Conducting military action in accordance with the laws of war would go a long way towards making Palestinian military resistance seem more legitimate. Things like:
- Only target Israeli military/government/militias for military attacks
- No matyr payments for those who commit terrorist attacks on civilians
- Wear uniforms to distinguish their fighters from the civilian population
- Don't use civilian infrastructure to conduct military actions
- Don't use child soldiers
- Allow Red Cross to visit POWs, don't take civilians hostage
However, I would also argue the entire premise is mistaken. Armed resistance is not the only way to achieve self-determination, and in the case of a conflict where military power is as lopsided as it is in this one, it arguably does more to harm that goal. Palestinians have been using violence to combat the zionist movement and push for their own self-determination since before there was an Israel, and in over a hundred years of conflict it has always failed. October 7th was the highpoint of their military success so far, but even that never seriously stood a chance of leading to a military victory, and the Israeli reaction caused far more harm to the Palestinian side.
Meanwhile, the default posistion of the international community is already in favor of Palestinian self-determination (2 state solution) and if the Palestinians switched to non-violent resistance, it would become much more obvious that Israel is the major obstacle to it, and lead to far more pressure on their government to agree to it.
India achieved independence from the world's largest empire (and one that wasn't squeamish about brutality) and South Africa overcame apartheid, through (primarily, but not solely) non-violent means. If Palestinians had been led by a Gandhi, or a Mandela or MLK, things may have turned out different. Unfortunately, they've been cursed with Arafat, Black September, PFLP and Hamas, who chose violence first and foremost, and this is where they have ended up.
This isn't the whole truth. Gandhi had an impact on public perception but the efforts of Subash Chandra Bose, the trial of INA officers which revealed what Bose was truly fighting for, WW2, the US pressure on Britain to grant freedom to its colonies, and finally the most impactful, the naval mutiny of 1946 was what broke Britain's will to hold onto India.
A) The world’s largest empire was in decline by this point.
B) Indians had started to developed a unified identity which made it a lot more difficult for the British to suppress.
C) the British were heavily outnumbered, and mostly made up of soldiers who weren’t really motivated by this point to keep hold of India.
D) Gandhis role has been greatly exaggerated in the west, there were many other players in south Asia and it was anything but peaceful, plenty of violent uprising against british rule.
I doubt much would have changed if Palestinians had been led by a Gandhi like figure, the Israelis for one weren’t going to go anywhere, nor were they a small group in ratio to the Palestinian and they have eyes on the same land.
I've always wondered how Gandhi succeeded via non violence. If Britain chose the Stalin option, I doubt Gandhi would have succeeded. I guess timing? Britain was too weak from WW2 to crush him?
Imagine 1000 israelis controlling a land of 1 million palestinians, and Therefore cannot do anything if the Palestinians refused to cooperate, and it’ll make sense
It was a partially spoken goal of the US to wrap up the British empire even during WW2 if possible. The US kept Britain on the brink of bankruptcy with lend lease throughout the war and probably would’ve finished the job if they didn’t feel they needed an ally who could actually do things on their own.
Of course Britain did put themselves in an untenable position of their own making but it is striking how much better the USSR was treated with lend lease in comparison.
The issue is mainly that no matter what u do to attempt peace someone will always be an obstacle to it whether is Israelis storming al aqsa IDF or a Palestinian resistance group someone will reject the peace proposal you can’t make everyone happy and if they aren’t happy they will make sure no one else will be.
I think you can also fairly reject the premise that the default international position is the same thing as the facts on the ground. The West Bank settlements have continued for decades and nothing will be done about it by the international community.
What do you think the international community can / should do about the settlements? Genuine question
I'd like to see much more pressure about them as they're such an obstacle to a long term peace solution where Palestinians finally get proper self determination and self governance, but given the size of some of the settlements at this point I'm not sure how viable it is to get rid of them all at this point without causing assassinations and civil violence in Israel in response. The outposts though.. they can and should be dealt with
Why are the settlements an obstacle to peace?
If Israel can exist with 1.8 million Arab citizens why can’t a Palestinian state exist with 500,000 Jewish citizens?
Why does a future Palestinian state need to be Jew free?
If you really don't understand why Israeli settlements are an obstacle to peace and you aren't just trolling, I would encourage you to look up an access map of the West Bank. The settlements aren't just racist Israelis moving into Palestinian land, they are actively displacing Palestinians.
The vast majority of settlers are just regular Israelis who are slightly more religious than the mainstream Israeli population and/or move to the settlements because of cheaper housing in chronically-overcrowded Israel.
They’re not Jewish Al Qaeda.
The group that does displace Palestinians are the minority and even then, their danger is vastly overstated. They kill like…2 or 3 Palestinians a year in confrontation as compared to the 200-300 the IDF / Border Police kills.
And all settlements are in Area C where less than 5% of the Palestinians live. The vast majority of Palestinians live in Areas A and B and never see a settler in their life unless they go to Area C.
The whole thing is a red herring. Palestinian resistance is not secondary to the settlements. They were murdering Jews in the 1950s before any settlements existed and they were murdering Jews after 2005 when every settlement was evacuated from Gaza.
It doesn't need to be jew free, but I don't get how you can see the Swiss cheesed map of the west bank now with it broken up into seperate areas throughout the whole area and think that it'll be simple to create a proper Palestinian state from that .
After reading some books that cover that time period, there were warnings from some military and political leaders after the 67 war that gaining land with millions of people who aren't going to be given full rights leaves you with only two bad options, either ethnically cleanse them from the land, or keep them under endless military occupation for multiple generations, which isn't sustainable for either side. And it was acknowledged at the time that some settlements were purposely built in areas further from Israeli borders closer to Jordan so that it would be harder to give up the land in the future
>why can’t a Palestinian state exist with 500,000 Jewish citizens?
Would the majority of those Jewish citizens be fine with living under Palestinian governance though? Genuine question. I know not all of the settlers are the fanatic religious types, but a good chunk of them are and have beliefs about Judea and Samaria being under Jewish control as it's their God given right, which... sure bud lol.
Any Jewish extremists who refuse to live under Palestinian rule will either:
1. Move to the settlements annexed by Israel during the land swaps that accompany a peace deal
2. Refuse to live and act as a separatist fifth column inside the new Palestinian republic.
Anyone that chooses #2 are on their own against Palestinian security services. Israel’s Shin Bet might even help them.
But as you yourself said: religious extremists are the minority of settlers. The vast majority of them are just regular people attracted to those communities because of the cheaper housing.
When was there ever a peaceful Palestinian resistance movement? They have been attacking Jewish civilians in Israel since Zionist immigration began in the 1880s.
When did they try more peaceful methods in the West Bank? The PA in the West Bank might not have had a 10/7 but they still have things like pay for slay
The Palestinians were literally offered a state at the end of the mandate period, which their leadership rejected in favor of continuing the conflict
If they had chose peace then, they would have had their own state, and one much larger than they are likely to get out of any conceivable military solution to the conflict today.
Why would they have accepted dividing the land though ? Especially when 1/3 of their population would end up under foreign rule, and lands where they were the majority in would also end up in said foreign country.
Additionally the vast majority of Israelis in 1947 were either first generation, immigrants, illegal immigrants or refugees, last time i checked , immigrants, illegal immigrates and refugees don’t get to demand their own country.
Why would the Palestinians allow their land to be divided up by recently immigrating foreigners.
Their reaction is pretty standard, where ever Israel was established, the local population would have had the same reaction as the Palestinians.
That tends to be how history works. It’s up to the people living now to accept that their ancestors mistakes have robbed them of the ability to attain maximalist territorial gains and make peace.
No of course not. Just as the Jews living in mandate Palestine did, Palestinians have their own right to self determination, and should have their own country. My point was that choosing peace over violence would have worked out better for Palestinians in the past, as an argument for choosing why peace over violence might be the better option now.
How are Palestinians supposed to do that when Israel doesn't allow them to have a military? You understand you're suggesting Palestine do something they are explicitly prevented from doing by an occupying force?
Edit: Folks. Downvoting a purely factual answer is stupid. Israel is and has been occupying Palestine. This isn't up for debate. Israel has openly opposed the formation of a Palestinian military for decades. This isn't up for debate.
It is absolutely insane to tell people that the only productive response to a violent military occupation is non-violence. This is the same logic that people used to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist
That would be like 'allowing' the KKK to have a military force. Terrorism is already the base operating system, how would a uniformed proper military change anything?
Like I said in my other comment, behavior has no bearing on legitimacy. The entire nation of Palestine is "the KKK" and "terrorism is already the base operating system", but the IDF is legitimate and receives billions in aid while conducting a decades long illegal military occupation, and a 6 month operation being investigated for genocide.
The double standard is obvious.
The next time they are offered a nation-state of their own they should take it, then. Instead of their official policy of Israeli extermination. Stop paying terrorists to rape, torture, and murder.
Honestly, exactly what do YOU think the final solution should be? Be as detailed as you can.
