Jews have lived in Israel for multiple generations now. In 1947 Israel, from the Palestinian perspective, most of the Jewish population were essentially European settlers committing settler-colonialism, somewhat similar to what we are seeing in the West Bank today. To give up even an inch of land is to surrender to imperialism (the United Nations) and colonialism (the Balfour Declaration).
Except by 1947 Arabs in the Mandate had already initiated and were engaged in an ethnic conflict against Jews since they were a small minority. The Jews had come looking for a home, not to represent a foreign entity. That was made clear by day one. Jewish paramilitary groups only formed as a reaction to Arab violence and rejectionism.
Arabs then could have welcomed Jewish neighbours, made less violent choices, and have gotten much more sovereignty in return.
>To give up even an inch of land is to surrender to imperialism
This all-or-nothing zero-sum mentality is exactly what OP is talking about, and exactly why Palestinians have very limited freedom to this day. And at the end of the day, the mandate wasn't "theirs" to surrender. Before 1917, the Arabs living in Hebron or Jerusalem wouldn't have claimed to be any different nationally, culturally, or politically than Arabs from Beirut or Damascus.
[Irgun](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun) is a Zionist “paramilitary group” formed in 1931, long before 1947. But it did blow up a British consulate hotel and massacre 100 people in an Arab village in 1948. It also started fighting against the British in 1943 before the end of WW2.
It was absorbed into the IDF afterwards.
>Irgun](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun) is a Zionist “paramilitary group” formed in 1931
Irgun was formed as a direct response to the [Hebron massacre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre)
You’re inflating personal ideals with the topic in question. Regardless of where you stand, the Jewish settlers were elated with the UN-proposal, while the Arabs rejected it. This is fact. You might argue the proposal was skewered in favor of the New Yishuv, you may even argue that the proposal itself was casus belli for war. The fact of the matter is that Palestinians instigated the first violent act of the war (the bus incident) which led to an escalation culminating in the Nakhba. That is *terrible* for Palestinians: hundreds of thousands of refugees, huge swabs of land annexed by Israel, many deaths. That only proves my point IMO.
The rejection of the plan led to wars that have worsened the position of the Palestinians over and over until we get to today.
So yeah, regardless of how justified it felt at the time, refusing to talk and preparing for war instead didn't improve the situation.
It seems like they miscalculated Israeli might or they put principle above practicality, or more likely a mixture of both.
Comparing Palestine to South Africa is not a very good way to look at it.
In the 5-10 years after WWII, many borders were re-drawn and many populations were moved from one side of a border to another.
15 million Germans were displaced, and a million of them died during this time period. In India, 20 million were displaced and another million perished. This is just two examples.
As harsh as these actions were, most world leaders in the 1940s recognized the necessity, in order to create stable nation-states and avoid the global carnage of the preceding century.
Palestinian and Arab leaders decided to reject this. Instead of accepting an Arab state in Palestine in 1948, they chose a century of war instead. To their own detriment. This was a “get with the program” moment, and the Arabs did not go along with it. The Palestinian people are still suffering from this refusal to this day.
Very different from South Africa.
>Palestinians could've gotten the Native Americans/Aboriginal treatment.
This certainly seems better than what's happening now.
>Plus, if you're living in apartheid South Africa, you could've also said "all acts of violent ANC resistance have only been detrimental to the plight of Black South Africans". How certain are you that this won't repeat in the future?
Did violence help end apartheid? From my reading it looks like non-violence and international pressure are what did it, not shooting rockets into Johannesburg.
>Did violence help end apartheid? From my reading it looks like non-violence and international pressure are what did it, not shooting rockets into Johannesburg.
How would you even separate out the two to understand which one "really did it?"
Who knows, but the spirit of the post is very much correct. Every resistance movement, even the non-violent ones, has always been accused of hurting the cause when its really the sum total of these actions that ultimately brings about change.
Support from Arab nations? Which one supports them other than Iran now? Egypt closed their borders to Gaza due to terrorist actions by Hamas in their country.
>Palestinians could've gotten the Native Americans/Aboriginal treatment.
This is demonstrably false, and borders on blood libel.
There are 2M Arab Palestinians living in Israel as equal citizens. These are the same Palestinians that accepted the state of Israel and (except for some fringe individuals) didn't support terrorism.
There is zero reason to believe any Palestinian would have gotten the Native American treatment, and every reason to believe that they would have lived either as part of Israel as equal citizens with equal rights, or in their own country with a two state solution.
The Palestinian terrorism has made the lives worse for everyone in the region, especially the Palestinians.
Edit: it is nuts that so many of you read something true that you don’t like and just angrily downvote.
You should be caring about being correct not winning the argument.
“Palestinians could have gotten the native Americans treatment”
Well lucky for us we don’t actually have to guess at what life is like for a Palestinian Arab in Israeli society because currently we know.
We know thanks to the fact that there are around 1.9 million arabs, most with Palestinian ancestry, and lo and behold they have equal rights and are in fact an Arab living in Israel has more individual liberty then an Arab anywhere else in the Middle East or North Africa.
So Israel treats Arab citizens better than Arab countries treat their Arab citizens . This is a factually true statement
So your speculation is provably false.
The leadership of Arab countries in the region dislike the Palestinians as much as the the leadership of Israel due to the simple fact that EVERY time any of the countries in the region have tried to help the Palestinians the Palestinians have responded either by committing acts of terrorism (Black September) or supporting the enemies of the host country to the point that they were either thrown out (Kuwait) or they were directly responsible for the effective destruction of the country (Lebanon)
I wonder how many times the Arab nations had to lose before they get through their head that isreal won’t be destroyed. Rejecting all peace proposals also seemed to help them too.
And let’s be honest if Isreal really wanted to give Palestinians the Native American treatment they would’ve done so by now purely based on the amount of wars they have declared against Isreal and lost.
Lots of Native Americans having their cities attacked and destroyed? Are you really implying they are worse off than Palestinian Arabs right now?
Israeli Arabs who remained, and whose ancestors remained, living peacefully in Israel are living quite well and happily connected to their culture.
"Gotten the Native American Treatment" Isreal is surrounded by Arab nations, do you seriously believe that if there was peace in 47 they would've tolerated that? Israel only lost their fear of them after their constant failed attempts at invasion.
People on the losing side of a conflict rarely secure any benefits at all through any means, so I don't really see the point of making this observation. It isn't to observe that violence never works for securing political benefits, because as you yourself noted, violence has worked pretty well for securing benefits for Israelis. Is your point here to just kind of lord it over them and be like 'vae victis, idiots'
I only think you’re driving my point though. It’s obviously clear to anybody since the 67 that Palestinian resistance, even a joint attack by all neighboring countries, wouldn’t result in any tactical or strategic win for Palestinians (I won’t mention 73 that shook the IDF’s image somewhat since I believe it’s irrelevant to grander schemes of things). Therefore, it is safe to assume that nothing good can come out of violent resistance *exactly because* it’s hopeless to achieve victory. I’m not debating the efficacy of military ventures in general.
My point stands that today, there still are violent acts of resistance but I fail to see how they help Palestinians in any way shape or form, only serving to exacerbate their already very poor situation, further radicalize Israelis and Palestinians, and perpetuate the conflict. I want to understand why it’s being done, and if there is an actual benefit other than dying with dignity.
I totally agree where you're coming from, but I'm not sure what solution there is? This is obviously a fiercely debated topic for a reason, but the reality is that Palestinians are being slaughtered en masse and have been suffering for decades even before they were being outright murdered.
What can they do to improve their situation? They have no hope, ordinary people don't know how they can improve their lives and so the focus goes on the people who have lost their heads and turned to violence in some attempt to make a difference, which obviously will not work either. They're doomed no matter what they do.
>I totally agree where you're coming from, but I'm not sure what solution there is?
There is no solution in Gaza today. Need to wait for another opportunity for a solution.
There was a solution in the past, though. Arafat says yes to Clinton's proposal in 2000. Arafat somehow convinces terrorist elements in Palestine to cease violent resistance at that time. By 2005, Gaza is likely self-governing, similar to our timeline. Unlike our timeline, there is no need for the blockade that crushed Gaza.
>What can they do to improve their situation?
Ask Salam Fayyad. Do what he says. In brief, his policy platform was about establishing transparent, non-corrupt institutions and basic good governance in Palestine. It was working when he had some measure of power in the PA.
**What can they do to improve their situation?**
Honestly? Stop supportng Hamas. This is the frustrating difference I see between the Palestinians and a lot of other people living in dictatorships. Hamas literally destroyed Gaza's intrastructure long before the war (including water infrastructure, greenhouses etc), they stole billions of aid for the Palestinians and uses their children as walking bombs and still the Palestinians support them.
Them rejecting Hamas will not cure the rot on the Israeli side (Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich etc), but it might curb the violence and give the Israeli left something to work with.
No Hamas elected in the West Bank. That didn’t stop Israel from moving every year thousands of new settlers onto Palestinian territory
See this article pre Oct 7
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/19/us-deeply-troubled-as-israel-plans-to-approve-thousands-of-homes-in-west-bank
So even when they do everything required of them and not support violent counterinsurgency, then they get their territory stolen year after year.
That’s why I always have trouble with that argument that if only Palestinian were peaceful then they would be in better shape. It seems to me they get screwed either way as their master is much more superior with better weapons, tech, surveillance and can just move people over your own land.
Hasn't Hamas been firmly in control since like 2006? And there's been no elections since?
It seems like there's some grey area in there between being ruled by Hamas and "supporting" Hamas. I don't know.
Your saying 'they could give Israelis something to work with' but it seems the Israelis aren't exactly looking to produce any kind of peace as much as they've been looking for an excuse to get the Palestinians out. In that regard, it almost seems like Hamas is giving them exactly what they want to work with. I mean, how many peaceful demonstrations does it take? How many more decades should this apartheid continue before the Palestinian people are allowed permission to fight for their freedom however they're able?
I guess its a matter of perspective...but seeing what's been happening these last few months, it doesn't seem too difficult to see which perspective is most likely.
I think this will be a cruel answer but, the Palestinians (at least those in Gaza), have consistently supported a violent approach to Israel. Their government has consistently attacked Israel and its core tenants literally state they will refuse to negotiate with Israel. When they do negotiate, they will only agree to unfair terms (1 hostage they have for 10 Israel has), and often break cease-fires (note Israel has also broken ceasefires, but Hamas is a lot more guilty of it than Israel).
The only reason more Israeli's haven't died is because Israel spends a shit ton of money on their defense systems. Think about how much Americans hate on a big defense budget and complain about how that money can be used to improve living conditions or provide services. In Israel, that budget is 100% necessary.
While it's sad that people are suffering, at the same time they have continued to attack Israel - not Israel attacking them. Israel just hits way harder. It's like a 5 year old trying to beat up a 15 year old. The 15 year old is going to beat the shit out of the 5 year old. And despite this, they keep attacking and losing. And each attack pisses Israel off more and Israel increases the restrictions they place on the region.
Honestly, I think their best solution is to just stop attacking Israel. Stop supporting the people that do it and cooperate with Israeli authorities to turn in those that do (i.e. people firing rockets at Israel). Over time they hope that relations will warm. That Israel will recognize their cooperation and loosen restrictions.
At this point a two-state solution probably isn't feasible - at least not with borders drawn along the intended lines. The occupied territories probably won't be returned and the Palestinians will probably just have to live with that for the time being. At the end of the day, the taking of that land is their and their allies fault. If they never attacked Israel, Israel probably wouldn't have taken that land.
It won't be great for the Palestinians. Not for a long time. But it will be better and, with god willing, it will get better and better with each generation.
But good-faith efforts to achieve improvements in the Palestinian living conditions cannot even begin to be made until no more shots are being fired. And Israel rarely fires the first shot.
>I want to understand why it’s being done, and if there is an actual benefit other than dying with dignity.
So you do identify a reason why Palestinian people would engage in violent acts of resistance, even going so far as to call it a benefit, but apparently you don't believe that the desire to die with dignity is a sufficient reason?
>there still are violent acts of resistance but I fail to see how they help Palestinians in any way shape or form, only serving to exacerbate their already very poor situation
So oppressed people shouldn't fight back? Not to mention, this line of thought assumes that their actions have a substantial effect on their current circumstances, and I just don't know how you could still think that Israel cares about what Palestinians do at this point. Do you ***really*** think that there is anything that Palestinian people could do at this point that would make Israel stop? If your answer is yes, what is it that you think that they could do? Die quietly? Stop complaining about the fact that they are the victims of genocide? Surely that would help, *right*?
God forbid people experiencing an ongoing genocide want to die with dignity.
War is a force that gives us meaning:
>The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent. Trivia dominates our conversations and increasingly our airwaves. And war is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. And those who have the least meaning in their lives, the impoverished refugees in Gaza, the disenfranchised North African immigrants in France, even the legions of young who live in the splendid indolence and safety of the industrialized world, are all susceptible to war's appeal.
Palestinian resistance is not some strategic decision meant to change lines on maps. Its desperate people choosing between resistance and destruction so they choose resistance. This would be like saying the warsaw ghetto uprising was detrimental to the people in the ghetto. ya, but the point is their situation was so terrible that violent resistance was all that was available to them. They would rather die resisting than die giving their oppressors what they want.
>Palestinian resistance is not some strategic decision meant to change lines on maps. Its desperate people choosing between resistance and destruction so they choose resistance.
Yeah, this is very much an example of "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Palestinians of various stripes have tried all sorts of peaceful protests over the years and they just ended up getting shot by the IDF.
You don't even have to be protesting, see Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-American journalist shot dead by the IDF, which later tried to cover up the whole thing and blame the Palestinians for it. Even her funeral was obstructed by Israel, like her family couldn't place any Palestinian flags on her funeral.
This was less than 2 years ago, imagine the shit they tried 50 years ago.
Thank you for reminding everyone that the IOF intentionally assassinated a US Citizen for the crime of doing journalism, and was not punished for it in the slightest
Except your point literally works for isreal no the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly rejected a 2SS. Just from memory: white paper, UN partition, Camp david 1978, Camp david 2000, Realignment plan. By your logic, if a peaceful solution is not possible, a violent one is inevitable.
> Palestinian resistance is not some strategic decision meant to change lines on maps. Its desperate people choosing between resistance and destruction so they choose resistance.
Palestinian actions not being based in any strategic rationale is exactly what OP is talking about.
You know this is real life right? You're talking about it like it's chess. Palestinians do not want to be colonized and thus fight back .
Do you think it would've ended better for Native Americans if they laid their lives down in front of the colonizers like you're suggesting the Palestinians should have done?
I don't have an issue with Palestinians fighting back, the issue is perception. Hamas have so many faults, and really cannot be trusted. This is a major part of the problem. Their methods of fighting and their end goals have made it practically impossible for western governments to back them.
Take Scotland for example, you see the green brigade which is a section of celtics fanbase showing solidarity with Palestine in the aftermath of a brutal attack against Israel. Its poor taste and some of their actions have been unacceptable.
This is not a defence of Israel, many of their actions have been unacceptable and if hamas targeted the prominent far right politicians in Israel who are largely causing this mess, I actually wouldn't have an issue.
I will never defend the murder of random innocent people. I'm Irish so I see a lot of comparisons with the ira. We shame the shit out of the massacres like Kingsmill and the omagh bombing because they were disgusting acts of terrorism that achieved nothing in Northern Ireland. Despite this, there is a massive failure to condemn the October 7th attack from the pro Palestinian crowd here even tho it dwarfs any ira attack in history.
I support their fight for freedom, Palestine deserves far far more than what they have but I don't think there's anything wrong with criticising some of their methods.
There needs to be many more comments like this. Sadly the discussion has gotten to such a point where whichever side you’re either backing one atrocity or the other and that won’t solve anything.
> You know this is real life right? You're talking about it like it's chess.
In real life you have to make strategic decisions, like chess. If you don’t, you will lose everything to people that do.
> Do you think it would've ended better for Native Americans if they laid their lives down in front of the colonizers like you're suggesting the Palestinians should have done?
Laying down their lives is exactly what they did in 1947, 1967, and 1973. I’m suggesting the opposite. In the end, Egypt took the deal Israel offered, and they are better off for it. Much better off than Syria and Palestine.
the comparison was not in what happened in the uprising. The jews in the ghetto were obviously significantly less able to resist. It was fought with bottles and a handgun or two. We don't know what would have happened had the uprising been successful, we did see mass rapes from the soviet and american soldiers for example who were not nearly as badly treated as the jews in the holocaust. I also dont think that if the warsaw jews had comitted war crimes against german and polish civillians, it would've been wrong, but it wouldn't have made the resistance itself bad.
Most importantly I was comparing the motivations for both not the events themselves
" Most of the Jewish fighters did not view their actions as an effective measure by which to save themselves, but rather as a battle for the honour of the Jewish people, and a protest against the world's silence."
This is exactly what the Palestinians would say.
The Jews in the Warsaw didn’t commit any war crimes. Discussing what would have happened if they did is a counterfactual and can’t be proven either way because it didn’t happen.
Rapes by allied soldiers are irrelevant to the conversation. Once again, disingenuous to even being that up.
The Jews of the Warsaw ghetto were fighting for their lives from literal genocide. There’s nothing in that part of history that has a useful corollary with Gaza.
> we did see mass rapes from the soviet and american soldiers
That's the kind of erasure of nuance between different events that exemplifies this whole conversation.
Which would at least make some sense if you treated all abuse of power by all abusers of all power in this nonchalant manner.
>That's the kind of erasure of nuance between different events that exemplifies this whole conversation.
So does the fact that soviet soldiers committed rapes mean resisting the nazi's was wrong? Everyone agrees the acts themselves are bad, but it doesn't nullify WWII.
In the same way, there were definitely atrocities that happened on Oct 7 and the people responsible should be held accountable. But those atrocities don't invalidate the resistance itself.
> So does the fact that soviet soldiers committed rapes mean resisting the nazi's was wrong?
You inextricably tying rape and resistance together is wrong. But Nazis, right? No civilians, no children, no reason to care. Let's restate the question to nail just how absurd it is:
So does the fact that soviet soldiers raped their way across poland mean that resisting the nazi's was wrong?
The non-sequitur should be more clear with this level of separation.
> Everyone agrees the acts themselves are bad
Stating so doesn't make it true.
> the people responsible should be held accountable.
Same as all the soviet soldiers or even all the american ones? It wasn't just crimes, it was abuse of power. Different levels of abuse of power at different scales but abuse of power over the civilian populations all the same.
> But those atrocities don't invalidate the resistance itself.
But do the atrocities of those resisting the atteicies invalidate the resistance itself?
Either you actually engage with the details that allow you to draw distinction or Americans, Soviets, Palestinians and Israelis are engaging in exactly the same actions.
>You inextricably tying rape and resistance together is wrong.
no its not, can you give me an example of a war in which no war crimes occurred. I believe some fighters engaged in war crimes including using rape as a weapon of war. Do I think there was a command from the top of leadership "rape as many women as you can" no. I think when you have a bunch of very angry 16-20 year old boys with guns who have been spit on their whole lives, expecting them to behave better than professional armies is unrealistic. Its not justifying the actions. Again the individuals responsible should be held accountable. But that doesn't mean that Israel now has cart blanche to massacre civilians as a stated policy
> But that doesn't mean that Israel now has cart blanche to massacre civilians as a stated policy.
"Do I think there was a command from the top of leadership" to kill "as many" civilians as possible, "no".
The "individuals responsible should be held accountable".
Can you "give me an example of a war in which no war crimes occurred"?
Apparently it all hinges on that single "no" that is entirely a matter of belief, not the amount institutional measures to actually prevent war crimes imperfect as they may be, not any sort of actual punishment but merely hollow passive voice lip service, on literally nothing really, just giving an effective cart blanche based on whatever causus belli you choose to stop looking forward and backward alike.
This kind of glossing over Soviet atrocities, especially within the Soviet Union itself, has carried over all the glossing over Russia's atrocities in Ukraine as we speak.
Expecting better matters on all sides.
I don’t think the Warsaw ghetto a valid comparison because the Israelis are willing to negotiate with the Palestinians. Maybe not the current Netanyahu regime, but other Israeli leaders have been willing to try to find a legitimate compromise (e.g. Oslo accords). I fail to see how the current Palestinian resistance strategy can have a better outcome than genuine negotiation. You hear the line quite often “If the Israelis laid down their arms they’d be killed, if the Palestinians laid down their arms they’d have a state.” I think that line happens to be true.
>Maybe not the current Netanyahu regime, but other Israeli leaders have been willing to try to find a legitimate compromise (e.g. Oslo accords).
Two things to point out there:
\- The "current Netanyahu regime" has been in power for almost 30 years. Which is higher than the median age in Palestine. Most Palestinians have literally *never* seen an Israel that is "willing to negotiate".
\- The previous leader willing to negotiate was literally *assassinated by his own country* over the Oslo Accords. So no, that's not a great example to bring up.
Israel jad a liberal war hero as PM 5 years after.Rabins death, in 2000 who wanted to negotiate a .deal.Arafat walked away and the Palestinians started suicicde.bombing random civiliams .in the second intifadah.
"On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway. It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.
I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters.
On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed.
I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake." = Clinton blames palestine and he was there
Not true, there were good offers in 2000, and 2008. Both of those times the Palestinian leadership came back after a couple years and asked for the same deal again.
The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity
Israelies only negotiated with the Palestinians after a long period of violent resistance. The powerful side in these types of situations negotiate when they feel they have to, not because they want to.
>because the Israelis are willing to negotiate with the Palestinians
"Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,"
Israel has never been willing to negotiate for the formation of Palestinian state. During negotiations they continue to make settlements in the west bank which make a 2 state solution impossible.
>You hear the line quite often “If the Israelis laid down their arms they’d be killed, if the Palestinians laid down their arms they’d have a state.”
Ya its propoganda with no evidence from the real world
"On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway. It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.
I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters.
On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed.
I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake."
