About half of Israels Jews support expelling arabs

[Thanas]

So according to Simon, the Palestinians are supposed to roll over and take whatever Israel decides to give them, because that has worked out so well for them.

No, seriously, Simon, what is your credible peace plan that forces Israel to actually stop oppressing them and forces Israel to actually keep their promises (unlike Oslo)? Do you have one? Or is your strategy mainly to have the Palestinians do nothing as Israel completes their encroachment and settlement building before cleansing them all?

[Ziggy Stardust]

If Hamas has no power to destroy the state of Israel directly (which it obviously doesn't or it would already have done so), then why are they still wasting their resources trying, when doing so actively reduces the odds of the Israeli people ever 'coming to their senses' and embracing a solution that is more reasonable in Palestinian eyes?

All the answers come down to "Palestinians want revenge for past wrongs" or something like that. And bluntly, committing national self-immolation out of a desire for revenge is insanity.

I think you are confusing short term with long term goals.

Yes, Hamas calls for the complete destruction of the state of Israel. But that is a long-term goal, and doesn't at all take away from their ability to prioritize other goals in the short term. This is my way of saying that they have other motivations other than just to destroy Israel. And, from their perspective, why wouldn't they stop fighting? As Thanas said, if Palestine gives up that just emboldens Israel to continue the settlements and dismantle the Palestinian community completely (because if Palestine gives up than Israel wins). There isn't enough of a response in the West to prevent Israel from doing so, and continuing the fight is just about the only way Palestine has of staying in the international spotlight and bringing attention to the situation, there. They don't have the resources to mount either a conventional war or upgrade the rockets they use, but neither are they in a situation where laying down their arms completely is likely to help anything.

It's all nice in theory to say that if they lay down their arms and negotiate than the whole situation could be resolved, but it's terribly naive to think that, without either extreme Western pressure or an unusually receptive Israeli government, the negotiations would probably just result in Israel getting everything they want, leading to the formation of another Palestinian militant splinter group that wants to stop the settlements.

The situation has to be solved multilaterally, not by the Palestinians giving up. I mean, with the current political situation, what choices do they have other than fight or surrender? Why wouldn't they continue to struggle, and hope that the political situation evolves into one in which a good faith negotiation is possible for both sides?

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you actually arguing that Palestinians deserve to be exterminated due to some sort of collective guilt (remember, not all Palestinians engaged in the acts you refer to) because their leadership "squandered" a chance for peace?

You as well as I likely already know his answer to that.

The whole IvP shitfest is a cesspool. God forbid you say anything wrong about any side. My stance is cut off all funding and aide to Israel till it adopts a Constitution that clearly spells out human rights, makes all Palestinians, even the refugees, citizens and hold immediate elections without pre-conditions and a blanket pardon to all factions in the dispute, including removing Palestinians off terror lists, followed by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Will never happen, but I can dream.

It would also be nice if the Palestinians stopped supporting guerilla warfare. And groups like Hamas, which not only call for the total destruction of Israel via Jihad, but have also stated that any agreement with Israel would merely be used as a stepping stone to continue further attacks down the road. They are not exactly innocent here either.

IMO both sides behaviour is pretty abhorrent.

Yeah, for me this is definitely a "plague on both your houses" type situation.

[Flagg]

Yeah, they do all that you said and take no real precautions to avoid killing Arab civilians because they're not like, people or anything. The only difference between the Arabs and the Jews is military hardware.

Fucking christ, not this again. The IDF takes great care to avoid killing civilians but won't avoid killing them to hit targets. Similar to every western military engaged in actual combat. Does this make them saints? No. But neither are the U.S. or U.K militaries saints and they're also involved in day to day combat. I believe it's not useful to hold any western army to a standard of conduct that the rest don't hold with.

It is incredibly hard to avoid hitting civilians in Gaza, a land area with a population density that makes New York City seem roomy at some parts. The IDF also refuses (understandably) to put it's own soldiers lives in danger just to take more of a safety margin.

I'll phrase this another way, since the IDF is ordered to fight in Gaza, how should it act to prevent more civilian deaths? Give them weeks to evacuate (to where?)? Do more than leaflets + phone calls to the exact building being attacked?