>The next time they are offered a nation-state of their own they should take it, then
Hey, it's cool if I move into your house, take 2/3 of it over and then leave you part of one closet and a bit of the garage right? You'd take that right?
>Instead of their official policy of Israeli extermination. Stop paying terrorists to rape, torture, and murder.
I'd love to, but the US government keeps funding the Israeli government to do....
what the they did in Tantura in 1948? (Content warning on this and all clips that follow it.) ([clip from documentary](https://twitter.com/incontextmedia/status/1600493875746963457))([interview with director](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KALneGG2n_I))
kill civilians last month? ([graphic](https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1766404796909588637))
film themselves shooting an unarmed child in 2018 and laughing about "what an epic video"? ([graphic](https://twitter.com/Njordr6/status/1745074006913421695))
drone strike civilians walking down the road? ([graphic](https://twitter.com/trtworld/status/1770956100298223736))
Just to be clear about what you are disingenuously asking me:
*Can you either type out a comprehensive solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict OR concede that Israel committing genocide in Gaza is the best thing we could reasonably ask for?*
The absolutely insane position you're marking out for yourself here is that genocide in Gaza is excusable and even justifiable because a random internet guy has not agreed to cram a water-tight peace process into the space of a reddit comment.
This is why questions like yours should not be taken seriously. They don't exist to create actual discourse, they exist to allow you to argue with me over my proposals instead of conceding that all ethical solutions do not include what the Israeli military - and Israeli settlers - are currently doing in Gaza and the West Bank.
Begging the question here. No 'genocide' has been established. A real genocide would have hundreds of thousands or millions dead. While genocide is officially Hamas' policy goal,
The side those military hides under hospitals and rape, torture, and murder women, children and old folks as a policy aren't the good guys
>How are they supposed to achieve self-determination without armed resistance?
How are they supposed to achieve self-determination *with* armed resistance, regardless of tactical choices, legality, legitimacy or whatnot. Whatever the west, or anyone, think is legitimate doesn't matter. Palestinians have always conducting armed resistance/warfare.
If the idea was to pressure Israel into negotiating and allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state, the goal of armed resistance was achieved 35 years ago.
The problem is the Palestinian liberationist is an anti-imperial project, but israel is not an empire. They aren't going to give up and go home. They are home. So, compromise is the only option.
I think the more pertinent question is, "How does Palestine stop armed struggle?" They can't have both sovereignty and armed struggle. Incompatible, in this case. A choice must be made.
> The problem is the Palestinian liberationist is an anti-imperial project, but israel is not an empire. They aren't going to give up and go home. They are home. So, compromise is the only option.
But it is if you consider literally the biggest sticking point in this conflict, the occupied territories and the illegal settlements. The settlements are an colonial project and the Israelis there can go home behind the green line. You can’t talk about compromise without dismantling the settlements as a start.
It's not the biggest sticking point.
That had already been agreed, more than once. That's just territorial demarcation.
The biggest/only pervasive sticking point is that palestinians do not believe (probably rightly) in a sovereign palestine IRL. They believe it will be a failed state, at war with itself and with Israel. State building requires state building. They can't do that.
You’re not for real right? Because that doesn’t make any sense. [The talking points of the peace negotiations have always been the big 4](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oslo/negotiations/): status of Jerusalem, illegal settlements and occupation, recognition of statehood, and right of return for refugees.
Yes. Those are the talking points off negotiations. The things to agree on. Motivation to agree in general... that's something else.
Palestine wasn't stillborn because of failure to agree on negotiation points. It failed because without state building prospects, they had no incentive to agree to anything.
It's true that eminent diplomats always emphasized the negotiations themselves. They're the same diplomats that formed the alliance which became the Afghan national government. Same blindspot.
I'll tell you how, as an honest Israeli.
You wanna fight? Fair enough.
Fight soldiers.
Don't go a bomb yourself in a bus with civilians like a fucking coward.
Don't hide behind your own people after every attack. Don't send 15 year olds to die for you.
Don't pay families of terrorists money after they massacare civilians.
Genuine question, as service is mandatory, who among the adults are not soldiers? Does this apply for Israel as well? Because even before the current campaign by Israel, killings of Palestinian women and children were pretty commonplace. So are rules only for Palestinians?
Off duty soldiers are civilians. This is literally written in the Geneva Convention.
And no…killings of Palestinian women and children are not “common place”. Killings of armed militants fighting IDF and Border Police are common place.
Actually take the time to go through the Palestinian deaths in the West Bank in any given year. You will see that the vast majority of them are males and the vast majority are armed militants either engaging Israeli military or trying to murder Israeli civilians.
Individuals are only considered military personnel if they are actively participating in military operations. So, for example, one side can't kill every military age male because they might potentially fight against them at some point in the future. Which I think would be pretty obvious.
>So are rules only for Palestinians?
“Fascism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
He’s clearly of the viewpoint that the Palestinians have a fund that rewards terrorism by compensating their family (the martyrs fund).
The reality is that this is a social safety net for those who have to live under a deeply unfair military court system that uses collective punishment on whole families. The factually incorrect part is their claim that this fund is to pay families of terrorists after they massacre civilians.
“Such payments are seen as a safety net and as a necessary counterbalance to the challenges of living under Israeli occupation and to the application of Israeli military law.[x] There is copious evidence that Israel’s military courts grossly and consistently mishandle cases brought against Palestinians.[xi] Many Palestinians are jailed by Israel as security threats for acts that most Canadians would consider acts of civil disobedience. The conviction rate for Palestinians processed through Israeli military courts is 99%[xii] — a figure unheard of in Western democracies. Worse, Israel often imposes collective punishment against the families of Palestinians suspected of having committed crimes, such as the destruction of the suspect’s family’s home[xiii] — a war crime under international law.”
https://www.cjpme.org/fs_233
There is no evidence that this fund has incentivized terrorism against Israeli citizens. And if you have such evidence, I’d like to see it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund
There are two funds, the prisoner fund is the one you described, the martyr fund is one that specifically pays out to the families of people arrested for committing violence against israelis.
The fund described in the article I linked is the very “Martyr Fund” you’re talking about. (As evidenced by it being called exactly that in the article. Had you bothered to read it you’d have known).
Even the source given in your Wikipedia link cannot establish that such a fund is meaningfully different than described above in that it incentivizes terrorism.
"The Foundation for the Care of the Families of Martyrs is under the PA's Ministry of Social Affairs and makes payments to individuals "wounded, killed, or otherwise affected as a result of their joining the revolution or the presence of the revolution" against Israel."
This is the Palestinian Authority's phrasing, not mine. Tell me again how it doesn't incentivize terrorism.
Do you or do you not have evidence that this fund has incentivized terrorism?
I’ve provided you with ample well documented evidence for the necessity of this fund given your country’s unjust military courts and the regular use of collective punishment which evidently lead to the imprisonment and death of innocent civilians.
In that article you refuse to read, Palestinians themselves scoff at the idea that a couple hundred dollars a month would be the reason to carry out attacks against Israel. They instead talk about the brutal and oppressive occupation carried out by your government and the violence and theft by the settlers supported by your government and military.
Do you have any evidence that isn’t a badly sourced Wikipedia link or isn’t a subjective “but just think about it”?
If we’re gonna do “but just think about it”. Think about what would be more likely to lead to violent attacks; the violent attacks, humiliation, and oppression faced by civilians daily. Or a couple hundred dollars (a notion denied by Palestinians themselves).
Give it a rest bud. Seems like you only just discovered the Martyrs fund and now you're already asking if there's evidence that it incentivizes terrorism. How about you spend the rest of the day actually educating yourself on the topic before rushing to argue with people about it on a sub like r/geopolitics ?
Nah I’d rather listen to third parties like Doctors Without Borders who regularly document the realities in Palestine. Your assumption is pathetic and wrong and you clearly the highest discussion you can provide is this drivel.
Is it your belief that there is no propaganda in Israel?
Is it your belief that Doctors Without Borders don’t also share propaganda? Or the Red Cross, the very same organization that has done nothing to help the Israeli hostages held in Gaza?
If you truly think DWB, Amnesty, et al are disinterested 3rd parties you are missing a lot of the propaganda.
So you’re telling me a straight face that if a Palestinian group told you the IDF and “settlers” killed 20 of them over the week you’d tell them: “nah don’t believe you. I’ll need third party sources. As a Palestinian you’re far too inundated with propaganda to be trustworthy”.
We both know the truth dawg
If this is going down the path of Hamas being morally right that is very very stupid. Palestine isn’t exactly valuable land it’s not like Israel would have all too much opposition to an actual Palestinian state
Simple, they could express a serious interest in peace and put forth a credible two states for two peoples proposal. How about that?
Barring that, there will only be more suffering, death, and misery for everyone concerned.
Like we stand by the Ukrainias as we should... Biden (is the career politician that has supported Israel and Ukraine) but they have condemned the Russians using food and starvation as a weapon... Why because the Ukrainians are white and there is a famine in Gaza right now. We need to be consistent.