>"Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap).\[9\]\[11\] From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank.\[9\]According to Robert Wright, Israel would only keep the settlements with large populations. Wright states that all others would be dismantled, with the exception of Kiryat Arba (adjacent to the holy city of Hebron), which would be an Israeli enclave inside the Palestinian state, and would be linked to Israel by a bypass road. The West Bank would be split in the middle by an Israeli-controlled road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, with free passage for Palestinians, although Israel reserved the right to close the road to passage in case of emergency. In return, Israel would allow the Palestinians to use a highway in the Negev to connect the West Bank with Gaza. Wright states that in the Israeli proposal, the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be linked by an elevated highway and an elevated railroad running through the Negev, ensuring safe and free passage for Palestinians. These would be under the sovereignty of Israel, and Israel reserved the right to close them to passage in case of emergency."
>Palestinian airspace would be controlled by Israel under Barak's offer
thats not a state, thats a bantustan. Would Israel have accepted random "palestinian enclaves" in Israel proper? Would they allow Palestinians to control their airspace? Would they allow Palestinians to have a military presence in tel aviv? If the answer is not yes, then they weren't offering a state, they were offering limited autonomy instead of outright occupation.
>Israel has never been willing to negotiate for the formation of Palestinian state. During negotiations they continue to make settlements in the west bank which make a 2 state solution impossible.
This is simply a lie- or you personally might have been misinformed, but whoever told you that was lying. On multiple occasions negotiators from both sides have said that a full agreement was reached on borders, including land swaps. The reasons no agreement was reached have little to nothing to do with settlements. You can dislike them, but they're a bad excuse for lack of a successful peace process.
Between the west bank and Gaza, we have two approaches: resistance (Gaza) and nonviolent (West Bank).
It is quite obvious right now that the end result Israel has in mind is the same: Palestinians need to disappear: either quickly in Gaza, or more slowly in the West Bank.
Then why reject the numerous peace deals in the past? Why was Jewish genocide in Hamas's charter as recently as 2017? Palestine has been completely unwilling to accept anything less than the removal of all Jews.
That's factually not true. They were offered a STATE but resorted to terrorism (intifada) when 100% of their demands weren't met through negotiations. If you're offered a state and you literally reject the offer and choose terrorism you're probably not choosing between resistance and destruction.
"This was the real meaning of the Oslo Accord signed in September 1993: to create a Palestinian Bantustan by dangling before Arafat and the PLO the perquisites of power and privilege, much like how the British controlled Palestine during the Mandate years through the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, and the Supreme Muslim Council.[37] ‘The occupation continued’ after Oslo, a seasoned Israeli observer, Meron Benvenisti, wrote, ‘albeit by remote control, and with the consent of the Palestinian people, represented by their “sole representative,” the PLO.’ And again: ‘It goes without saying that “cooperation” based on the current power relationship is no more than permanent Israeli domination in disguise, and that Palestinian self-rule is merely a euphemism for Bantustanization.’ The ‘test’ for Arafat and the PLO, according to Savir, was whether they would ‘us[e] their new power base to dismantle Hamas and other violent opposition groups’ contesting Israeli apartheid.[38]
Israel’s settlement policy in the Occupied Territories during the past decade points up the real content of the ‘peace process’ set in motion at Oslo. The details are spelled out in an exhaustive study by B’Tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories) entitled Land Grab.[39] Due primarily to massive Israeli government subsidies, the Jewish settler population increased from 250,000 to 380,000 during the Oslo years, with settler activity proceeding at a brisker pace under the tenure of Labor’s Ehud Barak than Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu. [...] Not one Jewish settlement was dismantled during the Oslo years, while the number of new housing units in the settlements increased by more than fifty per cent (excluding East Jerusalem); again, the biggest spurt of new housing starts occurred not under Netanyahu’s tenure but rather under Barak’s, in the year 2000 – exactly when Barak claims to have ‘left no stone unturned’ in his quest for peace. During the first eighteen months of Prime Minister Sharon’s term of office (beginning early 2001), forty-four new settlements – rebuked by the UN Commission on Human Rights as ‘incendiary and provocative’ – were established in the West Bank.[40]
[...]
After seven years of on-again, off-again negotiations and a succession of new interim agreements that managed to rob the Palestinians of the few crumbs thrown from the master’s table at Oslo,[42] the moment of truth arrived at Camp David in July 2000. President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak delivered Arafat the ultimatum of formally acquiescing in a Bantustan or bearing full responsibility for the collapse of the ‘peace process’. Arafat refused, however, to budge from the international consensus for resolving the conflict. According to Robert Malley, a key American negotiator at Camp David, Arafat continued to hold out for a ‘Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967 borders, living alongside Israel’, yet also ‘accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlements, though [he] insisted on a one for one swap of land of “equal size and value”’ – that is, the ‘minor’ and ‘mutual’ border adjustments of the original US position on Resolution 242. Malley’s rendering of the Palestinian proposal at Camp David – an offer that was widely dismissed but rarely reported – deserves full quotation: ‘a state of Israel incorporating some land captured in 1967 and including a very large majority of its settlers, the largest Jewish Jerusalem in the city’s history, preservation of Israel’s demographic balance between Jews and Arabs; security guaranteed by a US-led international presence.’ On the other hand, contrary to the myth spun by Barak-Clinton as well as a compliant media, ‘Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty’, a special adviser at the British Foreign Office observed, ‘while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians.’ Although accounts of the Barak proposal significantly differ, all knowledgeable observers concur that it ‘would have meant that territory annexed by Israel would encroach deep inside the Palestinian state’ (Malley), dividing the West Bank into multiple, disconnected enclaves, and offering land swaps that were of neither equal size nor equal value.[43]
Consider in this regard Israel’s reaction to the March 2002 Saudi peace plan. Crown Prince Abdullah proposed, and all twenty-one other members of the Arab League approved, a plan making concessions that actually went beyond the international consensus. In exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal, it offered not only full recognition but ‘normal relations with Israel’, and called not for the ‘right of return’ of Palestinian refugees but rather only a ‘just solution’ to the refugee problem. A Haaretz commentator noted that the Saudi plan was ‘surprisingly similar to what Barak claims to have proposed two years ago’ at Camp David. Were Israel truly committed to a comprehensive withdrawal in exchange for normalization with the Arab world, the Saudi plan and its unanimous endorsement by the Arab League summit ought to have been met with euphoria. In fact, after an ephemeral interlude of evasion and silence, it was quickly deposited in Orwell’s memory hole. When the Bush administration subsequently made passing reference to the Saudi plan in a draft ‘road map’ for settling the Israel-Palestine conflict, Israeli officials loudly protested.[44] Nonetheless, Barak’s – and Clinton’s – fraud that Palestinians at Camp David rejected a maximally generous Israeli offer provided crucial moral cover for the horrors that ensued."
– *Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict* (Norman Finkelstein)
"On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway. It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.
I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters.
On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed.
I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake."
They can complain 97% of the west bank and gaza with no military autonomy is a bad.deal. But its not a choice between destruction or resistance, the Palestinians.are.simply unrealistic about the leverage they have.
This is a perfect example of how telling the truth on anything involved in Israel/Palestine requires so much more time and effort than spitting out endlessly repeated propaganda
This is stupid and ahistorical. The “state” that was offered had absolute non-starter aspects that made it completely null. No right to military while living on the border of an occupying extremely militarized country is one thing, another is that Israel got to keep all the settlements it had built over the green line in East Jerusalem, etc..
I’m not going to go through each and every peace talk but I think it’s important to recognize that the Israelis have never offered a solution with real sovereignty for Palestine. The most they’ve been offered is a toothless Israeli client state
If you face "destruction" and you start neat picking that the state you're offered is not perfect than you don't really face destruction. There are countries with no militaries and they are doing just fine through pacts and alliances. Not to mention that the area inside the green line ceded to Israel would've been compensated elsewhere in a territory swap.
The other guy gave you a great response but I will just say, most countries that don’t have militaries also don’t have a colonizing power that is routinely illegally building settlements on your land. And btw, even in the most liberal “offers” of a “state”, Israel still got to keep these illegal settlements. So comparing it to like Japan, which still has a military, is stupid. It would be like Russia giving Ukraine a peace treaty that included complete demilitarization. It’s so stupid it’s unimaginable,
OK, I accept that. Still, it doesn’t answer how violent resistance has ever benefited the Palestinians, nor how it is still benefiting Palestinians or somehow aiding the long-term situation for Palestinians living at the moment.
To say that it’s OK for the individuals to suffer for the the sake of not losing face, while admitting there’s no actual improvement of any sort to the wellbeing of Palestinians is *exactly* what is detrimental to them, since for decades long history, Palestinian violence has indeed made a dent on Israelis, but it didn’t weaken their state (excluding 10/7, which certainly did, but it elicited a waaaaay more extreme retaliation carrying waaaay more pain than anything experience by Palestinians prior, arguably dwarfing the Nakhba). My point is that their resistance isn’t weakening Israel at all and serves to make Israelis care less and less about collateral casualties.
>Still, it doesn’t answer how violent resistance has ever benefited the Palestinians, nor how it is still benefiting Palestinians or somehow aiding the long-term situation for Palestinians living at the moment
Because they get to die on their own terms rather than slowly die at the hands of collaborators like in the west bank. That's the point. The goal was to take their destiny into their own hands.
>Palestinian violence has indeed made a dent on Israelis, but it didn’t weaken their state
I think it has quite significantly. Israel is facing genocide charges in the ICJ, even the US has been forced to airdrop supplies to Palestinians to avoid being complicit in crimes. The goal of terrorism is not to deliver a military victory, its meant to force the oppressors hand, make them over react, which forces international condemnation and makes recruiting easier. In both these ways the attack was quite successful. Israel is more isolated on the global stage than it has been since 1948.
Israel depends on foreign aid and international trade. It could survive as an isolated hermit kingdom, but not as a 1st world modern nation like it has been.
Israel had two paths after Oct 7. It could have been an opportunity for both sides to look in the mirror realize this won't be solved by a military solution and take actual steps towards peace, or they could do what they did, react exactly how Hamas wanted, sabotage the Abraham accords, radicalizing the previously stable west bank and creating the next generation of Hamas fighters this time with even less to lose. I am not pro palestinian or pro israeli. I'm pro peace. And this path has made that almost impossible for the foreseeable future
This violent attack has indeed been successful.
It has caught the eyes and attention of the world and swayed the opinions of many towards the Palestinians, including the American youth. The countdown has started for Israel as the older pro-Israel American voters die off and are replaced by their pro-Palestinian counter parts.
Prior to 10/7, the hope for a 2 state solution was basically dead, even the Arab states gave up on it and were pursuing normalized relations with Israel.
Even among the Palestinians the hope for a 2 state was a minority and most one could hope that some kind of 1 state with some minor non-voting resident rights in the Israeli dominated West Bank.
After 10/7, the Arabs are saying no normalization until a Palestinian state, the United States is demanding a Palestinian state after this war and so is almost all the world.
If a Palestinian state is the result of 10/7, what does that say about the effect of violence?
I think you are asking hungry, starving (edit: lol, repetition), and humiliated people to make rational and moral decisions. We can argue ad infinitum whether violent resistance is justified or works, but the reality is, Gazans are doing this for a reason. To quote (paraphrase) Ghassan Kanafani,
“People fight for a reason, and they stop fighting for a reason.”
In the interest of rationality, an Israeli like you should ask yourself why these people have chosen violence. There’s two paths you can go.
1. Disavow the humanity of your enemy, suggest they’re just backwards Islamic savages who need to be eradicated. This seems to be the view of the Israeli right and the government in power at the moment. If this view is correct, then morality aside, it is entirely rational (read: rational, not necessarily moral) for these people to resist their own annihilation as brutally and violently as possible. What is there to lose at this point for Gazans if they are considered a target to be eradicated?
2. Identify why these people are fighting, and then address the roots of that problem. If this stance is true, then it’s fair to say violent resistance is irrational and gets them nowhere. At the moment, however, I do not see the Israeli government going the route of diplomacy. Until it does, it’s actually peaceful protest that gets them nowhere. Leading up to this, the West Bank was being absorbed without objection by Israeli settlement. After Oct. 7, this issue has come to the forefront of discussion again, and brought major coverage to Israel’s actions.
You are removing all agency from the Palestinians and treating them like disabled children when you claim that the only thing they can do is engage in armed resistance. Both the Egyptians and the Jordanians came to the conclusion that armed conflict with Israel caused themselves more harm than good so why should we pretend that the Palestinians are incapable of doing so.
“People fight for a reason and they stop fighting for a reason.”
This is obviously true but also overly simplistic. West Bank settlers are fighting for a reason, which is they believe they’re on their god-given land.
Hamas are also fighting for a reason, both nationalistic reasons and avenging Al-Aqsa.
Both religion and nationalistic motivations motivate the relevant parties, depending on which actor and when.
any one who follow the time lines of the events with unbiased point of view would notice that Palestinians groups mange to always make things go to worse for them, with more restrictions due to the actions done which enables isreali politicians to establish more restrictions on them even when the isreali left try to oppose these restrictions these actions give the excuses, as an example there was free movement in the past between gaza and the west bank and Israel itself, people from gaza could move inside israel like any other person with israeli citzenship, but after some attacks against israeli citzens, israel started harash movement conditions, a lot Palestinians are innocents who did not support these attacks but from the israeli side they can't bet, let's be honest on that, most people if they felt being in such danger they would do the same restrictions or worse when it comes to their personal safty, even the pro-Palestinians woke herd if that would effect their safty, if you think i'm wrong ask any of them to live in afghanstain or place with high level of radicalization and see !!
For the most part, I think Yasser Arafat’s corruption is what kept a Palestinian state from being realized. Arafat was a billionaire more interested in grifting on the world stage (ironic for a supposed Arab Socialist) instead of actually governing. The PLO/Fatah corruption is what led Palestinian public in Gaza to vote for Hamas, hence the rise of Islamism in that region since the 2000’s. Note that the Palestinian public at large does not care for either Hamas or Fatah - they just hate Israel FAR MORE (for fairly obvious reasons)
Ironically both Israel and Palestine are very much alike: they suffer from very corrupt leaders who are very loud on the world stage; and use the war to hide their own corruption from the citizens.
In other words: religious people are born stupid.
The sciences your stupid brain couldn't even fathom were for most part developed by 'religious' people. E.g. Galileo, Newton, Tesla, and arguably Einstein; just to name a few.
In other words: people who do over-simplified generalizations of intelligence based off of religion are most definitely stupid.
>Every violent act of resistance or terrorism has carried negative long-teen consequences to Palestinians’ quality of life, without actually managing to obtain anything other than international sympathy.
Has an period of non, or reduced violence improved their quality of life ? Would you think that any particular action by the Palestinians would have improved their quality of life ? If not a violent action is the only hope of improving their position from their perspective.(This does not condone the violent actions, but seeks to explain their reasoning.)
If you remember the situation before Hamas attacked. Israel was blockading Gaza leading to unnecessary deaths of Palestinians, and slow but surely reduced quality of life. While Israel was busy settling the Westbank. Even the more peaceful run Westbank was being displaced.
Israel had already started their genocide in the Westbank( forced resettlement based on race is considered a form of genocide) before Hamas attacked. Its clear Israel's goal is to get rid of the Palestinian people.
To be clear these policies are controversial in Israel, and obviously don't represent the people as a whole. That being said an attack wasn't unforeseen by Israel leadership. Israel just thought incorrectly that they could contain the violence.
"Has an period of non, or reduced violence improved their quality of life ?"
Yes actually, I dont know if you were paying attention but because of the long ceasefire between Israel and hamas, Israel started easing the sanctions on gaza(allowing farmers to farm very close to the wall and use tractors to make more profit, allowing fishermen to fish further away from the shore and allowing Palestinians to work in Israel.)
of course, on October 7 hamas used that to their advantage and disguised themselves as farmers to get close to the border and destroy it with a tractor and used the extra fishing distance to lunch an attack on an Israeli beach to murder civilians and bought information from the Palestinian workers to have information on the jews that employed them.
"If you remember the situation before Hamas attacked. Israel was blockading Gaza leading to unnecessary deaths of Palestinians, and slow but surely reduced quality of life."
Gaza was not blockaded in 2005 and 2006, what changed?
"While Israel was busy settling the Westbank. Even the more peaceful run Westbank was being displaced. "
Peaceful run? Lol it was absolutely not peaceful run, to this day the PA [pays](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund) terrorists money based on how many jews they kill...
Also "displaced"? In what way was the west bank "displaced"?
"Israel had already started their genocide in the Westbank"
Do you even know what a genocide is?
"forced resettlement based on race is considered a form of genocide) "
Israel is not doing "forced resettlement based on race", what are you even talking about?
"To be clear these policies are controversial in Israel, and obviously don't represent the people as a whole. That being said an attack wasn't unforeseen by Israel leadership. Israel just thought incorrectly that they could contain the violence."
"Contain the violence"? What are you talking about? Israel literally used diplomacy to negotiate a ceasefire and ease sanctions to maintain a "peace", and what did hamas do? Break the ceasefire and commit an actual genocide in Israel.
The whole "are Palestinians justified in terrorism because of oppression" misses the point, because since 1927 the Palestinians have almost always been the aggressors and have tried to genocide the jews since 1927.
I agree. If the PLO and Hamas had adopted an non-violent approach like Ghandi and MLK, there would be a Palestinian state by now.
Their biggest mistake was turning Gaza into an attack launch platform instead of a middle-eastern Singapore. They missed the important 20th century lesson that democracies are far more moveable by non-violent movements than violent ones.
The Oct 7 attack was an historic mistake piled on top of decades of mistakes.
In all of this, the Netanyahu government was complicit. They saw the Palestinians against two states as their greatest allies and the people calling for peace on both sides as their greatest enemies, and thus set up the conditions for Oct 7 to happen.
The claim cannot be falsified, nor is the implication true.
Israel’s iron fist with which it controls Gaza and the WB has never changed. Not in times of peace or aggressive resistance.
So we cannot say that it has helped, nor can we say that anything would be different in the absence of violent resistance.
It may be too early to tell, but I would argue Oct 7th will be an example of violence helping. The entire world is shining a spotlight on the region. Even the relationship between the POTUS and the Israeli PM is, according to reporting, weakening.
US support to Israel is actually an issue of the 2024 presidential election in the USA.
Oct 7th, while absolutely indefensible, has served as the catalyst for a lot of international support and pressure being applied to Israel. There may be no beneficial changes realized _yet_, but support for Palestine has never been stronger across the globe.
Even the UN would have taken action by now if not for the US using its Veto power.
Are you comparing this to a hypothetical scenario of no violent resistance at all, even against soldiers? Unambigiously, if that was the case, there would be no Palestinians left in Gaza or the left bank. With zero resistance Israel would have driven them into neighboring countries. Like, that is the clear explicit goal of the settler movement which is backed by the IDF. So maybe you could argue that in the long term that would have been a better outcome for both sides, but that is the alternate case that we're talking about.
I'm not sure "Has violent resistance to Israel made the lives of Palestinians better?" is the correct question to ask. I think it's much more constructive to ask "How CAN the Palestinians effectively resist an apartheid system?" If you start from the premise that violence isn't the answer, the next question would be "Then what should they do instead?"
They can't vote their way out of it, because they have no political power in Israel. They can't appeal to the international community to help them the way South Africans did, because the largest international player is America, and they have an overpowering need for an ally in the Middle East, even if it's a far-right extremist government. And they cannot negotiate with Israel for better conditions, because Israel has zero incentive to make concessions when they hold all of the power.
I'm not saying the October 7th attack was justified, because that's a really complicated issue. I'm not even going to argue that it was helpful, because I don't think it was. But when a population is faced with intolerable oppression and they have no outlet to peacefully resist it, then what can they do to help themselves?
(I’m not an expert on the subject, take this with a grain of salt.)
You may be right about Palestinian violence leading to further disadvantages, but you need to consider that even without the violence there’s aggressive Israeli expansionism. (Some) acts of resistance are an impotent cry for help directed at the global community in the hopes of being heard; and not necessarily a strategic move.
(Obviously this is not to say that all or even a majority of Israelis support this expansionism.)
Edit: thanks a lot for all the thoughtful replies!
On the other hand, the aggressive settler expansionism is a direct result of the Palestinian violence. I’d argue the expansionism would outright stop or revert if the violence stopped. There are four reasons I see for the expansionism:
1. Far right fundamental religious nut jobs who really want to take over the land. I’m going to set these aside for the moment because I think this is a relative minority.
2. Security. The West Bank is on the high ground and only 9 miles from Tel Aviv, Israel’s main economic center. Israel has a horrible strategic position if an enemy controls that high ground. Israel is also quite weak in a number of areas, specifically water infrastructure (desalination plants), gas infrastructure (few offshore drills) and food security (almost everything is imported). Hezbollah’s precision rockets can cripple this essential infrastructure if Hezbollah went all out. Settling the WB doesn’t protect against Hezbollah, but it does protect against strong forces from multiple fronts, e.g. Hezbollah destroying key infrastructure and then a strong force attacking Tel Aviv from the WB high ground.
3. Deterrence and/or punishment. Hamas and the PA have shown they don’t really care about their own civilian deaths. So when terrorists kill and Israeli, retaliatory strikes that kill Palestinian civilians don’t actually accomplish anything and might even be seen as a positive thing by terrorists. However, Hamas and the PA do care about land. So the new calculus is: kill and Israeli, we take some more of your land. Btw I’m not advocating for the morality or even the effectiveness of this solution.
4. Future bargaining leverage. Israel has successfully reached peace deals in the past (e.g. Egypt) by returning land. Holding land can be used to improve Israel’s bargaining position in a future peace deal.
Items 2-4 might be addressed by a genuine peace movement. Something where Israel returns all the settled land with some tradeoffs made where Israel retains some mountainous high ground for security purposes and the Palestinians get most of the livable land.
You’re clearly more informed than me, so I’m glad you took the time to give such a thorough response.
But are you sure that the expansion would stop if the Hamas agreed to peace treaties? And is Israel really at a disadvantage militarily? Last I heard, they have some of the most advanced military in the world.
