[wat0n]

The occupation is violence. It's violence every single day on Palestinians, and also wastes the lives of Israelis who could be doing something much more interesting than dominating and controlling a people its state orders them to.

Yes, and ending it should end all violence, right? Well, I am not so sure it would - just like Hezbollah didn't stop fighting Israel after it ended its occupation of Lebanon, I don't think it is obvious Hamas would stop fighting Israel if it ended its occupation of the Palestinian territories.

You can't expect Palestinians to "get their house in order" when they are living under the military boot belonging to Israel.

The Zionists did that when the British had the region under their own military boot, and I don't see why the Palestinians should not.

Indeed, the PA is already trying to do that and has been for a while now and even the Israeli security establishment says that the PA is a key partner in keeping stability in the West Bank. The only problem is that it is far from clear it would be able to do so if the IDF withdrew its soldiers, given the precedent of Gaza and so caution is warranted. Ideally one would want international forces to replace the IDF, but they have a poor track record (like in Lebanon, Rwanda and other countries) so such forces would need an adequate mandate and firepower to do their job.

[skinster]

Yes, and ending it should end all violence, right? Well, I am not so sure it would

Of course you will continue to say all the things besides supporting an end to the occupation.

Violence from Palestinians is them resisting against their violent occupation. They would have no need to resist if they were free. And if they did act violently towards Israelis after they were free, they ought to be punished accordingly.

The Zionists did that [get it's house in order] when the British had the region under their own military boot, and I don't see why the Palestinians should not.

You're saying Palestinians should form militias in their tens of thousands and commit terrorism against Israelis in order to free the land from the Israeli boot?

[wat0n]

Of course you will continue to say all the things besides supporting an end to the occupation.

Oh, but I do support ending it. I just don't think it should be done in a stupid, self-defeating way.

But of course you will just whine because I dared to provide a valid historical antecedent: The UN itself said Israel ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000, yet Hezbollah still fights Israel because it doesn't agree with the UN. What makes you believe the same cannot happen with Hamas or other Palestinian militias?

Violence from Palestinians is them resisting against their violent occupation. They would have no need to resist if they were free. And if they did act violently towards Israelis after they were free, they ought to be punished accordingly.

Sure they need, but as I assume you know that means civilians would die and war would not end.

And of course, it would obviously mean that your proposal simply didn't deliver on its promises, meaning then that people will not be inclined to trust you again and making stopping this new violence even harder.

You talk as if the complete failure of your premises would not have pernicious consequences. Well, you are wrong! It would, and they would be serious - it would mean the permanent death of any sort of peace camp in Israel and Palestine. After all, if even after signing a peace treaty with your opponent doesn't end war, then it means that there is no possible peaceful solution: The perfect breeding ground for genocidal nutjobs to get to power.

Put in a balance, it means then that ending the occupation is not the only important thing - it has to be ended well, that is, in such a way that anyone who wants to stir violence up would be dealt with swiftly by his own government. But for this to happen, the said government must actually be able to do just that, and so far the PA can't, but maybe an interim international force could if the international community takes the issue seriously (something I'm not all too optimistic about given the bad track record of this kind of international forces).

You're saying Palestinians should form militias in their tens of thousands and commit terrorism against Israelis in order to free the land from the Israeli boot?

No, I'm saying the Palestinians should build institutions that will manage any sort of State. And they actually are, if we believe institutions like the World Bank or the IMF, which have praised the Palestinian institution building effort from recent years in the past.

[pugsville]

The Zionists did that when the British had the region under their own military boot, and I don't see why the Palestinians should not.
.

As the Zionists were treated with kid gloves by the British (unlike the British treatment of the Palestinians) and were allowed to organise (unlike the Palestinians who the British did not) the parallel is just comparing even oranges and lemons by two totally different things. Just like comparing the Jordanian occupation with the Israeli one.

The Israeli actions have totally undermined and had a very negative impact on the PA. The Refusal of watson and ZN to acknowledge that there was a clear difference between t

The Israeli occupation was extremely brutal and the Jordanian one was not. Chalk and Cheese. The Palestinians had been brutalised by the Israelis in 1948 and perhaps channeled are the Palestinians negative energy that might have been directed otherwise towards the Jordanian occupation. The Refusal of watson and ZN to acknowledge that there was a clear difference between two occupation is wilful stupidity.