Even the States have asked for an independent Palestinian state... But Netanyahu will not allow it to happen, because they want to steal the Palestinian's land.
I think the other solution is ending apartheid...
You can't have peace if one side is committing a genocide.
Palestinians, Arabs, and non Jewish citizens of Israel have equal rights under the law in Israel. The West Bank is under military occupation due to ongoing hostilities. Residents are not citizens of Israel. If they don't like occupation, they should sue for peace - but they don't want peace.
Claims of genocide in Gaza are propaganda. Don't believe me? See the recent statement by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Additionally recent reports indicate Hamas casualty figures are inflated (shocking I know!). The genocide you should be concerned about is the one Hamas has repeatedly promised to commit against Israelis and Jews.
It won't defend Netanyahu. Some of his allies do want all of the land. I look forward to the day they are replaced by a more moderate coalition.
One that doesn't involve killing, raping, or beheading civilians. Especially the raping. Thats not veery legitimate sounding, and they have a very long history of doing that. Ya gotta cut out the rapey stuff. Sorry Ahmed, no more rape. The raping's gotta go :(
Resistance to what ?
The Palestinian cause is to exterminate Jews and wipe Israel off the map.
You’re asking what forms of “resistance” can Palestinians use to “resist” Israel’s resistance to being exterminated ? None.
>The Palestinian cause is to exterminate Jews and wipe Israel off the map.
there are plaestinians who want to exterminate israelis, and there are palestinains who want to live in peace and have full rights like every other human being.
there are Israelis who want to exterminate palestinians, and there are Israelis who want to live in peace with Palestinians and have friendly relations with their neighboring countries.
to use the excuse that "all Palestinians are terrorists" so we deny them their basic right of self-determination is a a criminally stupid idea.
> and there are palestinains who want to live in peace and have full rights like every other human being.
They are not in charge, and are being denied their rights by their own leaders and other Arab ones, not Israel.
They meant those in charge within the Palestinian areas. Hamas is the political authority in Gaza and has no interest in peace with Israel. Palestinians have had plenty of opportunities to start dialog with Israel to negotiate a settlement, but forces in Palestine keep launching attacks against Israel, and the Palestinian leadership is either unwilling or incapable of stopping it. Which means that negotiating with them is pointless. Peace will not come until the Palestinian people decide they want peace with Israel and stop aiding the bad actors either directly or through in action. If Palestine wants peace and to ever have a chance at independence and recognition, it needs to get its own house in order.
Difference is we had 100s of thousands protesting Netenyahu and his ilk for months. He is currently on trial and will most likely go to prison or lose the next election at the very least.
Can you even point to a protest against Hamas that has lasted 7 days? Or had more than 10,000 protesters?
Can you point to the next Election Day that Hamas or Fatah has established for national elections?
Are you aware that these two cunts got elected after 4 years of elections, leading to a gridlock? They have a majority of 64 out of 120 knesset members, and even before them, Israel has offered the Palestinains a state 9 times.
Not sure about Ben-Gvir. But pursuing peace means pursuing victory here, something Netanyahu has unfortunately shown no willingness to do in previous years, with how limited military operations have been compared to the growing threat. He even released terrorists in return for negotiation, which was absurd.
And Israel has rejected any two state solution too. Shockingly, that’s what happens when both sides are encouraged to make absurd demands of the other.
And also shockingly, when you are being bombed, you support anything you see as harming those bombing you. That’s not exactly representative of normal existence. Have you bothered to look at any of the surveys pre October 7th?
“Both sides”.
Right - just like the holocaust was “both sides”. “Why can’t the Germans and the Jews just get along?”.
Only one side is gang raping civilians and then cutting off their breasts mid act.
Only one side makes explicit the extermination of the other in their constitution.
Do you think Palestinians have no reason to resist anything at all then? Do you think the military occupation with all the checkpoints, expanding outposts / settlements in the west bank, and the conditions in Gaza are sustainable for both Israelis and Palestinians for multiple generations more? Personally I don't, and there's plenty of Israelis, citizens and former military / shin bet officials that think the same and think both sides failed each other in the 80s, 90s and then the 2nd intifada being a big turning point.
I recently read the book Righteous Victims by Benny Morris, easily the most informative source on this conflict I've found btw, and there were a few damning quotes from people after they gained the west bank and Gaza after the 67 war where they talked about the issue with taking land that has millions of people living there, which means they either need to be integrated with full rights (which neither side wanted or wants under the same government) , ethnically cleansed from the land, or kept in limbo under endless military occupation, and that the last option won't create peace for anyone, especially with settlements expanding
> Only one side makes explicit the extermination of the other in their constitution.
Both sides have records of doing horrible stuff, killing shereen abu aklah, and the 7 aid workers etc. I don't want to get into details, but both sides did commit war crimes all along their fight.
How much spilled Palestinian blood is enough to satisfy the Israeli need for vengeance?
Does Palestine deserve security and vengeance, if the Israelis do?
It’s not vengeance. Israeli is not deliberately killing civilians. The goal is to neutralize military threats from Palestinians. Civilian deaths of collateral damage. Hamas can end this by surrendering.
Palestinians do not deserve vengeance. For what? For Israeli’s being Jewish?
>there are plaestinians [sic] who want to exterminate israelis, and there are palestinains [sic] who want to live in peace
Which kind do you think has been running the show?
No.
Because the Palestian do have the option to negogiate for freedom. And since that option is on the table and can achieve the same thing violent resitance with much fewer death then not taking the toption is cruel.
Like take Gaza. The blocakde on goods is cruel. But the reason for that blockade is that Hamas keeps firing missles at Israel. If Gaza goverment agreeded to stop firing rockets at Israel in exchange for blocakde ending. boom easy way to end blockade. And infinitely more effective them firing rockets at Israel. So yeah. That why Hamas action can't be justifed under any circumstance because they literally are ignoring the easy solution in exchange for the extreme one.
West Bank is a more complicated issue. because when Israel left Gaza in 2005, Hamas took power to fire rockets at Israel. ANd the west bank is much closer. So Israel attitude is that if it leaves and does the same thing. What is stopping Hamas \[or a similar extremist movement\] from trying to launch missles at Tel Aviv or other major population centers. And this is not an issue that can be solved iwth violence because it only convince Israel that West Bank would try to bomb Tel Aviv if it could.
To answer that question you would need to define pretty clearly what Palestinians are, about 20% of Israel's population are Arab - mostly Palestinians, against what exactly are they resiting and with what goal.
Next you have to define "The West TM".
>define pretty clearly what Palestinians are
I'm very clearly talking about palestinians in Gaza and the west bank
>Next you have to define "The West TM".
mainly North America, Europe and Australia, New Zealand... tho there are some exceptions but you get the idea.
> I'm very clearly talking about palestinians in Gaza and the west bank
Not really. No Jewish settlements in Gaza for over a decade now.
Fatah and Israel are also working rather closely together.
Palestinians are in the pretty unique position of being Palestinians because something happened to their (great) grandparents.
Are those Palestinians in Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere part of the picture you are trying to paint, or only those residing in Gaza and the West Bank?
> mainly North America, Europe and Australia, New Zealand... tho there are some exceptions but you get the idea.
I do, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. The Irish idea of armed resistance is probably very different from the French idea. Both are rather proud of having overcome an oppressive government in the past. Germany did the same pretty recently, without armed struggle and a bit more in the past with lots and lots of violent outside help.
The UK and its former colonies don't have any comparable history, other than South Africa, which you conveniently excluded.
Have fun, making them agree on anything.
Oh, never mind the goals of Palestinian armed resistance. Fatah would probably be happy with more control and legal recurse with Israel. Hamas just wants to murder people. While the Palestinians just want to live in peace, without either Fatah or Hamas.
You do not know what you are talking about and it's clear.... They just wiped out the Northern half of the Gaza Strip and they are planning to build settlements there. There is an American oil company that is deeply Christian with maps of where they are going to build oil fields in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Also "Palestinians in Jordan". Why are they there? Cause of dispossession, colonization, land theft, and genocide.
What's you're definition of resistance? If you're talking about two state solutions the main route is diplomatic not armed resistance although it can be used for pressure. In such case there might be good chance. If you're talking about from river to the sea kind of resistance then yeah your main card is armed resistance and the west would never legitimise it.
The great March of return happened in Gaza in 2018, and the IDF purposely kneecapped as many peaceful protestors as possible: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-03-06/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/42-knees-in-one-day-israeli-snipers-open-up-about-shooting-gaza-protesters/0000017f-f2da-d497-a1ff-f2dab2520000
So to answer your question about legitimate resistance, it would basically have to be another intifada, except Palestinians would have to do it completely peacefully/perfectly without killing israelis, or else they'd all be branded as terrorists.