If they can't hit targets by air in Gaza without killing dozens of civilians, then don't bomb Gaza, send in troops. But then, precious Israeli blood would be spilled.

[Simon_Jester]

If they can't hit targets by air in Gaza without killing dozens of civilians, then don't bomb Gaza, send in troops. But then, precious Israeli blood would be spilled.

This would also kill dozens, or hundreds, of Gaza civilians.

Street to street fighting between large groups of armed soldiers is not a blood-free option. Especially not in a very crowded city.

I think you are confusing short term with long term goals.

Yes, Hamas calls for the complete destruction of the state of Israel. But that is a long-term goal, and doesn't at all take away from their ability to prioritize other goals in the short term. This is my way of saying that they have other motivations other than just to destroy Israel. And, from their perspective, why wouldn't they stop fighting? As Thanas said, if Palestine gives up that just emboldens Israel to continue the settlements and dismantle the Palestinian community completely (because if Palestine gives up than Israel wins)...

Palestinian fighting isn't stopping the Israelis from winning.

Why is this so hard to understand? Israel's military and economy aren't getting weaker. Israelis continue to squeeze Palestinians economically. If anything, the continued fighting is just giving the Israelis pretexts and desire to continue the squeezing and crushing of Palestine.

This is the point that people seem to have so much trouble understanding. There is a difference between fighting an enemy and working towards victory. If fighting leads to defeat, fighting is not a useful strategy for pursuing one's aim...

There isn't enough of a response in the West to prevent Israel from doing so, and continuing the fight is just about the only way Palestine has of staying in the international spotlight and bringing attention to the situation, there. They don't have the resources to mount either a conventional war or upgrade the rockets they use, but neither are they in a situation where laying down their arms completely is likely to help anything.

Except that every damaging Israeli attack comes in the wake of the Palestinians deciding to 'continue the fight.'

Why would the Israelis ever do anything but continue this supposedly intolerable status quo, and continue turning up the pressure and making the status quo even worse? The last time Israel did anything the Palestinians would actually want, it made things massively worse for Israel, to the point where military action was the only thing they could to do that would reduce the extent of the bombardment.

Given that the Israelis have the power to continue doing this, and no one is stopping them, it is incredibly stupid for groups like Hamas to just casually rule out the idea of ceasing to attack them. Bluntly, Hamas seems to have no clue how to actually be a government, in the sense of an organized, rational body with a responsibility of care and guardianship for its people. They're great at committing acts of guerilla warfare and terrorism, but that doesn't qualify them to be a government over their own people- whom they are badly misruling in Gaza.

It's all nice in theory to say that if they lay down their arms and negotiate than the whole situation could be resolved, but it's terribly naive to think that, without either extreme Western pressure or an unusually receptive Israeli government, the negotiations would probably just result in Israel getting everything they want, leading to the formation of another Palestinian militant splinter group that wants to stop the settlements.

The situation has to be solved multilaterally, not by the Palestinians giving up. I mean, with the current political situation, what choices do they have other than fight or surrender? Why wouldn't they continue to struggle, and hope that the political situation evolves into one in which a good faith negotiation is possible for both sides?

The Palestinians created the current political situation by making an active, collective decision to continue fighting in Gaza even after settlers were withdrawn.

---

So according to Simon, the Palestinians are supposed to roll over and take whatever Israel decides to give them, because that has worked out so well for them.

Firing missiles at Israel also works badly for them, though.

The Israelis had overcome their insanity enough to actively withdraw their settlers from one of the two major areas the Palestinians have been pushed into, in some cases evicting the settlers at gunpoint. If there was ever going to be a peace process, and this is admittedly unlikely, then it inevitably would have had to involve the Palestinians taking that and going "okay, you allocate us land, we will now live here peacefully rather than using it as a launchpad for random attacks."

NO, it's not satisfying, no it does not provide for the pride or revenge that the Palestinians might reasonably desire... but they cannot get those things anyway except at the price of giving the Israelis a literally endless stream of very compelling reasons to do harm to Palestine.

It's the equivalent of committing suicide-by-cop on a national scale. On some level it does not matter that the police were corrupt or backed the suicider into a corner or did something horrible ten years ago or whatnot. It's still an act of suicide. It's still a pointless waste of life.

