How should Palestine defend itself?

Dublin Red Devil

Palestine needs support from other Arab nation nations. The Zionist Jew rats occupying Palestine land and killing innocent people have to be stopped.

sid waddell

esteve wrote: »

I will, during previous truces, Israel continued to expand and illegally occupy land in the West Bank. That action in its very nature breaks any truce.

After the Oslo Agreement, Israel dramatically ramped up its settlement building programme.

A truce demands give and take.

Throughout the history of this conflict, Israel has never given, only taken.

In the run up to this "truce", Israel went at it hammer and tongs, wiping out 20 members of a Palestinian family minutes before it was to come into effect.

It reminds me of people loading their supermarket trollies with crates of wine the night before the price of a bottle was to go up by one euro. Israel just couldn't resist gorging itself on more violence while it could.

Mr.Micro

blinding wrote: »

Mind you the Israelis will probably Nuke them so where do you go from here ?

In essence the palestinians/hamas have to become more of a threat to Israel.

How can they become more of a threat? There is no way that the Palestinians are going to win....ever, against the might of Israel, bar the intervention of the US, or some other superpower. All the Palestinians will be, is an excuse for Israel, to keep killing, to warmonger, keep it's own people on red alert all the time and play the victim.

blinding

Mr.Micro wrote: »

How can they become more of a threat? There is no way that the Palestinians are going yo win....ever against the might of Israel, bar the intervention of the US of some other superpower. All the Palestinians will be is an excuse for Israel to keep killing, to warmonger, keep it's own people on red alert all the time and play the victim.

The Palestinians have to keep trying. Its not until they can hurt the Israelis that the Israelis will have meaningful negotiations.

Sure it seems dumb but….

Loads of human behaviour is dumb !

Sand

esteve wrote: »

And ... any truce.

I think it should be clear by now that you get more out of me responding to your posts than I get from you responding to mine.

@sid waddell

I note you failed to engage with the point that Israel has been in violation of international law since 1967.

Has it or has it not?

In the words of Sean Hannity - it's a yes or no question.

I saw it, and I chose not to engage with it because it is not the subject of discussion and I'm wary of misdirection and attempts to derail discussion. The 1967 international law issue was raised as a way of evading acknowledging my point.

very well funded lobby groups and are expert at pushing their propaganda in the media, which attempts to stifle debate by framing any discussion around a few stock cliches and untruths, and stonewalling on key questions. It's basically professional trolling.

Israel threads are *extremely* prone to posters wanting to get off topic as quick as possible, open up the history books and go back to who was right or wrong in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s etc etc. Hence I am wary of engaging in that derailment.

I wont engage in further discussion of that off-topic subject, so my opinion, take it or leave it, is that international law is a vague and ill-defined series of customs and traditions with little real force behind it but that yes, I am sure Israel has been in breach of international law for the entirety of its existence.

sid waddell

Sand wrote: »

I am sure Israel has been in breach of international law for the entirety of its existence.

I'm glad you acknowledge that.

You mentioned "groupthink" and "bias" earlier.

To get back to the point of how should Palestine defend itself, doesn't the fact that we almost never even hear this question in the western media demonstrate high levels of groupthink and bias? We never hear the question: does Israel acknowledge Palestine's right to exist?

Why is it that the western media pretty much exclusively chooses to frame the conflict in this way?

One can only come to the conclusion that pro-Israel groupthink and bias play a rather large part. Again, let's look at he US media. Bill Maher makes a rather facetious comment about "sometimes you have to say it's time to move on", in reference to he Palestinians, and suffers no repercussions whatsoever. One can only imagine the reaction if somebody had told the Jewish people that "sometimes you have to say it's time to move on" in reference to the Holocaust. Contrast that to the reaction when NBA player Dwight Howard tweeted "Free Gaza", and retracted the comment within 15 minutes. One of the key things about groupthink is that it wants to curb free speech. The Israel lobby, particularly in the US but elsewhere too, isn't and has never been very big on the concept of free speech.

Even your beloved Guardian, in my view, is rather "sympathetic" to Israel in how it frames debate.

MiloDublin

How should Palestine defend itself?

1. Non-violent resistance (Gandhi)
2. Violent resistance (IRA)
3. International intervention (Ex-Yugoslavia)

One other point because this mantra keeps being bough up:

'No country would tolerates missiles being fired on its citizens'
This is true but the right to use violence in return is only justified if all other means have been exhausted.
Hamas is the last gasp of Palestinian national honour, Fatah has been neutered and is unable to stop the gradual annexation on the West Bank.