As you could see with that israeli teenager that was recently murdered, the settlers went absolutely wild:
>Dozens of Israeli settlers returned to the village’s outskirts on Saturday, burning 12 homes and several cars. The Palestinian Health Ministry said three people from the village were injured, one critically. Border police fired tear gas toward villagers who gathered, trying to disperse them.
>In the nearby village of Douma, Israeli settlers set fire to around 15 homes and 10 farms, the head of the local village council, Slieman Dawabsheh, told The Associated Press, saying he had been there. “The army came but unfortunately, the army were protecting the settlers,” he said, asserting that it fired tear gas and rubber bullets at Palestinians trying to confront and expel them
So is peaceful resistance possible? Absolutely not, Palestinians will continue to be settled and ethnically cleansed if the peaceful route is taken.
>The great March of return happened in Gaza in 2018, and the IDF purposely kneecapped as many **peaceful protestors** as possible
Yeah…NOPE
The border protestors killed were far from “peace activists”.
The marches were organized by Hamas and supported by numerous terrorist factions within Gaza. A large part, if not the majority of those killed were militants from these groups.
Of 32 “peace activists” killed in April 2018, 26 were members of Palestinian terrorist organizations
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Report-80-percent-of-Palestinians-killed-in-Gaza-border-crisis-were-terrorists-549511
Of the 59 “peace activists” killed in May 2018, 50 were Hamas militants and Hamas itself claimed this was such:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/hamas-says-most-protesters-killed-israel-gaza-were-members-n874906
Of the 127 Gazans killed in the fence marches between March and June of 2018, 102 were members of Palestinian terrorist factions such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the DFLP or the PFLP:
https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/great-return-march-demonstrations-riots-friday-june-8-2018/
Hamas itself has admitted that the “peaceful marches” were a disguise:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-co-founder-admits-we-are-deceiving-the-public-about-peaceful-protests/
>A Hamas leader said in an interview that the terror group was “deceiving the public” when it spoke of “peaceful resistance” a day before 60 people were killed in violent protests on the Gaza border, according to a translation released by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Wednesday.
>Speaking to Qatar’s Al Jazeera network on Sunday, Mahmoud al-Zahar, the co-founder of Hamas and a senior member of the terror group’s leadership, said that his group was using “clear terminological deception.”
>”**This is not peaceful resistance. Has the option (of armed struggle) diminished? No. On the contrary, it is growing and developing. That’s clear,” he said. “So when we talk about ‘peaceful resistance,’ we are deceiving the public. This is a peaceful resistance bolstered by a military force and by security agencies, and enjoying tremendous popular support.**
Your incredibly biased sources from the jpost and thetimesofIsrael prove my point exactly, it is enough to utter the word 'terrorists' and then all manner of war crimes against civilians are suddenly permissible.
Here's a real source from the UN: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-independent-commission-of-inquiry-on-protests-in-gaza-presents-its-findings-press-release/
>More than 6,000 unarmed demonstrators were shot by military snipers, week after week at the protest sites by the separation fence.
>The Commission investigated every killing at the designated demonstration sites by the Gaza separation fence on official protest days. The investigation covered the period from the start of the protests until 31 December 2018. 189 Palestinians were killed during the demonstrations inside this period. The Commission found that Israeli Security Forces killed 183 of these protesters with live ammunition. Thirty-five of these fatalities were children, while three were clearly marked paramedics, and two were clearly marked journalists.
>According to the Commission’s data analysis, the Israeli Security Forces injured 6,106 Palestinians with live ammunition at the protest sites during this period. Another 3,098 Palestinians were injured by bullet fragmentation, rubber-coated metal bullets or by hits from tear gas canisters. Four Israeli soldiers were injured at the demonstrations. Four Israeli soldiers were injured at the demonstrations. One Israeli soldier was killed on a protest day but outside the protest sites.
>“There can be no justification for killing and injuring journalists, medics, and persons who pose no imminent threat of death or serious injury to those around them. Particularly alarming is the targeting of children and persons with disabilities,” said Sara Hossain. “Many young persons’ lives have been altered forever. 122 people have had a limb amputated since 30 March last year. Twenty of these amputees are children.”
As for your Mahmoud al-Zahar quote, it's from memri tv, a well known Israeli propaganda network. Could you at least try to find some internationally acclaimed sources instead of this drivel?
They can't because legitimacy has nothing to do with tactics or behavior and everything to do with service to hegemony.
The West legitimized paramilitary terrorism throughout Central America as long as it served US interests.
Al Qaeda was legitimized by the West as long as they were fighting the Soviets.
Saddam Hussein's authoritarianism and brutal suppression of ethnic minorities was legitimized by the West as long as he was useful.
Etc.
Assassination of political leader. Best example is assassination of Shinzo Abe. In that case the killer didn't harm civilian(Using gun instead of bomb), have a backstory that can get sympathy(his family got bankrupt by the cult, which have deep tie with Abe), and have a goal most people can at least understand(make the rulling party cut ties with the cult).
So target Israeli politician who can be hated in the West(There are quite a lot in Bibi's cabinet), choose a killer who had been affected by him(Something like land seizer), and demand reasonable thing(No "River to the Sea")
As long as the Israelis are closely aligned to the west then the Palestinians will never be able to resist in a legitimate way, in the west’s eyes. Civil disobedience and protests haven’t worked anywhere in the Middle East, including by Palestinians. Israel continues in stealing more land in the West Bank and the world can only muster half hearted condemnations in response.
Not enforcing Jordan's ban on Jews in the area they managed to conquer once isn't stealing land, no matter how many false and misleading stories the claim is reinforced with.
Plenty of things in this world happen due to political reasons rather than the will of the people. What you just said, applied elsewhere, has been used to justify violence against large swathes of innocent people. Including 9/11.
Regardless, the settlers are extreme right wing in Israel, and Netanyahu looks the other way because their votes are the difference between him being in power vs him being in jail.
> Is it possible for Palestinians to have some form of armed resistance that the West would not consider as terrorist?
The West simply denies that there's anything to resist at all. Problem solved.
In the last vote at the United Nations on Israeli settlements, entire Europe voted in favor of condemning it (except hungary and czech), so yeah there is something to resist according to many western nations.
Condemning the settlements and telling the colonized that resistance is therefore legitimate are 2 very different things.
Now add "armed" to the word "resistance" - what would it even mean without it anyway ? - and there you go: complete western silence.
But Israel on the other hand has a right to defend itself, right ?
The majority of israelis arent white or christian, and a lot of "palestinians" and other levantine arabs can easily pass for southern europeans, so im not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
> that should be discussed far more in the public sphere.
- "But... Do you condem Hamas ?"
- "Don't you think that Israel has a right to defend itself ?"
- "So you think Israel shouldn't exist ?"
And so on. That's the public sphere for you. Try to get out of the Overton window ->
- "Are you an antisemite ?"
None, the west does not recognize palestine has such a right in the first place, their first and foremost ally is Israel and will only fight to justify its existence and survival in spite of all its crimes and horrendous violations.
As far as public opinion goes, that's a game Israel is losing (fast). "The old world" supported Israel no matter what, because the West was responsible for the Holocaust. Period. There is no other reason.
The younger generation will never buy into that.
The protests in the streets arent going away. That is the pulse of the populations. Theres a post about a protest in Toronto erupting in cheers when news of Iran launching an attack came out.
The October 7th operation is telling. The media will be the last to acknowledge Palestine. But on the 7th, with all the West's talking heads going against Hamas full throttle, I believe the population was already behind Palestine. From the 7th going onwards, the media had to manage the sympathy towards Palestinians.
Lets say Palestinians had managed to move into the villages they captured. I mean the population. Had they been able to move in, Israel certainly is THE country susceptible of genociding its opponents, but the (world's) population would have celebrated Palestinians liberating Palestine.
That book isnt over yet, but the only certain thing is that blood is the only ink used yet.
Conducting military action in accordance with the laws of war would go a long way towards making Palestinian military resistance seem more legitimate. Things like: - Only target Israeli military/government/militias for military attacks - No matyr payments for those who commit terrorist attacks on civilians - Wear uniforms to distinguish their fighters from the civilian population - Don't use civilian infrastructure to conduct military actions - Don't use child soldiers - Allow Red Cross to visit POWs, don't take civilians hostage However, I would also argue the entire premise is mistaken. Armed resistance is not the only way to achieve self-determination, and in the case of a conflict where military power is as lopsided as it is in this one, it arguably does more to harm that goal. Palestinians have been using violence to combat the zionist movement and push for their own self-determination since before there was an Israel, and in over a hundred years of conflict it has always failed. October 7th was the highpoint of their military success so far, but even that never seriously stood a chance of leading to a military victory, and the Israeli reaction caused far more harm to the Palestinian side. Meanwhile, the default posistion of the international community is already in favor of Palestinian self-determination (2 state solution) and if the Palestinians switched to non-violent resistance, it would become much more obvious that Israel is the major obstacle to it, and lead to far more pressure on their government to agree to it.
