astralis

yirmeyahu,

note: i wrote

.

now, when speaking of "nothing less than the destruction of israel", guess what, the electoral winner hamas espouses this. and it took a lot of time and pressure before the old fatah party got to renounce that, as well.

i am sure that many palestinians wouldn't mind living side by side with israel in peace; however, their leaders often do not believe in this. palestinian education doesn't help in this regard either.

you misunderstand my logic. my logic is that palestinians, by their actions and words, have more than that one stated goal of being free from occupation and establishing a state. if that was their only goal, their actions to date would be considered irrational. however, if we factor in other objectives, their actions would be considered quite rational.

so now the question is, what exactly are the other objectives?

the problem with morally equivocating "israeli terrorism" and "palestinian terrorism" is that israel, by virtue of its greater resources and military tradition, tends to focus bringing terror to palestinian extremists. even the israeli ham-handed methods such as bulldozing homes is aimed not at the populace in general but in those select few.

palestinian terrorism, on the other hand, is not so pinpoint, and causing massive deaths that bring them international news coverage is the usual mode of conduct. now i disagree with the original post, that this is a result of "palestinian culture". i suspect if the tables were turned, israelis might very well act in the same way, given true-blue jewish terrorism prior to 1948 against the UK, for example.

in any case, these are two different methods. you would be fully correct in equivocating the two if israel began carpet bombing in the hopes of inflicting maximum damage, and began pronouncing its goal to be the destruction of the palestinian people.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Stan187

As Bluesman said, if your reasoning for terrorism is "occupation" then why was there terrorism before 1967? Obviously flawed logic.

And most Palestians do want nothing short of the destruction of Israel. How do we know? They elected a government to represent them that isn't willing to consider recognizing Israel, that has a goal of completely eliminating Israel from the face of the earth, and that views all ceasefires as purely temporary, until the time that they are powerful enough to in fact wipe Israel out.

Even the most trusted so termed "moderate" negotiation partner, Abu Mazen, wrote his graduate thesis on how the Holocaust never happened. Even this "moderate' says in English that he's all for the peace process, and then turns around in Arabic and tells his follower not to worry, that Jerusalem will still be their for the taking by the time any deal is signed.

There is only one thing standing in the way of the Palestinians getting themselves an independent state: the Palestinians.

astralis

stan,

to take the other side in the debate (talk about getting fired on from both sides), the reason why palestinians elected hamas was not because of their foreign policy objectives, but because hamas runs a comparatively tight ship domestically, unlike fatah, whose officials were busily stuffing the aid given to the palestinians into swiss accounts.

there's that old saw about the devil and the deep blue sea...

Stan187

The Palestinian population at large is not stupid right? Because if we assume they are not, which I do, then they know exactly what the consequences of elected Hamas will be. They can vote for them based on their running a tighter ship, but they know that this is not the only thing they stand for. Plus, compare getting money and then having a lot of it be diverted for corruption, or simply not getting barely any money from the outside. The difference in real-world impact isn't that much. And they can't get money from anywhere but the outside, because the only "factories" the Palestinians have are ones building bomb belts.

Bluesman

Correct. They HAD a chance for a state; it was delivered to them, they certainly had done nothing on their own to deserve it, and they made their intentions perfectly clear.

Give a Pallie the chance to be a responsible grown-up or the chance to kill Jews, and he'll take off work every time to do some bloody mayhem.

I'm very well acquainted with Palestinians and their proclivities, as is everyone that saw them dance in the streets when news of 9/11 reached them. Their pathologies are bone-deep, and the soul of their entire society is wrecked and deformed into a grotesque death cult. It wasn't 'occupation' that did it, either.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

astralis

stan,

voters were voting against corruption, and more than a few palestinians and outside observers believed that hamas would moderate themselves upon getting into power (which they have, just not anywhere close to enough).

it's hard not to vote against the corrupt bureaucrat, when the other choice is the one organization that actually fields medical services, support and lending networks, etc.

in any case, the palestinians are learning a bit more what exactly electing hamas entails now, and as you may imagine, hamas isn't quite as popular as it was before. to look at the bright side of things, fatah knows why it lost against hamas, and they have finally started to take halting steps to clean up their act, as well as at least make attempts to unify/streamline their leadership. these are positive benefits not just for the palestinians but for israel, as consolidation means that the israelis will have less to fear of revanchist splinter groups screwing things up.

Stan187

I myself am very surprised that quite a few Americans seem to not care that they were happy the US got attacked. I really can't explain it. Its sheer stupidity at best. Signs of traitors at worst.

Stan187

Or at least, thats the HOPE, is that they're learning. But then again, in the past 60 years, you'da though they'd learn something else too right?

