3 ms·

People do actually talk about the return or the decolonization of Belfast. The difference is that Northern Irish Nationalists were given a political avenue to c

People do actually talk about the return or the decolonization of Belfast. The difference is that Northern Irish Nationalists were given a political avenue to continue decolonization efforts (but only after decades of armed resistance). The moral argument here is that Hamas is not even asking for that, instead only asking for the right of return of the displaced Palestinian families and their descendants, and a recognition of a Palestinian state which doesn’t include Jaffa. This is a much lesser ask than what the IRA was asking regarding Belfast, all the way up to the Good Friday agreement. The IRA actually went so far as fight a civil war against other nationalist factions over Belfast. So the moral argument here is, in short, that one of the worst colonial empire in history (the British) were actually far more reasonable then modern day Israel.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 3y ago
You've lost me by bringing up Hamas. Is there a way forward in this conversation that does not require me to take Hamas seriously? Does it help us for me to give an accounting of why Hamas is not a viable actor in the region? I believe Palestinians must have self-determination in a sovereign state, and that that state should include the whole of Gaza and the West Bank, including the rolling back of Israeli settlements in the West Bank to the '67 borders. Do we need to go past that to keep talking? If Hamas is still in the conversation after this reply, what we're going to be litigating is my argument that it is the obligation of the entire world to destroy Hamas by all available military means short of the invasion or at-scale air assault of Gaza. If that's a conversation you want to have, we can have it, but my hope would be we don't have to --- that the actual thing we're talking about here doesn't depend on us settling the Hamas issue.
- runarberg 3y ago
  If you want we can talk about Palestinian armed resistance more generally with out bringing up specific organizations engaging in said resistance, sure we can do that. However I don’t see how that is any better. But I’ll try. My main point here (and the point which sparked this discussion a dozen posts upthread) is that there does not exist a political avenue for Palestinian self-determination, and the main actor preventing that is Israel, not any of the number of organization—some bigger and more successful then others—which engages in armed resistance. Israel has shown time and time again, that no matter how many people or states want Palestine to have self-determination, it is simply not going to happen without armed resistance. I bet people also said the same of the IRA, a terrorist organization which targeted civilians, that it simply wasn’t a viable actor in the region. However, without the IRA, or other groups engaging in Armed resistance, there would not have been an Easter Uprising, and Ireland would not have been free. The way the British got rid of the IRA was with a ceasefire negotiations which gave the Irish nationalists political rights. Treating the IRA as a non-viable actor would have prolonged the troubles and resulted continuing violence for many years more.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 3y ago

You've lost me by bringing up Hamas. Is there a way forward in this conversation that does not require me to take Hamas seriously? Does it help us for me to give an accounting of why Hamas is not a viable actor in the region? I believe Palestinians must have self-determination in a sovereign state, and that that state should include the whole of Gaza and the West Bank, including the rolling back of Israeli settlements in the West Bank to the '67 borders. Do we need to go past that to keep talking? If Hamas is still in the conversation after this reply, what we're going to be litigating is my argument that it is the obligation of the entire world to destroy Hamas by all available military means short of the invasion or at-scale air assault of Gaza. If that's a conversation you want to have, we can have it, but my hope would be we don't have to --- that the actual thing we're talking about here doesn't depend on us settling the Hamas issue.

runarberg 3y ago
If you want we can talk about Palestinian armed resistance more generally with out bringing up specific organizations engaging in said resistance, sure we can do that. However I don’t see how that is any better. But I’ll try. My main point here (and the point which sparked this discussion a dozen posts upthread) is that there does not exist a political avenue for Palestinian self-determination, and the main actor preventing that is Israel, not any of the number of organization—some bigger and more successful then others—which engages in armed resistance. Israel has shown time and time again, that no matter how many people or states want Palestine to have self-determination, it is simply not going to happen without armed resistance. I bet people also said the same of the IRA, a terrorist organization which targeted civilians, that it simply wasn’t a viable actor in the region. However, without the IRA, or other groups engaging in Armed resistance, there would not have been an Easter Uprising, and Ireland would not have been free. The way the British got rid of the IRA was with a ceasefire negotiations which gave the Irish nationalists political rights. Treating the IRA as a non-viable actor would have prolonged the troubles and resulted continuing violence for many years more.