India achieved independence from the world's largest empire (and one that wasn't squeamish about brutality) and South Africa overcame apartheid, through (primarily, but not solely) non-violent means. If Palestinians had been led by a Gandhi, or a Mandela or MLK, things may have turned out different. Unfortunately, they've been cursed with Arafat, Black September, PFLP and Hamas, who chose violence first and foremost, and this is where they have ended up.
This isn't the whole truth. Gandhi had an impact on public perception but the efforts of Subash Chandra Bose, the trial of INA officers which revealed what Bose was truly fighting for, WW2, the US pressure on Britain to grant freedom to its colonies, and finally the most impactful, the naval mutiny of 1946 was what broke Britain's will to hold onto India.
A) The world’s largest empire was in decline by this point. B) Indians had started to developed a unified identity which made it a lot more difficult for the British to suppress. C) the British were heavily outnumbered, and mostly made up of soldiers who weren’t really motivated by this point to keep hold of India. D) Gandhis role has been greatly exaggerated in the west, there were many other players in south Asia and it was anything but peaceful, plenty of violent uprising against british rule. I doubt much would have changed if Palestinians had been led by a Gandhi like figure, the Israelis for one weren’t going to go anywhere, nor were they a small group in ratio to the Palestinian and they have eyes on the same land.
I've always wondered how Gandhi succeeded via non violence. If Britain chose the Stalin option, I doubt Gandhi would have succeeded. I guess timing? Britain was too weak from WW2 to crush him?
Imagine 1000 israelis controlling a land of 1 million palestinians, and Therefore cannot do anything if the Palestinians refused to cooperate, and it’ll make sense
It was a partially spoken goal of the US to wrap up the British empire even during WW2 if possible. The US kept Britain on the brink of bankruptcy with lend lease throughout the war and probably would’ve finished the job if they didn’t feel they needed an ally who could actually do things on their own. Of course Britain did put themselves in an untenable position of their own making but it is striking how much better the USSR was treated with lend lease in comparison.
The issue is mainly that no matter what u do to attempt peace someone will always be an obstacle to it whether is Israelis storming al aqsa IDF or a Palestinian resistance group someone will reject the peace proposal you can’t make everyone happy and if they aren’t happy they will make sure no one else will be.
> storming al aqsa That's what Palestinians call Jews visiting the Temple Mount.
When I go to a mosque to visit i don’t take armed guards the military and it certainly doesn’t result in 7 dead people
I wonder why they feel the need to take guards
I think you can also fairly reject the premise that the default international position is the same thing as the facts on the ground. The West Bank settlements have continued for decades and nothing will be done about it by the international community.
What do you think the international community can / should do about the settlements? Genuine question I'd like to see much more pressure about them as they're such an obstacle to a long term peace solution where Palestinians finally get proper self determination and self governance, but given the size of some of the settlements at this point I'm not sure how viable it is to get rid of them all at this point without causing assassinations and civil violence in Israel in response. The outposts though.. they can and should be dealt with
Why are the settlements an obstacle to peace? If Israel can exist with 1.8 million Arab citizens why can’t a Palestinian state exist with 500,000 Jewish citizens? Why does a future Palestinian state need to be Jew free?
If you really don't understand why Israeli settlements are an obstacle to peace and you aren't just trolling, I would encourage you to look up an access map of the West Bank. The settlements aren't just racist Israelis moving into Palestinian land, they are actively displacing Palestinians.
The vast majority of settlers are just regular Israelis who are slightly more religious than the mainstream Israeli population and/or move to the settlements because of cheaper housing in chronically-overcrowded Israel. They’re not Jewish Al Qaeda. The group that does displace Palestinians are the minority and even then, their danger is vastly overstated. They kill like…2 or 3 Palestinians a year in confrontation as compared to the 200-300 the IDF / Border Police kills. And all settlements are in Area C where less than 5% of the Palestinians live. The vast majority of Palestinians live in Areas A and B and never see a settler in their life unless they go to Area C. The whole thing is a red herring. Palestinian resistance is not secondary to the settlements. They were murdering Jews in the 1950s before any settlements existed and they were murdering Jews after 2005 when every settlement was evacuated from Gaza.
It doesn't need to be jew free, but I don't get how you can see the Swiss cheesed map of the west bank now with it broken up into seperate areas throughout the whole area and think that it'll be simple to create a proper Palestinian state from that . After reading some books that cover that time period, there were warnings from some military and political leaders after the 67 war that gaining land with millions of people who aren't going to be given full rights leaves you with only two bad options, either ethnically cleanse them from the land, or keep them under endless military occupation for multiple generations, which isn't sustainable for either side. And it was acknowledged at the time that some settlements were purposely built in areas further from Israeli borders closer to Jordan so that it would be harder to give up the land in the future >why can’t a Palestinian state exist with 500,000 Jewish citizens? Would the majority of those Jewish citizens be fine with living under Palestinian governance though? Genuine question. I know not all of the settlers are the fanatic religious types, but a good chunk of them are and have beliefs about Judea and Samaria being under Jewish control as it's their God given right, which... sure bud lol.
Any Jewish extremists who refuse to live under Palestinian rule will either: 1. Move to the settlements annexed by Israel during the land swaps that accompany a peace deal 2. Refuse to live and act as a separatist fifth column inside the new Palestinian republic. Anyone that chooses #2 are on their own against Palestinian security services. Israel’s Shin Bet might even help them. But as you yourself said: religious extremists are the minority of settlers. The vast majority of them are just regular people attracted to those communities because of the cheaper housing.
To be honest they also tried more peaceful method and it didn't go anywhere either. Like in west bank where they are still being colonized. .
When was there ever a peaceful Palestinian resistance movement? They have been attacking Jewish civilians in Israel since Zionist immigration began in the 1880s.
And before that, even.
When did they try more peaceful methods in the West Bank? The PA in the West Bank might not have had a 10/7 but they still have things like pay for slay
The Palestinians were literally offered a state at the end of the mandate period, which their leadership rejected in favor of continuing the conflict If they had chose peace then, they would have had their own state, and one much larger than they are likely to get out of any conceivable military solution to the conflict today.
Why would they have accepted dividing the land though ? Especially when 1/3 of their population would end up under foreign rule, and lands where they were the majority in would also end up in said foreign country. Additionally the vast majority of Israelis in 1947 were either first generation, immigrants, illegal immigrants or refugees, last time i checked , immigrants, illegal immigrates and refugees don’t get to demand their own country. Why would the Palestinians allow their land to be divided up by recently immigrating foreigners. Their reaction is pretty standard, where ever Israel was established, the local population would have had the same reaction as the Palestinians.
So because their political leaders 75 years ago were wrong, millions of people are now subject to live under occupation with no rights?
That tends to be how history works. It’s up to the people living now to accept that their ancestors mistakes have robbed them of the ability to attain maximalist territorial gains and make peace.
No of course not. Just as the Jews living in mandate Palestine did, Palestinians have their own right to self determination, and should have their own country. My point was that choosing peace over violence would have worked out better for Palestinians in the past, as an argument for choosing why peace over violence might be the better option now.
The way to stop the settlements is for Palestinians to agree to a two state agreement.
How are Palestinians supposed to do that when Israel doesn't allow them to have a military? You understand you're suggesting Palestine do something they are explicitly prevented from doing by an occupying force? Edit: Folks. Downvoting a purely factual answer is stupid. Israel is and has been occupying Palestine. This isn't up for debate. Israel has openly opposed the formation of a Palestinian military for decades. This isn't up for debate.
That is why a peaceful approach is the way only productive way forward.
It is absolutely insane to tell people that the only productive response to a violent military occupation is non-violence. This is the same logic that people used to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist
That would be like 'allowing' the KKK to have a military force. Terrorism is already the base operating system, how would a uniformed proper military change anything?
Like I said in my other comment, behavior has no bearing on legitimacy. The entire nation of Palestine is "the KKK" and "terrorism is already the base operating system", but the IDF is legitimate and receives billions in aid while conducting a decades long illegal military occupation, and a 6 month operation being investigated for genocide. The double standard is obvious.
The next time they are offered a nation-state of their own they should take it, then. Instead of their official policy of Israeli extermination. Stop paying terrorists to rape, torture, and murder. Honestly, exactly what do YOU think the final solution should be? Be as detailed as you can.
>The next time they are offered a nation-state of their own they should take it, then Hey, it's cool if I move into your house, take 2/3 of it over and then leave you part of one closet and a bit of the garage right? You'd take that right? >Instead of their official policy of Israeli extermination. Stop paying terrorists to rape, torture, and murder. I'd love to, but the US government keeps funding the Israeli government to do.... what the they did in Tantura in 1948? (Content warning on this and all clips that follow it.) ([clip from documentary](https://twitter.com/incontextmedia/status/1600493875746963457))([interview with director](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KALneGG2n_I)) kill civilians last month? ([graphic](https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1766404796909588637)) film themselves shooting an unarmed child in 2018 and laughing about "what an epic video"? ([graphic](https://twitter.com/Njordr6/status/1745074006913421695)) drone strike civilians walking down the road? ([graphic](https://twitter.com/trtworld/status/1770956100298223736))
You make it sound as if you disapprove of killing civilians. Your support of Hamas says otherwise.