Or in this case, a pointless waste of the potential life of a nation that deserves life (namely Palestine). And which does not deserve death under the control of what are in effect a band of fanatical self-immolating death-cultists who hate their enemies more than they love their children.

No, seriously, Simon, what is your credible peace plan that forces Israel to actually stop oppressing them and forces Israel to actually keep their promises (unlike Oslo)? Do you have one? Or is your strategy mainly to have the Palestinians do nothing as Israel completes their encroachment and settlement building before cleansing them all?

My point is that the Israelis had already stopped in at least one area, and the near-immediate response to this was a major escalation in the amount of violence launched by Palestinians against Israelis in the area, with Hamas throwing out the PLO in a coup and using the new relatively secure territory as a launchpad.

Maybe it was likely that the Israelis were just going to somehow use Gaza as a giant trap to somehow kill off Palestinians (though I'm not seeing much evidence for this). Maybe it was likely there would be peace if things had gone well in Gaza. It doesn't matter, because what actually happened gave the Israelis a very logical reason to never offer Palestinians a significant unilateral concession ever again.

[Thanas]

So your choice for a conquered people is simply to roll over and take it, even when the conquerors hate you.

In other words, you have no plan.

[Grumman]

So according to Simon, the Palestinians are supposed to roll over and take whatever Israel decides to give them, because that has worked out so well for them.

Yes, because whatever Israel gave them was Gaza. It seems to be a matter of dogma for you idiots that Israel never does anything right, but all the Palestinians needed to do is stop beating their head against the wall long enough for Israel to keep giving them what they wanted. Israel doesn't want the Palestinians dead, they want them to stop throwing a fucking tantrum about the war they started and lost 70 years ago. Show the Israelis that giving the Palestinians what they want will end the fighting and the fighting would end, because Israel would have continued unilaterally giving the Palestinians what they wanted just to make the fuckers shut up.

If they can't hit targets by air in Gaza without killing dozens of civilians, then don't bomb Gaza, send in troops. But then, precious Israeli blood would be spilled.

In the past hundred years of history, what gave you the idea that urban warfare is the less messy option?

So your choice for a conquered people is simply to roll over and take it, even when the conquerors hate you.

It worked out well for the Germans, didn't it?

[Thanas]

So according to Simon, the Palestinians are supposed to roll over and take whatever Israel decides to give them, because that has worked out so well for them.

Yes, because whatever Israel gave them was Gaza. It seems to be a matter of dogma for you idiots that Israel never does anything right, but all the Palestinians needed to do is stop beating their head against the wall long enough for Israel to keep giving them what they wanted. Israel doesn't want the Palestinians dead, they want them to stop throwing a fucking tantrum about the war they started and lost 70 years ago. Show the Israelis that giving the Palestinians what they want will end the fighting and the fighting would end, because Israel would have continued unilaterally giving the Palestinians what they wanted just to make the fuckers shut up.

Oh please, just shut the fuck up. Israel has not implemented the Oslo accords. They never meant to negotiate in good faith and keep their word. Even giving the Palaestnians Gaza is not the grand gesture you mindless potato want to push it to be, as giving them the shithole of Gaza was accompanied by Israel taking even more land in the Jordan valley.

And technically the war was started by Jewish terrorists attacking the British soldiers enforcing the mandate, but who is counting, right?

[Flagg]

So your choice for a conquered people is simply to roll over and take it, even when the conquerors hate you.

In other words, you have no plan.

Seems that way to me. That or it's basically: If only the Palestinians would just bend over, spread their cheeks, and relax their assholes, it will all be over quicker. And if they're really lucky, they may get some lube!

[Flagg]

If they can't hit targets by air in Gaza without killing dozens of civilians, then don't bomb Gaza, send in troops. But then, precious Israeli blood would be spilled.

In the past hundred years of history, what gave you the idea that urban warfare is the less messy option?

Nothing. I just bathe in the laughable idiocy that innocent Palestinians have to die at all for the protection of the Jewish Fatherland. And of course they have to be killed in ways so that no precious Jewbermenschen blood can be spilled. I just can't wait for the lame arguments you mouth breathing knuckle dragging vacuum headed dipshits will be making when there are more Arabs than Jews.