Gaza is still under siege and a siege is an act of war.
Ironically in the lead up to the Six Day War Nasser threatened to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping which was used as a causus belli by the Israelis so they well understand this concept.

Sand

sid waddell wrote: »

You mentioned "groupthink" and "bias" earlier.

To get back to the point of how should Palestine defend itself, doesn't the fact that we almost never even hear this question in the western media demonstrate high levels of groupthink and bias?

How should Palestine defend itself as a tactical or strategic issue? The media rarely covers such technical topics for any country. It is not qualified to do so.

We never hear the question: does Israel acknowledge Palestine's right to exist?

I think because Palestine does not at this moment in time does not actually exist as a fully fledged state so its not really a question that arises.

If you mean does Israel recognise the State of Palestine, then it doesn't (though in practise it deals with the Palestinian institutions), and most of the western media is based in countries which also do not recognise the state of Palestine.

If you mean is there a widespread recognition in Israel that some Palestinian state will exist as part of a lasting peace, then I'd say yes, Israel does acknowledge Palestine's right to exist. Both Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert openly called for a Palestinian state as part of the solution for the conflict. Even Netanyahu has supported this objective - though under pressure.

The key point of disagreement is that Israel does not accept the 1967 borders as being the basis for that state.

Why is it that the western media pretty much exclusively chooses to frame the conflict in this way?

I don't think it does. The media reports I see on a variety of channels and a variety of sources highlight the suffering of the Palestinian people, challenge Israeli representatives on "proportionality" and repeatedly stress that international pressure is growing on *Israel* specifically to call a ceasefire. Little mention is made of how difficult it is to hold a ceasefire when Hamas will not agree to one.

One can only come to the conclusion that pro-Israel groupthink and bias play a rather large part. Again, let's look at he US media. Bill Maher makes a rather facetious comment about "sometimes you have to say it's time to move on", in reference to he Palestinians, and suffers no repercussions whatsoever. One can only imagine the reaction if somebody had told the Jewish people that "sometimes you have to say it's time to move on" in reference to the Holocaust. Contrast that to the reaction when NBA player Dwight Howard tweeted "Free Gaza", and retracted the comment within 15 minutes. One of the key things about groupthink is that it wants to curb free speech. The Israel lobby, particularly in the US but elsewhere too, isn't and has never been very big on the concept of free speech.

Even your beloved Guardian, in my view, is rather "sympathetic" to Israel in how it frames debate.

I think the weakness of your point is demonstrated by the limited nature of your sample size. You have to take it from the amazingly polarised and politically driven American media where quite frankly anyone and anybody can get on TV to rant and rave with no fear of contradiction.

I'm not aware of the "Free Gaza" tweet - could it simply be that a sportsperson was asked/told to keep out of politics that could affect his marketing? On the other hand Maher has been relentlessly attacked for offering an opinion by a variety media sources, including the Guardian.

EI_Flyboy

How should Palestine defend itself? The simple answer to this is they can't. They're using WW2 technology against one of the most modern armies in the world, they haven't a hope. What they really need to do is some sort of peaceful protest so as not to give the Israelis an excuse to attack Palestine and instead give them every reason to sit down to negotiate. That's not likely to happen and it's not like the Israelis seriously expect it either. Hamas will happily martyr themselves and go to heaven for killing infidels, why the rest of the world has forgotten this, I don't know but not much has been said about the Israelis exploiting it so they'll happily continue poking the hornets nest. Now let's get this straight, Israel lies all the time, I don't why anyone takes anything they say at face value anymore. Now you can jump on board with their rhetoric but you'd be foolish to do so because at the end of the day you're justifying the cold blooded murder of innocent men, women and children. Unless of course you're ok with the murder of innocent men, women and children? I mean four kids on a beach playing football blown up with state of the art weapons minutes after a renowned reporter was playing with them? Come on, that was a lesson to the media about how little Israel cares about what the rest of the world thinks.

The sad fact is the Israelis see the Palestinians as a lesser breed, unworthy of the land or consideration. Dare I say it, they consider them untermenschen. Now I must say I fully expect someone to use Godwin's law to try and invalidate my arguments but I don't mind, it's always nice to know who the small minds are! Besides, how can you have a discussion about Israel without bringing the Holocaust into it? You'd really think that given their history, they'd actually have some idea of the resolve that must surely be in the heart of most every Palestinian and as such would choose a different course but this failure of insight will either be the cause of their ultimate failure or see them go down in history as a pariah state maybe even out doing the Nazis in terms of horror.