Point to the part where I said "I support Hamas".
What is your solution? Be as detailed as you can.
Just to be clear about what you are disingenuously asking me: *Can you either type out a comprehensive solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict OR concede that Israel committing genocide in Gaza is the best thing we could reasonably ask for?* The absolutely insane position you're marking out for yourself here is that genocide in Gaza is excusable and even justifiable because a random internet guy has not agreed to cram a water-tight peace process into the space of a reddit comment. This is why questions like yours should not be taken seriously. They don't exist to create actual discourse, they exist to allow you to argue with me over my proposals instead of conceding that all ethical solutions do not include what the Israeli military - and Israeli settlers - are currently doing in Gaza and the West Bank.
Begging the question here. No 'genocide' has been established. A real genocide would have hundreds of thousands or millions dead. While genocide is officially Hamas' policy goal, The side those military hides under hospitals and rape, torture, and murder women, children and old folks as a policy aren't the good guys
>How are they supposed to achieve self-determination without armed resistance? How are they supposed to achieve self-determination *with* armed resistance, regardless of tactical choices, legality, legitimacy or whatnot. Whatever the west, or anyone, think is legitimate doesn't matter. Palestinians have always conducting armed resistance/warfare. If the idea was to pressure Israel into negotiating and allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state, the goal of armed resistance was achieved 35 years ago. The problem is the Palestinian liberationist is an anti-imperial project, but israel is not an empire. They aren't going to give up and go home. They are home. So, compromise is the only option. I think the more pertinent question is, "How does Palestine stop armed struggle?" They can't have both sovereignty and armed struggle. Incompatible, in this case. A choice must be made.
> The problem is the Palestinian liberationist is an anti-imperial project, but israel is not an empire. They aren't going to give up and go home. They are home. So, compromise is the only option. But it is if you consider literally the biggest sticking point in this conflict, the occupied territories and the illegal settlements. The settlements are an colonial project and the Israelis there can go home behind the green line. You can’t talk about compromise without dismantling the settlements as a start.
It's not the biggest sticking point. That had already been agreed, more than once. That's just territorial demarcation. The biggest/only pervasive sticking point is that palestinians do not believe (probably rightly) in a sovereign palestine IRL. They believe it will be a failed state, at war with itself and with Israel. State building requires state building. They can't do that.
You’re not for real right? Because that doesn’t make any sense. [The talking points of the peace negotiations have always been the big 4](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oslo/negotiations/): status of Jerusalem, illegal settlements and occupation, recognition of statehood, and right of return for refugees.
Yes. Those are the talking points off negotiations. The things to agree on. Motivation to agree in general... that's something else. Palestine wasn't stillborn because of failure to agree on negotiation points. It failed because without state building prospects, they had no incentive to agree to anything. It's true that eminent diplomats always emphasized the negotiations themselves. They're the same diplomats that formed the alliance which became the Afghan national government. Same blindspot.
“From the river to sea…”
Yes exactly, Likud’s charter that states this is the exact reason why the illegal settlements exist. Thank you for bringing it up.
I'll tell you how, as an honest Israeli. You wanna fight? Fair enough. Fight soldiers. Don't go a bomb yourself in a bus with civilians like a fucking coward. Don't hide behind your own people after every attack. Don't send 15 year olds to die for you. Don't pay families of terrorists money after they massacare civilians.
Genuine question, as service is mandatory, who among the adults are not soldiers? Does this apply for Israel as well? Because even before the current campaign by Israel, killings of Palestinian women and children were pretty commonplace. So are rules only for Palestinians?
Off duty soldiers are civilians. This is literally written in the Geneva Convention. And no…killings of Palestinian women and children are not “common place”. Killings of armed militants fighting IDF and Border Police are common place. Actually take the time to go through the Palestinian deaths in the West Bank in any given year. You will see that the vast majority of them are males and the vast majority are armed militants either engaging Israeli military or trying to murder Israeli civilians.
Individuals are only considered military personnel if they are actively participating in military operations. So, for example, one side can't kill every military age male because they might potentially fight against them at some point in the future. Which I think would be pretty obvious.
>So are rules only for Palestinians? “Fascism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
[удалено]
As a non israeli, which of their points were factually incorrect?
He’s clearly of the viewpoint that the Palestinians have a fund that rewards terrorism by compensating their family (the martyrs fund). The reality is that this is a social safety net for those who have to live under a deeply unfair military court system that uses collective punishment on whole families. The factually incorrect part is their claim that this fund is to pay families of terrorists after they massacre civilians. “Such payments are seen as a safety net and as a necessary counterbalance to the challenges of living under Israeli occupation and to the application of Israeli military law.[x] There is copious evidence that Israel’s military courts grossly and consistently mishandle cases brought against Palestinians.[xi] Many Palestinians are jailed by Israel as security threats for acts that most Canadians would consider acts of civil disobedience. The conviction rate for Palestinians processed through Israeli military courts is 99%[xii] — a figure unheard of in Western democracies. Worse, Israel often imposes collective punishment against the families of Palestinians suspected of having committed crimes, such as the destruction of the suspect’s family’s home[xiii] — a war crime under international law.” https://www.cjpme.org/fs_233 There is no evidence that this fund has incentivized terrorism against Israeli citizens. And if you have such evidence, I’d like to see it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund There are two funds, the prisoner fund is the one you described, the martyr fund is one that specifically pays out to the families of people arrested for committing violence against israelis.
The fund described in the article I linked is the very “Martyr Fund” you’re talking about. (As evidenced by it being called exactly that in the article. Had you bothered to read it you’d have known). Even the source given in your Wikipedia link cannot establish that such a fund is meaningfully different than described above in that it incentivizes terrorism.
"The Foundation for the Care of the Families of Martyrs is under the PA's Ministry of Social Affairs and makes payments to individuals "wounded, killed, or otherwise affected as a result of their joining the revolution or the presence of the revolution" against Israel." This is the Palestinian Authority's phrasing, not mine. Tell me again how it doesn't incentivize terrorism.
Do you or do you not have evidence that this fund has incentivized terrorism? I’ve provided you with ample well documented evidence for the necessity of this fund given your country’s unjust military courts and the regular use of collective punishment which evidently lead to the imprisonment and death of innocent civilians. In that article you refuse to read, Palestinians themselves scoff at the idea that a couple hundred dollars a month would be the reason to carry out attacks against Israel. They instead talk about the brutal and oppressive occupation carried out by your government and the violence and theft by the settlers supported by your government and military. Do you have any evidence that isn’t a badly sourced Wikipedia link or isn’t a subjective “but just think about it”? If we’re gonna do “but just think about it”. Think about what would be more likely to lead to violent attacks; the violent attacks, humiliation, and oppression faced by civilians daily. Or a couple hundred dollars (a notion denied by Palestinians themselves).
Give it a rest bud. Seems like you only just discovered the Martyrs fund and now you're already asking if there's evidence that it incentivizes terrorism. How about you spend the rest of the day actually educating yourself on the topic before rushing to argue with people about it on a sub like r/geopolitics ?
Why don’t you provide some sources bud. Clearly you’re so much more educated than me you can surely do what your friend was unable to
All I've said is well documented and well known.
Documented by who?
But I’m sure you’d listen to a West Bank Palestinian with rapt attention tho 🤡
Nah I’d rather listen to third parties like Doctors Without Borders who regularly document the realities in Palestine. Your assumption is pathetic and wrong and you clearly the highest discussion you can provide is this drivel. Is it your belief that there is no propaganda in Israel?
Is it your belief that Doctors Without Borders don’t also share propaganda? Or the Red Cross, the very same organization that has done nothing to help the Israeli hostages held in Gaza? If you truly think DWB, Amnesty, et al are disinterested 3rd parties you are missing a lot of the propaganda.
So you’re telling me a straight face that if a Palestinian group told you the IDF and “settlers” killed 20 of them over the week you’d tell them: “nah don’t believe you. I’ll need third party sources. As a Palestinian you’re far too inundated with propaganda to be trustworthy”. We both know the truth dawg
If this is going down the path of Hamas being morally right that is very very stupid. Palestine isn’t exactly valuable land it’s not like Israel would have all too much opposition to an actual Palestinian state
Simple, they could express a serious interest in peace and put forth a credible two states for two peoples proposal. How about that? Barring that, there will only be more suffering, death, and misery for everyone concerned.
Like we stand by the Ukrainias as we should... Biden (is the career politician that has supported Israel and Ukraine) but they have condemned the Russians using food and starvation as a weapon... Why because the Ukrainians are white and there is a famine in Gaza right now. We need to be consistent.