[skinster]

Oh, but I do support ending it. I just don't think it should be done in a stupid, self-defeating way.

No you don't. Your posts are defending the occupation. Did you not notice?

But of course you will just whine because I dared to provide a valid historical antecedent: The UN itself said Israel ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000, yet Hezbollah still fights Israel because it doesn't agree with the UN. What makes you believe the same cannot happen with Hamas or other Palestinian militias?

No you did not and I'm ignoring that part of your post because I refuse to indulge in your diversion tactics because it is Israel quite clearly in the wrong for brutally (and illegally) occupying a people it should not be occupying. Indulging in what-abouts about how Palestinians might act after they are free from the Israeli military boot can be dealt with at a time if anything occurs in that regard. At this point, the onus is on the Israelis to end their occupation and allow Palestinians to live freely in the same way the Israelis, you and I do.

And of course, it would obviously mean that your proposal simply didn't deliver on its promises, meaning then that people will not be inclined to trust you again and making stopping this new violence even harder

Your hypotheticals aren't even interesting, still:

At this point, the onus is on the Israelis to end their occupation and allow Palestinians to live freely in the same way they, you and I do.

You talk as if the complete failure of your premises would not have pernicious consequences. Well, you are wrong! It would, and they would be serious - it would mean the permanent death of any sort of peace camp in Israel and Palestine. After all, if even after signing a peace treaty with your opponent doesn't end war, then it means that there is no possible peaceful solution: The perfect breeding ground for genocidal nutjobs to get to power.

Your hypotheticals aren't even interesting, still:

At this point, the onus is on the Israelis to end their occupation and allow Palestinians to live freely in the same way they, you and I do.

Stop defending the occupation. It's indefensible.

[wat0n]

As the Zionists were treated with kid gloves by the British (unlike the British treatment of the Palestinians) and were allowed to organise (unlike the Palestinians who the British did not) the parallel is just comparing even oranges and lemons by two totally different things. Just like comparing the Jordanian occupation with the Israeli one.

The British also repressed the Zionists, especially towards the end of the Mandate. Likewise, the Arabs set up their own organizations anyway, and the British did consult them (especially after the revolt).

The Israeli actions have totally undermined and had a very negative impact on the PA. The Refusal of watson and ZN to acknowledge that there was a clear difference between t

The Israeli occupation was extremely brutal and the Jordanian one was not. Chalk and Cheese. The Palestinians had been brutalised by the Israelis in 1948 and perhaps channeled are the Palestinians negative energy that might have been directed otherwise towards the Jordanian occupation. The Refusal of watson and ZN to acknowledge that there was a clear difference between two occupation is wilful stupidity.

None of that changes the fact that Jordan provided no political rights to the Palestinians, and that the status of human rights in the West Bank was dismal at the time - just like in Jordan itself and the rest of the Arab world.

Indeed, what you are saying essentially makes the argument for me: Fighting Israel was more important than even self-determination for them at the time, they didn't mind overlooking the fact that they had no real freedom under Jordanian rule all for the sake of fighting Israel.

This is even more obvious considering that after the 6 Day War ended the PLO suddenly remembered there were plenty of Palestinians in Jordan with no political rights and tried to topple the Monarchy itself as a result. And we all know that attempt ended with a harsh, brutal crackdown by the Jordanian government on September 1970 - crackdowns that weren't necessary before the war.

No you don't. Your posts are defending the occupation. Did you not notice?

No, they are not. Criticizing your position is not the same as defending the occupation's merits (or lack thereof).

Indeed, it is perfectly logical to say that the occupation is bad, but there are worse things than it.

No you did not and I'm ignoring that part of your post because I refuse to indulge in your diversion tactics because it is Israel quite clearly in the wrong for brutally (and illegally) occupying a people it should not be occupying. Indulging in what-abouts about how Palestinians might act after they are free from the Israeli military boot can be dealt with at a time if anything occurs in that regard. At this point, the onus is on the Israelis to end their occupation and allow Palestinians to live freely in the same way the Israelis, you and I do.