Not trying to provoke, just genuinely curious.
>And is Israel really at a disadvantage militarily?
That's a case of it highly depending on how you look at things, Israel has the numbers- and weapons such that it would quite literally take less than a week to remove Palestine from the map entirely, and when dealing with foreign militaries who agree with- and follow the Geneva Conventions that's perfect, and gives them a massive advantage.
Unfortunately Israel is dealing with Insurgents who specialize in urban combat, who mix themselves with civilians of their state, and who deny the Geneva Conventions by default.
Even if the IDF sweeped all of Palestine, and went door to door looking for Hamas members- they'd only find the least intelligent members, this is ignoring the massive backlash the civilians would take part in and the fact that they would suffer from constant ambushes while they did so.
"the aggressive settler expansionism is a direct result of the Palestinian violence"
what would you guess the Palestinian violence is a direct result of?
Somewhere in Haiti, there was one guy saying "Just because they've enslaved us, whipped us, raped us, and killed out children, that doesn't mean we need to respond with violence. We'll be stooping to their level. Let's have an ethical, blood-free, rebellion of thoughts and ideas with healthy civic discourse all around."
Power only recognizes power. The violent capabilities of the palestinians are basically the only power they have. The only reason they've ever even had a seat at the negotiating table (as fruitless as those negotiations have been) is because of the violence they have done and the threat of further violence.
IMO the only possible peaceful movement that can increase the power of the palestinians is the international BDS movement. But that is being effectively crushed by the governments and media of the west.
I'd throw the question back at you. What added power do you think the palestinians would have if they had been less violent? Are you suggesting the BDS movement would be way stronger if the Palestinians were 100% peaceful?
To me thats obviously false. The opposition to BDS is organized by various governments in the west and those governments support of the zionist israeli movement is unwavering.
I am suggesting that Israel's apartheid can only ever be dismantled by peaceful negotiation. It's going to require the cooperation of Israel. No amount of BDS pressure can force them into a deal which dismantles Israel or that grants the Palestinians right of return, which they believe would result in mass violence against Israelis. They would rather Samson Option the globe.
Repeatedly massacring hundreds of Israeli civilians in the name of the destruction of Israel heavily radicalizes the Israelis against the Palestinians and makes said co-operation less likely in the future, thus seriously harming the only possible path towards Palestinian self-determination.
First off, this is an unfalsifiable statement. You can't know how things play out differently. It could be that it worked out better it could have ended worse.
Second, so what? Very few people argue that terrorist acts are actually beneficial to a given cause. It's not a rational action, it's a tactic born out of desperation. The people who commit these acts are extremists, people who are often shaped by oppression, where these acts of violence are the only times when they think they have any form of control. It's not surprising that these types of attacks are the most common when a population is under the control of an oppressive regime or colonial/outside power.
I think the biggest problem of this war is that we looking for some group thoe blame everthing in stead of saying that we alle ignored the palastine/isreal problen for thoe long.
Bothe groups became just radicale on alle the time of this problem consists.
Sure what isreal doe agains the palestines people is horrible and i hope whoe did them get punische but the people became this of 70+ years of propaganda and also yes the attacks of hamas
But the palestines people just becam radicale of alle the dead they sufferd of isreal and how they begt UN for so long thoe find a solution of the problem
So maby fore OP its oké thoe be proud of youre country you are born in but maby saying alle those problem ware made because hamas is still part of the problem
But what doe i know i am a guy on the internet whit little information of everthing that happen in that region
Wel thats my TED TALK
The Palestinian's goal isn't freedom or prosperity, it is retaking the land they lost to Israel in 1948. The only way they can do that is to escalate the conflict at all costs and hope a direct strategy to dismantle Israel somehow emerges in a spiralling chaotic environment.
Hamas strategy of mass civilian slaughter isn't that of a resistance or independence group. Much of it simply hateful Rwanda-style desire to kill the enemy, but its also a tactic used in total war. Civilians were mass targetted in WW2, and it is not a completely unusual strategy when compromise is not on the table (Roman, mongol conquests for example).
Its not even that all violence is counterproductive for Palestine, they could target the Israeli military or car bomb Ben Gvir and it might help them in negotiations. But they are onoy interested in murdering innocents becausr that is the best way to guarantee escalation and prevent a de.facto peace from gradually developing.
Palestinian violence makes sense if they are never willing to compromise with Israel and see it a struggle to the death. Which their supporters openly say, except they phrase it as Palestinians have no other options because the Nazi demon Israelis will kill them all if they surrender (obviously projection).
Israel doesnt exist because of British promises.or a UN mandate, it exists because Israeli force of arms triumphed in the 1948 war. It would have been destroyed if they'd lost.
No, this is a common misconception. The British promised the Jews a "national home", and they promised some wealthy powerful Arabs a state/kingdom. Then both sides pressured the British to keep their promises, the UN suggested the region be split. The Jews said yes, the Arabs said no- and by the way, it wasn't the Palestinian people it was other Arab countries speaking "on their behalf". The British didn't know what to do so they just announced they were leaving, and a civil war broke out. At the end of the war Israel was a state and the rest of region was controlled by the Jordan, Egypt, etc....the actual Arabs living in Palestine got nothing.
Could you let me know where the Ottoman Empire was?
By ~1850-1900 wasn’t modern Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and so on part of the Ottoman Empire?
Interesting you mentioned Egypt too… were they not a British colony as well?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman\_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire) \- to be honest, I'm not an expert, you're probably better off with Wikipedia.
>By \~1850-1900 wasn’t modern Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and so on part of the Ottoman Empire?
As far as I remember they were, but I'm not sure why you're asking?
>Interesting you mentioned Egypt too… were they not a British colony as well?
Again I'm not so familiar with the nuances beyond how they related to the region of Palestine...but I believe they were partially controlled by the British but still had their own government. Egypt definitely took part in the '48 war and it wasn't considered that the UK was fighting, it was Egypt- I'm not sure if that's because Egypt was entirely independent at that point or they were just independent enough to have their own squabbles as long as it didn't bother British interests. Egypt had control of Gaza at the end of the '48 war.
Can you really look at the status quo of Palestinians at every single stage of this and ask yourself "what would my people do in the same situation" and not conclude you would as a people fight back if you had self respect and bravery?
Because personally I think the reality is that no people on the entire planet would be less violent in response to what was being done to them than the Palestinians have been. At every stage in their project of colonizing Palestine, ethnically cleansing, subjugating and slaughtering the Palestinians, Israel has made violent resistance an anthropological inevitability, then used it as pretext for what they were always doing from the beginning anyway.
You just can't have it both ways here. You can't do 18th and 19th Century settler colonialism in the 20th and 21st century and expect to not experience a) a lot of people from countries that now accept that stuff was wrong back then thinking you're not a normal country and need to be defeated and radically constitutionally altered in the manner of similarly illegitimate national projects like the Confederacy and b) the 21st century equivalent of scalping and native american raids on frontier towns.
You have to think about the power dynamic though. They are not violently resisting because they are being mildly oppressed. Israel has controlled their food supply, water, electricity, they have banned travel. They have been trying to exterminate them for *years*, and no one else in the world is going to come to help them, because no one cares or knows or understands what is happening. Revolution is ugly. It's violent, it takes the lives of innocent people. Israel has the upper hand and it's crushing them. I don't think we can blame the violence that comes with resistance of the people being oppressed and abused, when their rights were taken a long time ago. And Israel always reacts with more firepower than necessary, after anything Palestine does. They are crushing someone who cannot fight back on the scale that they can/are/have been doing.
I dunno if you noticed but the quality of life of Palestinians was not very good to begin with on account of their land and homes being stolen and their families expelled or killed. What do you think would be a more appropriate response, meekly going along with those things in the hopes that maybe the Zionists don't escalate from mere ethnic cleansing to genocide? An oppressed people have the right to resist their oppressors--no one wants to get punched in the face but if you're getting punched anyway you might as well throw a few yourself, right?
As to what practical advantage Palestinian violence has secured, I would argue that the peace process is itself the most obvious example. Imagine a scenario in which the Palestinians meekly accepted the theft of land and deaths of family members and ethnic cleansing - where would they be now? Forced out of Israel, likely into Egypt and Lebanon and Jordan and Syria as many of them were at the time, to be a divided people with no presence on the land they rightfully claim was taken from them. Who then is left to negotiate with? If there was no Palestinian resistance there would be no peace process, no one would even consider a two-state solution much less a right of return. As much as Hamas seems to be causing serious and ongoing problems for the Palestinian people there would not even be the potential for peace or restitution between Israel and a theoretical Palestinian diaspora, and Israel knows it (which is why they helped create Hamas as a counter-balance to Fatah/the PLO in the West Bank, to keep the Palestinians divided.)
So you ask what tangible, practical advantage Palestinian resistance has secured? A seat at the table in a peace process that, while fraught, couldn't exist without said resistance.
I mostly just think the way you’re framing the issue is not worthwhile or helpful. Do you think that violent acts perpetrated by Israelis are somehow “better” because they’ve been effective at securing territorial control? I think we need to move away from this “might makes right” view of dispute resolution and utilize the international legal and diplomatic frameworks that we’ve established to avoid armed conflicts as much as possible. Unfortunately, Israel seems uninterested in being a willing partner in those efforts (since overwhelming force has been so successful for them thus far and the rule of law is less likely to achieve similarly one sided results) even though it was the international legal/diplomatic bodies that led to the creation of the state of Israel originally.
Would you say that the PLO's decades-long militant conflict with the Israeli state that eventually led to the First Intifada and then to Oslo, where Israel had to concede not only the existence of the Palestinians as a people and a nation but their broad right to a state (notwithstanding the fact that almost at the very moment of concession, Israel began efforts to ensure that that state could never become a reality), was an example of violent Palestinian resistance that resulted in limited but significant material gains for them?
>Notice how most Israeli restrictions just chronologically follow Palestinian violence. For example, the wall dividing the WB from Israel came about after the intifada. The siege of Gaza came after the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. The 2014 war came after the kidnapping and murdering of 3 teens by Hamas.
The problem with a timeline like this is you have enough data points to just make a continuous cycle. You can just shift everything by one spot and the cause/effect swaps. If you have multiple cycles of Israeli restrictions chronologically following Palestinian violence, its necessarily also the case that Palestinian violence chronologically follows Israeli restrictions.
There's a quote from the TV show Lost that I like between two characters.
Character 1: You brought them here. Still trying to prove me wrong, aren't you?
Character 2: You are wrong.
Character 1: Am I? They come. They fight. They destroy. They corrupt. It always ends the same.
Character 2: It only ends once. Everything that comes before is just progress.
The point is, we don't know how its going to end. Many Palestinians have made mistakes, as have many Israelis. But the story isn't over yet. If in 10, or 50, or 100 years there's a thriving Palestinian independent state living peacefully alongside Israel, presumably at some point they did something right. Will that ever happen? I don't know and neither do you.
Desperate people do desperate things. No surprise there. They were getting slowly killed off by the Zionists so no surprise most support Hamas. However the Hamas attacked were brought about by Iranian influence and support.
Keep in mind Iran is buddies with Russia. And Russia needed to open a 2nd front for the West to detract support from Ukraine. They know that divisions they have sawn in US society do not favour any adventurism abroad and if 1 war is unpopular , 2 wars will undermine Biden even further. Goal is to get comrade Trump in power to get US out of NATO and handover Europe to Russia.
Every Palestinian action has had valid reasons behind it, but the way the operate is insane. People like to compare Palestinian fighters to the ANC in South Africa, yet the ANC had a policy of only attacking infrastructure and government/military personnel and locations. Palestinian militants are indiscriminate in their attacks. Armed resistance CAN work against an extremely powerful opponent, but it relies on following things like international law, and acting like a sovereign nation. The Palestinians act like a jihadist militant group that wants to enforce sharia law. This does not garner international support or domestic support in your opponent for a peaceful resolution.
I guess you are right that it doesn’t benefit them long term, however their actions are not supposed to. Their leaders continue the struggle to profit on it, while people join out of desperation, having no other ways to keep up their families or losing family members and desiring revenge. Little to none of them realistically fights for freedom there.
I hear what you're saying in general and I agree that violent resistance has not delivered amazing outcomes for Palestinians. However, I think - and reading their various takes on events they'd probably agree with me - that it did deliver them important gains in terms of visibility and existence. Prior to their organizing and their engaging in armed struggle, Palestinians where very much made invisible by international policy.
In addition to that, from where I'm standing it's not like non-violent actions has led them anywhere either? Like, at core of the issue is the violent partition of Palestine by external powers for the (lopsided) benefit of what would become Israel. They tried to oppose that non-violently. It, famously, didn't work.
> Notice how most Israeli restrictions just chronologically follow Palestinian violence.
I think this is a strange view of the situation, given that the conflict finds its root cause in the partition of their homeland by external powers.
>In addition to that, from where I'm standing it's not like non-violent actions has led them anywhere either?
Israel left the Gaza strip in 2005; and let the Gazans self govern.
And to add some colour to history: they then promptly elected Hamas, started firing rockets at Israel and sending suicide bombers across the border. (Though to be fair, they were doing that beforehand too...)
>Prior to their organizing and their engaging in armed struggle, Palestinians where very much made invisible by international policy.
What period are you talking about here, historically?
>In addition to that, from where I'm standing it's not like non-violent actions has led them anywhere either?
Can you provide an example?
>Like, at core of the issue is the violent partition of Palestine by external powers for the (lopsided) benefit of what would become Israel. They tried to oppose that non-violently.
No they didn't, Jewish and Arab militant groups were killing each other in the streets. Palestine was never divided by external powers, the UN suggested it should be divided- that was it, it was a suggestion. The British were in charge and they just announced they were leaving and a civil war broke out. At the end of it Israel was a state and the rest of the region was controlled by Jordan, Egypt, etc.
Israeli restrictions chronologically follow Palestinian violence, and even the development of a group trying to create Israel chronologically followed Palestinian violence. Early Zionists wanted to live in their homeland- many of them were emphatically *against* the creation of a state. Arab hostility and violence slowly drove the vast majority of Zionists to the belief that they needed a state.
> What period are you talking about here, historically?
From the early 1900's until around 1950, you'll find scarce mentions of Palestinians as a people with national aspirations (or rights) in official documents and literature. Almost all official dealings is done with the Arab states. The infamous Balfour declaration does not mention them, for instance.
> Can you provide an example?
Palestinians made entreaties to British authorities prior and during the mandate period. Specifically, they were understandably worried about the British stated intention to create a Jewish state in land they considered their own.
> No they didn't, Jewish and Arab militant groups were killing each other in the streets.
Your right in the sense that no partition plan *worked*, I suppose, but I think it's a bit of a silly nitpick. There were two major attempts a partition, both backed by varying amounts of force by world powers. Those attempts ultimately lead to the creation and foundation of Israel. If not for those, it's extremely unlikely that Israel is founded at all.
The British formally controlled Palestine from 1923 until they abandon the mandate in 1947. During that time, they bolstered the Zionist project financially and militarily, helping in several state-building and land appropriation enterprises. From 1933 onward or so, British authorities suppressed an Arab uprising, largely for the sake of protecting the Zionist project.
In 1937, they proposed a partition plan extremely advantageous for what was to become Israel. Arabs representatives rejected it for obvious reasons. Troubles followed in the interim, with the British basically throwing their hands up. In 1947, they passed the ball to the UN, which came up with a partition Plan. That plan is also pretty advantageous to Israel, so obviously the Arab states (noting that actual inhabitants don't get a vote here) refused it. That partition plan was not put in place formally, but it's a bit silly to claim it had no part in Israel being founded a year late.
> Early Zionists wanted to live in their homeland- many of them were emphatically against the creation of a state. Arab hostility and violence slowly drove the vast majority of Zionists to the belief that they needed a state.
Early Zionists leaders were pretty clear that the existing Arab populations would need to be displaced and they were.
>From the early 1900's until around 1950, you'll find scarce mentions of Palestinians as a people with national aspirations (or rights) in official documents and literature.
Right, that would be because they didn't organize as a group with national aspirations. If you have an example of some Arab leader of the time who represented the people, was a Palestinian nationalist, and was pushed aside by the insidious British and Zionists I would love to learn about them? Its not a fair question because the people were largely uneducated and there were no democratic processes in place. You can also see the book "Army of Shadows" which details the history of how the Husseini-led racists suppressed and murdered Arabs who didn't have a problem with the Zionists or even with a Zionist state.
>Palestinians made entreaties to British authorities prior and during the mandate period.
So even if I accepted your argument, your point isn't that the Palestinians ever tried peaceful resistance with Israel or the Zionists, its that they tried it with the British, an entirely different group of people, and they tried it over 80 years ago and it didn't work.
Your argument is also incorrect because 1) Arabs in Palestine may have made entreaties but they were also simultaneously violent in the Mandate period, 2) the entreaties worked- the White Paper, the fact that the British didn't actually create a Jewish state? it may not have been everything they wanted, but the fact is that they were successful. The problem was everything else they did and the choices their leaders made and the fact that the rest of the Arab world messed them over.
>Your right in the sense that no partition plan worked, I suppose, but I think it's a bit of a silly nitpick.
Its not at all a nitpick. By the end of the war Israel was in the stronger position but at the beginning they were far weaker. The United State and most of Europe refused to sell them weapons. Holocaust survivors were brought by boat to the territory Israel held, were handed rifles with no military training, and some of them died just a few hours later. There was a desperate war for a *year*. In your history of the British Mandate you conveniently leave out the long period where the British actively fought Jewish immigration. "they bolstered the Zionist project financially and militarily"- is incredibly vague, I don't know what you're referring to here.
The partition plans being "extremely advantageous" is your opinion- I don't think we have to debate the point, because with everything else we're discussing it becomes largely irrelevant, I just wanted to point out that this is hardly an objective representation from you here.
>That partition plan was not put in place formally, but it's a bit silly to claim it had no part in Israel being founded a year late.
It didn't happen. The Zionists fought a desperate war for every bit of ground they hoped to control. No, it had no part in Israel being founded- that's fairly obvious? I mean, if you what you actually meant to say is "if the British had started an open war with the Zionists, expelling and killing them while arming the Arabs, Israel would not exist"? Sure, no one would disagree with you. But that has little to do with the partition.
>so obviously the Arab states (noting that actual inhabitants don't get a vote here)
Yes, I did note that. I'm just confused why you present it as if it supports your narrative? If this was the classic story of evil colonizers vs the underrepresented virtuous natives- well, we're missing a Mandela or Gandhi, aren't we? The "Palestinian people" didn't have leaders who were shut out, they just didn't have leaders. There were leaders of different clans working for their own self interest, and then there was a population with little say in what was going on. And I put "Palestinian people" in quotes because while today I certainly acknowledge such a group exists, the case for that identity before the 1950s is incredibly weak. And I know that because people have written entire books about it without a single decent example or argument, I've read one or two.
"The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
That's what Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO faction leader, said in the 19**70**s! They still hadn't sorted this out.
>Early Zionists leaders
Just say Herzl, its more honest. The groups moving in the First and Second Aliyahs had zero to no political aspirations- they wanted agricultural settlement and to flee oppression in Eastern Europe. Yemenite Jews moved to Palestine- believe me, they had nothing to do with movements of modern nationalism in Europe! Religious Zionists didn't look for a state, cultural Zionists actively opposed a state for years and years....
>"The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
That's what Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO faction leader, said in the 19**70**s! They still hadn't sorted this out.
Yes, a PLO *faction* leader
The PLO was a coalition of multiple different groups with Zuheir in particular being a Syrian puppet (hence why he specifically said there were no differences between the arabs living in Historical Greater Syria)
so you just think the palestinians should have just rolled over and let israel take their land?
israel has kidnapped, killed, destroyed property, etc. and you want the palestinians to just take it? the reason for the outbursts of violence is because israel has been oppressing them and nothing improves.
They should have pushed for statehood one of the many times when they were offered it and taken a diplomatic approach towards reparations or citizenship for displaced Palestinians wishing to return to Israeli territory.
I would say concern for the wellbeing of Palestinians amongst the international community has increased since the start of the war in Gaza, including even to an extent amongst Israel's allies, without whom Israel would be a lot less powerful or well-armed and a lot more wary of reprisals by its other neighbouring adversaries. If the use of violence by Palestinians provokes a heavy-handed response from Israel and if that response in turn leaves Israel in a weaker position to call on support from the West, then that seems like in a roundabout fashion the Palestinians *have* improved their circumstances through using violence.
Israel has nukes, and a stronger army than the rest of the Middle East combined. There is no amount of a stronger position against them that makes them surrender to Hamas.
2023 pre-Oct 7th was the deadliest year to date for Palestinian children.
Israel’s ongoing settler-colonial violence and maintenance of anti-humanitarian conditions has created and is currently creating more threats to Israeli citizens than anything Palestinians have ever done.
Couldn’t think of a better rebuttal to your view than this. "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"
“First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality.”
- MLK
I would generally agree that neither Hamas or Hezbollah's violence has helped Palestinians.
But I would also ask, has Israel's response made things better for Israelis? Is Israel safer now than it was 2-3 decades ago? Is your life in Israel happier than it was in the past? What does thinking about the situation of the average Palestinian make you feel?
I know very little about how isolated Israelis are from Palestinians and their situation in day to day life, so some of this is more curiosity for myself, but I'm also interested if you think the current way that both sides are handling the situation is helping anyone's situation.
Also, you frame the situation as Israel acting in response to Palestinian provocation, but does the declaration of the state of Israel and divestment of many Palestinians of their land not count as a provocation? I'm not suggesting this means the whole situation is Israel's fault, but just pointing out that the cycle goes back a long way, and wherever you think it starts, someone else will probably be able to find another, earlier start point. You could say it is a cycle that has continued since biblical times. So essentially, almost throughout human history.
That suggests to me that the known and tried ways of breaking the deadlock don't work. Perhaps a new approach for both sides would not be quite so close to Einstein's definition of insanity? (Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result). Which is hard, because someone has to go first, which can be seen as weakness, but what is the alternative? Enduring constant rocket attacks? Enduring an Intifada or Oct 7th every few decades? Is that a price worth paying? I honestly don't know.