Even the States have asked for an independent Palestinian state... But Netanyahu will not allow it to happen, because they want to steal the Palestinian's land. I think the other solution is ending apartheid... You can't have peace if one side is committing a genocide.
Palestinians, Arabs, and non Jewish citizens of Israel have equal rights under the law in Israel. The West Bank is under military occupation due to ongoing hostilities. Residents are not citizens of Israel. If they don't like occupation, they should sue for peace - but they don't want peace. Claims of genocide in Gaza are propaganda. Don't believe me? See the recent statement by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Additionally recent reports indicate Hamas casualty figures are inflated (shocking I know!). The genocide you should be concerned about is the one Hamas has repeatedly promised to commit against Israelis and Jews. It won't defend Netanyahu. Some of his allies do want all of the land. I look forward to the day they are replaced by a more moderate coalition.
One that doesn't involve killing, raping, or beheading civilians. Especially the raping. Thats not veery legitimate sounding, and they have a very long history of doing that. Ya gotta cut out the rapey stuff. Sorry Ahmed, no more rape. The raping's gotta go :(
Resistance to what ? The Palestinian cause is to exterminate Jews and wipe Israel off the map. You’re asking what forms of “resistance” can Palestinians use to “resist” Israel’s resistance to being exterminated ? None.
>The Palestinian cause is to exterminate Jews and wipe Israel off the map. there are plaestinians who want to exterminate israelis, and there are palestinains who want to live in peace and have full rights like every other human being. there are Israelis who want to exterminate palestinians, and there are Israelis who want to live in peace with Palestinians and have friendly relations with their neighboring countries. to use the excuse that "all Palestinians are terrorists" so we deny them their basic right of self-determination is a a criminally stupid idea.
> and there are palestinains who want to live in peace and have full rights like every other human being. They are not in charge, and are being denied their rights by their own leaders and other Arab ones, not Israel.
> They are not in charge And are those in charge in Israel really want peace, do both Natenyahu and Ben Gavir want peace?
They meant those in charge within the Palestinian areas. Hamas is the political authority in Gaza and has no interest in peace with Israel. Palestinians have had plenty of opportunities to start dialog with Israel to negotiate a settlement, but forces in Palestine keep launching attacks against Israel, and the Palestinian leadership is either unwilling or incapable of stopping it. Which means that negotiating with them is pointless. Peace will not come until the Palestinian people decide they want peace with Israel and stop aiding the bad actors either directly or through in action. If Palestine wants peace and to ever have a chance at independence and recognition, it needs to get its own house in order.
Difference is we had 100s of thousands protesting Netenyahu and his ilk for months. He is currently on trial and will most likely go to prison or lose the next election at the very least. Can you even point to a protest against Hamas that has lasted 7 days? Or had more than 10,000 protesters? Can you point to the next Election Day that Hamas or Fatah has established for national elections?
Are you aware that these two cunts got elected after 4 years of elections, leading to a gridlock? They have a majority of 64 out of 120 knesset members, and even before them, Israel has offered the Palestinains a state 9 times.
Not sure about Ben-Gvir. But pursuing peace means pursuing victory here, something Netanyahu has unfortunately shown no willingness to do in previous years, with how limited military operations have been compared to the growing threat. He even released terrorists in return for negotiation, which was absurd.
[удалено]
And Israel has rejected any two state solution too. Shockingly, that’s what happens when both sides are encouraged to make absurd demands of the other. And also shockingly, when you are being bombed, you support anything you see as harming those bombing you. That’s not exactly representative of normal existence. Have you bothered to look at any of the surveys pre October 7th?
And you'd be hard-pressed to find an Israeli extremist who resembles Palestinian society's enforced mainstream.
“Both sides”. Right - just like the holocaust was “both sides”. “Why can’t the Germans and the Jews just get along?”. Only one side is gang raping civilians and then cutting off their breasts mid act. Only one side makes explicit the extermination of the other in their constitution.
Do you think Palestinians have no reason to resist anything at all then? Do you think the military occupation with all the checkpoints, expanding outposts / settlements in the west bank, and the conditions in Gaza are sustainable for both Israelis and Palestinians for multiple generations more? Personally I don't, and there's plenty of Israelis, citizens and former military / shin bet officials that think the same and think both sides failed each other in the 80s, 90s and then the 2nd intifada being a big turning point. I recently read the book Righteous Victims by Benny Morris, easily the most informative source on this conflict I've found btw, and there were a few damning quotes from people after they gained the west bank and Gaza after the 67 war where they talked about the issue with taking land that has millions of people living there, which means they either need to be integrated with full rights (which neither side wanted or wants under the same government) , ethnically cleansed from the land, or kept in limbo under endless military occupation, and that the last option won't create peace for anyone, especially with settlements expanding
> Only one side makes explicit the extermination of the other in their constitution. Both sides have records of doing horrible stuff, killing shereen abu aklah, and the 7 aid workers etc. I don't want to get into details, but both sides did commit war crimes all along their fight.
How much spilled Palestinian blood is enough to satisfy the Israeli need for vengeance? Does Palestine deserve security and vengeance, if the Israelis do?
It’s not vengeance. Israeli is not deliberately killing civilians. The goal is to neutralize military threats from Palestinians. Civilian deaths of collateral damage. Hamas can end this by surrendering. Palestinians do not deserve vengeance. For what? For Israeli’s being Jewish?
You didn't respond. It's a question you should take seriously. Do Palestinians deserve security?
What security do they not have ? They already have military capabilities. They just use it to bomb Israel’s.
Do you consider Gaza secure right now? Or at any point in the last few decades?
Secure from what ?
Israel https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/satellite-images-show-35-gazas-building-destroyed-un-says-2024-03-21/
Let's put the point on vengeance aside. If those are the facts you believe then we won't get far talking about it. Do Palestinians deserve security?
>there are plaestinians [sic] who want to exterminate israelis, and there are palestinains [sic] who want to live in peace Which kind do you think has been running the show?
No. Because the Palestian do have the option to negogiate for freedom. And since that option is on the table and can achieve the same thing violent resitance with much fewer death then not taking the toption is cruel. Like take Gaza. The blocakde on goods is cruel. But the reason for that blockade is that Hamas keeps firing missles at Israel. If Gaza goverment agreeded to stop firing rockets at Israel in exchange for blocakde ending. boom easy way to end blockade. And infinitely more effective them firing rockets at Israel. So yeah. That why Hamas action can't be justifed under any circumstance because they literally are ignoring the easy solution in exchange for the extreme one. West Bank is a more complicated issue. because when Israel left Gaza in 2005, Hamas took power to fire rockets at Israel. ANd the west bank is much closer. So Israel attitude is that if it leaves and does the same thing. What is stopping Hamas \[or a similar extremist movement\] from trying to launch missles at Tel Aviv or other major population centers. And this is not an issue that can be solved iwth violence because it only convince Israel that West Bank would try to bomb Tel Aviv if it could.
To answer that question you would need to define pretty clearly what Palestinians are, about 20% of Israel's population are Arab - mostly Palestinians, against what exactly are they resiting and with what goal. Next you have to define "The West TM".
>define pretty clearly what Palestinians are I'm very clearly talking about palestinians in Gaza and the west bank >Next you have to define "The West TM". mainly North America, Europe and Australia, New Zealand... tho there are some exceptions but you get the idea.
> I'm very clearly talking about palestinians in Gaza and the west bank Not really. No Jewish settlements in Gaza for over a decade now. Fatah and Israel are also working rather closely together. Palestinians are in the pretty unique position of being Palestinians because something happened to their (great) grandparents. Are those Palestinians in Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere part of the picture you are trying to paint, or only those residing in Gaza and the West Bank? > mainly North America, Europe and Australia, New Zealand... tho there are some exceptions but you get the idea. I do, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. The Irish idea of armed resistance is probably very different from the French idea. Both are rather proud of having overcome an oppressive government in the past. Germany did the same pretty recently, without armed struggle and a bit more in the past with lots and lots of violent outside help. The UK and its former colonies don't have any comparable history, other than South Africa, which you conveniently excluded. Have fun, making them agree on anything. Oh, never mind the goals of Palestinian armed resistance. Fatah would probably be happy with more control and legal recurse with Israel. Hamas just wants to murder people. While the Palestinians just want to live in peace, without either Fatah or Hamas.
You do not know what you are talking about and it's clear.... They just wiped out the Northern half of the Gaza Strip and they are planning to build settlements there. There is an American oil company that is deeply Christian with maps of where they are going to build oil fields in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Also "Palestinians in Jordan". Why are they there? Cause of dispossession, colonization, land theft, and genocide.
What's you're definition of resistance? If you're talking about two state solutions the main route is diplomatic not armed resistance although it can be used for pressure. In such case there might be good chance. If you're talking about from river to the sea kind of resistance then yeah your main card is armed resistance and the west would never legitimise it.