No skinster, it doesn't work that way. You need two to tango, and the Palestinians must show their commitment to uphold any agreement they sign with Israel.

You don't address my argument simply because you have no real answer to it: Doing so would require you to drop your Orientalist belief that the Palestinians have no agency or responsibilities in reaching peace.

[pugsville]

The British repression of the Zionists was pretty darn mild (especially as the Zionists were using terrorism). Kid gloves, especially considered to their repression of the Palestinians (and the British were aided intros repression by the Zionists). The Arabs asked to set up Palestine wise democratically elected representation, (which the British were more or less required to do under the mandate) but they did not in the main part because of the Zionist lobbying on the issue. Amin al-Hussenini was appointed by the British (4th in the election) arguably this interference by the British was one of the worst acts of the Mandate.

Equating the British repression of Zionists with Isralei repression of Palestinians is a false. The Israelis were much more brutal.
Equating the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank with the Israeli one is false. The Israelis were much more Brutal.

When the Jordanian occupation started in the mist of massive humanitarian disaster, hundred of thousands of refugees in part driven out by Israel were starving, many wets bank villages were cut of from their land. People were staving. And they were angry about the Israel. Much of the then population of the West Bank had lost everything by Israeli action. They wanted to go to their homes. Which the Israelis denied them.

[skinster]

You don't address my argument simply because you have no real answer to it: Doing so would require you to drop your Orientalist belief that the Palestinians have no agency or responsibilities in reaching peace.

The Palestinians have no agency while the Israeli military boot is upon them.

I don't address your other arguments because they are zionist diversion tactics that I prefer to call out, instead of wasting time on.

Again, the onus is on Israel to end its illegal and brutal occupation - a form of everyday violence - of Palestinians and their lands. You can't expect anything from the Palestinians while they're the ones living under the aforementioned Israeli boot. Once that boot has lifted, you can.

[wat0n]

The British repression of the Zionists was pretty darn mild (especially as the Zionists were using terrorism). Kid gloves, especially considered to their repression of the Palestinians (and the British were aided intros repression by the Zionists).

The scale of Zionist terrorism was lower than that during the Arab revolt, which was directed at the British, the Jews and moderate Arabs. Indeed, the British obviously were way more brutal in repressing a direct threat to their rule - nothing new there.

The Arabs asked to set up Palestine wise democratically elected representation, (which the British were more or less required to do under the mandate) but they did not in the main part because of the Zionist lobbying on the issue. Amin al-Hussenini was appointed by the British (4th in the election) arguably this interference by the British was one of the worst acts of the Mandate.

It was indeed, but it also means the British recognized that they had to negotiate with a Palestinian leadership. Not that this matters anyway, the Arab revolt essentially demolished the moderate opposition by force, against the British desires.

Equating the British repression of Zionists with Isralei repression of Palestinians is a false. The Israelis were much more brutal.

The British killed around 5,000 Palestinians during the revolt, while more died in the 1948 war (12,000 IIRC) this is a big number that should not be overlooked.

Equating the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank with the Israeli one is false. The Israelis were much more Brutal.

Only because the Palestinian population decided to fight the Israeli occupation and acquiesced to the Jordanian one - the Jordanians were even more brutal than Israel when the Palestinians tried to topple the Monarchy in the early 70s.

When the Jordanian occupation started in the mist of massive humanitarian disaster, hundred of thousands of refugees in part driven out by Israel were starving, many wets bank villages were cut of from their land. People were staving. And they were angry about the Israel. Much of the then population of the West Bank had lost everything by Israeli action. They wanted to go to their homes. Which the Israelis denied them.

Yes, it started that way but the Jordanians occupied the West Bank for 18 years - enough time for the Palestinians to recover and demand self-determination if they had wanted to. They chose not to because they didn't want to lose a potential ally in fighting Israel, even at the cost of not getting a state at the time. Not that the Jordanians would have given them one, anyway, as we know what happened in the early 70s.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Israel will get its military out of the west bank only when there will be guarantees that violence wont spark right after that

it will take time and the IDF will party gonna stay in the west bank for some time even after a peace deal

[wat0n]

The Palestinians have no agency while the Israeli military boot is upon them.