[Simon_Jester]

So your choice for a conquered people is simply to roll over and take it, even when the conquerors hate you.

In other words, you have no plan.

Seems that way to me. That or it's basically: If only the Palestinians would just bend over, spread their cheeks, and relax their assholes, it will all be over quicker. And if they're really lucky, they may get some lube!

What it comes down to for me is that I may not have a "plan" in the sense "I know the Israelis would do this if the Palestinians do that."

But the thing is... Hamas doesn't have a plan either.

Hamas not only has no plan, they have this bizarre nihilistic anti-plan, where whenever they get hurt, they do exactly the same thing that got them hurt, despite the fact that there is literally no way in this world that their actions could ever result in the hurting stopping.

They bang their head against a bulldozer. It is in their path; its position is threatening. And their solution is to stand there, continuing to headbutt the bulldozer. If the bulldozer should ever back up, they pursue the bulldozer, continuing to deliver the headbutts, which cannot possibly harm the bulldozer or even noticeably inconvenience it- at most, they are an annoyance.

The bulldozer will not go away as a result of this kind of behavior.

The bulldozer will not be weakened.

Outsiders will most likely not drag away the bulldozer and leave you standing triumphant in possession of the construction site.

This pattern of behavior is a recipe for only two possible outcomes.

Most likely, it is a recipe for a fractured skull- by sacrificing your resources and opportunities and options to no good purpose, you destroy yourself beyond the hope of repair.

If that outcome somehow doesn't happen, then you have a recipe for the bulldozer driver eventually deciding to just plain ignore any question of your safety or welfare, to not even bother considering to back up or pull away. Since backing up has no effect on the situation because your headbutts will continue, the bulldozer operator has literally no incentive to even try accomodating your wish that he retreat.

And once the bulldozer driver has finally said "to hell with it, you want to commit suicide, go ahead," he will inevitably wind up driving right over you and crushing you... even if he hasn't actively decided to seek out your death.

In general, continuing to attack someone stronger than you after they have already backed up a few paces is a good way to ensure that you receive a beating.
________________________

There is a massive difference between this and what has historically been done by other conquered peoples who kept fighting for independence. More than one such difference, even.

...

One is that conquered peoples fighting to drive out foreigners are usually trying to drive out a foreign government that doesn't live there, whose people have somewhere else to go. Even in cases like Algeria, the French colonists in Algeria did have somewhere to go, so it was at least plausible in principle for the Algerians to hope that they could be driven out of Algeria without fighting to the death to the last man.

The Palestinians can't do that, because the Israelis are rather short on places to go- it is a brute fact that no one is ready to accommodate eight million Israeli refugees. This is a reality of the situation; by refusing to acknowledge it the Palestinians do nothing except to ensure that their own strategies are delusional and ignorant of the reality, which results in them failing constantly.
...

Another difference is that most (successful) rebellions by oppressed people wait for an opportunity- some foreign power willing to aid them so that their military might is comparable to what the oppressor can put up against them. Or for the foreign empire to be distracted by threats on other fronts, or for a political opportunity that makes it more likely the empire will willingly concede territory.

The Palestinians haven't done that- they continue to fight regardless of whether anything has strengthened them or weakened Israel, with the result that they take disproportionate losses (they lose a considerable amount, while the Israelis lose effectively nothing).

...

And while the Palestinian people do not deserve all the suffering this incredibly bad strategy is bringing down on them whenever the Israelis decide that "shoot back" is a politically acceptable response to "we're being shot at..."

On some level this is a moot point. People do not deserve to die in wildfires. This does not magically prevent wildfires from happening if you intentionally adopt ineffective measures for preventing fire. People do not deserve to die in floods. This does not protect them if they build their homes on flood plains and then knowingly neglect the levees.

Palestinians do not deserve to die from Israeli bombs. This will not protect them from the bombs the Israelis will predictably drop to stop Palestinians from bombing them. And Palestinians have to know by now that this is a thing which can and will happen to them- whereas if they do not launch rockets, the Israelis have at least some reason to stop bombing, as opposed to no reason.