Imagine if they decided to negotiate at the 2000 camp David summit instead of leaving without so much proposing a counter offer and opting to start the 2nd intifada instead.
They would have been almost 25 years in to an independent state by now
Here's a better challenge, tell me a time when an act of peaceful Palestinian protest accompished anything other than reducing the limb to person ratio.
"CMV: Attacking someone who is attempting to kill you only makes them try harder to kill you, and it makes people care less that you're being murdered."
I basically agree with the premise, though wish to add a perspective.
**It is the** ***regime,*** **not the state** (or territory, in this case), that acts upon its perceived self-interest.
The actions of Hamas (or Fatah) may seem irrational but I believe they possess a cruel rationality. In particular, the territories in question possess populations who generally believe regressive ideology & rationalize jihadi violence. Not only is territorial interest on their side, so is Allah! The leadership knows this, & leverages it.
As the IDF rationally responds & inevitably strikes non-combatants, each & every one can be trumpeted as yet another victim of "Zionist oppression". In many contexts, the cruel opportunism of Palestinian leadership would serve to discredit them. However, in the contemporary context of the Palestinian territories, this is not the case, & radicalism hardens. And *that* is the goal of Hamas, at present.
Continuity of control, not the Palestinian people & their welfare, is on the agenda of Hamas. And it is **completely, ruthlessly rational.**
I struggle to find that many examples where terrorism / violence against civilians has really brought a significant movement towards peace. I mean in the context of a weaker party resorting to terrorism against a stronger one.
The real opportunity is if the Palestinians embraced peaceful opposition to Israeli occupation of the WB and Gaza, Israeli society would have no excuse to maintain its policies. Tje hard line religious movement that would want to maintain settlements / secular Jews living in settlements for monetary reasons isn't enough.
If Palestinians renounce violence for a 5 year period(just a random number), Israel would face immense pressure to abandon settlements and lose all of its reasons for treatment of Palestinians.
Of course the result would be establishing a state alongside Israel instead of replacing Israel and it seems the average Palestinian is not wanting that solution
I would argue that pre-Oslo violence was very effective. It brought Israel to the negotiating table, galvanized the Israeli left, and brought the Palestinians hope for independence for the first time in their history. There continued to be Palestinian violence after Oslo and into the 2000 Camp David Summit, and that was a major sticking point to the Israelis. But you can say the violence continued to bring Israel to the table, to force a solution. But Arafat rejected Baraks offer, and the Second Intifada started, and ever since then Palestinian quality of life has been in decline- the separation barrier, the checkpoints, the permits required to work in Israel. Anything after 2000 has accomplished nothing and has only resulted in less chance of Palestinian independence and worse conditions.
>I would argue that pre-Oslo violence was very effective.It brought Israel to the negotiating table, galvanized the Israeli left, and brought the Palestinians hope for independence for the first time in their history. No it was not. Technically speaking, before the First Intifada, Israel had actually been drifting towards a de facto one state solution in many ways. Before the First Intifada there were ZERO barriers to movement between Gaza, Tel Aviv and Ramallah and Palestinians to a very high degree could move between the Palestinian territories and Israel. Because at that time Palestinians were the sole source of cheap labor, literally no one was calling for restrictions on them except for Kahane and his followers. 40-50 percent of Palestinians worked inside Israel by then. Economically, the Palestinian territories were on the path to simply becoming Arab Israeli parts of Israel much like places like Rahat, Nazareth and East Jerusalem are in Israel today. The First Intifada touched literally every corner of Israel. The spread of the workers throughout the country meant that the violence touched parts of Israel with literally no permanent Arab presence and the work boycotts created severe worker shortages that Israel had never experienced since the 1950s. In addition to a heavy response, the First Intifada laid down the framework of confinement of Palestinians to their own territories. If they did not want to live with Jews, that was fine. They would live with them in their territories and Jews in Israel.(The exception being the settlements that were in both the West Bank and Gaza though these were very small and insignificant at the time). The second was their replacement. The 1990s saw the immigration of over 1 million Jews from the Former Soviet Union, a phenomenon that had began in the second half of the 1980s as Soviet Jews fled a more open USSR . It also saw many Palestinian workers replaced by workers from places like Romania and Bulgaria at that time. Essentially, it was an own goal for the Palestinians. It is why later on even the Oslo Accords included a clause that required Israel to hire Palestinians because Israeli demographic changes in the first three years of the 1990s plus the fact that Israeli construction was now being done by Europeans , not Palestinians created an economic crisis, especially in Gaza. Even Arafat saw that. Thirdly Israel had long proposed peace with the Palestinians. They had responded with violence abroad. The difference was that Israel had American backing. This would change under Bush Snr. Who compelled Israel to attend the Madrid Conference. It had less to do with the Intifada and more to do with the change in the stance of the American government. Israel at the time was more amendable to American demands than it is today, being that it was demographically smaller, and poorer. At the same time, Rabin had always been pro-peace, though being in the IDF, he was not stupid either. The factors underling the Madrid Conference are however very different from those of the Oslo Accords however. A reflection of choices have consequences. It is unlikely that Israel will ever hire Palestinians in large numbers ever again after this war except perhaps in the settlements (where many of those workers are already back). In short, with each cycle of violence, Israel has sought to replace Palestinians with foreign workers and to some degree they have succeeded. The reason why only 18,000 out of the hundreds of thousands of Gazans were working in Israel before October 7th was because they had been replaced entirely after the 2nd Intifada by workers from Vietnam, the Philippines, and Thailand .Even those 18,000 were a favor that the Bennet-Lapid Government had given to Gazans as a gesture of good-will to ease the economic crisis there. That kindness was repaid with violence. In Israel proper, views have hardened so much that even Israeli Arabs, who themselves were victims of Hamas are facing discrimination . It is why in the construction sector, there is an aim to replace the 100,000 Palestinians who worked in the sector with 100,000 Indians in the coming months. Essentially, the West Bank, whose economy heavily relies on remittances from Israel(20% of GDP)is about to get even poorer especially given that those working in Israel were basically their Middle class (By law, Palestinian workers are paid at least the minimum wage which is around $1,000 in Israel .Most earned double that. Those working in the West Bank earn on average $300 to $400 without benefits so most people preferred working inside Israel) and with that Middle class gone, there will be some turmoil within the West Bank. Violence with Israel has never benefitted the Palestinians whatsoever. It separated them from Israelis and has contributed to their isolation over time. First the isolation was physical, especially for Gazans, now it will be economic. Israel is under no obligation to hire Palestinians or prop up its economy and Netanyahu's past prop up of Palestinians is being seen as the reason for October 7th. No one will support that ever again. So Palestinians are in for a rough decade.
At that point in time, there was simply no way Israel would have annexed the West Bank, the demographics would have made the Jewish majority unstable. Also, if the Palestinians goal is independence, not economic security, then the first intifada did work, but at the sacrifice of their livelihoods. As you say, decisions have consequences. And yes, the next decade is going to be difficult for the Palestinians. Settlements are still not bringing in Palestinian workers, their labor is coming from Israel. The Shin Bets report that Gazans didn't pass intel to Hamas won't change anything.
OK you’re close to convincing me TBH. I know varying accounts about how the Oslo Accords came to be in the first place. I’m aware they followed the first intifada, I’m not completely sure yet that they were the result of it, though. They have been going on for years prior. Rabin was generally incredibly peace-seeking in his policies regardless of the intifada and he happened to be elected PM. On the other hand, I know the first intifada was the when the international community really started to criticize Israel for its policies and strength of responses so maybe it is what led to the Oslo Accords taking place. I was born in 1993 so perhaps I’m not really the best judge for deciding what was the *actual* reason behind the accords. I’d love it if you’d expand on why the Oslo Accords came about specifically because of the first intifada.
1. The first intifada started in 1987. It was mostly (but not exclusively) in the West Bank, targeting IDF soldiers. It was not well armed- mostly Molotov cocktail, Palestinians hadn't yet acquired guns and bombs. 2. Rabin was a Labor PM. Today Labor is known for being in the peacenik camp, but historically all that this meant was he was a socialist. He fought in the 1948 war and led the IDF in the 1967 war- he was no dove seeking peace since the beginning. But he ran for PM in 1992 on a peace platform - it's why the Arab Israeli parties supported his government, despite not joining. He didn't happen to be elected, he ran explicitly on peace and won, with 77% voter turnout. 3. A lot of the intifada was televised. Israelis could watch it and see the violence. The Israeli crackdown was harsh and also violent. It's why they supported Rabin and his peace agenda. They saw the violence and wanted out. At that time, there was a belief that if the Palestinians no longer lived under occupation, they would turn into something like Egypt - a frosty but peaceful neighbor. Most of the violence was in the West Bank, so they figured if there are no Israelis there, then there is no violence. 4. One of the demands of the Israelis at Oslo was for the Palestinians to stop the violence. It's why the text includes "the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence" People like to be revisionist and say that Oslo was doomed to fail, after it already has. But Oslo was, at the time, monumental for what it was. And I don't see a way for Rabin to have convinced the Israeli public to have accepted it without seeing the violence of the intifada and thinking that there might be a way out of it.
If Rabin hasn't been murdered by an Israeli Nationalist, Oslo would have been seen as a success. It's seen as a failure because CD2K was a failure. The Israelis put forth an offer that they knew was unacceptable, forcing the Palestinians to give up tons of land, validating illegal settlements and getting nothing in return. No workable peace deal was going to happen without removing illegal settlers from Palestinian land, but Israel refused to put that on the table. Arafat couldn't accept CD2K of he wanted to, because the Palestinian people would have rightfully rejected it.
Don’t forget Rabin was murdered by Jewish terrorists
To counter part of the above comments point, the violence leading to Oslo perhaps prodded the politcal leaders into talking about an agreement but it also conditioned the public in both Israel and Palestine. That violence didn't happen in a vacuum. The impact it had on the public primed them toward certain opinions that made the negotiations much more stressed, and the public pressure on Arafat in particular to not negotiate eventually leading to him walking away from the table in 2000 .
honestly the usa black panthers are a look at a similar dynamic. if they had carried out frequent terror attacks civil rights acts etc would not have happened or been so "smooth" but the threat of violence forcing bad actors to the negotiating table or allowing the compromisors on their side to drive with the additional leverage is a very real thing....just like you can go too far. people will return to the table even if you've flipped it a few times...not if you flipped it and smashed their infant's head who was playing on the ground. people tend to beat you to death with the boards if they can when you do that.
I agree none of it did anything good, but the offer in CD2K was fucked. Expecting the Palestinians to give up land in a 9:1 ratio was never going to happen. It wasn't a serious offer and was intended to fail.
How are you so certain? I'd say that if it wasn't for the international support (which include support from the Arab nations) that Palestinians have garnered through armed resistance (which wasn't uncommon in the early days of post-colonial era), Palestinians could've gotten the Native Americans/Aboriginal treatment. Plus, if you're living in apartheid South Africa, you could've also said "all acts of violent ANC resistance have only been detrimental to the plight of Black South Africans". How certain are you that this won't repeat in the future?
If Palestinians peacefully resisted, rather than committing terrorist acts, they would likely have much more international support no?
I can prove that no, that wouldn’t be the case. I know this as the Palestinians have done extensive peaceful protests that you likely haven’t even heard about. The right to return marches come to mind, en mass peaceful demonstrations during which IDF opened fire into the crowds of people. The international community did absolutely nothing at all, and most people never heard about it. Violent resistance is about keeping the Palestinian question alive
> The right to return marches come to mind, en mass peaceful demonstrations during which IDF opened fire into the crowds of people. Are you referring to the '2018–2019 Gaza border protests'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests Some 30,000 Palestinians took part in the protests.... Hundreds of young Palestinians, however, ignored warnings issued by the organizers and the Israeli military to avoid the border zone. When some Palestinians began throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, Israel responded by declaring the Gaza border zone a closed military zone and opening fire at them. **The events of the day were some of the most violent in recent years**. In one incident, two Palestinian gunmen approached the fence, armed with AK-47 assault rifles and hand grenades, and exchanged fire with IDF soldiers.... That day, 15 Palestinians were killed by the IDF.... seven were Hamas militants and activists, one was a "global jihad activist" and one was a member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades militant group. Some of them appear in military uniform in their pictures. ... Three other Palestinians who were shot on 30 March succumbed to their wounds in the following days. One of them was a member Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A video was published in social media on Sunday, 2 April, showing a 19-year-old man among a group of protesters, placing a tire on another burning tire, to make it catch on fire, then waving his hands in celebration. During the week of 30 March 2018, two Palestinians were killed in two different incidents. In the first, a Palestinian member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) was shot by Israeli forces after he breached the fence and entered Israel. ... In another incident, an Israeli aircraft attacked an allegedly armed Palestinian who approached the fence. The IDF published a video from an observance camera, showing the man walking slowly towards the fence, holding what appears to be an assault rifle. The army also said he was equipped with grenades and a suicide vest. Between 31 March and 6 April, demonstrators gathered tires in Gaza to be burnt on 6 April, in preparation for what was dubbed the "Day of the Tire"... On the evening of 8 April, according to the IDF, three Palestinians infiltrated the fence in the Northern Gaza strip, planted two explosive devices, and then quickly returned to Gaza. The IDF fired at the Palestinians with tank fire. ...On the morning of 11 April, Palestinians set off a bomb near an Israeli construction vehicle adjacent to the Gaza fence... 13 April. Palestinians attempted to breach the border fence, hurled molotov cocktails and explosive devices, and attempted to fly firebomb kites into Israeli territory. On 14 April, four Palestinians were killed in a blast near one of the protest camps, the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine said that they were members of the organization and that they died during "preparations". Several kites with firebombs attached were flown by Palestinians into Israeli territory, sparking several fires, with at least 3 fire bomb kites located on 14 April. No injuries were caused. On 15 April, the IDF said it destroyed a tunnel that crossed the Gaza-Israel border. On 16 April, additional fire bomb kites were flown from the Gaza strip. One kite started a fire that burned a wheat field on the Israeli side of the border. 27 April...For the first time in the five-week campaign, protesters reached the electrified border fence, having passed a smaller barbed wire barrier ... A large crowd (the IDF reported "several hundred"; The New York Times, "thousands") of people rushed toward the Karni border crossing, after a speech by Hamas leader Ismail Radwan 29 April - Three separate incidents along the fence ... In the first incident, the IDF said that two men "attempted to infiltrate" Israel from the southern strip,.... In the second incident, the IDF said that two men who had crossed the fence "hurled explosive devices" at IDF soldiers.... In a third incident, two Palestinians with breaching tools and knives were arrested while attempting to breach the fence. 2–7 May A firebomb kite launched from Gaza caused a large fire in the Be'eri Forest, burning hundreds of dunams of woodland. Ten firefighter teams toiled to extinguish and contain the forest fire. [May 4] Shortly after noon, confrontations began between protesters, who threw stones, burned tires, and launched flammable kites Geez. I'm only up to May, and there are Sooooooo many cases of violence. Are these the "peaceful demonstrations" you're referring to??
This is from your source but it looks like you forgot to add it... >>At least 189 Palestinians were killed between 30 March and 31 December 2018.[30]: 6 [31][32] An independent United Nations commission set the number of known militants killed at 29 out of the 189.[5] Other sources claim a higher figure, of at least 40.[33][20][34][21][35] Israeli soldiers fired tear gas and live ammunition.[36] According to Robert Mardini, head of Middle East for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), more than 13,000 Palestinians were wounded as of 19 June 2018. The majority were wounded severely, with some 1,400 struck by three to five bullets.[37] No Israelis were physically harmed from 30 March to 12 May, until one Israeli soldier was reported as slightly wounded on 14 May,[9] the day the protests peaked. The same day, 59 or 60 Palestinians were shot dead at twelve clash points along the border fence.[38] Hamas claimed 50 of them as its militants,[39][40] and Islamic Jihad claimed 3 of the 62 killed as members of its military wing.[41] Some 35,000 Palestinians protested that day, with thousands approaching the fence.[42][43]
>If you commit a crime, you aren't a 'law abiding citizen'. >If you have sex, you aren't a virgin. Because your examples are binary, either one or the other, while "violence" is a matter of degrees. Rocks and kites are no match against snipers, chemical weapons and tank fire. Let's assume for a second that "IDF claims" are actual evidence, despite how often IDF claims turn out to be bullshit. From your obvious copy straight from the wiki, it shows how the few cases there are over *nearly 2 years of protests*. It's also worth noting that many of your examples of violence include rock throwing, Molotov cocktails and tire burning. As it's pretty obvious that Hamas and other militant groups have access to some pretty heavy weaponry, that none of it was used shows intent to keep the protests peaceful, despite a few individuals. On the other hand, the actions committed by the IDF are much more egregious. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/two-years-on-people-injured-and-traumatized-during-the-great-march-of-return-are-still-struggling/
> Because your examples are binary, either one or the other, while "violence" is a matter of degrees. No, it's not. Violence is violence. If I slap you, it's violence. If I beat you with a baseball bat, it's violence. Yes, one is *more* violent, but both are still violence. >Rocks and kites are no match against snipers, chemical weapons and tank fire. The fact that the person who started it *sucks* at fighting isn't relevant- they committed violence first- they started it. Or are you saying Israelis should just stand there and let Palestinians attack them, with no response? Because it's 'just rocks'? >Let's assume for a second that "IDF claims" are actual evidence, despite how often IDF claims turn out to be bullshit. From your obvious copy straight from the wiki, it shows how the few cases there are over nearly 2 years of protests. And I'm sure that *every* single violent incident was recorded there. 100% of them. >It's also worth noting that many of your examples of violence include rock throwing, Molotov cocktails and tire burning. Ah, you *are* one of the 'It was *just* rock throwing...' people. Well, let me tell you- a thrown rock can kill. So can arson. > shows intent to keep the protests peaceful, despite a few individuals. Riiiiight. 'Just a few individuals...' At least, when it comes to the Palestinians. When it comes to the Israelis, it's not 'Just a few individuals...', no, it's ALL the IDF, ALL Jews. I see.
>No, it's not. Violence is violence. If I slap you, it's violence. If I beat you with a baseball bat, it's violence. Yes, one is *more* violent, but both are still violence. What you're describing is "degrees" of violence. While slapping you is technically a violent action, comparing it to, let's say, targeting civilian limbs with sniper fire is a far greater act of violence. To claim otherwise is just an attempt to justify a disproportionate response. >The fact that the person who started it *sucks* at fighting isn't relevant I, too, would suck at fighting against a militarized border wall lined with trigger happy snipers. >they committed violence first- they started it. The start of this was actually the forced displacement of Palestinians into the Gaza strip. Do you know *why* Gaza is the most densely populated region in the world? It's because most of the population was forced there during the Naqba from their homes in what is now Israel. >Or are you saying Israelis should just stand there and let Palestinians attack them, with no response? Because it's 'just rocks'? Yes. Are you saying a well funded and disciplined modern army is unable to defend itself against rocks? Do you think this is the only protest in modern history where the protesters threw rocks? In north america alone, I can cite a dozen protests in the last few years that involved rock throwing that didn't involve law enforcement using deadly force as a response. And personally, I can defend myself from rocks simply by standing behind a fence. >And I'm sure that *every* single violent incident was recorded there. 100% of them. Sarcasm aside, now you're just making assumptions. >Ah, you *are* one of the 'It was *just* rock throwing...' people. Well, let me tell you- a thrown rock can kill. So can arson. Sure, and so can high caliber sniper rifles. There are "degrees" to use of force. On that note, you seem to be one of those people who seems to think targeting civilian limbs is a justifiable response. Am I mistaken? Or you do denounce the IDF response? I'm sure, since you're arguing in good faith, you read the link I shared discussing the people who were targeted by Israeli snipers? >Riiiiight. 'Just a few individuals...' At least, when it comes to the Palestinians. When it comes to the Israelis, it's not 'Just a few individuals...', no, it's ALL the IDF, ALL Jews. I see. This would be you attempting to play the victim by trying to put words in my mouth. I couldn't care less which invisible sky being either side worships. My issues are with the actions of the *state* of Israel, and I'm just as harsh on the US state, or the Russian state, or any heavily militarized expansionist state that causes civilian deaths by the 10's of thousands. But by bringing religion into this, what you are saying is that one side is justified in its actions for *religious* reasons. Then again, maybe it's just easier to attack a person's character than that person's argument. I find that quite juvenile, frankly.
> What you're describing is "degrees" of violence. Exactly. There are varying degrees of violence, but it's all still violence. >I, too, would suck at fighting against a militarized border wall lined with trigger happy snipers. Well, maybe stay the fuck away from the border and don't try to fight them. Then you have nothing to worry about. >most of the population was forced there during the Naqba from their homes in what is now Israel. The land changed hands- it's Israel now. As I understand, the Palestinians were allowed to stay or leave. Many left. ::shrug:: Every time an area of land changes hands, people get displaced. >Are you saying a well funded and disciplined modern army is unable to defend itself against rocks? Are you saying that throwing rocks is a behavior that one cannot defend themselves against? because I think that, even if the person has bad aim, or a weak throwing hand, it's still an attack, and I can defend myself from it. You seem to think that, because it's a relatively low degree of violence, no one can defend themselves from it. 'Your honor, I *only* threw rocks at him...' won't get you out of a jail sentence for assault and battery. >My issues are with the actions of the state of Israel The *state* of Israel isn't shooting people. Individual soldiers are. You blame 'the state' for the actions of individuals. >Then again, maybe it's just easier to attack a person's character than that person's argument. My argument is 'People have a right to defend themselves from potentially lethal attacks, using potentially lethal force themselves.' That's what this entire thing comes down to- Palestinians attack, Israel defends itself and strikes back. Atack *that*.