Bottom line, until a government of theirs (and that its its core meaning committment to the same by the people) says no more terror and enforces it, they are not doing enough.

astralis

bluesman,

it wasn't just the occupation that did it; other factors such as an absolutely stupid and corrupt leadership, passive arabic consent for a palestinian problem, and the rise of religious groups supplanting the corrupt nationalist groups did it as well (and indeed are probably a good deal more responsible for this than the occupation persay).

at the same time, one has to remember that the first palestinian suicide bombing did not occur until 1993. and that palestinian beliefs regarding israel and the morality of suicide bombing change quite a bit over time, so that it is hard to argue that palestinians are all part of an unchanging bloodthirsty deathcult.

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/index.html

astralis

stan,

fully agree. the problem, as with most cases of politics, is with the leadership- they really never miss a chance to miss a chance, although abu mazen is a good deal better than the previous ilk.

Stan187

Yeah, both statements are pretty much dead on the money.

Yirmeyahu

astralis,

Quite right, you did caveat your statement by saying "a good deal of the Palestinians". But you also seem to agree that while this may hold true for some, most would love to live side by side with Israel in peace.

You mentioned this notion of Palestinians wanting "the destruction of Israel". That phrase has various misleading connotations. I highly doubt any member of Hamas seeks the "destruction" of Israel. Why not? Because the reason they refuse to recognize Israel is because they don't recognize any legitimacy in the violent process that led to its creation, and they recognize the right of return for the hundreds of thousands who were made refugees as a result. Refusing to recognize the legitimacy of a thing is not in the least bit parallel to wanting to "destroy" a thing.

The reality is that Israel exists, and Hamas certainly recognizes this fact.

The PLO has accepted a two-state solution, the notion of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, since at least the early 70s. Hamas was actually very near to agreeing to a referendum this summer which would have implicitly recognized the state of Israel confined to the pre-67 "green line" borders. Israel put an end to that, however, by escalating the level of violence in Gaza and destroying southern Lebanon.

First of all, I believe, in context, the "actions" you are referring to are those involving criminal violence. So let's take the example of suicide bombings and apply it. Using your logic, a suicide bomber, while wanting to be free from occupation, also has other objectives. This must be true, because if his only objective was to be free, he would not engage in such activity that is counterproductive to achieving his goal.

Well, this is accurate. The problem is in assuming that people who commit acts of terrorism are acting rationally. Well, this could be the case. After all, when states such as the US or Israel engage in acts of violence, there is usually a rational framework being applied.

The fact is that terrorism works. Take the US terrorist war against Nicaragua, for example. Or take the Jewish terrorists who committed terrorism, such as the bombing of the King David Hotel, in an effort to drive out the British. It worked. The principle behind terrorism is that you terrorize your opponent into submitting to your will. This is the basic principle behind the occupation and Israeli violence. It is perfectly rational.

So the basic theory behind suicide bombings is that Palestinains can intimidate Israelis into ending the occupation through violence. I would agree with you that this is not irrational. I would also agree with you that it is immoral, criminal, and counter-productive. I also don't preclude the possibility that other goals, besides wanting to be free from occupation, are at work. Revenge is undoubtedly another, which may even trump the faulty notion that Israel may be intimidated into ending its occupation because of acts of terrorism by Palestinians.

Incidentally, I agree with you also that there is no moral equivolence between Israeli terrorism and Palestinian terrorism. Israeli terrorism is on a far greater scale, and, contrary to your belief, targeted at the entire Palestinian population.

It's the pirate and the emperor. The pirate, brought before the throne, is asked how he can be so insolent to plunder ships at sea. The pirate replies that he only does on a very small scale, to ships, what the emperor does on a massive scale, to entire nations.

There is a tendancy to condemn the pirate while exonerating the emperor for his own crimes.

Stan187

You wrongly perceive it as flawed because you fail to recognize that the reason for terrorism is the occupation and everything that occupation entails: injustice, oppression, and violence.

All of which had been taking place well prior to 1967.

Yirmeyahu

What befuddles me is that quite a few Americans seem not to care that their government supports the oppression of the Paletinian people. A great many actually quite happily cheer on the US and Israel.

But only when its some Palestinians who are guilty of the same indecency is it condemnable.

ZFBoxcar

The "right of return" is the same thing as the destruction of Israel, ergo they do support the destruction of Israel. Israel is a Jewish state. This is the openly stated purpose of it. Despite treating minorities better than any other state in the region, it is still the purpose of Israel to be the homeland and refuge for Jews. You are perfectly within your rights to oppose this purpose, but you can't claim to not support the destruction of Israel while supporting its destruction as Jewish state.

Yirmeyahu

So, ZFBoxcar, assuming you do not support "the destruction of Israel", you must therefore, by your own equation, reject the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Do you also reject the right to self-determination for the Palestininan people?

I am personally opposed to a Jewish state, in fact or concept, as much as I am opposed to an Islamic state, or a Christian state. I don't believe in state religion, apartheid, or second-class citizenry. I don't believe we should support any such things.

You seem to disagree.