[Darth Yan]

Israel never intended to keep the word they made in gaza. Basically it was a token withdrawal while THEY would still control water supply airspace boards roads. The palestinians were basically forced into a bantustan

The official disengagement plan states point blank "The State of Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip"In general, Israel will continue, for full price, to supply electricity, water, gas and petrol to the Palestinians, in accordance with current arrangements...

"In general, the economic arrangements currently in operation between the State of Israel and the Palestinians shall remain in force. These arrangements include, inter alia:

One. The entry and exit of goods between the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the State of Israel and abroad.

Two. The monetary regime.

Three. Tax and customs envelope arrangements.

Four. Postal and telecommunications arrangements.

Five. The entry of workers into Israel, in accordance with the existing criteria."

Basically, Israel NEVER offered unilateral concessions EVER. Israel has NEVER kept it's word and Netanyahu and his ilk would cheerfully round the palestinians up and put them in gas chambers if they could get away with it. The palestinians have NO reason to believe Israel wants peace; they don't.

[Tribble]

Basically, Israel NEVER offered unilateral concessions EVER. Israel has NEVER kept it's word and Netanyahu and his ilk would cheerfully round the palestinians up and put them in gas chambers if they could get away with it. The palestinians have NO reason to believe Israel wants peace; they don't.

And vice versa. The Palestaians have NEVER offered unilateral concessions EVER. Palestine has NEVER kept it's word and Hamas and their ilk would would cheerfully round the Israelis up and push them into the sea if they could. The Isrealis have NO reason to believe Palestine wants peace; they don't.

The only difference I see between the two is that while Israelis have WMDs so far they haven't used them, while I'm pretty confident the moment Hamas gets a hold of a nuke they'd happily use it, even if it meant their own destruction in the process.

Perhaps the best solution is for a nice big rock to come from outer space and crush them both.

So your choice for a conquered people is simply to roll over and take it, even when the conquerors hate you.

In other words, you have no plan.

And what would your plan be Thanas? I'm curious. And I'm not saying that sarcastically, I actually want to know if you can think of any way to resolve the situation peacefully, without bloodshed, without revenge, without one side seeing concessions as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited to the hilt, with both sides actually agreeing to something.

Or is it that the only solution at the end of the day is that one or both sides need to be completely wiped out, as a peaceful solution is simply impossible? I'm not sure, as I don't see how anything is going to change for the foreseeable future, barring Palestine getting a hold of WMDs.

[Edi]

Simon, you can color me impressed only when Israel starts withdrawing the 650,000 settlers from the West Bank, at gunpoint if necessary, but at present they are actively expanding settlements. You are more or less just repeating Israeli government talking points with a little bit of softening around the edges, but containing nothing of real substance.

The fact of the matter is that Israel, as the massively stronger party, holds all the cards and can choose which course of action it wants to take. So far, every time, it has chosen the path of oppression, displacement, ethnic cleansing and illegal settlement. From that point of view, there is no reason for the Palestinians to refuse to resist by any means necessary, because Israel would take the same actions anyway even if they did not.

[K. A. Pital]

I think in the super-long-winded excuses you guys lost a bit of substance.

Such as this.

[Tribble]

I think in the super-long-winded excuses you guys lost a bit of substance.

Such as this.

Please refer to the parts in my posts where I said Israel's actions were excusable. If I was not clear, I don't find them excusable at all. I'm just saying I'm not surprised at their behaviour.

Simon, you can color me impressed only when Israel starts withdrawing the 650,000 settlers from the West Bank, at gunpoint if necessary, but at present they are actively expanding settlements. You are more or less just repeating Israeli government talking points with a little bit of softening around the edges, but containing nothing of real substance.The fact of the matter is that Israel, as the massively stronger party, holds all the cards and can choose which course of action it wants to take. So far, every time, it has chosen the path of oppression, displacement, ethnic cleansing and illegal settlement. From that point of view, there is no reason for the Palestinians to refuse to resist by any means necessary, because Israel would take the same actions anyway even if they did not.

So, just to be clear, you feel that the Hamas' use of suicide bombers, deliberate targeting of civilians, use of human shields and use of occupied civilian buildings like schools and hospitals for military purposes is justifiable, given that the Israeli government is just as nasty. An eye for an eye and all that.