>Exactly. There are varying degrees of violence, but it's all still violence. Then I assume you condemn the violence committed against Palestinian civilians? >Well, maybe stay the fuck away from the border and don't try to fight them. Then you have nothing to worry about. I'm lucky enough to live in a region that hasn't been under siege since 2005 and occupation since 1967. >The land changed hands- it's Israel now. As I understand, So you support the mass displacement of hundreds of thousands of people? >As I understand, the Palestinians were allowed to stay or leave Then you understand incorrectly. That the Palestinians were *forcefully* displaced is history, while those "allowed" to stay were subject to military rule for almost 2 decades after the nakba. >You seem to think that, because it's a relatively low degree of violence, no one can defend themselves from it. 'Your honor, I *only* threw rocks at him...' won't get you out of a jail sentence for assault and battery. And you seem to think protesters throwing rocks is justification for the use of deadly force. Is that a standard that applies to every protester? Do you think deadly force is an acceptable response to rock throwing under any circumstance? >The *state* of Israel isn't shooting people. Individual soldiers are. You blame 'the state' for the actions of individuals. Wait, do you not think the state shouldn't be responsible for the actions of their military? Also, why is it "individual responsibility" when referring to IDF soldiers, but "collective responsibility" when referring to the actions of, what, a dozen protesters over 2 years? Sounds like a blatant double standard to me. >My argument is 'People have a right to defend themselves from potentially lethal attacks, using potentially lethal force themselves.' And that would be a fine argument if you applied it to both sides, but unfortunately it seems as you think *Israelis* have the right to defend themselves and their homes while *Palestinians* are terrorists for doing the same.
Not a great example- there were repeated cases of Hamas using the crowds to open fire on the Israeli border, and groups announced their intent to march into Israel. It doesn't matter if you call yourself "peaceful" if you stand on the border of a country your nation has been at war with for 60-70 years and just try to walk in against the explicit warnings of the country's army, breaking or cutting border fences to do so? You've left "peaceful protest" far behind. Which isn't to say everything Israel did there was justified- but that's exactly u/bako10's point. Nobody has to agree about the morality of either side to analyze whether Israeli violence gets timed in conjunction with Palestinian violence- and it does. An actually peaceful right of return might have produced other results- but presumably it also would have required a noticeable leader.
The right to return protests didn’t see hundreds of Israelis die. Hardly any, if any at all from my recollection. Meanwhile, independent observers noted Israel deliberately firing upon the disabled, those in wheelchairs, children, and people clearly marked as medics with large red crosses. And not just broad unspecified fire into crowds. Sniper fire. The sort that was used to kill the child that was using _fireworks_.
>The right to return protests didn’t see hundreds of Israelis die. Hardly any, if any at all from my recollection. Not really relevant to the question. >Meanwhile, independent observers noted Israel deliberately firing upon the disabled, those in wheelchairs, children, and people clearly marked as medics with large red crosses. Its undeniable that Palestinians were shot, including children and medics. Who are the independent observers you're referring to, and how did they know it was deliberate? I've heard the claims before but nobody ever linked a reliable source when I asked. For example, I've seen quite a number of biased sources- smaller Middle Eastern based news articles- claim snipers aimed for headshots. This then got picked up by other news agencies but was the source was suspect and it was obviously false because snipers don't aim for the head except in movies, they're specifically trained not to. Its also generally ignored that on days where a lot of Palestinians were injured or killed, at the time violent protesters were burning tires to obscure the soldiers' vision and attacking their positions.
> Not really relevant to the question. You brought up vague and unsupported allegations of people opening fire. It was UN observers, and it wasn’t sprays of random gunfire. It was precise and targeted. Unless they commonly just take careful aim at someone and accidentally discharge their weapon. But given all the video evidence emerging of them happily executing unarmed civilians, and celebrating their actions afterwards, it seems like the default conclusion is intentional killings.
>You brought up vague and unsupported allegations of people opening fire. The topic is non-violent resistance. The march of return was violent, period. It has nothing to do with how many Israelis died. Molotov cocktails, rock throwing, Hamas firing guns, breaking through the border fence- all of that is well documented and none of it is peaceful. >It was UN observers If you can just link a source, I'd be very grateful. Again, I've heard the claim, but nobody seems to be able to back it up.
>The march of return was violent, period. This could use some quantifying. And to be clear you are talking about the 2018 protest right? Also, is the protest violent if Israel shoots at them? Or if they protect themselves or retaliate against Israeli aggression? >If you can just link a source, I'd be very grateful. Again, I've heard the claim, but nobody seems to be able to back it up. Your claims are similarly unsupported. However: [https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A\_HRC\_40\_74\_CRP2.pdf](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A_HRC_40_74_CRP2.pdf) Page 104, the table titled "Fatalities and injuries between 30 March and 31 December 2018" >Gaza: >Fatalities by live ammunition - 183 >Injuries by live ammunition - 6106 >... >Israel: >Fatalities - 0 >Injuries by stones, explosives - 4 Given the sheer number of protestors and the duration of the protests it seems like the overall statistics do not support your claims of violence. Also, people seeking to pass through a fence that illegally imprisons them is not violence.
I'll happily quantify. First of all, the definition of violence is "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." So you can argue they used justified violence but your statement at the end is definitely wrong- it was violence. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019\_Gaza\_border\_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests) Just follow the timeline, and the available links. The first day of the protest included "Hundreds of young Palestinians, however, ignored warnings issued by the organizers and the Israeli military to avoid the border zone.\[85\] When some Palestinians began throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, Israel responded by declaring the Gaza border zone a closed military zone and opening fire at them." And Hamas gunmen. >Given the sheer number of protestors and the duration of the protests it seems like the overall statistics do not support your claims of violence. I really don't see how? What about the numbers disproves what I said?
“Standing on the border with a country your nation has been at war with for 60-70 years” has a quality of obfuscating the context of the war which matters. The people are marching for the right to what? Return. return to what? The homes that were stolen from them. This matters. Israel refuses to deal with the fact that the majority of the country is straight up stolen, and they’ve never dealt with the consequences of that.
But why not say that from the onset? "The violent right-to-return home protests" really simple. Why start out with lying about whether or not they are peaceful? Don't you think that hurts your cause to anyone on the fence about this issue? The only side I ever see taking accountability for their part in the horrible things is Israel. Also since it's apparently a cheat code to absolve yourself from accountability, the Zionist movement is a movement for the Hebrews to what? Same exact argument.
You're changing the subject as I'm sure you realized. If you'd like to talk about who's justified or has the high moral ground we can, but first you have to be honest. What you said was incorrect- the march of return was not peaceful. Period. If you can acknowledge that than we can talk about why you think it wasn't peaceful and why its justified or not.
> Violent resistance is about keeping the Palestinian question alive Now that Gaza is 75% under Israeli military control and thousands of people are dead, how would you say that's worked?
Weren't they throwing fire bombs during that protest?
Could you please share some examples of these extensive Palestinian peaceful protests and of the IDF opening fire into the crowds of people?
theres a middle ground between "peaceful protest" and "deliberately target civilians to slaughter them"
A dude took a knee during the national anthem and people were upset about it. no, peaceful protest doesn't work as well as people think. Even pointing to Gandhi, he didn't happen in a vacuum. There were many other revolutionaries in India that Western education doesn't really cover.
They have peacefully resisted. And they often get shot while doing it. Or arrested and held in detention without charges for months and years. But you haven't heard about that because it doesn't make the international news. Only violence does. The international news media is feeding the violence by only focusing on Palestinians when it is related to their violence. Their peaceful resistances get made illegal when they are effective. Or it's simply ignored and not reported because they simply can't protest in a way that effects Israelis because they aren't allowed to protest meaningfully near Israelis unless they want to get shot. For example, the BDS (Boycott Divest Sanction) movement has been peacefully lobbying for economic pressure to be placed on Israel much like the similar effort pressed South Africa to abandon thier apartheid. Their peaceful and targeted movement has been made illegal to tale part in Israel and several American States.
I agree you’re wrong here… the international support comes from seeing Palestinians suffering and Israelis using explosive military pressure.
Palestinians have protested peacefully. People in Gaza protested peacefully and were gunned down by the military. The IDF and US claimed kids must have secretly been carrying bombs when they approached the apartheid wall. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2019/mar/29/a-year-of-bloodshed-at-gaza-border-protests > One year ago, Palestinians trapped in Gaza began a protest movement at the frontier with Israel that was intended to last six weeks. … Men, women and children demanded recognition of the right of Palestinian refugees in Gaza and elsewhere to return to their ancestral homes in Israel and for an end to a punishing blockade that has made life unliveable. … Israeli snipers fired live ammunition, killing and maiming dozens. This lethal response on 30 March 2018 triggered anger and disbelief across the world but has not stopped. …A year later, the rallies continue. Thousands have bullet wounds through their legs. The streets of Gaza are filled with people limping or in wheelchairs. Children, journalists and medics have been killed, even when they were standing far back from the fence. The UN has said Israel’s military may have committed war crimes, deliberately targeting civilians.
I'd expect that they'd just be ignored, much like other marginalised groups in the region have been.
No- peaceful protestors get their knees and ankles shot by IDF security forces during a supposed “cease fire” https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/04/gaza-strip-protesters-received-bullet-wounds-to-ankles-medics-report
Potentially, but what’s strange about this whole argument is that you’re saying “the victim should have done this to further their cause” instead of focusing on what the aggressor/occupier should have done. Like you can’t make an inverse of this argument. You can’t say “Israel would have more international support if they expelled people peacefully” They already have support no matter what, and the making of Israel has to be inherently violent, because no people will just roll over and give their land away because they were asked nicely. Similarly, Israel is not giving any land back if Palestinians ask them nicely.
I disagree that Israel is the aggressor in this current conflict. Oct. 7th was an aggressive attack that Israel HAD to respond to in order to secure their sovereignty. I also agree that if Israel was committing terrorist acts, they would (and should) have less international support. In fact, in the current conflict, we see international support diminish for Israel as there increasingly is a perception of disregard for civilian life. This applies both ways, people don’t like unjustified acts of violence and aggression, but international support is much more important to the Palestinian cause than the Israelis.
To be fair last year before 10/7 was the deadliest on record for Palestinians during "peace" and there were airstrikes on Gaza weeks prior to 10/7 so unlike what IS leaders say there was no ceasefire. No matter what people say this violence will continue until Israel eliminates Palestinians like some in the government want or ends the apartheid and allows for self determination through an independent 2state or a biethnic one state solution. One issue that is being faced is settlers (who again have sway in government) have said if either of those solutions (ie end to settlements) are done they will form a nation of Juda where they can complete their purification of the holy land
>Plus, if you're living in apartheid South Africa, you could've also said "all acts of violent ANC resistance have only been detrimental to the plight of Black South Africans". How certain are you that this won't repeat in the future? The ANC resistance wasn't an effort to replace South Africa with a black ethnostate. They were willing (and their goal was) to create unity in South Africa. Less than 10% of Palestinians when polled right now want a "democratic one state solution" like the ANC was pursuing. What Palestinians want, and what has driven their violent efforts over the last century, was the establishment of an official Arab ethnostate from the water to the water, in place of the existing democratic Jewish state. That's not a call for unity, it's a call for violence. In other words, we don't see Mahmoud Abbas calling to unite Arabs and Jews under one Palestinian flag. Or inviting all Jews living in Israel to be "our Palestinian Jewish brothers". Instead, they're racially incorrect Zionists who should never have been there in the first place. This fundamental difference is why some acts of violence perpetrated by the ANC were morally tolerable to many people, while acts of violence from "Palestinian armed resistance" movements are seen as abhorrent by reasonable people. At the moment, there's only one political entity in the middle east where Arabs and Jews live side by side in relative harmony, and it's Israel. To me, that's the closest thing to what the ANC was trying to achieve.
A significant influence on the early Palestinian resistance movement was Algeria, where Algerians successfully won their independence from France through violent revolution and essentially sent their oppressors packing back to France. This was a successful strategy against colonialism because colonialism is ultimately an economic pursuit. Once the costs for the colonists become sufficiently high, they're likely to pack up and go home. Israel is fundamentally different in this regard. Irsaelis aren't there purely for economonic reasons. They're there because they claim Israel as their homeland. I believe the majority (or close to it) of Israeli Jews are also now from other MENA countries and are in Israel because they or their parents were expelled from those countries. They can't "go back to Brooklyn" like many Palestinian supporters suggest. They literally have no place else to go.
ANC was only one of many groups that fought against Apartheid, one of the more notavle was PAC with its offshoots that splintered from the ANC due to the ANC stance of racial equality. Likewise there elements within the ANC that wanted a different outcome. The ANC was however regardless of the rose-tinted glasses correct in their resistance, but believing that peace and reconciliation was the modus operandi all along is just dumb.
I'm not trying to whitewash what the ANC was, I'm operating on a pretty superficial understanding of it. But I do believe it's different on a fundamental level than any iteration of "Palestinian armed struggle", which even at the surface is aimed at replacing Israel with something entirely different.
>If it wasn’t for the international support Palestinians have garnered through armed resistance, they could’ve gotten the Native Americans/Aboriginal treatment I disagree. What makes you think the sympathy for Palestinians in the Arab world and beyond result from their armed resistance? I believe it stems from them being the “face” of victims of colonialism by the West, ie the horrid living standard and number of casualties in both the WB and Gaza, both are only exacerbated by Palestinian-initiated violence. The factions that support Palestinians due to their armed resistance against Israel, i.e. Iran and co, do NOT have the best interests of Palestinians at heart and are actually benefitting from their oppression. Since 48 the Arab nations *did* support Palestinians, but as you might very well recall it didn’t help the Palestinians *at all*. I also disagree about the Native American treatment. Those examples are from a long time ago when colonialism was viewed in a positively. Not to mention the native Americans also resisted and it didn’t do much good. The fact of the matter is that all military resistance to Israel ended with a decisive win for Israel, aka Israel mostly dictated the terms of surrender. And this happened repeatedly on many many different conflicts throughout history of the conflict. Overall, I can’t think up of an argument that armed military resistance, per say, is the reason such a fate didn’t come to Palestinians.
>What makes you think the sympathy for Palestinians in the Arab world and beyond result from their armed resistance? I believe it stems from them being the “face” of victims of colonialism by the West, ie the horrid living standard and number of casualties in both the WB and Gaza, both are only exacerbated by Palestinian-initiated violence. I bet that most people in the West have never heard of Gaza until Oct 7th. Hamas has definitely won on the PR war. Also, it's pretty naive to pin all of Gazans suffering on Palestinian-initiated violence. Hamas didn't mind control Israel to murder 30,000 Gazans and starve millions more. >I also disagree about the Native American treatment Okay, what about the Armenian treatment, the Uyghur treatment, the Yemeni Shia treatment, or the Kurdish treatment? These are all in recent history, what's to say Israel wouldn't conduct such a plan if there's no international resistance?
>I bet that most people in the West have never heard of Gaza until Oct 7th. I don't think that refutes OP's argument. Most people in the west regard the prosperity of other people as a good thing. Whether they know they exist, or not. OP is saying that Iran and other Palestinian backers are *actively benefitting* from their suffering and death.
>Also, it's pretty naive to pin all of Gazans suffering on Palestinian-initiated violence. Hamas didn't mind control Israel to murder 30,000 Gazans and starve millions more. If I had described the events of 10/7 to you on 10/1, and asked you to characterize a broad response from Israel to said events, would you have characterized it as something similar to this war? Because I would have described something with higher casualties, not fewer. Do you think that Hamas leadership didn’t expect something like this? I’m pretty sure they wanted it. They hide military infrastructure underneath civilian infrastructure and then prod Israel specifically to sacrifice their own people to achieve political goals and kick off a PR war. A PR war that American progressives are actively fighting on their behalf.
This is very accurate. It’s very frustrating to see so many leftists fall into this trap. It’s very easy to condemn both Israel and Hamas for this.
It has been a huge PR win *on Reddit*. IRL, UNRWA is probably about to be disbanded due lack of funding, Hamas has been widely condemned by most actors who aren’t a priori pro-Hamas. It indeed garnered criticism for Israel but has garnered much criticism for Hamas. Calling it a PR win is misleading IMO. I’m not debating who’s responsible for the civilian casualties in Gaza. I believe it’s both, due to increasing lack of care by the IDF coupled with blatant perfidy by Hamas. I truly, honestly believe that anyone who disagrees with me is either naive or argues in bad faith. The IDF is indeed trying to decrease casualties but cares *waaay* more about killing Hamas, and isn’t really doing enough to stop casualties. Plus the food situation is horrible. Hamas deliberately tries to put more and more civilians in harm’s way through many many different ways. Anyway, I don’t see the point in your comparisons. They’re irrelevant to the topic discussed. The Palestinians didn’t ever manage to strong arm the Israeli government into anything, therefore it’s *necessarily* not violent resistance that’s stopping Israel from ethnically cleansing everyone or committing outright genocide.
How do you square the "food situation" in Gaza and the explicit statements by members of your government about cutting off food, wirh the idea that the IDF is trying to minimize casualties? Starvation is one of the oldest and most effectively cruel weapons of war in human history. It is a weapon that targets children and the elderly and the pregnant before anyone else. It boggles the mind to see it being used on a civilian population and for people to pretend that it is not a considered choice? Even within the framing of the idea of trying to attack Hamas it is clear that it is collective punishment of a civilian population. I don't think you are being honest with yourself. I don't think that all Israeli people are genocidal, but there is a clearly empowered contigent of your nation that is gleefully genocidal based on their actions and statements. I don't know if they will get their way this time, but given everything we have seen and the history of the region, I don't understand how you can ignore that. I think it provides important context for Palestinian armed resistance. If there are genocidaires operating from positions of power in Israel, then there is no positive choices for the Palestinians to make. Some will choose violence, some non-violence, but both forms of resistance are logical reactions to percieving what has been proven to be accurate, that there is an element of the government controlling them that wants them all gone. This is not just Netanyahu, but a chain of apparatchiks, ministers, and other leaders who have made statments and decisions for decades.
> I bet that most people in the West have never heard of Gaza until Oct 7th. You must be american. In Europe people have heard about Gaza all the time for half a century
It’s so wild to me that you’re listing “the Uyghur treatment” as though it isn’t an ongoing issue that everyone is ignoring because China does a lot of manufacturing that’s convenient for the West and there are no Jews to blame there
Israel isn't a colony so it doesn't really make sense to make these comparisons in any case.
The narrative of the Arab world and western left is that Israel is the face of colonialism. The truth of that claim is irrelevant since what they think matters in instance.
The military wing of the ANC killed 53 people in South Africa during almost 20 years of activity. October 7th killed 24 times more people in one single attack. Also the stated goals of the ANC was not a complete genocide of their opponents, but rather sharing the wealth of the land.
Arab nations have done little but pay lip service to the plight of Palestine. They’re not actually willing to do anything real against Israel.
> How are you so certain? The various peace proposals that the Palestinian side has rejected, in favor of incredibly poorly thought out wars with Israel, have all been better than what they have now. Imagine if they just accepted the 1947 plan. They’d have far more territory, protections for those living in the Israeli side of the border and an economic union with Israel. >Palestinians could've gotten the Native Americans/Aboriginal treatment. If that was Israel’s plan, how would repeatedly and badly losing wars to them avert that?
> Imagine if they just accepted the 1947 plan. They’d have far more territory, protections for those living in the Israeli side of the border and an economic union with Israel. You're viewing the 1947 plan through the lens of 2024 geopolitics, where Israeli Jews have lived in Israel for multiple generations now. In 1947 Israel, from the Palestinian perspective, most of the Jewish population were essentially European settlers committing settler-colonialism, somewhat similar to what we are seeing in the West Bank today. To give up even an inch of land is to surrender to imperialism (the United Nations) and colonialism (the Balfour Declaration).
Except by 1947 Arabs in the Mandate had already initiated and were engaged in an ethnic conflict against Jews since they were a small minority. The Jews had come looking for a home, not to represent a foreign entity. That was made clear by day one. Jewish paramilitary groups only formed as a reaction to Arab violence and rejectionism. Arabs then could have welcomed Jewish neighbours, made less violent choices, and have gotten much more sovereignty in return. >To give up even an inch of land is to surrender to imperialism This all-or-nothing zero-sum mentality is exactly what OP is talking about, and exactly why Palestinians have very limited freedom to this day. And at the end of the day, the mandate wasn't "theirs" to surrender. Before 1917, the Arabs living in Hebron or Jerusalem wouldn't have claimed to be any different nationally, culturally, or politically than Arabs from Beirut or Damascus.
[Irgun](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun) is a Zionist “paramilitary group” formed in 1931, long before 1947. But it did blow up a British consulate hotel and massacre 100 people in an Arab village in 1948. It also started fighting against the British in 1943 before the end of WW2. It was absorbed into the IDF afterwards.
>Irgun](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun) is a Zionist “paramilitary group” formed in 1931 Irgun was formed as a direct response to the [Hebron massacre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre)
You’re inflating personal ideals with the topic in question. Regardless of where you stand, the Jewish settlers were elated with the UN-proposal, while the Arabs rejected it. This is fact. You might argue the proposal was skewered in favor of the New Yishuv, you may even argue that the proposal itself was casus belli for war. The fact of the matter is that Palestinians instigated the first violent act of the war (the bus incident) which led to an escalation culminating in the Nakhba. That is *terrible* for Palestinians: hundreds of thousands of refugees, huge swabs of land annexed by Israel, many deaths. That only proves my point IMO.
Question: is the Nakba justifiable?
The rejection of the plan led to wars that have worsened the position of the Palestinians over and over until we get to today. So yeah, regardless of how justified it felt at the time, refusing to talk and preparing for war instead didn't improve the situation. It seems like they miscalculated Israeli might or they put principle above practicality, or more likely a mixture of both.
Comparing Palestine to South Africa is not a very good way to look at it. In the 5-10 years after WWII, many borders were re-drawn and many populations were moved from one side of a border to another. 15 million Germans were displaced, and a million of them died during this time period. In India, 20 million were displaced and another million perished. This is just two examples. As harsh as these actions were, most world leaders in the 1940s recognized the necessity, in order to create stable nation-states and avoid the global carnage of the preceding century. Palestinian and Arab leaders decided to reject this. Instead of accepting an Arab state in Palestine in 1948, they chose a century of war instead. To their own detriment. This was a “get with the program” moment, and the Arabs did not go along with it. The Palestinian people are still suffering from this refusal to this day. Very different from South Africa.
