3 ms·

Replace Palestinians with Black South Africans, and imagine this offer was made in 1990 to the ANC, then reread your comment.

by Cyph0n 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Replace Palestinians with Black South Africans, and imagine this offer was made in 1990 to the ANC Black South Africans weren't de facto surrendering in a militarised conflict. The ANC resorted to small-scale terrorism [1]. (It didn't work.) If the ANC had launched an October 7th scale attack, not only would it have derailed the international pressure that ended Apartheid, but in the likely ensuing civil war, yes, one side would have probably been forced to unconditionally surrender. The practical options on the table are war and peace. If you're losing this badly, you take peace. Then you litigate over war crimes, et cetera. Gaza has no seat at the table because there is currently nobody to take the seat, that's what peace gives them. (I'd be shocked if Gazans, in a plebescite, rejected this deal. The only people who win by continuing this are Hamas and Likud.) [1] https://markhumphrys.com/anc.violence.html https://markhumphrys.com/anc.violence.html
- Cyph0n 1y ago
  > But that didn't help and would have derailed the international pressure that did end Apartheid if it had escalated into a single attack with a thousand casualties. Let’s stick to the facts instead of coming up with conclusions out of thin air. And your understanding is wrong: the ANC gained freedom for South Africans because of its decision to resort to violence. Mandela and the ANC did not make this decision lightly, but it was a decision of last resort. The same applies to other African independence movements. > Gaza has no seat at the table because there is currently nobody to take the seat, that's what peace gives them. They have no seat at the table because: a) they saw what a “seat” resulted in (Oslo and then limbo) and b) the response to their democratically gained “seat” was a coup by Fatah backed by the US and Israel.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > the ANC gained freedom for South Africans because of its decision to resort to violence This is a genuinely ambiguous question--I respect your position. What we can agree to is there were no large-scale terrorist attacks leading up to the negotations that ended Apartheid. (The Boipatong massacre almost did, and that was forty something casualties.) > the response to their democratically gained “seat” was a coup by Fatah backed by the US and Israel This is entirely accurate. It's also a fact that Hamas proceeded to never hold an election again. (Which isn't grounds for ignoring them. October 7th is.) Hamas can't credibly represent Gaza. It continues to call for the destruction of Israel. It's shown a complete lack of concern for its own civilians. And it has no evidence of a popular mandate. Gazans need a seat at the table. They can only get that through peace.

Replace Palestinians with Black South Africans, and imagine this offer was made in 1990 to the ANC, then reread your comment.

by Cyph0n 1y ago

Replace Palestinians with Black South Africans, and imagine this offer was made in 1990 to the ANC, then reread your comment.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Replace Palestinians with Black South Africans, and imagine this offer was made in 1990 to the ANC Black South Africans weren't de facto surrendering in a militarised conflict. The ANC resorted to small-scale terrorism [1]. (It didn't work.) If the ANC had launched an October 7th scale attack, not only would it have derailed the international pressure that ended Apartheid, but in the likely ensuing civil war, yes, one side would have probably been forced to unconditionally surrender. The practical options on the table are war and peace. If you're losing this badly, you take peace. Then you litigate over war crimes, et cetera. Gaza has no seat at the table because there is currently nobody to take the seat, that's what peace gives them. (I'd be shocked if Gazans, in a plebescite, rejected this deal. The only people who win by continuing this are Hamas and Likud.) [1] https://markhumphrys.com/anc.violence.html https://markhumphrys.com/anc.violence.html

Cyph0n 1y ago
> But that didn't help and would have derailed the international pressure that did end Apartheid if it had escalated into a single attack with a thousand casualties. Let’s stick to the facts instead of coming up with conclusions out of thin air. And your understanding is wrong: the ANC gained freedom for South Africans because of its decision to resort to violence. Mandela and the ANC did not make this decision lightly, but it was a decision of last resort. The same applies to other African independence movements. > Gaza has no seat at the table because there is currently nobody to take the seat, that's what peace gives them. They have no seat at the table because: a) they saw what a “seat” resulted in (Oslo and then limbo) and b) the response to their democratically gained “seat” was a coup by Fatah backed by the US and Israel.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > the ANC gained freedom for South Africans because of its decision to resort to violence This is a genuinely ambiguous question--I respect your position. What we can agree to is there were no large-scale terrorist attacks leading up to the negotations that ended Apartheid. (The Boipatong massacre almost did, and that was forty something casualties.) > the response to their democratically gained “seat” was a coup by Fatah backed by the US and Israel This is entirely accurate. It's also a fact that Hamas proceeded to never hold an election again. (Which isn't grounds for ignoring them. October 7th is.) Hamas can't credibly represent Gaza. It continues to call for the destruction of Israel. It's shown a complete lack of concern for its own civilians. And it has no evidence of a popular mandate. Gazans need a seat at the table. They can only get that through peace.