You hope that accomplishes what, exactly? Short of being hit by WMDs, Israel isn't going to lay down arms and let the Palestinians walk in for their "righteous" revenge, even if the entire world sanctioned them. Are you suggesting that we help wipe Israel off the map, even if it ends up involving the use of WMDs (since Israel will almost certainly resort to them if they feel they have no other option)? Well, that's certainly one way to solve the problem, but I doubt the Palestinians (or anyone else in the Middle-East) will live long enough to see the results.

And of course, if Hamas gets hold of WMDs, there is a very strong likelihood that they will use them, given that they have already fired rockets at a nuclear reactor. Because, you know, the best way to liberate a home land is to irradiate it. And you seriously expect me to be rooting for their success?

I'm beginning to think that's how things may play out. Fighting will continue on indefinitely until Hamas or a group like it eventually gets a WMD and uses it. Or perhaps they get lucky by destroying a nuclear reactor and causing a meltdown. Then, while the Arab world is rejoicing, Israel retaliates by launching its WMDs, and a good chunk of Middle-Eastern real-estate gets glassed.

[Darth Yan]

The Israeli supreme court found that ISRAEL was the one using human shields. Various human right's groups have found that the israelis overexxagerated the "human shields" charge

[K. A. Pital]

I'm just saying I'm not surprised at their behaviour.

Neither am I, but your solution is what? That was the key question raised by others as well. What is your solution?

You don't propose any since you damn well know there's none. Not unless the whole place is occupied and UN-peacekeeper administered a-la Kosovo or something, which of course won't go as Israel has WMDs.

But you still keep telling us how bad the Palestinians are because they are fighting for a lost cause and they can destroy themselves in the process (or rather, the options are "go out quietly" or "go out fighting", I think).

I want to ask you this, if some people come and take over your place, would you go out fighting or would you go out quietly, saying that you "understand" the occupiers, even if you cannot excuse their actions?

[Darth Yan]

Also I remember a poll somewhere that during Oslo most palestinians actually SUPPORTED the two state solution. Israel behaved dishonorably and refused to actually honor their arrangements

[Thanas]

They bang their head against a bulldozer. It is in their path; its position is threatening. And their solution is to stand there, continuing to headbutt the bulldozer. If the bulldozer should ever back up, they pursue the bulldozer, continuing to deliver the headbutts, which cannot possibly harm the bulldozer or even noticeably inconvenience it- at most, they are an annoyance.

The bulldozer will not go away as a result of this kind of behavior.

The bulldozer will not be weakened.

Outsiders will most likely not drag away the bulldozer and leave you standing triumphant in possession of the construction site.

This pattern of behavior is a recipe for only two possible outcomes.

Congrats, you just described every protest ever in history by a less powerful person against a violent occupier.

But guess what: No occupied populace has ever been required to come up with any sort of sensible plan to resist invaders besides "we fight them". To claim otherwise is completely bereft of any historical reality.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you people demanding the Palestinians are supposed to come up with some sort of "plan" that will magically make them a hundred times stronger and will completely eradicate US support for Israel? Are you consistently applying that logic to all conflicts in all history ever?

By your fucking logic the Polish Partisans should never have organized a resistance, or the Irish never resisted the English and all other sense of nonsense.

If you take the statement by some of you to the logical extreme, the native americans were at fault for their own extermination. After all, they resisted in a pointless war with no plan, so the USA was right to exterminate them, because that was the predictable behaviour, k? OH wait, what bullshit. They would have been exterminated regardless.

But instead of applauding the underdog you go and say "well, what do you expect when you constantly provoke your violent oppressor".

WTF is wrong with you?

[Simon_Jester]

They bang their head against a bulldozer. It is in their path; its position is threatening. And their solution is to stand there, continuing to headbutt the bulldozer. If the bulldozer should ever back up, they pursue the bulldozer, continuing to deliver the headbutts, which cannot possibly harm the bulldozer or even noticeably inconvenience it- at most, they are an annoyance.

The bulldozer will not go away as a result of this kind of behavior.

The bulldozer will not be weakened.