And yet I am supposed to believe that the Jews did have agency when the British boot was upon them before 1948? Spare me that crap.

I don't address your other arguments because they are zionist diversion tactics that I prefer to call out, instead of wasting time on.

No skinster, the arguments cut right in the issue: They show that it is not a given that ending the occupation will bring peace, just as ending the occupation of Lebanon didn't do so.

Again, the onus is on Israel to end its illegal and brutal occupation - a form of everyday violence - of Palestinians and their lands. You can't expect anything from the Palestinians while they're the ones living under the aforementioned Israeli boot. Once that boot has lifted, you can.

What about both sides commit to end all violence at the same time, thus ending the occupation at once?

This is particularly true since the Lebanese experience shows that this approach is not guaranteed to bring peace: Israel ended the occupation there unilaterally and did not get peace.

[skinster]

And yet I am supposed to believe that the Jews did have agency when the British boot was upon them before 1948? Spare me that crap.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here but accepting that British occupation of Palestine was bad. If you are to be consistent, you'd say the same of Israeli occupation of Palestine.

What about both sides commit to end all violence at the same time, thus ending the occupation at once?

Stop trying to portray this as a fair fight. Israeli violence is the occupation and Palestinian violence is resistance to that occupation.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Stop trying to portray this as a fair fight. Israeli violence is the occupation and Palestinian violence is resistance to that occupation.

And what kind of violence there was between 1948-1967?

Israel did not controlled the territories in which they now want to establish their state

[wat0n]

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here but accepting that British occupation of Palestine was bad. If you are to be consistent, you'd say the same of Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Certainly the occupation has been bad for the Palestinians, overall.

What I'm trying to do is to highlight that according to you when Jews bomb the British HQ in Jerusalem it is terrorism, yet when Palestinians launch rockets against Israeli towns it is resistance. Sorry but either they are both terrorism or they are both resistance.

Stop trying to portray this as a fair fight. Israeli violence is the occupation and Palestinian violence is resistance to that occupation.

Stop trying to portray the Palestinian political leaders as being poor sheep with no agency. As long as Palestinians attack Israeli civilians, Israel will not just leave the West Bank and face the risk that hostilities will continue like they continued after Israel left Lebanon in 2000.

Just because the Palestinian armed groups are losing it doesn't mean that they can't kill hundreds of Israeli civilians, as they in fact have in the last 15 years.

If Israel ends the occupation it is fair for it to get effective peace, not just pray so the Palestinian radicals won't feel like using the opportunity to be in a better position to launch attacks on Israel, like Hezbollah did after 2000.

[Tailz]

Tailz wrote:
Indeed, but the purchase of land does not transfer state ownership.

It doesn't, yet the Zionist agenda in the area has been clear for over 40 years before the Holocaust. The Israelis were opportunistic and it was far from ideal given the geographical position of their state.

They may have telegraphed their plans in advance. Yet the problem still remained: Palestine was already inhabited.

If the ancestors of the Canaanites sent an official letter to the Israeli government today, informing them that in 40 years the Canaanites will return and the Israelis can freely continue to live there under Canaanite rule. I am sure the Israeli government will tell them to bugger off.

Tailz wrote:
So because Israel is a democracy, that justifies the political dis-empowerment of non-Jewish people under Jewish rule?

Life under Sharia for non-Muslims is vastly superior I guess. At least Israel is broadly secular despite its emphasis on it being a "Jewish State".

So because the rights of non-Muslims under Sharia law is not a bed of roses, that justifies Israel dis-empowering non-Jewish citizens?

Tailz wrote:
Who is "they?" And who is this dictator the Palestinians elected?

Khaled Meshaal, although Hamas tends to operate in committees. Abbas is an Israeli stooge as the Palestinians made it clear who they wanted to lead their country.

Khaled Meshaal a dictator? I thought he won an election, which was then opposed by Fatah which enacted a quazi-coup (Abbas changing laws) which resulted in factional fighting which resulted in Hamas consolidating in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank. Since then the two factions have been trying to create a unity government (in order to meet demands from Israel and the international community so that negotiations are conducted between Israel and "the Palestinian Government" instead of factions, which Israel will boycott anyway if Hamas ministers are in the Palestinian Government).