Comparing the situation to Northern Ireland can only go so far in that both situations developed through one group seeing another as a lesser breed and then denying them basic human and civil rights, basically denying them and their children a future before picking up the gun to fight back. I don't think anyone in the IRA ever thought they were going to be rewarded with paradise for killing infidels and as such never went out of their way to sacrifice themselves. The IRA also mostly tried to pick legitimate targets(at least what they saw as legitimate targets) and give bomb warnings to the authorities so as to avoid civilian casualties, something I don't think Hamas has ever done because they are happy to indiscriminately rack up the numbers of dead Israelis. On top of that, what turned out to be the real success for the IRA was their economic terrorism when they started targeting "The City of London"(the UK equivalent of Wall Street) after the failed ceasefire. Again I know this is going to ruffle a lot of feathers out their but I believe this is what actually led to the end of the hostilities in that when the economic might of The City was threatened by the bombing of Canary Wharf and the possibility of an on going campaign against it which would have cost them further billions, their economic might was turned towards the powers that be and the security forces who were by then seen as being churlish and incompetent in trying to fight a failed war. I don't think the "Blitz Spirit" lasted long after that. This shows that to win a war against a larger force who has you out-gunned, you must hit them where it truly hurts, in their pocket. I don't think Hamas is capable of seeing this and neither am I sure that it would work against Israel as many of them are just as or more driven driven by religion.

The Palestinians would be better served by studying the works of Gene Sharp on non violent struggle because at the end of the day, no matter what people say their ultimate goals are, they'll always settle for peaceful co-existence and a guaranteed future for their children. That's what the IRA settled for and it's what the Palestinians will settle for if given the option. There will of course be a hardcore on both sides who will never be happy a la the Real IRA and this is probably a bigger factor on the Israeli side in that the state was founded by such a hardcore who, fresh from fighting the Nazis, went in arms swinging and murdering Palestinians from the get go. Quite honestly I think the situation is hopeless. Both sides seem incapable of seeing beyond religion so are doomed to be constrained by their respective dogmas. Israel must surely also feel ISIL breathing down their neck and Israel no longer respects the United States so won't be held on their leash anymore. It can hardly be said that any one actor bears responsibility for this mess but the lion's share must surely go to the U.S. whose failed policy of Might is Right has ignited fires all over the world that are now burning out of their control. It's not the loss of control that's to blame but the inability to see that loss of control was inevitable. Fear does not guarantee peace, only peace guarantees peace.

sid waddell

Sand wrote: »

How should Palestine defend itself as a tactical or strategic issue? The media rarely covers such technical topics for any country. It is not qualified to do so.



I think because Palestine does not at this moment in time does not actually exist as a fully fledged state so its not really a question that arises.

If you mean does Israel recognise the State of Palestine, then it doesn't (though in practise it deals with the Palestinian institutions), and most of the western media is based in countries which also do not recognise the state of Palestine.

If you mean is there a widespread recognition in Israel that some Palestinian state will exist as part of a lasting peace, then I'd say yes, Israel does acknowledge Palestine's right to exist. Both Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert openly called for a Palestinian state as part of the solution for the conflict. Even Netanyahu has supported this objective - though under pressure.

The key point of disagreement is that Israel does not accept the 1967 borders as being the basis for that state.



I don't think it does. The media reports I see on a variety of channels and a variety of sources highlight the suffering of the Palestinian people, challenge Israeli representatives on "proportionality" and repeatedly stress that international pressure is growing on *Israel* specifically to call a ceasefire. Little mention is made of how difficult it is to hold a ceasefire when Hamas will not agree to one.





I think the weakness of your point is demonstrated by the limited nature of your sample size. You have to take it from the amazingly polarised and politically driven American media where quite frankly anyone and anybody can get on TV to rant and rave with no fear of contradiction.

I'm not aware of the "Free Gaza" tweet - could it simply be that a sportsperson was asked/told to keep out of politics that could affect his marketing? On the other hand Maher has been relentlessly attacked for offering an opinion by a variety media sources, including the Guardian.

What Israel defines as a Palestinian state is not, by any definition, a state. It is a series of disconnected Bantustans where Israel retains at least 40% of the land on the West Bank for its own settlements and where it retains ultimate control over what goes in and comes out of the West Bank, and n effect, retains ultimate overall control. That is not a state, that is a sham.

Given that Israel continues to expand into the West Bank and shows no sign of stopping, that ca only be taken as a huge two fingers to any notion of a future Palestinian state, and to think otherwise requires an incredible level of mental gymnastics.

Any workable Palestinian state can only encompass the 1967 borders in their totality, including East Jerusalem, as a minimum. Anything else is simply naked imperialism.