Outsiders will most likely not drag away the bulldozer and leave you standing triumphant in possession of the construction site.

This pattern of behavior is a recipe for only two possible outcomes.

Congrats, you just described every protest ever in history by a less powerful person against a violent occupier.

Most people's idea of a "protest" is subtly different than "launch rockets into residential neighborhoods."

If the Palestinians restricted themselves to actually protesting, or, say, military attacks that could realistically be targeted against the IDF in some meaningful sense of the word, I would not be raising this objection to the degree that I do.

But Hamas instead chose a course that they had to know would be immensely provocative, at a time when the Israelis had, for the first time anyone could remember, actually made something recognizable as a significant concession. Even if we stipulate that the Israelis are a bunch of genocidal maniac ghouls and pretend there was no disagreement within Israel about how to handle the Palestinians... that still seems a very bad choice of time to escalate attacks against Israel.

Hamas also chose a course which is not justified in any moral sense- because just as Palestinian children don't deserve to get blown up by IDF bombs, Israeli children don't deserve to get blown up by Hamas rockets.

So neither morals nor strategic logic gave them a sane reason to start launching the rocket attacks.

So basically, they consciously decided to do something that any outside observer with half a brain could tell them was going to have no good effect for their cause. All it would accomplish was utterly useless, pointless deaths of innocent people, while making literally everyone in Israel including those who sympathized with Palestinians more likely to favor military action against Palestinians.

So yes, I think I am justified in thinking that this represents bad strategy.

The very broad license of an oppressed people to choose to fight an oppressor is time-honored. But it does not free the leadership of the oppressed people to do their job. To think. To choose strategies that might actually work, and to avoid senseless forms of violence that will not only blacken the name of the oppressed people, but also have nothing to do with achieving the actual goal.

Unless of course we decide that the sole purpose of Palestine having a government is for that government to continue to prosecute a war against Israel regardless of the effect on the welfare of the Palestinian people. And if we've decided that... well bluntly, that is why I'm saying Hamas doesn't understand how to be a government at all. That's not what governments are for.

But guess what: No occupied populace has ever been required to come up with any sort of sensible plan to resist invaders besides "we fight them". To claim otherwise is completely bereft of any historical reality.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you people demanding the Palestinians are supposed to come up with some sort of "plan" that will magically make them a hundred times stronger and will completely eradicate US support for Israel? Are you consistently applying that logic to all conflicts in all history ever?

I believe that leadership has a responsibility to try fighting when fighting has the greatest chance of success, or negotiation when negotiation has the greatest chance of success. And if they choose fighting, they are responsible for choosing forms of fighting that are likely to achieve the intended goal, and which do not cause massive gratuitous atrocities.

The Palestinian are not children or mentally handicapped; they are capable of making their own decisions. We do not have any obligation to say that because they are oppressed, they aren't responsible for doing the right thing in the situation they find themselves in.

By your fucking logic the Polish Partisans should never have organized a resistance, or the Irish never resisted the English and all other sense of nonsense.

You know too much history to think the situations are similar.

The Polish Partisans had multiple industrialized nations aiding them, maintaining a government-in-exile, and continuing the war against the Nazis. Fighting Nazis in Poland actively aided the war effort of these other powers and increased the likelihood of Poland being liberated by foreigners. Also, the Poles could directly target the German army and other elements of the occupation, rather than restricting themselves to randomly killing individual German farm villagers by lobbing rockets over the German border. Moreover, Nazi plans for Poland were such that if the Reich had controlled Poland as long as Israel has been in position to do as it pleased in Palestine, I'm not sure there'd be any living Poles left. There are significant differences in the situation there too, and in the level of resistance justifies.

Most major Irish uprisings were timed to coincide with external events that gave the Irish an extra chance of success (e.g. 1798 and 1916). There were a host of other uprisings and violent actions that occurred at other times, many of which were bad ideas. In those cases, the Irish would have at those times been better off biding their time and husbanding military and economic power in hopes of actually succeeding at the opportune time. Fighting is perfectly legitimate when fighting has a chance to accomplish something, or when fighting has a better chance of accomplishing something than negotiation.

