4 ms·

I disagree. Palestinian terrorism is objectively counterproductive and driven by unreasonable domestic politics, not reasonable geopolitics. You can't be a su

by bloaf 3y ago

I disagree. Palestinian terrorism is objectively counterproductive and driven by unreasonable domestic politics, not reasonable geopolitics. You can't be a successful politician in Palestine with a position of "lets make concessions to Israel so we can stop suffering." The only successful politicians for the past 60-odd years have been the ones promising to fight Israel and get the Palestinians their stuff back. The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back. That means every successful Palestinian politician is elected with a mandate to "get our stuff back" but without the means to do it. So they have two options: either make concessions to get some stuff back, or try to fight. If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" If they try to fight a conventional war they lose in a matter of weeks (evidently.) So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job, but not so much that Israel wipes them out. Hence, the 60-year history of terrorism and targeting civilians. In conclusion: Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel. They are not doing that because the Palestinian people will not support any leaders that pursue that strategy; they believe violence is a viable means of getting their stuff back even though that has been factually incorrect for the past 60 years. It is possible that the geopolitical landscape may change in the future, and violence becomes a viable option, but wasting resources on fruitless wars does not help change it. Therefore it is not true that both sides have very good reasons to do what they do.

ignoramous 3y ago
> I disagree. The armed struggle hasn't done them any favours, yes. Neither has peace (Oslo). > The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back. Hamas agreed to 1967 borders back in 2017. PLO has long given up armed struggle. > If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" A typical racist characterisation. Arab male or female is continually fair game to either poke fun at, or more seriously, be confined to and judged by a representation that is either inherently bad, angry, irrational or stupid, misogynistic or repressed, exotic or lascivious. https://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/hooked-on-arab-stereotypes https://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/hooked-on-arab-stereotyp... > So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric. How many Palestinians do you personally know? > Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel Not so quick: https://www.972mag.com/trump-peace-plan-apartheid/ https://www.972mag.com/trump-peace-plan-apartheid/
- bloaf 3y ago
  > Neither has peace (Oslo). The peace was immediately undermined by groups who did not want to stop fighting. Look, the wikipedia article on the 1996 palestinian general election following the accords literally says, quote: The Islamist Hamas, Fatah's main rival, refused to participate in the election; they felt that doing so would lend legitimacy to the PNA, which was created out of *what they called unacceptable negotiations and compromises with Israel.* [0] > ["Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" is] A typical racist characterisation. This is well documented history, see above for one such example. I know there are people out there who think we actually have an obligation to alter historical facts to avoid coming to uncomfortable conclusions, but I am not interested in debating that view here, if an honest accounting of the facts makes me racist in your eyes, so be it. > You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric. Of course not, they want their stuff back. I'm pointing out that they have consistently chosen a way of going about it that is actually preventing them from getting what they want. Again, this is based purely on the actual history of the past 60 years where every Palestinian government has reverted to allowing anti-Israel violence because the public will not allow criticism of the fight to get their stuff back. As an example, the PA of today had to walk back its criticism of Hamas' Oct 7 attack after public backlash [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_elect... [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/abbas-appears-to-walk-back-criticism-of-hamas-terror-group/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/abbas-appears-t...
  - ignoramous 3y ago
    > if an honest accounting of the facts makes me racist in your eyes, so be it. Your mischaracterisation is racist. You may or may not be. I can't judge on back of just this one interaction. > I know there are people out there who think we actually have an obligation to alter historical facts Bill Clinton lamented Bibi's election, and called him out for specifically sabotaging the peace process after the initial unrest, once the parties were back at the negotiation table: https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/22/bill-clinton-netanyahu-killed-the-peace-process/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/22/bill-clinton-netanyahu-... > Of course not, they want their stuff back. Who wouldn't? You make it sound like this is unreasonable. Last I checked, '67 borders, reparations, and a right of return for some small percentage of the refugees, and they are good? > the PA of today had to walk back its criticism of Hamas' Oct 7 attack after public backlash If one were in Pal shoes, pretty sure they'd hate an occupying force with all their might. This Haaretz article explains their possible psychological state after close to 3 decades of humiliation: https://archive.is/rLq02 https://archive.is/rLq02

by bloaf 3y ago

ignoramous 3y ago

> I disagree. The armed struggle hasn't done them any favours, yes. Neither has peace (Oslo). > The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back. Hamas agreed to 1967 borders back in 2017. PLO has long given up armed struggle. > If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" A typical racist characterisation. Arab male or female is continually fair game to either poke fun at, or more seriously, be confined to and judged by a representation that is either inherently bad, angry, irrational or stupid, misogynistic or repressed, exotic or lascivious. https://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/hooked-on-arab-stereotypes https://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/hooked-on-arab-stereotyp... > So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric. How many Palestinians do you personally know? > Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel Not so quick: https://www.972mag.com/trump-peace-plan-apartheid/ https://www.972mag.com/trump-peace-plan-apartheid/

bloaf 3y ago
> Neither has peace (Oslo). The peace was immediately undermined by groups who did not want to stop fighting. Look, the wikipedia article on the 1996 palestinian general election following the accords literally says, quote: The Islamist Hamas, Fatah's main rival, refused to participate in the election; they felt that doing so would lend legitimacy to the PNA, which was created out of *what they called unacceptable negotiations and compromises with Israel.* [0] > ["Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" is] A typical racist characterisation. This is well documented history, see above for one such example. I know there are people out there who think we actually have an obligation to alter historical facts to avoid coming to uncomfortable conclusions, but I am not interested in debating that view here, if an honest accounting of the facts makes me racist in your eyes, so be it. > You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric. Of course not, they want their stuff back. I'm pointing out that they have consistently chosen a way of going about it that is actually preventing them from getting what they want. Again, this is based purely on the actual history of the past 60 years where every Palestinian government has reverted to allowing anti-Israel violence because the public will not allow criticism of the fight to get their stuff back. As an example, the PA of today had to walk back its criticism of Hamas' Oct 7 attack after public backlash [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_elect... [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/abbas-appears-to-walk-back-criticism-of-hamas-terror-group/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/abbas-appears-t...
- ignoramous 3y ago
  > if an honest accounting of the facts makes me racist in your eyes, so be it. Your mischaracterisation is racist. You may or may not be. I can't judge on back of just this one interaction. > I know there are people out there who think we actually have an obligation to alter historical facts Bill Clinton lamented Bibi's election, and called him out for specifically sabotaging the peace process after the initial unrest, once the parties were back at the negotiation table: https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/22/bill-clinton-netanyahu-killed-the-peace-process/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/22/bill-clinton-netanyahu-... > Of course not, they want their stuff back. Who wouldn't? You make it sound like this is unreasonable. Last I checked, '67 borders, reparations, and a right of return for some small percentage of the refugees, and they are good? > the PA of today had to walk back its criticism of Hamas' Oct 7 attack after public backlash If one were in Pal shoes, pretty sure they'd hate an occupying force with all their might. This Haaretz article explains their possible psychological state after close to 3 decades of humiliation: https://archive.is/rLq02 https://archive.is/rLq02