The US media is far from polarised on this conflict. It's remarkably uniform in the way it reports it. Pro-Israel group think is very much the order of the day, in the framing and phrasing of pretty much every single thing about it.

comongethappy

sid waddell wrote: »

The US media is far from polarised on this conflict. It's remarkably uniform in the way it reports it. .

How long have you lived there to know this?

R P McMurphy

comongethappy wrote: »

How long have you lived there to know this?

The internet has arrived

comongethappy

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The internet has arrived

And its thousands of media outlets to make sweeping statements.... Have you read/heard them all to make a similar judgement?

sid waddell

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The internet has arrived

It's the sofa you're sitting on when accessing US media that makes all the difference.

sid waddell

comongethappy wrote: »

And its thousands of media outlets to make sweeping statements.... Have you read/heard them all to make a similar judgement?

Consider the amount of funding the US gives to Israel against the amount it gives to Palestine, and take it from there.

Mainstream media will by and large tend to reflect the interests of establishment politics in any country across a range of issues. That's true, for example, of economic analysis in the Irish media, and certainly true when it comes to US media's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Hitchens

As things stand, there is no such place as Palestine

sid waddell

Hitchens wrote: »

As things stand, there is no such place as Palestine

Do you believe there exists such a thing as the Palestinian people?

Mr.Micro

sid waddell wrote: »

http://www.change.org/petitions/rte-immediate-apology-for-obvious-biased-and-deceitful-reporting-on-the-gaza-issue?recruiter=10340153&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_mobile

Rte are rarely on the ball when it comes to the news. It just reads off news collected by other agencies. It probably does not even bother to check for bias or accuracy...

Sand

sid waddell wrote: »

What Israel defines as a Palestinian state is not, by any definition, a state. It is a series of disconnected Bantustans where Israel retains at least 40% of the land on the West Bank for its own settlements and where it retains ultimate control over what goes in and comes out of the West Bank, and n effect, retains ultimate overall control. That is not a state, that is a sham.

Given that Israel continues to expand into the West Bank and shows no sign of stopping, that ca only be taken as a huge two fingers to any notion of a future Palestinian state, and to think otherwise requires an incredible level of mental gymnastics.

Any workable Palestinian state can only encompass the 1967 borders in their totality, including East Jerusalem, as a minimum. Anything else is simply naked imperialism.

The 1967 borders were on offer as a basis for peace in 1967. Instead of accepting a negotiated solution then, the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours launched the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War and lost both. Badly.

The 1967 borders are not on offer anymore. That is the penalty for launching and losing wars in the real world. Trying to claim them as the *minimum* for a successful deal is a childish fantasy. There will never be any peace if the Palestinian position is to take that line.

But regardless, the question was does Israel acknowledge the right of Palestine to exist - the answer is yes, though the borders of "Palestine" are up for debate.

The US media is far from polarised on this conflict. It's remarkably uniform in the way it reports it. Pro-Israel group think is very much the order of the day, in the framing and phrasing of pretty much every single thing about it.

I'd actually agree in the case of US media, but US media is not even "western" media, let alone "the" media. I've just watched a news piece that was at best neutral towards Israel, and could have been interpreted as extremely critical of Israel.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

The 1967 borders were on offer as a basis for peace in 1967. Instead of accepting a negotiated solution then, the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours launched the Six Day War ..............

They did?

BQQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים, Milhemet Sheshet Ha Yamim; Arabic: النكسة, an-Naksah, "The Setback" or حرب ۱۹٦۷, Ḥarb 1967, "War of 1967"), also known as the June War, 1967 Arab–Israeli War, or Third Arab–Israeli War, was fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria. The war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise strikes against Egyptian air-fields after the mobilisation of Egyptian forces on the Israeli border.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

They did?

Another attempt at derailment? Lets just say both sides accuse the other of starting the conflict. The Egyptian army curiously did have 7 divisions and 900 tanks massed in the Sinai, probably to carry out some humanitarian peacekeeping operation. And move on.

Hitchens

"[SIZE=+1]That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more"

June 5, 1967. The nineteen-year-old state of Israel is surrounded by enemies who want nothing less than her utter extinction. The Soviet-equipped Egyptian Army has massed a thousand tanks on the nation’s southern border. Syrian heavy guns are shelling her from the north. To the east, Jordan and Iraq are moving mechanized brigades and fighter squadrons into position to attack. Egypt’s President Nasser has declared that the Arab force’s objective is “the destruction of Israel.” The rest of the world turns a blind eye to the new nation’s desperate peril.