Fighting that will not accomplish anything, and will kill innocent people, while not killing any noticeable number of the guilty, and that actively prejudices any hope of getting what one desires through other means, is not legitimate.

If you take the statement by some of you to the logical extreme, the native americans were at fault for their own extermination. After all, they resisted in a pointless war with no plan, so the USA was right to exterminate them, because that was the predictable behaviour, k? OH wait, what bullshit. They would have been exterminated regardless.

But instead of applauding the underdog you go and say "well, what do you expect when you constantly provoke your violent oppressor".

Since I literally never once said the Palestinians deserved to be exterminated, and indeed said the exact opposite or very close to it several times, I am at a complete loss to understand how you draw this conclusion. And yes, I can cite my own quotes on this subject if you need me to.

What I will say is that knowingly seeking out a fight with someone you believe is going to kill you for fighting, and who just made concessions by backing away from you, is stupid.

WTF is wrong with you?

What the fuck is wrong with me is that I expect Hamas, having staged a coup and taken over control of Gaza, to do its damn job, the job it was willing to kill for- namely, to act as functional leadership for the Palestinian people. Not to act as a bunch of berserk thugs who will get all their friends, neighbors, and relatives killed by challenging the Incredible Hulk to a game of Irish stand-down.

If Hamas had a magic box with a button that said "kill every armed Israeli, teleport all the unarmed Israeli into random other countries, and prevent them ever returning," and pushed that button, I might call pushing it a bit excessive- but I wouldn't be calling them stupid.

Hell, if they had a button that just said "kill every Israeli," I'd call them mass murderers and evil... but I still wouldn't be calling them stupid.

As it is? I'm calling them stupid.

And refusing to admit that the stupidity of Hamas, and of Palestinians who support Hamas, is playing a role in the nature of this conflict... is, well, the exact form of stupidity Hamas itself is committing, on a smaller scale.

[Zwinmar]

Lets see: what exactly do the Palestinians have?
An occupier in their ancestral lands.
Said occupier ruthlessly steals their land on a daily basis.
Said occupier is supplied by greater powers because of a bronze age theology.
Said occupier blames the victim for making them kill them.
Said occupier actually does hate them, seeing them as lesser than themselves because...reasons.
Said occupier is a free country in that only those of a specific ethnic group has a say in government.

Does that sum it up or am I missing something? People throw around ideas that Israel has a 'right' to these lands because..religion. Bullshit. It is all smoke and mirrors so a bunch of racist assholes can have 'their' land given to them by themselves and fuck everyone else.

[K. A. Pital]

Simon, if we skip the long part of your post and sum it up in one sentence:

if is a very high chance to be defeated by the occupier, it is pointless to fight.

Ireland's previous rebellions made as much sense as all the other failed rebellions. Not all of them were useless, as you say.

Spartacus was right... and you're wrong.

[eyl]

Simon, if we skip the long part of your post and sum it up in one sentence:

if is a very high chance to be defeated by the occupier, it is pointless to fight.

Ireland's previous rebellions made as much sense as all the other failed rebellions. Not all of them were useless, as you say.

Spartacus was right... and you're wrong.

Really? Because their main accomplishments has been to make things worse - the attitudes the OP replies are the direct result of Palestinian violence; what with the increase in violence during Oslo, the second intifada and the aftermath of the Gaxa withdrawal they've radicalized the Israeli population and completely discredited the Israeli peace camp.

(I was going to address some other posts but it'sa major hassle on my tablet; I'll try to write more when I get to a desktop in a day or two if the thread is still active)

[Thanas]

Simon, how is leaving the worthless Gaza strip somehow a significant concession to the Palestinians if under the cover of it the way more worthwhile land and water in the Jordan valley gets stolen? Because that is exactly what happened. If I give you a rotten apple while taking your eggs and call it a concession, how is that in any way a valid idea?

And I reject your whole idea of being able to treat this logically. No ethnic cleansing has ever been a logical affair to the people who are cleansed. They are fighting back with bad technology and ineffective means because that is all they have. I am sure they would love to employ the same sort of tech the Israelis have, but they do not.

When you are fighting a violent occupier whose stated policy is to cleanse you, then even a 0.01% chance of fighting back is better than just accepting to be cleansed, because that will happen either way.