3 ms·

> 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, econ

> 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
  - bloaf 3y ago
    > Bill Clinton lamented Bibi's election I'm not saying Israel is blameless. But you must recall Bibi was literally elected because Palestinians began a wave of suicide bombings right before the Israeli elections, which swayed their electorate towards a hard-liner. I.e. the violent Palestinian groups could not be controlled by the peaceful-er ones, and their terrorism ended up being counter-productive. > Who wouldn't? You make it sound like this is unreasonable. I am making no value judgements about their goals. I am asserting that their method for achieving those goals is not rational insofar as it is counterproductive. > pretty sure they'd hate an occupying force with all their might Being really emotional doesn't make your decisions rational. I'm not telling Palestinians to love their enemies. I'm telling them to pick their battles and not take losing fights.
    - ignoramous 3y ago
      > I'm not saying Israel is blameless. But you must recall Bibi was literally elected... Agree, and his 2 decades led to apartheid, continued violation of Oslo, and flirting dangerously with the Temple Mount status quo... culminating in 7 Oct. Which is why I pointed out it was wrong to call out Pals as unreasonable and irrational (a typical stereotype, co-opted by the IDF https://archive.is/P4PyJ https://archive.is/P4PyJ) when the fault is with both the sides. (The Jordanian King shouldn't have endorsed Bibi at the time he did, which apparently tipped polls in his favour against Peres) > asserting that their method for achieving those goals... I'm telling them to pick their battles and not take losing fights True. The reason why Israeli far-right loves propping up Hamas. The extremists on the either side feed on each other. Remains to be seen what comes after the current situation. Sincerely hope 67 borders and it is done. Have a feeling West Bank and E Jerusalem settlers and their billionaire American donors won't like it.

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
- bloaf 3y ago
  > Bill Clinton lamented Bibi's election I'm not saying Israel is blameless. But you must recall Bibi was literally elected because Palestinians began a wave of suicide bombings right before the Israeli elections, which swayed their electorate towards a hard-liner. I.e. the violent Palestinian groups could not be controlled by the peaceful-er ones, and their terrorism ended up being counter-productive. > Who wouldn't? You make it sound like this is unreasonable. I am making no value judgements about their goals. I am asserting that their method for achieving those goals is not rational insofar as it is counterproductive. > pretty sure they'd hate an occupying force with all their might Being really emotional doesn't make your decisions rational. I'm not telling Palestinians to love their enemies. I'm telling them to pick their battles and not take losing fights.
  - ignoramous 3y ago
    > I'm not saying Israel is blameless. But you must recall Bibi was literally elected... Agree, and his 2 decades led to apartheid, continued violation of Oslo, and flirting dangerously with the Temple Mount status quo... culminating in 7 Oct. Which is why I pointed out it was wrong to call out Pals as unreasonable and irrational (a typical stereotype, co-opted by the IDF https://archive.is/P4PyJ https://archive.is/P4PyJ) when the fault is with both the sides. (The Jordanian King shouldn't have endorsed Bibi at the time he did, which apparently tipped polls in his favour against Peres) > asserting that their method for achieving those goals... I'm telling them to pick their battles and not take losing fights True. The reason why Israeli far-right loves propping up Hamas. The extremists on the either side feed on each other. Remains to be seen what comes after the current situation. Sincerely hope 67 borders and it is done. Have a feeling West Bank and E Jerusalem settlers and their billionaire American donors won't like it.