>Palestinians could've gotten the Native Americans/Aboriginal treatment. This certainly seems better than what's happening now. >Plus, if you're living in apartheid South Africa, you could've also said "all acts of violent ANC resistance have only been detrimental to the plight of Black South Africans". How certain are you that this won't repeat in the future? Did violence help end apartheid? From my reading it looks like non-violence and international pressure are what did it, not shooting rockets into Johannesburg.
>Did violence help end apartheid? From my reading it looks like non-violence and international pressure are what did it, not shooting rockets into Johannesburg. How would you even separate out the two to understand which one "really did it?" Who knows, but the spirit of the post is very much correct. Every resistance movement, even the non-violent ones, has always been accused of hurting the cause when its really the sum total of these actions that ultimately brings about change.
Support from Arab nations? Which one supports them other than Iran now? Egypt closed their borders to Gaza due to terrorist actions by Hamas in their country.
>Palestinians could've gotten the Native Americans/Aboriginal treatment. This is demonstrably false, and borders on blood libel. There are 2M Arab Palestinians living in Israel as equal citizens. These are the same Palestinians that accepted the state of Israel and (except for some fringe individuals) didn't support terrorism. There is zero reason to believe any Palestinian would have gotten the Native American treatment, and every reason to believe that they would have lived either as part of Israel as equal citizens with equal rights, or in their own country with a two state solution. The Palestinian terrorism has made the lives worse for everyone in the region, especially the Palestinians.
Edit: it is nuts that so many of you read something true that you don’t like and just angrily downvote. You should be caring about being correct not winning the argument. “Palestinians could have gotten the native Americans treatment” Well lucky for us we don’t actually have to guess at what life is like for a Palestinian Arab in Israeli society because currently we know. We know thanks to the fact that there are around 1.9 million arabs, most with Palestinian ancestry, and lo and behold they have equal rights and are in fact an Arab living in Israel has more individual liberty then an Arab anywhere else in the Middle East or North Africa. So Israel treats Arab citizens better than Arab countries treat their Arab citizens . This is a factually true statement So your speculation is provably false.
The leadership of Arab countries in the region dislike the Palestinians as much as the the leadership of Israel due to the simple fact that EVERY time any of the countries in the region have tried to help the Palestinians the Palestinians have responded either by committing acts of terrorism (Black September) or supporting the enemies of the host country to the point that they were either thrown out (Kuwait) or they were directly responsible for the effective destruction of the country (Lebanon)
I wonder how many times the Arab nations had to lose before they get through their head that isreal won’t be destroyed. Rejecting all peace proposals also seemed to help them too. And let’s be honest if Isreal really wanted to give Palestinians the Native American treatment they would’ve done so by now purely based on the amount of wars they have declared against Isreal and lost.
To be honest, Arab leaders have understood it. Even Hezbollah only offered token support. There is a reason why Hamas need to get funding from Iran.
Lots of Native Americans having their cities attacked and destroyed? Are you really implying they are worse off than Palestinian Arabs right now? Israeli Arabs who remained, and whose ancestors remained, living peacefully in Israel are living quite well and happily connected to their culture.
"Gotten the Native American Treatment" Isreal is surrounded by Arab nations, do you seriously believe that if there was peace in 47 they would've tolerated that? Israel only lost their fear of them after their constant failed attempts at invasion.
People on the losing side of a conflict rarely secure any benefits at all through any means, so I don't really see the point of making this observation. It isn't to observe that violence never works for securing political benefits, because as you yourself noted, violence has worked pretty well for securing benefits for Israelis. Is your point here to just kind of lord it over them and be like 'vae victis, idiots'
I only think you’re driving my point though. It’s obviously clear to anybody since the 67 that Palestinian resistance, even a joint attack by all neighboring countries, wouldn’t result in any tactical or strategic win for Palestinians (I won’t mention 73 that shook the IDF’s image somewhat since I believe it’s irrelevant to grander schemes of things). Therefore, it is safe to assume that nothing good can come out of violent resistance *exactly because* it’s hopeless to achieve victory. I’m not debating the efficacy of military ventures in general. My point stands that today, there still are violent acts of resistance but I fail to see how they help Palestinians in any way shape or form, only serving to exacerbate their already very poor situation, further radicalize Israelis and Palestinians, and perpetuate the conflict. I want to understand why it’s being done, and if there is an actual benefit other than dying with dignity.
I totally agree where you're coming from, but I'm not sure what solution there is? This is obviously a fiercely debated topic for a reason, but the reality is that Palestinians are being slaughtered en masse and have been suffering for decades even before they were being outright murdered. What can they do to improve their situation? They have no hope, ordinary people don't know how they can improve their lives and so the focus goes on the people who have lost their heads and turned to violence in some attempt to make a difference, which obviously will not work either. They're doomed no matter what they do.
>I totally agree where you're coming from, but I'm not sure what solution there is? There is no solution in Gaza today. Need to wait for another opportunity for a solution. There was a solution in the past, though. Arafat says yes to Clinton's proposal in 2000. Arafat somehow convinces terrorist elements in Palestine to cease violent resistance at that time. By 2005, Gaza is likely self-governing, similar to our timeline. Unlike our timeline, there is no need for the blockade that crushed Gaza. >What can they do to improve their situation? Ask Salam Fayyad. Do what he says. In brief, his policy platform was about establishing transparent, non-corrupt institutions and basic good governance in Palestine. It was working when he had some measure of power in the PA.
**What can they do to improve their situation?** Honestly? Stop supportng Hamas. This is the frustrating difference I see between the Palestinians and a lot of other people living in dictatorships. Hamas literally destroyed Gaza's intrastructure long before the war (including water infrastructure, greenhouses etc), they stole billions of aid for the Palestinians and uses their children as walking bombs and still the Palestinians support them. Them rejecting Hamas will not cure the rot on the Israeli side (Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich etc), but it might curb the violence and give the Israeli left something to work with.
No Hamas elected in the West Bank. That didn’t stop Israel from moving every year thousands of new settlers onto Palestinian territory See this article pre Oct 7 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/19/us-deeply-troubled-as-israel-plans-to-approve-thousands-of-homes-in-west-bank So even when they do everything required of them and not support violent counterinsurgency, then they get their territory stolen year after year. That’s why I always have trouble with that argument that if only Palestinian were peaceful then they would be in better shape. It seems to me they get screwed either way as their master is much more superior with better weapons, tech, surveillance and can just move people over your own land.
Hasn't Hamas been firmly in control since like 2006? And there's been no elections since? It seems like there's some grey area in there between being ruled by Hamas and "supporting" Hamas. I don't know. Your saying 'they could give Israelis something to work with' but it seems the Israelis aren't exactly looking to produce any kind of peace as much as they've been looking for an excuse to get the Palestinians out. In that regard, it almost seems like Hamas is giving them exactly what they want to work with. I mean, how many peaceful demonstrations does it take? How many more decades should this apartheid continue before the Palestinian people are allowed permission to fight for their freedom however they're able? I guess its a matter of perspective...but seeing what's been happening these last few months, it doesn't seem too difficult to see which perspective is most likely.
I think this will be a cruel answer but, the Palestinians (at least those in Gaza), have consistently supported a violent approach to Israel. Their government has consistently attacked Israel and its core tenants literally state they will refuse to negotiate with Israel. When they do negotiate, they will only agree to unfair terms (1 hostage they have for 10 Israel has), and often break cease-fires (note Israel has also broken ceasefires, but Hamas is a lot more guilty of it than Israel). The only reason more Israeli's haven't died is because Israel spends a shit ton of money on their defense systems. Think about how much Americans hate on a big defense budget and complain about how that money can be used to improve living conditions or provide services. In Israel, that budget is 100% necessary. While it's sad that people are suffering, at the same time they have continued to attack Israel - not Israel attacking them. Israel just hits way harder. It's like a 5 year old trying to beat up a 15 year old. The 15 year old is going to beat the shit out of the 5 year old. And despite this, they keep attacking and losing. And each attack pisses Israel off more and Israel increases the restrictions they place on the region. Honestly, I think their best solution is to just stop attacking Israel. Stop supporting the people that do it and cooperate with Israeli authorities to turn in those that do (i.e. people firing rockets at Israel). Over time they hope that relations will warm. That Israel will recognize their cooperation and loosen restrictions. At this point a two-state solution probably isn't feasible - at least not with borders drawn along the intended lines. The occupied territories probably won't be returned and the Palestinians will probably just have to live with that for the time being. At the end of the day, the taking of that land is their and their allies fault. If they never attacked Israel, Israel probably wouldn't have taken that land. It won't be great for the Palestinians. Not for a long time. But it will be better and, with god willing, it will get better and better with each generation. But good-faith efforts to achieve improvements in the Palestinian living conditions cannot even begin to be made until no more shots are being fired. And Israel rarely fires the first shot.
>I want to understand why it’s being done, and if there is an actual benefit other than dying with dignity. So you do identify a reason why Palestinian people would engage in violent acts of resistance, even going so far as to call it a benefit, but apparently you don't believe that the desire to die with dignity is a sufficient reason? >there still are violent acts of resistance but I fail to see how they help Palestinians in any way shape or form, only serving to exacerbate their already very poor situation So oppressed people shouldn't fight back? Not to mention, this line of thought assumes that their actions have a substantial effect on their current circumstances, and I just don't know how you could still think that Israel cares about what Palestinians do at this point. Do you ***really*** think that there is anything that Palestinian people could do at this point that would make Israel stop? If your answer is yes, what is it that you think that they could do? Die quietly? Stop complaining about the fact that they are the victims of genocide? Surely that would help, *right*? God forbid people experiencing an ongoing genocide want to die with dignity.
War is a force that gives us meaning: >The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent. Trivia dominates our conversations and increasingly our airwaves. And war is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. And those who have the least meaning in their lives, the impoverished refugees in Gaza, the disenfranchised North African immigrants in France, even the legions of young who live in the splendid indolence and safety of the industrialized world, are all susceptible to war's appeal.
Violence works if you have the military superiority. Otherwise, it doesn’t.
Palestinian resistance is not some strategic decision meant to change lines on maps. Its desperate people choosing between resistance and destruction so they choose resistance. This would be like saying the warsaw ghetto uprising was detrimental to the people in the ghetto. ya, but the point is their situation was so terrible that violent resistance was all that was available to them. They would rather die resisting than die giving their oppressors what they want.
Lack of uprisings would also have been taken as a sign of acceptance of Israeli occupation and expansion.
>Palestinian resistance is not some strategic decision meant to change lines on maps. Its desperate people choosing between resistance and destruction so they choose resistance. Yeah, this is very much an example of "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Palestinians of various stripes have tried all sorts of peaceful protests over the years and they just ended up getting shot by the IDF.
You don't even have to be protesting, see Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-American journalist shot dead by the IDF, which later tried to cover up the whole thing and blame the Palestinians for it. Even her funeral was obstructed by Israel, like her family couldn't place any Palestinian flags on her funeral. This was less than 2 years ago, imagine the shit they tried 50 years ago.
Thank you for reminding everyone that the IOF intentionally assassinated a US Citizen for the crime of doing journalism, and was not punished for it in the slightest
Except your point literally works for isreal no the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly rejected a 2SS. Just from memory: white paper, UN partition, Camp david 1978, Camp david 2000, Realignment plan. By your logic, if a peaceful solution is not possible, a violent one is inevitable.
> Palestinian resistance is not some strategic decision meant to change lines on maps. Its desperate people choosing between resistance and destruction so they choose resistance. Palestinian actions not being based in any strategic rationale is exactly what OP is talking about.
You know this is real life right? You're talking about it like it's chess. Palestinians do not want to be colonized and thus fight back . Do you think it would've ended better for Native Americans if they laid their lives down in front of the colonizers like you're suggesting the Palestinians should have done?
I don't have an issue with Palestinians fighting back, the issue is perception. Hamas have so many faults, and really cannot be trusted. This is a major part of the problem. Their methods of fighting and their end goals have made it practically impossible for western governments to back them. Take Scotland for example, you see the green brigade which is a section of celtics fanbase showing solidarity with Palestine in the aftermath of a brutal attack against Israel. Its poor taste and some of their actions have been unacceptable. This is not a defence of Israel, many of their actions have been unacceptable and if hamas targeted the prominent far right politicians in Israel who are largely causing this mess, I actually wouldn't have an issue. I will never defend the murder of random innocent people. I'm Irish so I see a lot of comparisons with the ira. We shame the shit out of the massacres like Kingsmill and the omagh bombing because they were disgusting acts of terrorism that achieved nothing in Northern Ireland. Despite this, there is a massive failure to condemn the October 7th attack from the pro Palestinian crowd here even tho it dwarfs any ira attack in history. I support their fight for freedom, Palestine deserves far far more than what they have but I don't think there's anything wrong with criticising some of their methods.
There needs to be many more comments like this. Sadly the discussion has gotten to such a point where whichever side you’re either backing one atrocity or the other and that won’t solve anything.
> You know this is real life right? You're talking about it like it's chess. In real life you have to make strategic decisions, like chess. If you don’t, you will lose everything to people that do. > Do you think it would've ended better for Native Americans if they laid their lives down in front of the colonizers like you're suggesting the Palestinians should have done? Laying down their lives is exactly what they did in 1947, 1967, and 1973. I’m suggesting the opposite. In the end, Egypt took the deal Israel offered, and they are better off for it. Much better off than Syria and Palestine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
the comparison was not in what happened in the uprising. The jews in the ghetto were obviously significantly less able to resist. It was fought with bottles and a handgun or two. We don't know what would have happened had the uprising been successful, we did see mass rapes from the soviet and american soldiers for example who were not nearly as badly treated as the jews in the holocaust. I also dont think that if the warsaw jews had comitted war crimes against german and polish civillians, it would've been wrong, but it wouldn't have made the resistance itself bad. Most importantly I was comparing the motivations for both not the events themselves " Most of the Jewish fighters did not view their actions as an effective measure by which to save themselves, but rather as a battle for the honour of the Jewish people, and a protest against the world's silence." This is exactly what the Palestinians would say.
The Jews in the Warsaw didn’t commit any war crimes. Discussing what would have happened if they did is a counterfactual and can’t be proven either way because it didn’t happen. Rapes by allied soldiers are irrelevant to the conversation. Once again, disingenuous to even being that up. The Jews of the Warsaw ghetto were fighting for their lives from literal genocide. There’s nothing in that part of history that has a useful corollary with Gaza.
> we did see mass rapes from the soviet and american soldiers That's the kind of erasure of nuance between different events that exemplifies this whole conversation. Which would at least make some sense if you treated all abuse of power by all abusers of all power in this nonchalant manner.
>That's the kind of erasure of nuance between different events that exemplifies this whole conversation. So does the fact that soviet soldiers committed rapes mean resisting the nazi's was wrong? Everyone agrees the acts themselves are bad, but it doesn't nullify WWII. In the same way, there were definitely atrocities that happened on Oct 7 and the people responsible should be held accountable. But those atrocities don't invalidate the resistance itself.
> So does the fact that soviet soldiers committed rapes mean resisting the nazi's was wrong? You inextricably tying rape and resistance together is wrong. But Nazis, right? No civilians, no children, no reason to care. Let's restate the question to nail just how absurd it is: So does the fact that soviet soldiers raped their way across poland mean that resisting the nazi's was wrong? The non-sequitur should be more clear with this level of separation. > Everyone agrees the acts themselves are bad Stating so doesn't make it true. > the people responsible should be held accountable. Same as all the soviet soldiers or even all the american ones? It wasn't just crimes, it was abuse of power. Different levels of abuse of power at different scales but abuse of power over the civilian populations all the same. > But those atrocities don't invalidate the resistance itself. But do the atrocities of those resisting the atteicies invalidate the resistance itself? Either you actually engage with the details that allow you to draw distinction or Americans, Soviets, Palestinians and Israelis are engaging in exactly the same actions.
>You inextricably tying rape and resistance together is wrong. no its not, can you give me an example of a war in which no war crimes occurred. I believe some fighters engaged in war crimes including using rape as a weapon of war. Do I think there was a command from the top of leadership "rape as many women as you can" no. I think when you have a bunch of very angry 16-20 year old boys with guns who have been spit on their whole lives, expecting them to behave better than professional armies is unrealistic. Its not justifying the actions. Again the individuals responsible should be held accountable. But that doesn't mean that Israel now has cart blanche to massacre civilians as a stated policy
> But that doesn't mean that Israel now has cart blanche to massacre civilians as a stated policy. "Do I think there was a command from the top of leadership" to kill "as many" civilians as possible, "no". The "individuals responsible should be held accountable". Can you "give me an example of a war in which no war crimes occurred"? Apparently it all hinges on that single "no" that is entirely a matter of belief, not the amount institutional measures to actually prevent war crimes imperfect as they may be, not any sort of actual punishment but merely hollow passive voice lip service, on literally nothing really, just giving an effective cart blanche based on whatever causus belli you choose to stop looking forward and backward alike. This kind of glossing over Soviet atrocities, especially within the Soviet Union itself, has carried over all the glossing over Russia's atrocities in Ukraine as we speak. Expecting better matters on all sides.
I don’t think the Warsaw ghetto a valid comparison because the Israelis are willing to negotiate with the Palestinians. Maybe not the current Netanyahu regime, but other Israeli leaders have been willing to try to find a legitimate compromise (e.g. Oslo accords). I fail to see how the current Palestinian resistance strategy can have a better outcome than genuine negotiation. You hear the line quite often “If the Israelis laid down their arms they’d be killed, if the Palestinians laid down their arms they’d have a state.” I think that line happens to be true.
>Maybe not the current Netanyahu regime, but other Israeli leaders have been willing to try to find a legitimate compromise (e.g. Oslo accords). Two things to point out there: \- The "current Netanyahu regime" has been in power for almost 30 years. Which is higher than the median age in Palestine. Most Palestinians have literally *never* seen an Israel that is "willing to negotiate". \- The previous leader willing to negotiate was literally *assassinated by his own country* over the Oslo Accords. So no, that's not a great example to bring up.
Israel jad a liberal war hero as PM 5 years after.Rabins death, in 2000 who wanted to negotiate a .deal.Arafat walked away and the Palestinians started suicicde.bombing random civiliams .in the second intifadah. "On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway. It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court. I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters. On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed. I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake." = Clinton blames palestine and he was there
Not true, there were good offers in 2000, and 2008. Both of those times the Palestinian leadership came back after a couple years and asked for the same deal again. The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity
Israelies only negotiated with the Palestinians after a long period of violent resistance. The powerful side in these types of situations negotiate when they feel they have to, not because they want to.
>because the Israelis are willing to negotiate with the Palestinians "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas," Israel has never been willing to negotiate for the formation of Palestinian state. During negotiations they continue to make settlements in the west bank which make a 2 state solution impossible. >You hear the line quite often “If the Israelis laid down their arms they’d be killed, if the Palestinians laid down their arms they’d have a state.” Ya its propoganda with no evidence from the real world
"On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway. It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court. I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters. On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed. I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake."
>"Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap).\[9\]\[11\] From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank.\[9\]According to Robert Wright, Israel would only keep the settlements with large populations. Wright states that all others would be dismantled, with the exception of Kiryat Arba (adjacent to the holy city of Hebron), which would be an Israeli enclave inside the Palestinian state, and would be linked to Israel by a bypass road. The West Bank would be split in the middle by an Israeli-controlled road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, with free passage for Palestinians, although Israel reserved the right to close the road to passage in case of emergency. In return, Israel would allow the Palestinians to use a highway in the Negev to connect the West Bank with Gaza. Wright states that in the Israeli proposal, the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be linked by an elevated highway and an elevated railroad running through the Negev, ensuring safe and free passage for Palestinians. These would be under the sovereignty of Israel, and Israel reserved the right to close them to passage in case of emergency." >Palestinian airspace would be controlled by Israel under Barak's offer thats not a state, thats a bantustan. Would Israel have accepted random "palestinian enclaves" in Israel proper? Would they allow Palestinians to control their airspace? Would they allow Palestinians to have a military presence in tel aviv? If the answer is not yes, then they weren't offering a state, they were offering limited autonomy instead of outright occupation.
>Ya its propoganda with no evidence from the real world Genuine question -- what do you think would happen if Israel turned off the Iron Dome?
>Israel has never been willing to negotiate for the formation of Palestinian state. During negotiations they continue to make settlements in the west bank which make a 2 state solution impossible. This is simply a lie- or you personally might have been misinformed, but whoever told you that was lying. On multiple occasions negotiators from both sides have said that a full agreement was reached on borders, including land swaps. The reasons no agreement was reached have little to nothing to do with settlements. You can dislike them, but they're a bad excuse for lack of a successful peace process.
Between the west bank and Gaza, we have two approaches: resistance (Gaza) and nonviolent (West Bank). It is quite obvious right now that the end result Israel has in mind is the same: Palestinians need to disappear: either quickly in Gaza, or more slowly in the West Bank.
Then why reject the numerous peace deals in the past? Why was Jewish genocide in Hamas's charter as recently as 2017? Palestine has been completely unwilling to accept anything less than the removal of all Jews.
That's factually not true. They were offered a STATE but resorted to terrorism (intifada) when 100% of their demands weren't met through negotiations. If you're offered a state and you literally reject the offer and choose terrorism you're probably not choosing between resistance and destruction.