Tailz wrote:
Do you know how many battles the Scottish and British have fought? It took generations to get to the point that Scotland and England have now.

After Culloden, the Scots begrudgingly co-operated with the English. There was little rebellion despite the Highland Clearances. A big part of the reason the British Isles were united was due to a broad similarity in culture rather than the clash seen in Israel.

Begrudgingly co-operated? Harsh military presence, confiscation of estates, acts of parliament against highland dress, landowners rights abolished, clan chiefs arrested or co-opted, Episcopalian clergy required to give oaths of allegiance... Co-operated eh?

Tailz wrote:
Your demonstrating that in your eyes, the Palestinians must be destroyed.

Not at all, it would solve anything. I can't deny that the direction of Israeli rhetoric and rise of fundamental Judaism is profoundly disturbing and heavy handed. However, you cannot deny that Hamas' key objective is the destruction of the state of Israel.

I don't deny Hamas' objective to destroy Israel. But nether will I deny that the Zionist objective is just the same.

One can not expect to build an ethno-religious mono state in an area that is already inhabited with a multi-ethnic multi-religious population. It will lead to conflict, as it has. Nether side wants to "share" the territory.

[layman]

The British also repressed the Zionists, especially towards the end of the Mandate.

Lol when they started bombing us.

After we had crushed all arab leadership for them in the 30's ...... Protected them, won them their homeland ...

Then they bombed us when we tried to restrict migration a bit.

jews eh ...

[wat0n]

Oh come on layman, you guys did so for your own convenience. Indeed, when the Arabs were stupid enough to attack your forces you started to actually repress them, without doing anything when they attacked Jews before the revolt - as far as the Zionists are concerned, you guys didn't really care about the Jews all that much.

Then you guys went beyond that and decided to disavow your own Mandatory Charter by limiting Jewish immigration to the Mandate and, to add to the injury, did so right before the beginning of WWII. Thankfully the Zionists weren't that dumb to fight you during WWII (well, except Lehi of course), but you shouldn't be so surprised that they did so after the war ended.

[pugsville]

The Mandate was vague and deliberately so, it always was racist and favoured the Zionists, the foundation of Israel would not have been possible without British help, for which they got paid in murder and terrorism. The British did get embroiled in the mandate due to imperialist designs. The Zionists were not innocent and never planned to live in equality with the Native population they always planned to suppress them and marginalise the native population and sought there expulsion. The Palestinians just had the misfortune of being colonised. The occupation of the west bank has never been just about security, some Israelis have always been using its to further marginalise suppress and disposes the native population further. Sure Israelis want peace, but on their terms which requires more land, and the continued suppression of Palestinian rights and further dispossession. The Zionists and Israelis have always been fundamentally the aggressors and their objectives could only be achieved by suppression and dispossession of the native population.

They have never treated the native population as equals, indeed had they done so at the start they would never have come in the first place.

[wat0n]

So now the mere presence of the Jews in the region is itself inequality. Thank you of making that stuff clear.

And no, the Zionists' objectives would have been fulfilled had the Palestinian leaders accepted the bipartition of the Mandate, which in any event would have been rather convenient for them and much better than what they have now. And, since you claim to care about equality so much, it would have been way more equitable than living as second-class citizens in an Arab state - because, as we know, non-Arab citizens were treated as second-class citizens in each and every Arab state at the time, from Levantine Kurds and Assyrians to Berbers in the Maghreb.

Also, if the Mandate favored the Zionists so much, please explain why didn't the British protect the Jewish population of Hebron and Safed in 1929 and why didn't they restore ownership of Hebron's Jews' properties after they were ethnically cleansed from the city.

[skinster]

The Mossad accelerates its strategy against BDS

New U.S. Group to Enlist pro-Israel Faculty to 'Catalyze Campuses'



Instead of spending time and energy trying to counter BDS, perhaps these idiots behind this group and those in Mossad ought to campaign the Israeli government in ending Israeli occupation of Palestine.