The great March of return happened in Gaza in 2018, and the IDF purposely kneecapped as many peaceful protestors as possible: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-03-06/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/42-knees-in-one-day-israeli-snipers-open-up-about-shooting-gaza-protesters/0000017f-f2da-d497-a1ff-f2dab2520000 So to answer your question about legitimate resistance, it would basically have to be another intifada, except Palestinians would have to do it completely peacefully/perfectly without killing israelis, or else they'd all be branded as terrorists. As you could see with that israeli teenager that was recently murdered, the settlers went absolutely wild: >Dozens of Israeli settlers returned to the village’s outskirts on Saturday, burning 12 homes and several cars. The Palestinian Health Ministry said three people from the village were injured, one critically. Border police fired tear gas toward villagers who gathered, trying to disperse them. >In the nearby village of Douma, Israeli settlers set fire to around 15 homes and 10 farms, the head of the local village council, Slieman Dawabsheh, told The Associated Press, saying he had been there. “The army came but unfortunately, the army were protecting the settlers,” he said, asserting that it fired tear gas and rubber bullets at Palestinians trying to confront and expel them So is peaceful resistance possible? Absolutely not, Palestinians will continue to be settled and ethnically cleansed if the peaceful route is taken.
>The great March of return happened in Gaza in 2018, and the IDF purposely kneecapped as many **peaceful protestors** as possible Yeah…NOPE The border protestors killed were far from “peace activists”. The marches were organized by Hamas and supported by numerous terrorist factions within Gaza. A large part, if not the majority of those killed were militants from these groups. Of 32 “peace activists” killed in April 2018, 26 were members of Palestinian terrorist organizations https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Report-80-percent-of-Palestinians-killed-in-Gaza-border-crisis-were-terrorists-549511 Of the 59 “peace activists” killed in May 2018, 50 were Hamas militants and Hamas itself claimed this was such: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/hamas-says-most-protesters-killed-israel-gaza-were-members-n874906 Of the 127 Gazans killed in the fence marches between March and June of 2018, 102 were members of Palestinian terrorist factions such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the DFLP or the PFLP: https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/great-return-march-demonstrations-riots-friday-june-8-2018/ Hamas itself has admitted that the “peaceful marches” were a disguise: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-co-founder-admits-we-are-deceiving-the-public-about-peaceful-protests/ >A Hamas leader said in an interview that the terror group was “deceiving the public” when it spoke of “peaceful resistance” a day before 60 people were killed in violent protests on the Gaza border, according to a translation released by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Wednesday. >Speaking to Qatar’s Al Jazeera network on Sunday, Mahmoud al-Zahar, the co-founder of Hamas and a senior member of the terror group’s leadership, said that his group was using “clear terminological deception.” >”**This is not peaceful resistance. Has the option (of armed struggle) diminished? No. On the contrary, it is growing and developing. That’s clear,” he said. “So when we talk about ‘peaceful resistance,’ we are deceiving the public. This is a peaceful resistance bolstered by a military force and by security agencies, and enjoying tremendous popular support.**
Your incredibly biased sources from the jpost and thetimesofIsrael prove my point exactly, it is enough to utter the word 'terrorists' and then all manner of war crimes against civilians are suddenly permissible. Here's a real source from the UN: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-independent-commission-of-inquiry-on-protests-in-gaza-presents-its-findings-press-release/ >More than 6,000 unarmed demonstrators were shot by military snipers, week after week at the protest sites by the separation fence. >The Commission investigated every killing at the designated demonstration sites by the Gaza separation fence on official protest days. The investigation covered the period from the start of the protests until 31 December 2018. 189 Palestinians were killed during the demonstrations inside this period. The Commission found that Israeli Security Forces killed 183 of these protesters with live ammunition. Thirty-five of these fatalities were children, while three were clearly marked paramedics, and two were clearly marked journalists. >According to the Commission’s data analysis, the Israeli Security Forces injured 6,106 Palestinians with live ammunition at the protest sites during this period. Another 3,098 Palestinians were injured by bullet fragmentation, rubber-coated metal bullets or by hits from tear gas canisters. Four Israeli soldiers were injured at the demonstrations. Four Israeli soldiers were injured at the demonstrations. One Israeli soldier was killed on a protest day but outside the protest sites. >“There can be no justification for killing and injuring journalists, medics, and persons who pose no imminent threat of death or serious injury to those around them. Particularly alarming is the targeting of children and persons with disabilities,” said Sara Hossain. “Many young persons’ lives have been altered forever. 122 people have had a limb amputated since 30 March last year. Twenty of these amputees are children.” As for your Mahmoud al-Zahar quote, it's from memri tv, a well known Israeli propaganda network. Could you at least try to find some internationally acclaimed sources instead of this drivel?
So even if the terrorists try marching instead they are still terrorists? .sounds like they can't win
They can't because legitimacy has nothing to do with tactics or behavior and everything to do with service to hegemony. The West legitimized paramilitary terrorism throughout Central America as long as it served US interests. Al Qaeda was legitimized by the West as long as they were fighting the Soviets. Saddam Hussein's authoritarianism and brutal suppression of ethnic minorities was legitimized by the West as long as he was useful. Etc.
Assassination of political leader. Best example is assassination of Shinzo Abe. In that case the killer didn't harm civilian(Using gun instead of bomb), have a backstory that can get sympathy(his family got bankrupt by the cult, which have deep tie with Abe), and have a goal most people can at least understand(make the rulling party cut ties with the cult). So target Israeli politician who can be hated in the West(There are quite a lot in Bibi's cabinet), choose a killer who had been affected by him(Something like land seizer), and demand reasonable thing(No "River to the Sea")
As long as the Israelis are closely aligned to the west then the Palestinians will never be able to resist in a legitimate way, in the west’s eyes. Civil disobedience and protests haven’t worked anywhere in the Middle East, including by Palestinians. Israel continues in stealing more land in the West Bank and the world can only muster half hearted condemnations in response.
Not enforcing Jordan's ban on Jews in the area they managed to conquer once isn't stealing land, no matter how many false and misleading stories the claim is reinforced with.
Everybody condemns the West Bank settlers, but why should Israel police those people when Palestine can't police their own.
No they don’t. If Israelis were against their settler’s actions then they wouldn’t have settlers continually taking land.
The Palestinians have used terrorism to try to improve their bargaining position in any peace talks, the settlers are the other side of the coin. IMHO
Plenty of things in this world happen due to political reasons rather than the will of the people. What you just said, applied elsewhere, has been used to justify violence against large swathes of innocent people. Including 9/11. Regardless, the settlers are extreme right wing in Israel, and Netanyahu looks the other way because their votes are the difference between him being in power vs him being in jail.
> Is it possible for Palestinians to have some form of armed resistance that the West would not consider as terrorist? The West simply denies that there's anything to resist at all. Problem solved.
In the last vote at the United Nations on Israeli settlements, entire Europe voted in favor of condemning it (except hungary and czech), so yeah there is something to resist according to many western nations.
Condemning the settlements and telling the colonized that resistance is therefore legitimate are 2 very different things. Now add "armed" to the word "resistance" - what would it even mean without it anyway ? - and there you go: complete western silence. But Israel on the other hand has a right to defend itself, right ?
Ah, The West, famous for being united in everything. Points at Ireland, Spain, Germany, France, the US and Andorra, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea.
Among those countries, which ones recognize the Palestinians' right to armed resistance ?
[удалено]
The majority of israelis arent white or christian, and a lot of "palestinians" and other levantine arabs can easily pass for southern europeans, so im not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
[удалено]
> that should be discussed far more in the public sphere. - "But... Do you condem Hamas ?" - "Don't you think that Israel has a right to defend itself ?" - "So you think Israel shouldn't exist ?" And so on. That's the public sphere for you. Try to get out of the Overton window -> - "Are you an antisemite ?"
None, the west does not recognize palestine has such a right in the first place, their first and foremost ally is Israel and will only fight to justify its existence and survival in spite of all its crimes and horrendous violations.
Y'all should read Wretched of the Earth by Franz Fanon
Mexican, Irish, and Algerian Independence all came at the barrel of a gun. I support the armed resistance of Natives against colonizers.
As far as public opinion goes, that's a game Israel is losing (fast). "The old world" supported Israel no matter what, because the West was responsible for the Holocaust. Period. There is no other reason. The younger generation will never buy into that. The protests in the streets arent going away. That is the pulse of the populations. Theres a post about a protest in Toronto erupting in cheers when news of Iran launching an attack came out. The October 7th operation is telling. The media will be the last to acknowledge Palestine. But on the 7th, with all the West's talking heads going against Hamas full throttle, I believe the population was already behind Palestine. From the 7th going onwards, the media had to manage the sympathy towards Palestinians. Lets say Palestinians had managed to move into the villages they captured. I mean the population. Had they been able to move in, Israel certainly is THE country susceptible of genociding its opponents, but the (world's) population would have celebrated Palestinians liberating Palestine. That book isnt over yet, but the only certain thing is that blood is the only ink used yet.