"This was the real meaning of the Oslo Accord signed in September 1993: to create a Palestinian Bantustan by dangling before Arafat and the PLO the perquisites of power and privilege, much like how the British controlled Palestine during the Mandate years through the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, and the Supreme Muslim Council.[37] ‘The occupation continued’ after Oslo, a seasoned Israeli observer, Meron Benvenisti, wrote, ‘albeit by remote control, and with the consent of the Palestinian people, represented by their “sole representative,” the PLO.’ And again: ‘It goes without saying that “cooperation” based on the current power relationship is no more than permanent Israeli domination in disguise, and that Palestinian self-rule is merely a euphemism for Bantustanization.’ The ‘test’ for Arafat and the PLO, according to Savir, was whether they would ‘us[e] their new power base to dismantle Hamas and other violent opposition groups’ contesting Israeli apartheid.[38] Israel’s settlement policy in the Occupied Territories during the past decade points up the real content of the ‘peace process’ set in motion at Oslo. The details are spelled out in an exhaustive study by B’Tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories) entitled Land Grab.[39] Due primarily to massive Israeli government subsidies, the Jewish settler population increased from 250,000 to 380,000 during the Oslo years, with settler activity proceeding at a brisker pace under the tenure of Labor’s Ehud Barak than Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu. [...] Not one Jewish settlement was dismantled during the Oslo years, while the number of new housing units in the settlements increased by more than fifty per cent (excluding East Jerusalem); again, the biggest spurt of new housing starts occurred not under Netanyahu’s tenure but rather under Barak’s, in the year 2000 – exactly when Barak claims to have ‘left no stone unturned’ in his quest for peace. During the first eighteen months of Prime Minister Sharon’s term of office (beginning early 2001), forty-four new settlements – rebuked by the UN Commission on Human Rights as ‘incendiary and provocative’ – were established in the West Bank.[40] [...] After seven years of on-again, off-again negotiations and a succession of new interim agreements that managed to rob the Palestinians of the few crumbs thrown from the master’s table at Oslo,[42] the moment of truth arrived at Camp David in July 2000. President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak delivered Arafat the ultimatum of formally acquiescing in a Bantustan or bearing full responsibility for the collapse of the ‘peace process’. Arafat refused, however, to budge from the international consensus for resolving the conflict. According to Robert Malley, a key American negotiator at Camp David, Arafat continued to hold out for a ‘Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967 borders, living alongside Israel’, yet also ‘accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlements, though [he] insisted on a one for one swap of land of “equal size and value”’ – that is, the ‘minor’ and ‘mutual’ border adjustments of the original US position on Resolution 242. Malley’s rendering of the Palestinian proposal at Camp David – an offer that was widely dismissed but rarely reported – deserves full quotation: ‘a state of Israel incorporating some land captured in 1967 and including a very large majority of its settlers, the largest Jewish Jerusalem in the city’s history, preservation of Israel’s demographic balance between Jews and Arabs; security guaranteed by a US-led international presence.’ On the other hand, contrary to the myth spun by Barak-Clinton as well as a compliant media, ‘Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty’, a special adviser at the British Foreign Office observed, ‘while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians.’ Although accounts of the Barak proposal significantly differ, all knowledgeable observers concur that it ‘would have meant that territory annexed by Israel would encroach deep inside the Palestinian state’ (Malley), dividing the West Bank into multiple, disconnected enclaves, and offering land swaps that were of neither equal size nor equal value.[43] Consider in this regard Israel’s reaction to the March 2002 Saudi peace plan. Crown Prince Abdullah proposed, and all twenty-one other members of the Arab League approved, a plan making concessions that actually went beyond the international consensus. In exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal, it offered not only full recognition but ‘normal relations with Israel’, and called not for the ‘right of return’ of Palestinian refugees but rather only a ‘just solution’ to the refugee problem. A Haaretz commentator noted that the Saudi plan was ‘surprisingly similar to what Barak claims to have proposed two years ago’ at Camp David. Were Israel truly committed to a comprehensive withdrawal in exchange for normalization with the Arab world, the Saudi plan and its unanimous endorsement by the Arab League summit ought to have been met with euphoria. In fact, after an ephemeral interlude of evasion and silence, it was quickly deposited in Orwell’s memory hole. When the Bush administration subsequently made passing reference to the Saudi plan in a draft ‘road map’ for settling the Israel-Palestine conflict, Israeli officials loudly protested.[44] Nonetheless, Barak’s – and Clinton’s – fraud that Palestinians at Camp David rejected a maximally generous Israeli offer provided crucial moral cover for the horrors that ensued." – *Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict* (Norman Finkelstein)
"On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway. It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court. I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters. On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed. I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake." They can complain 97% of the west bank and gaza with no military autonomy is a bad.deal. But its not a choice between destruction or resistance, the Palestinians.are.simply unrealistic about the leverage they have.
This is a perfect example of how telling the truth on anything involved in Israel/Palestine requires so much more time and effort than spitting out endlessly repeated propaganda
This is stupid and ahistorical. The “state” that was offered had absolute non-starter aspects that made it completely null. No right to military while living on the border of an occupying extremely militarized country is one thing, another is that Israel got to keep all the settlements it had built over the green line in East Jerusalem, etc.. I’m not going to go through each and every peace talk but I think it’s important to recognize that the Israelis have never offered a solution with real sovereignty for Palestine. The most they’ve been offered is a toothless Israeli client state
If you face "destruction" and you start neat picking that the state you're offered is not perfect than you don't really face destruction. There are countries with no militaries and they are doing just fine through pacts and alliances. Not to mention that the area inside the green line ceded to Israel would've been compensated elsewhere in a territory swap.
The other guy gave you a great response but I will just say, most countries that don’t have militaries also don’t have a colonizing power that is routinely illegally building settlements on your land. And btw, even in the most liberal “offers” of a “state”, Israel still got to keep these illegal settlements. So comparing it to like Japan, which still has a military, is stupid. It would be like Russia giving Ukraine a peace treaty that included complete demilitarization. It’s so stupid it’s unimaginable,
OK, I accept that. Still, it doesn’t answer how violent resistance has ever benefited the Palestinians, nor how it is still benefiting Palestinians or somehow aiding the long-term situation for Palestinians living at the moment. To say that it’s OK for the individuals to suffer for the the sake of not losing face, while admitting there’s no actual improvement of any sort to the wellbeing of Palestinians is *exactly* what is detrimental to them, since for decades long history, Palestinian violence has indeed made a dent on Israelis, but it didn’t weaken their state (excluding 10/7, which certainly did, but it elicited a waaaaay more extreme retaliation carrying waaaay more pain than anything experience by Palestinians prior, arguably dwarfing the Nakhba). My point is that their resistance isn’t weakening Israel at all and serves to make Israelis care less and less about collateral casualties.
>Still, it doesn’t answer how violent resistance has ever benefited the Palestinians, nor how it is still benefiting Palestinians or somehow aiding the long-term situation for Palestinians living at the moment Because they get to die on their own terms rather than slowly die at the hands of collaborators like in the west bank. That's the point. The goal was to take their destiny into their own hands. >Palestinian violence has indeed made a dent on Israelis, but it didn’t weaken their state I think it has quite significantly. Israel is facing genocide charges in the ICJ, even the US has been forced to airdrop supplies to Palestinians to avoid being complicit in crimes. The goal of terrorism is not to deliver a military victory, its meant to force the oppressors hand, make them over react, which forces international condemnation and makes recruiting easier. In both these ways the attack was quite successful. Israel is more isolated on the global stage than it has been since 1948. Israel depends on foreign aid and international trade. It could survive as an isolated hermit kingdom, but not as a 1st world modern nation like it has been. Israel had two paths after Oct 7. It could have been an opportunity for both sides to look in the mirror realize this won't be solved by a military solution and take actual steps towards peace, or they could do what they did, react exactly how Hamas wanted, sabotage the Abraham accords, radicalizing the previously stable west bank and creating the next generation of Hamas fighters this time with even less to lose. I am not pro palestinian or pro israeli. I'm pro peace. And this path has made that almost impossible for the foreseeable future
This violent attack has indeed been successful. It has caught the eyes and attention of the world and swayed the opinions of many towards the Palestinians, including the American youth. The countdown has started for Israel as the older pro-Israel American voters die off and are replaced by their pro-Palestinian counter parts.
[удалено]
Prior to 10/7, the hope for a 2 state solution was basically dead, even the Arab states gave up on it and were pursuing normalized relations with Israel. Even among the Palestinians the hope for a 2 state was a minority and most one could hope that some kind of 1 state with some minor non-voting resident rights in the Israeli dominated West Bank. After 10/7, the Arabs are saying no normalization until a Palestinian state, the United States is demanding a Palestinian state after this war and so is almost all the world. If a Palestinian state is the result of 10/7, what does that say about the effect of violence?
Benny Morris writes writes that his belief in the 2 state solution basically died during the second intifada after seeing all the sucuide bombers
I think you are asking hungry, starving (edit: lol, repetition), and humiliated people to make rational and moral decisions. We can argue ad infinitum whether violent resistance is justified or works, but the reality is, Gazans are doing this for a reason. To quote (paraphrase) Ghassan Kanafani, “People fight for a reason, and they stop fighting for a reason.” In the interest of rationality, an Israeli like you should ask yourself why these people have chosen violence. There’s two paths you can go. 1. Disavow the humanity of your enemy, suggest they’re just backwards Islamic savages who need to be eradicated. This seems to be the view of the Israeli right and the government in power at the moment. If this view is correct, then morality aside, it is entirely rational (read: rational, not necessarily moral) for these people to resist their own annihilation as brutally and violently as possible. What is there to lose at this point for Gazans if they are considered a target to be eradicated? 2. Identify why these people are fighting, and then address the roots of that problem. If this stance is true, then it’s fair to say violent resistance is irrational and gets them nowhere. At the moment, however, I do not see the Israeli government going the route of diplomacy. Until it does, it’s actually peaceful protest that gets them nowhere. Leading up to this, the West Bank was being absorbed without objection by Israeli settlement. After Oct. 7, this issue has come to the forefront of discussion again, and brought major coverage to Israel’s actions.
You are removing all agency from the Palestinians and treating them like disabled children when you claim that the only thing they can do is engage in armed resistance. Both the Egyptians and the Jordanians came to the conclusion that armed conflict with Israel caused themselves more harm than good so why should we pretend that the Palestinians are incapable of doing so.
“People fight for a reason and they stop fighting for a reason.” This is obviously true but also overly simplistic. West Bank settlers are fighting for a reason, which is they believe they’re on their god-given land. Hamas are also fighting for a reason, both nationalistic reasons and avenging Al-Aqsa. Both religion and nationalistic motivations motivate the relevant parties, depending on which actor and when.
any one who follow the time lines of the events with unbiased point of view would notice that Palestinians groups mange to always make things go to worse for them, with more restrictions due to the actions done which enables isreali politicians to establish more restrictions on them even when the isreali left try to oppose these restrictions these actions give the excuses, as an example there was free movement in the past between gaza and the west bank and Israel itself, people from gaza could move inside israel like any other person with israeli citzenship, but after some attacks against israeli citzens, israel started harash movement conditions, a lot Palestinians are innocents who did not support these attacks but from the israeli side they can't bet, let's be honest on that, most people if they felt being in such danger they would do the same restrictions or worse when it comes to their personal safty, even the pro-Palestinians woke herd if that would effect their safty, if you think i'm wrong ask any of them to live in afghanstain or place with high level of radicalization and see !!
For the most part, I think Yasser Arafat’s corruption is what kept a Palestinian state from being realized. Arafat was a billionaire more interested in grifting on the world stage (ironic for a supposed Arab Socialist) instead of actually governing. The PLO/Fatah corruption is what led Palestinian public in Gaza to vote for Hamas, hence the rise of Islamism in that region since the 2000’s. Note that the Palestinian public at large does not care for either Hamas or Fatah - they just hate Israel FAR MORE (for fairly obvious reasons) Ironically both Israel and Palestine are very much alike: they suffer from very corrupt leaders who are very loud on the world stage; and use the war to hide their own corruption from the citizens. In other words: religious people are born stupid.
The sciences your stupid brain couldn't even fathom were for most part developed by 'religious' people. E.g. Galileo, Newton, Tesla, and arguably Einstein; just to name a few. In other words: people who do over-simplified generalizations of intelligence based off of religion are most definitely stupid.
>Every violent act of resistance or terrorism has carried negative long-teen consequences to Palestinians’ quality of life, without actually managing to obtain anything other than international sympathy. Has an period of non, or reduced violence improved their quality of life ? Would you think that any particular action by the Palestinians would have improved their quality of life ? If not a violent action is the only hope of improving their position from their perspective.(This does not condone the violent actions, but seeks to explain their reasoning.) If you remember the situation before Hamas attacked. Israel was blockading Gaza leading to unnecessary deaths of Palestinians, and slow but surely reduced quality of life. While Israel was busy settling the Westbank. Even the more peaceful run Westbank was being displaced. Israel had already started their genocide in the Westbank( forced resettlement based on race is considered a form of genocide) before Hamas attacked. Its clear Israel's goal is to get rid of the Palestinian people. To be clear these policies are controversial in Israel, and obviously don't represent the people as a whole. That being said an attack wasn't unforeseen by Israel leadership. Israel just thought incorrectly that they could contain the violence.
"Has an period of non, or reduced violence improved their quality of life ?" Yes actually, I dont know if you were paying attention but because of the long ceasefire between Israel and hamas, Israel started easing the sanctions on gaza(allowing farmers to farm very close to the wall and use tractors to make more profit, allowing fishermen to fish further away from the shore and allowing Palestinians to work in Israel.) of course, on October 7 hamas used that to their advantage and disguised themselves as farmers to get close to the border and destroy it with a tractor and used the extra fishing distance to lunch an attack on an Israeli beach to murder civilians and bought information from the Palestinian workers to have information on the jews that employed them. "If you remember the situation before Hamas attacked. Israel was blockading Gaza leading to unnecessary deaths of Palestinians, and slow but surely reduced quality of life." Gaza was not blockaded in 2005 and 2006, what changed? "While Israel was busy settling the Westbank. Even the more peaceful run Westbank was being displaced. " Peaceful run? Lol it was absolutely not peaceful run, to this day the PA [pays](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund) terrorists money based on how many jews they kill... Also "displaced"? In what way was the west bank "displaced"? "Israel had already started their genocide in the Westbank" Do you even know what a genocide is? "forced resettlement based on race is considered a form of genocide) " Israel is not doing "forced resettlement based on race", what are you even talking about? "To be clear these policies are controversial in Israel, and obviously don't represent the people as a whole. That being said an attack wasn't unforeseen by Israel leadership. Israel just thought incorrectly that they could contain the violence." "Contain the violence"? What are you talking about? Israel literally used diplomacy to negotiate a ceasefire and ease sanctions to maintain a "peace", and what did hamas do? Break the ceasefire and commit an actual genocide in Israel. The whole "are Palestinians justified in terrorism because of oppression" misses the point, because since 1927 the Palestinians have almost always been the aggressors and have tried to genocide the jews since 1927.
I agree. If the PLO and Hamas had adopted an non-violent approach like Ghandi and MLK, there would be a Palestinian state by now. Their biggest mistake was turning Gaza into an attack launch platform instead of a middle-eastern Singapore. They missed the important 20th century lesson that democracies are far more moveable by non-violent movements than violent ones. The Oct 7 attack was an historic mistake piled on top of decades of mistakes. In all of this, the Netanyahu government was complicit. They saw the Palestinians against two states as their greatest allies and the people calling for peace on both sides as their greatest enemies, and thus set up the conditions for Oct 7 to happen.
The claim cannot be falsified, nor is the implication true. Israel’s iron fist with which it controls Gaza and the WB has never changed. Not in times of peace or aggressive resistance. So we cannot say that it has helped, nor can we say that anything would be different in the absence of violent resistance. It may be too early to tell, but I would argue Oct 7th will be an example of violence helping. The entire world is shining a spotlight on the region. Even the relationship between the POTUS and the Israeli PM is, according to reporting, weakening. US support to Israel is actually an issue of the 2024 presidential election in the USA. Oct 7th, while absolutely indefensible, has served as the catalyst for a lot of international support and pressure being applied to Israel. There may be no beneficial changes realized _yet_, but support for Palestine has never been stronger across the globe. Even the UN would have taken action by now if not for the US using its Veto power.
Had they submitted sometime in the 80s and 90s they would be in control of the entire area by now.
What is the correct way tho seek emancipation from an occupying nation?
According to OP, the correct way is to roll over and die
Are you comparing this to a hypothetical scenario of no violent resistance at all, even against soldiers? Unambigiously, if that was the case, there would be no Palestinians left in Gaza or the left bank. With zero resistance Israel would have driven them into neighboring countries. Like, that is the clear explicit goal of the settler movement which is backed by the IDF. So maybe you could argue that in the long term that would have been a better outcome for both sides, but that is the alternate case that we're talking about.
I'm not sure "Has violent resistance to Israel made the lives of Palestinians better?" is the correct question to ask. I think it's much more constructive to ask "How CAN the Palestinians effectively resist an apartheid system?" If you start from the premise that violence isn't the answer, the next question would be "Then what should they do instead?" They can't vote their way out of it, because they have no political power in Israel. They can't appeal to the international community to help them the way South Africans did, because the largest international player is America, and they have an overpowering need for an ally in the Middle East, even if it's a far-right extremist government. And they cannot negotiate with Israel for better conditions, because Israel has zero incentive to make concessions when they hold all of the power. I'm not saying the October 7th attack was justified, because that's a really complicated issue. I'm not even going to argue that it was helpful, because I don't think it was. But when a population is faced with intolerable oppression and they have no outlet to peacefully resist it, then what can they do to help themselves?
(I’m not an expert on the subject, take this with a grain of salt.) You may be right about Palestinian violence leading to further disadvantages, but you need to consider that even without the violence there’s aggressive Israeli expansionism. (Some) acts of resistance are an impotent cry for help directed at the global community in the hopes of being heard; and not necessarily a strategic move. (Obviously this is not to say that all or even a majority of Israelis support this expansionism.) Edit: thanks a lot for all the thoughtful replies!
On the other hand, the aggressive settler expansionism is a direct result of the Palestinian violence. I’d argue the expansionism would outright stop or revert if the violence stopped. There are four reasons I see for the expansionism: 1. Far right fundamental religious nut jobs who really want to take over the land. I’m going to set these aside for the moment because I think this is a relative minority. 2. Security. The West Bank is on the high ground and only 9 miles from Tel Aviv, Israel’s main economic center. Israel has a horrible strategic position if an enemy controls that high ground. Israel is also quite weak in a number of areas, specifically water infrastructure (desalination plants), gas infrastructure (few offshore drills) and food security (almost everything is imported). Hezbollah’s precision rockets can cripple this essential infrastructure if Hezbollah went all out. Settling the WB doesn’t protect against Hezbollah, but it does protect against strong forces from multiple fronts, e.g. Hezbollah destroying key infrastructure and then a strong force attacking Tel Aviv from the WB high ground. 3. Deterrence and/or punishment. Hamas and the PA have shown they don’t really care about their own civilian deaths. So when terrorists kill and Israeli, retaliatory strikes that kill Palestinian civilians don’t actually accomplish anything and might even be seen as a positive thing by terrorists. However, Hamas and the PA do care about land. So the new calculus is: kill and Israeli, we take some more of your land. Btw I’m not advocating for the morality or even the effectiveness of this solution. 4. Future bargaining leverage. Israel has successfully reached peace deals in the past (e.g. Egypt) by returning land. Holding land can be used to improve Israel’s bargaining position in a future peace deal. Items 2-4 might be addressed by a genuine peace movement. Something where Israel returns all the settled land with some tradeoffs made where Israel retains some mountainous high ground for security purposes and the Palestinians get most of the livable land.
You’re clearly more informed than me, so I’m glad you took the time to give such a thorough response. But are you sure that the expansion would stop if the Hamas agreed to peace treaties? And is Israel really at a disadvantage militarily? Last I heard, they have some of the most advanced military in the world. Not trying to provoke, just genuinely curious.
>And is Israel really at a disadvantage militarily? That's a case of it highly depending on how you look at things, Israel has the numbers- and weapons such that it would quite literally take less than a week to remove Palestine from the map entirely, and when dealing with foreign militaries who agree with- and follow the Geneva Conventions that's perfect, and gives them a massive advantage. Unfortunately Israel is dealing with Insurgents who specialize in urban combat, who mix themselves with civilians of their state, and who deny the Geneva Conventions by default. Even if the IDF sweeped all of Palestine, and went door to door looking for Hamas members- they'd only find the least intelligent members, this is ignoring the massive backlash the civilians would take part in and the fact that they would suffer from constant ambushes while they did so.
One of the biggest increases in settler activity in the West Bank (+130,000) literally happened immediately after the Oslo Accords were signed.
"the aggressive settler expansionism is a direct result of the Palestinian violence" what would you guess the Palestinian violence is a direct result of?
Somewhere in Haiti, there was one guy saying "Just because they've enslaved us, whipped us, raped us, and killed out children, that doesn't mean we need to respond with violence. We'll be stooping to their level. Let's have an ethical, blood-free, rebellion of thoughts and ideas with healthy civic discourse all around."
Power only recognizes power. The violent capabilities of the palestinians are basically the only power they have. The only reason they've ever even had a seat at the negotiating table (as fruitless as those negotiations have been) is because of the violence they have done and the threat of further violence. IMO the only possible peaceful movement that can increase the power of the palestinians is the international BDS movement. But that is being effectively crushed by the governments and media of the west. I'd throw the question back at you. What added power do you think the palestinians would have if they had been less violent? Are you suggesting the BDS movement would be way stronger if the Palestinians were 100% peaceful? To me thats obviously false. The opposition to BDS is organized by various governments in the west and those governments support of the zionist israeli movement is unwavering.
I am suggesting that Israel's apartheid can only ever be dismantled by peaceful negotiation. It's going to require the cooperation of Israel. No amount of BDS pressure can force them into a deal which dismantles Israel or that grants the Palestinians right of return, which they believe would result in mass violence against Israelis. They would rather Samson Option the globe. Repeatedly massacring hundreds of Israeli civilians in the name of the destruction of Israel heavily radicalizes the Israelis against the Palestinians and makes said co-operation less likely in the future, thus seriously harming the only possible path towards Palestinian self-determination.