June 10, 1967. The Arab armies have been routed, ground divisions wiped out, air forces totally destroyed. Israel’s citizen-soldiers have seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan. The land under Israeli control has tripled. Her charismatic defense minister, Moshe Dayan, has entered the Lion’s Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem to stand with the paratroopers who have liberated Judaism’s holiest site—the Western Wall, part of the ruins of Solomon’s temple, which has not been in Jewish hands for nineteen hundred years.

It is one of the most unlikely and astonishing military victories in history.
[/SIZE]

Sand

BQQ wrote: »

Underlining some text is fixing my post?

Mobilising forces is not starting a war. Launching strikes is.

Yep, it is fixing it. The Arab states talked up a war, mobilised for a war, and planned for a war. The Israelis decided not to wait around to get hit first. Again, big boy rules.

It's again childish to believe you can mobilise your armies, mass on a neighbours borders, drive out UN peacekeepers, rant on about driving the Israelis into the sea and then pretend to be the victim when the Israelis react perfectly rationally.

But at the end of the day, this is just derailment. The Israelis won, the Arab states lost. The 1967 borders are not on offer anymore, nearly 50 years later.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Another attempt at derailment? Lets just say both sides accuse the other of starting the conflict.
.

Then why didn't you say that?

sid waddell

Sand wrote: »

Another attempt at derailment? Lets just say both sides accuse the other of starting the conflict. The Egyptian army curiously did have 7 divisions and 900 tanks massed in the Sinai, probably to carry out some humanitarian peacekeeping operation. And move on.

The poster engaged an assertion you made in your previous post. In the post I quote above, you backtracked to say "Lets just say both sides accuse the other of starting the conflict."

You don't seem to be very sure of your position on this, and I think with good reason.

Given that you were previously categorical that the Arab forces started the Six Day War, yet immediately backtracked after being challenged, I think it would be fair to assume a fairly heavy pro-Israeli bias in terms of your view of the conflict. That isn't a sound basis to form objective opinions from.

captcorcoran

I think people are letting their personal ideologies corrupt their view of the situation. I mean, it's very easy to view Israel as the reincarnation of the third reich propped up by western capitalists, and Palestine as the darling of extremist Islamics and their propaganda machine. We should be focusing on the humanitarian cost here. The civilian population is being decimated, which will lead to greater support for Hamas, which will lead to more Israeli deaths. In short, it's a classic 'circle of violence' that needs to be stopped,somehow.

Sand

sid waddell wrote: »

The poster engaged an assertion you made in your previous post. In the post I quote above, you backtracked to say "Lets just say both sides accuse the other of starting the conflict."

You don't seem to be very sure of your position on this, and I think with good reason.

Given that you were previously categorical that the Arab forces started the Six Day War, yet immediately backtracked after being challenged, I think it would be fair to assume a fairly heavy pro-Israeli bias in terms of your view of the conflict. That isn't a sound basis to form objective opinions from.

Again, as I noted earlier - I am extremely wary of attempts to derail discussions. You should agree:

very well funded lobby groups and are expert at pushing their propaganda in the media, which attempts to stifle debate by framing any discussion around a few stock cliches and untruths, and stonewalling on key questions. It's basically professional trolling.

I haven't backtracked - I 100% believe the Arab states launched that war. I just don't care to argue about it. It is not the topic of the thread. It's clearly an attempt to move away from the topic and having to acknowledge that Hamas has absolutely no interest in actually defending the Palestinian people. So far people would much rather talk about Israel's status under international law since 1967, Israeli recognition of Palestine, the validity of the 1967 borders and now who started the Six Day war.

Everything in fact except the topic - as you stated yourself, just stock cliches to avoid having to either:

1- acknowledge the reality that it is Hamas that objects to a ceasefire, or
2 - almost as bad try to somehow defend the Hamas rejection of a ceasefire whilst simultaneously maintaining the position that ending civilian suffering ought to be the priority.

I understand why people prefer to talk about anything other than the topic given their options. It's important to note, I don't actually expect anyone to admit to having no valid response. That never happens. But it would be nice someone thinks a *little* harder about the conflict than just "Israel= Evil!" "Palestine = Good!".

Black Swan

Sand wrote: »

FYP

MOD: This is Politics, not Politics Café or AH. Please do not do FYP in the future.

obplayer

BQQ wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים, Milhemet Sheshet Ha Yamim; Arabic:
النكسة, an-Naksah, "The Setback" or حرب ۱۹٦۷, Ḥarb 1967, "War of 1967"), also
known as the June War, 1967 Arab–Israeli War, or Third Arab–Israeli War, was
fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of
Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria. The
war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise strikes against Egyptian
air-fields after the mobilisation of Egyptian forces on the Israeli
border.

Why were they mobilising? Was Israel supposed to wait until they were deployed?