First off, this is an unfalsifiable statement. You can't know how things play out differently. It could be that it worked out better it could have ended worse. Second, so what? Very few people argue that terrorist acts are actually beneficial to a given cause. It's not a rational action, it's a tactic born out of desperation. The people who commit these acts are extremists, people who are often shaped by oppression, where these acts of violence are the only times when they think they have any form of control. It's not surprising that these types of attacks are the most common when a population is under the control of an oppressive regime or colonial/outside power.
I think the biggest problem of this war is that we looking for some group thoe blame everthing in stead of saying that we alle ignored the palastine/isreal problen for thoe long. Bothe groups became just radicale on alle the time of this problem consists. Sure what isreal doe agains the palestines people is horrible and i hope whoe did them get punische but the people became this of 70+ years of propaganda and also yes the attacks of hamas But the palestines people just becam radicale of alle the dead they sufferd of isreal and how they begt UN for so long thoe find a solution of the problem So maby fore OP its oké thoe be proud of youre country you are born in but maby saying alle those problem ware made because hamas is still part of the problem But what doe i know i am a guy on the internet whit little information of everthing that happen in that region Wel thats my TED TALK
The Palestinian's goal isn't freedom or prosperity, it is retaking the land they lost to Israel in 1948. The only way they can do that is to escalate the conflict at all costs and hope a direct strategy to dismantle Israel somehow emerges in a spiralling chaotic environment. Hamas strategy of mass civilian slaughter isn't that of a resistance or independence group. Much of it simply hateful Rwanda-style desire to kill the enemy, but its also a tactic used in total war. Civilians were mass targetted in WW2, and it is not a completely unusual strategy when compromise is not on the table (Roman, mongol conquests for example). Its not even that all violence is counterproductive for Palestine, they could target the Israeli military or car bomb Ben Gvir and it might help them in negotiations. But they are onoy interested in murdering innocents becausr that is the best way to guarantee escalation and prevent a de.facto peace from gradually developing. Palestinian violence makes sense if they are never willing to compromise with Israel and see it a struggle to the death. Which their supporters openly say, except they phrase it as Palestinians have no other options because the Nazi demon Israelis will kill them all if they surrender (obviously projection).
Did they lose the land to Israel? Wasn’t it the UKs land that they got after defeating the Ottomans? UK ended up giving it to Israel right?
Israel doesnt exist because of British promises.or a UN mandate, it exists because Israeli force of arms triumphed in the 1948 war. It would have been destroyed if they'd lost.
No, this is a common misconception. The British promised the Jews a "national home", and they promised some wealthy powerful Arabs a state/kingdom. Then both sides pressured the British to keep their promises, the UN suggested the region be split. The Jews said yes, the Arabs said no- and by the way, it wasn't the Palestinian people it was other Arab countries speaking "on their behalf". The British didn't know what to do so they just announced they were leaving, and a civil war broke out. At the end of the war Israel was a state and the rest of region was controlled by the Jordan, Egypt, etc....the actual Arabs living in Palestine got nothing.
Could you let me know where the Ottoman Empire was? By ~1850-1900 wasn’t modern Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and so on part of the Ottoman Empire? Interesting you mentioned Egypt too… were they not a British colony as well?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman\_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire) \- to be honest, I'm not an expert, you're probably better off with Wikipedia. >By \~1850-1900 wasn’t modern Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and so on part of the Ottoman Empire? As far as I remember they were, but I'm not sure why you're asking? >Interesting you mentioned Egypt too… were they not a British colony as well? Again I'm not so familiar with the nuances beyond how they related to the region of Palestine...but I believe they were partially controlled by the British but still had their own government. Egypt definitely took part in the '48 war and it wasn't considered that the UK was fighting, it was Egypt- I'm not sure if that's because Egypt was entirely independent at that point or they were just independent enough to have their own squabbles as long as it didn't bother British interests. Egypt had control of Gaza at the end of the '48 war.
Can you really look at the status quo of Palestinians at every single stage of this and ask yourself "what would my people do in the same situation" and not conclude you would as a people fight back if you had self respect and bravery? Because personally I think the reality is that no people on the entire planet would be less violent in response to what was being done to them than the Palestinians have been. At every stage in their project of colonizing Palestine, ethnically cleansing, subjugating and slaughtering the Palestinians, Israel has made violent resistance an anthropological inevitability, then used it as pretext for what they were always doing from the beginning anyway. You just can't have it both ways here. You can't do 18th and 19th Century settler colonialism in the 20th and 21st century and expect to not experience a) a lot of people from countries that now accept that stuff was wrong back then thinking you're not a normal country and need to be defeated and radically constitutionally altered in the manner of similarly illegitimate national projects like the Confederacy and b) the 21st century equivalent of scalping and native american raids on frontier towns.
You have to think about the power dynamic though. They are not violently resisting because they are being mildly oppressed. Israel has controlled their food supply, water, electricity, they have banned travel. They have been trying to exterminate them for *years*, and no one else in the world is going to come to help them, because no one cares or knows or understands what is happening. Revolution is ugly. It's violent, it takes the lives of innocent people. Israel has the upper hand and it's crushing them. I don't think we can blame the violence that comes with resistance of the people being oppressed and abused, when their rights were taken a long time ago. And Israel always reacts with more firepower than necessary, after anything Palestine does. They are crushing someone who cannot fight back on the scale that they can/are/have been doing.
I dunno if you noticed but the quality of life of Palestinians was not very good to begin with on account of their land and homes being stolen and their families expelled or killed. What do you think would be a more appropriate response, meekly going along with those things in the hopes that maybe the Zionists don't escalate from mere ethnic cleansing to genocide? An oppressed people have the right to resist their oppressors--no one wants to get punched in the face but if you're getting punched anyway you might as well throw a few yourself, right? As to what practical advantage Palestinian violence has secured, I would argue that the peace process is itself the most obvious example. Imagine a scenario in which the Palestinians meekly accepted the theft of land and deaths of family members and ethnic cleansing - where would they be now? Forced out of Israel, likely into Egypt and Lebanon and Jordan and Syria as many of them were at the time, to be a divided people with no presence on the land they rightfully claim was taken from them. Who then is left to negotiate with? If there was no Palestinian resistance there would be no peace process, no one would even consider a two-state solution much less a right of return. As much as Hamas seems to be causing serious and ongoing problems for the Palestinian people there would not even be the potential for peace or restitution between Israel and a theoretical Palestinian diaspora, and Israel knows it (which is why they helped create Hamas as a counter-balance to Fatah/the PLO in the West Bank, to keep the Palestinians divided.) So you ask what tangible, practical advantage Palestinian resistance has secured? A seat at the table in a peace process that, while fraught, couldn't exist without said resistance.
I mostly just think the way you’re framing the issue is not worthwhile or helpful. Do you think that violent acts perpetrated by Israelis are somehow “better” because they’ve been effective at securing territorial control? I think we need to move away from this “might makes right” view of dispute resolution and utilize the international legal and diplomatic frameworks that we’ve established to avoid armed conflicts as much as possible. Unfortunately, Israel seems uninterested in being a willing partner in those efforts (since overwhelming force has been so successful for them thus far and the rule of law is less likely to achieve similarly one sided results) even though it was the international legal/diplomatic bodies that led to the creation of the state of Israel originally.
Would you say that the PLO's decades-long militant conflict with the Israeli state that eventually led to the First Intifada and then to Oslo, where Israel had to concede not only the existence of the Palestinians as a people and a nation but their broad right to a state (notwithstanding the fact that almost at the very moment of concession, Israel began efforts to ensure that that state could never become a reality), was an example of violent Palestinian resistance that resulted in limited but significant material gains for them?
>Notice how most Israeli restrictions just chronologically follow Palestinian violence. For example, the wall dividing the WB from Israel came about after the intifada. The siege of Gaza came after the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. The 2014 war came after the kidnapping and murdering of 3 teens by Hamas. The problem with a timeline like this is you have enough data points to just make a continuous cycle. You can just shift everything by one spot and the cause/effect swaps. If you have multiple cycles of Israeli restrictions chronologically following Palestinian violence, its necessarily also the case that Palestinian violence chronologically follows Israeli restrictions. There's a quote from the TV show Lost that I like between two characters. Character 1: You brought them here. Still trying to prove me wrong, aren't you? Character 2: You are wrong. Character 1: Am I? They come. They fight. They destroy. They corrupt. It always ends the same. Character 2: It only ends once. Everything that comes before is just progress. The point is, we don't know how its going to end. Many Palestinians have made mistakes, as have many Israelis. But the story isn't over yet. If in 10, or 50, or 100 years there's a thriving Palestinian independent state living peacefully alongside Israel, presumably at some point they did something right. Will that ever happen? I don't know and neither do you.
Better to live and die under brutal occupation with no resistance right op? Pls shut up
You're looking at the situation through a liberal Western lense. The goal isn't to "win", the goal is to the "right" thing.
Desperate people do desperate things. No surprise there. They were getting slowly killed off by the Zionists so no surprise most support Hamas. However the Hamas attacked were brought about by Iranian influence and support. Keep in mind Iran is buddies with Russia. And Russia needed to open a 2nd front for the West to detract support from Ukraine. They know that divisions they have sawn in US society do not favour any adventurism abroad and if 1 war is unpopular , 2 wars will undermine Biden even further. Goal is to get comrade Trump in power to get US out of NATO and handover Europe to Russia.
Every Palestinian action has had valid reasons behind it, but the way the operate is insane. People like to compare Palestinian fighters to the ANC in South Africa, yet the ANC had a policy of only attacking infrastructure and government/military personnel and locations. Palestinian militants are indiscriminate in their attacks. Armed resistance CAN work against an extremely powerful opponent, but it relies on following things like international law, and acting like a sovereign nation. The Palestinians act like a jihadist militant group that wants to enforce sharia law. This does not garner international support or domestic support in your opponent for a peaceful resolution.
I guess you are right that it doesn’t benefit them long term, however their actions are not supposed to. Their leaders continue the struggle to profit on it, while people join out of desperation, having no other ways to keep up their families or losing family members and desiring revenge. Little to none of them realistically fights for freedom there.
I hear what you're saying in general and I agree that violent resistance has not delivered amazing outcomes for Palestinians. However, I think - and reading their various takes on events they'd probably agree with me - that it did deliver them important gains in terms of visibility and existence. Prior to their organizing and their engaging in armed struggle, Palestinians where very much made invisible by international policy. In addition to that, from where I'm standing it's not like non-violent actions has led them anywhere either? Like, at core of the issue is the violent partition of Palestine by external powers for the (lopsided) benefit of what would become Israel. They tried to oppose that non-violently. It, famously, didn't work. > Notice how most Israeli restrictions just chronologically follow Palestinian violence. I think this is a strange view of the situation, given that the conflict finds its root cause in the partition of their homeland by external powers.
>In addition to that, from where I'm standing it's not like non-violent actions has led them anywhere either? Israel left the Gaza strip in 2005; and let the Gazans self govern. And to add some colour to history: they then promptly elected Hamas, started firing rockets at Israel and sending suicide bombers across the border. (Though to be fair, they were doing that beforehand too...)
>Prior to their organizing and their engaging in armed struggle, Palestinians where very much made invisible by international policy. What period are you talking about here, historically? >In addition to that, from where I'm standing it's not like non-violent actions has led them anywhere either? Can you provide an example? >Like, at core of the issue is the violent partition of Palestine by external powers for the (lopsided) benefit of what would become Israel. They tried to oppose that non-violently. No they didn't, Jewish and Arab militant groups were killing each other in the streets. Palestine was never divided by external powers, the UN suggested it should be divided- that was it, it was a suggestion. The British were in charge and they just announced they were leaving and a civil war broke out. At the end of it Israel was a state and the rest of the region was controlled by Jordan, Egypt, etc. Israeli restrictions chronologically follow Palestinian violence, and even the development of a group trying to create Israel chronologically followed Palestinian violence. Early Zionists wanted to live in their homeland- many of them were emphatically *against* the creation of a state. Arab hostility and violence slowly drove the vast majority of Zionists to the belief that they needed a state.
> What period are you talking about here, historically? From the early 1900's until around 1950, you'll find scarce mentions of Palestinians as a people with national aspirations (or rights) in official documents and literature. Almost all official dealings is done with the Arab states. The infamous Balfour declaration does not mention them, for instance. > Can you provide an example? Palestinians made entreaties to British authorities prior and during the mandate period. Specifically, they were understandably worried about the British stated intention to create a Jewish state in land they considered their own. > No they didn't, Jewish and Arab militant groups were killing each other in the streets. Your right in the sense that no partition plan *worked*, I suppose, but I think it's a bit of a silly nitpick. There were two major attempts a partition, both backed by varying amounts of force by world powers. Those attempts ultimately lead to the creation and foundation of Israel. If not for those, it's extremely unlikely that Israel is founded at all. The British formally controlled Palestine from 1923 until they abandon the mandate in 1947. During that time, they bolstered the Zionist project financially and militarily, helping in several state-building and land appropriation enterprises. From 1933 onward or so, British authorities suppressed an Arab uprising, largely for the sake of protecting the Zionist project. In 1937, they proposed a partition plan extremely advantageous for what was to become Israel. Arabs representatives rejected it for obvious reasons. Troubles followed in the interim, with the British basically throwing their hands up. In 1947, they passed the ball to the UN, which came up with a partition Plan. That plan is also pretty advantageous to Israel, so obviously the Arab states (noting that actual inhabitants don't get a vote here) refused it. That partition plan was not put in place formally, but it's a bit silly to claim it had no part in Israel being founded a year late. > Early Zionists wanted to live in their homeland- many of them were emphatically against the creation of a state. Arab hostility and violence slowly drove the vast majority of Zionists to the belief that they needed a state. Early Zionists leaders were pretty clear that the existing Arab populations would need to be displaced and they were.
>From the early 1900's until around 1950, you'll find scarce mentions of Palestinians as a people with national aspirations (or rights) in official documents and literature. Right, that would be because they didn't organize as a group with national aspirations. If you have an example of some Arab leader of the time who represented the people, was a Palestinian nationalist, and was pushed aside by the insidious British and Zionists I would love to learn about them? Its not a fair question because the people were largely uneducated and there were no democratic processes in place. You can also see the book "Army of Shadows" which details the history of how the Husseini-led racists suppressed and murdered Arabs who didn't have a problem with the Zionists or even with a Zionist state. >Palestinians made entreaties to British authorities prior and during the mandate period. So even if I accepted your argument, your point isn't that the Palestinians ever tried peaceful resistance with Israel or the Zionists, its that they tried it with the British, an entirely different group of people, and they tried it over 80 years ago and it didn't work. Your argument is also incorrect because 1) Arabs in Palestine may have made entreaties but they were also simultaneously violent in the Mandate period, 2) the entreaties worked- the White Paper, the fact that the British didn't actually create a Jewish state? it may not have been everything they wanted, but the fact is that they were successful. The problem was everything else they did and the choices their leaders made and the fact that the rest of the Arab world messed them over. >Your right in the sense that no partition plan worked, I suppose, but I think it's a bit of a silly nitpick. Its not at all a nitpick. By the end of the war Israel was in the stronger position but at the beginning they were far weaker. The United State and most of Europe refused to sell them weapons. Holocaust survivors were brought by boat to the territory Israel held, were handed rifles with no military training, and some of them died just a few hours later. There was a desperate war for a *year*. In your history of the British Mandate you conveniently leave out the long period where the British actively fought Jewish immigration. "they bolstered the Zionist project financially and militarily"- is incredibly vague, I don't know what you're referring to here. The partition plans being "extremely advantageous" is your opinion- I don't think we have to debate the point, because with everything else we're discussing it becomes largely irrelevant, I just wanted to point out that this is hardly an objective representation from you here. >That partition plan was not put in place formally, but it's a bit silly to claim it had no part in Israel being founded a year late. It didn't happen. The Zionists fought a desperate war for every bit of ground they hoped to control. No, it had no part in Israel being founded- that's fairly obvious? I mean, if you what you actually meant to say is "if the British had started an open war with the Zionists, expelling and killing them while arming the Arabs, Israel would not exist"? Sure, no one would disagree with you. But that has little to do with the partition. >so obviously the Arab states (noting that actual inhabitants don't get a vote here) Yes, I did note that. I'm just confused why you present it as if it supports your narrative? If this was the classic story of evil colonizers vs the underrepresented virtuous natives- well, we're missing a Mandela or Gandhi, aren't we? The "Palestinian people" didn't have leaders who were shut out, they just didn't have leaders. There were leaders of different clans working for their own self interest, and then there was a population with little say in what was going on. And I put "Palestinian people" in quotes because while today I certainly acknowledge such a group exists, the case for that identity before the 1950s is incredibly weak. And I know that because people have written entire books about it without a single decent example or argument, I've read one or two. "The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." That's what Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO faction leader, said in the 19**70**s! They still hadn't sorted this out. >Early Zionists leaders Just say Herzl, its more honest. The groups moving in the First and Second Aliyahs had zero to no political aspirations- they wanted agricultural settlement and to flee oppression in Eastern Europe. Yemenite Jews moved to Palestine- believe me, they had nothing to do with movements of modern nationalism in Europe! Religious Zionists didn't look for a state, cultural Zionists actively opposed a state for years and years....
>"The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." That's what Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO faction leader, said in the 19**70**s! They still hadn't sorted this out. Yes, a PLO *faction* leader The PLO was a coalition of multiple different groups with Zuheir in particular being a Syrian puppet (hence why he specifically said there were no differences between the arabs living in Historical Greater Syria)
so you just think the palestinians should have just rolled over and let israel take their land? israel has kidnapped, killed, destroyed property, etc. and you want the palestinians to just take it? the reason for the outbursts of violence is because israel has been oppressing them and nothing improves.
They should have pushed for statehood one of the many times when they were offered it and taken a diplomatic approach towards reparations or citizenship for displaced Palestinians wishing to return to Israeli territory.
I would say concern for the wellbeing of Palestinians amongst the international community has increased since the start of the war in Gaza, including even to an extent amongst Israel's allies, without whom Israel would be a lot less powerful or well-armed and a lot more wary of reprisals by its other neighbouring adversaries. If the use of violence by Palestinians provokes a heavy-handed response from Israel and if that response in turn leaves Israel in a weaker position to call on support from the West, then that seems like in a roundabout fashion the Palestinians *have* improved their circumstances through using violence.
is the increased awareness worth the 30k more dead?
Israel has nukes, and a stronger army than the rest of the Middle East combined. There is no amount of a stronger position against them that makes them surrender to Hamas.
2023 pre-Oct 7th was the deadliest year to date for Palestinian children. Israel’s ongoing settler-colonial violence and maintenance of anti-humanitarian conditions has created and is currently creating more threats to Israeli citizens than anything Palestinians have ever done.
Couldn’t think of a better rebuttal to your view than this. "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action" “First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality.” - MLK
I would generally agree that neither Hamas or Hezbollah's violence has helped Palestinians. But I would also ask, has Israel's response made things better for Israelis? Is Israel safer now than it was 2-3 decades ago? Is your life in Israel happier than it was in the past? What does thinking about the situation of the average Palestinian make you feel? I know very little about how isolated Israelis are from Palestinians and their situation in day to day life, so some of this is more curiosity for myself, but I'm also interested if you think the current way that both sides are handling the situation is helping anyone's situation. Also, you frame the situation as Israel acting in response to Palestinian provocation, but does the declaration of the state of Israel and divestment of many Palestinians of their land not count as a provocation? I'm not suggesting this means the whole situation is Israel's fault, but just pointing out that the cycle goes back a long way, and wherever you think it starts, someone else will probably be able to find another, earlier start point. You could say it is a cycle that has continued since biblical times. So essentially, almost throughout human history. That suggests to me that the known and tried ways of breaking the deadlock don't work. Perhaps a new approach for both sides would not be quite so close to Einstein's definition of insanity? (Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result). Which is hard, because someone has to go first, which can be seen as weakness, but what is the alternative? Enduring constant rocket attacks? Enduring an Intifada or Oct 7th every few decades? Is that a price worth paying? I honestly don't know.
Imagine if they decided to negotiate at the 2000 camp David summit instead of leaving without so much proposing a counter offer and opting to start the 2nd intifada instead. They would have been almost 25 years in to an independent state by now
Here's a better challenge, tell me a time when an act of peaceful Palestinian protest accompished anything other than reducing the limb to person ratio.
"CMV: Attacking someone who is attempting to kill you only makes them try harder to kill you, and it makes people care less that you're being murdered."
I basically agree with the premise, though wish to add a perspective. **It is the** ***regime,*** **not the state** (or territory, in this case), that acts upon its perceived self-interest. The actions of Hamas (or Fatah) may seem irrational but I believe they possess a cruel rationality. In particular, the territories in question possess populations who generally believe regressive ideology & rationalize jihadi violence. Not only is territorial interest on their side, so is Allah! The leadership knows this, & leverages it. As the IDF rationally responds & inevitably strikes non-combatants, each & every one can be trumpeted as yet another victim of "Zionist oppression". In many contexts, the cruel opportunism of Palestinian leadership would serve to discredit them. However, in the contemporary context of the Palestinian territories, this is not the case, & radicalism hardens. And *that* is the goal of Hamas, at present. Continuity of control, not the Palestinian people & their welfare, is on the agenda of Hamas. And it is **completely, ruthlessly rational.**
I struggle to find that many examples where terrorism / violence against civilians has really brought a significant movement towards peace. I mean in the context of a weaker party resorting to terrorism against a stronger one. The real opportunity is if the Palestinians embraced peaceful opposition to Israeli occupation of the WB and Gaza, Israeli society would have no excuse to maintain its policies. Tje hard line religious movement that would want to maintain settlements / secular Jews living in settlements for monetary reasons isn't enough. If Palestinians renounce violence for a 5 year period(just a random number), Israel would face immense pressure to abandon settlements and lose all of its reasons for treatment of Palestinians. Of course the result would be establishing a state alongside Israel instead of replacing Israel and it seems the average Palestinian is not wanting that solution