So, is the Palestinian Intifada over?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, is the Palestinian Intifada over?

Rob Lister said:


I don't either. I also don't think the separate-state option is viable. The current situation is viable only by the default position of being mildly more viable that either of the other options.

Forth option anyone?
Click to expand...

The Palestinian-Arabs need a Ghandi.
 
It's a combination of things;

  • The halt of USAID to the Palestinians because they refuse to sign a pledge renouncing terrorism.
  • The cut backs in EUAID because the Palestinian Authority cannot show where the previous billions went, although 60 Minutes sure did.
  • A Security Barrier, which just about everyone in the world has tried to stop, has effectively cut off most suicide bombers coming from the West Bank.
  • Better intel.
  • Israel killing terrorist leaders.
  • Arab states have reduced their funding because they are angry with Arafat's duplicity.
  • Saddam is no longer around to reward suicide bomber families.
  • Infighting between palestinian terror groups over turf and control of their semi-autonomous fiefdoms.
All because of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority's brilliant strategy of embezzling aid, making peace in english and calling for jihad in Arabic.

But it is far from over, Islamofascist terror groups control more of the West Bank and Gaza than the Palestinian Authority does now, that is why Ahmed Qurie is kissing their respective asses not to take over Gaza once Israel pulls out.
 
ZN:
"All because of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority's brilliant strategy of embezzling aid, making peace in english and calling for the destruction of Israel while declaring a jihad in Arabic."

Yes, nothing to do with an illegal occupation at all. Fools, we are all fools to not realise this, I`m now a zionist, I`ve seen the light.
 
demon said:
Yes, nothing to do with an illegal occupation at all. Fools, we are all fools to not realise this, I`m now a zionist, I`ve seen the light.
Click to expand...
This is how hypocritical you are. You would rather women and children be sent to martyr themselves than peacefully negotiate an end to the "occupation". If one is critical of Arafat or the policy of sending women and children to martyr themselves, they are labelled a "zionist". Typical Demon...
 
demon said:
Define your terms and we`ll talk.
Click to expand...
Israel made peace with it's arch-enemy Egypt, it made peace with Jordan...yet after;

  • Camp David Accords
  • Israel-PLO Recognition
  • Israel-Palestinian Declaration of Principles
  • Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area
  • Agreement on the Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities
  • Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians
  • The Wye River Plantation Agreement
  • The Sharm el Sheikh Agreement
  • Trilateral Statement on the Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David
  • Palestinian-Israeli Security Implementation Work Plan (Tenet Plan)
  • The Arab (Saudi) Peace Initiative - Beirut Arab Leage Summit 2002
  • Performance-Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
I think the "terms" have been defined ad nauseum. It takes Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to actually do something instead of sending more women and children bombers to negotiate peace.
 
ZN:
I think the "terms" have been defined ad nauseum

Sorry, i missed them...indulge me.........thanks.
 
demon said:
Sorry, i missed them...indulge me.........thanks.
Click to expand...
I have named the relevant treaties/documents above. Feel free to Google them at your leisure.

There isn't a rational or sane human being on Earth that can say Arafat has been good for the Palestinians. Look what 10 years of his rule has brought the Palestinians. They are worse off today than before Arafat arrived from exile in Tunisia. Several American and Israeli leaders have tried to make peace with Arafat, all have failed because of Arafat.

If you spent as much time hating Arafat and what he's done to the palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank as you did the "evil zionists" then you would be doing the palestinians a service, otherwise you are nothing more than another Saeb Erekat. Arafat says the sky is pink, Saeb Erekat says the sky is pink, Arafat says massacre in Jenin, Saeb Erekat say massacre in Jenin...and on...and on...keep the spotlight off Arafat, his broken promises, his embezzlement of international aid, his duplicity, his incompetence, and all is well. Meanwhile who suffers the most? Palestinians and Israelis, not Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.
 
aerocontrols said:


I think you've focussed too much on this one point.

Well you raised this point specifically so I addressed it specifically. I would agree however that funding alone cannot possibly decide the issue.

Perhaps you'll agree with my (and to some extent the article's) contention that simultaneously cutting off money, targetted assassinations of leadership, and restricting access (the fence) has had some effect.

[edit: The problem I am having is seeing what you are getting at. You don't believe that the Palestinian terrorist groups have gone to Iraq, you probably don't believe they have given up or 'taken a vacation'. You don't seem to believe that a lack of funds could slow them down. What do you think has caused the slacking off of violence?

Actually I would agree that the wall, assassinations etc are very likely to have had a significant effect but it is quite impossible to say if the effect is going to be long term. Going back to the funding issue my point was that terrorism whether national or international can achieve a great deal with an amount of money we would consider trivial (well by military standards) and accordingly we shouldn't overemphasise the likely effect of cutting funding.

The wall and the targetted assassinations were supposed to enrage the Palestinians and increase the cycle of violence, according to some...]


Well they certainly have enraged them if it is possible to be more enraged than they were already. The position of the article seems to be that if you retreat behind the castle walls for safety then you can declare the war over and forget about the enemy at the gates. Doesn't usually work like that though. It didn't work for the crusaders who after all were a highly militarised society who built excellent fortifications. The fortifications remain; The crusaders don't.


So then you agree with me, then? :P

 I think I've covered that above. Even without the wall/assassinations/funding reductions I suspect that militant organisations supporting the palestinians might have diverted some of their efforts to Iraq. After all why shoot the monkey when you can shoot the organ grinder?

Perhaps there will be, but my question is whether the intifada is over. This particular stretch of the conflict began in 2000 (after the Camp David meeting failed or after Sharon went to the Temple Mount, depending on one's biases) after a stretch of relative quiet.

The first intifada was from 1987-1993 and the end came about with the signing of the Oslo peace accords.

 The honest answer is that no one knows. In my opinion this is merely a lull in the violence of the Intifada. For it to end would require a change in the political climate, e.g. as a first step the replacement not only of Sharon and his cronies but also of Arafat and his cronies.

Neither here nor there, as regards my question about the state of the intifada.

 You don't think that a popular and violent nation resistance movement gains moral authority in the eyes of its supporters when related movements flourish in neighbouring nations? If you are trying to recuit impressionable young men then the argument that they are part of a culture wide resistance movement against the U.S. imperialism, crusaders etc, etc, is a powerful propaganda tool.

In other words arab and moslem anger aroused by Iraq probably contributes to the mentality which sustains the Intifada.

MattJ
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, is the Palestinian Intifada over?

Mycroft said:


The Palestinian-Arabs need a Ghandi.
Click to expand...


Do you think that the U.S. should have adopted a Ghandi like response to Al Quaeda?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, is the Palestinian Intifada over?

Originally posted by Nikk
Do you think that the U.S. should have adopted a Ghandi like response to Al Quaeda?
Click to expand...

Not every conflict that involves Arabs is interchangeable with every other conflict that involves Arabs.

Ghandi's purpose was to liberate India from the British. If you believe the United States needs to be "liberated" from Al Qaeda, I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on how that works, and how Ghandi-like passive resistance would help.

In any conflict, a wise tactician will choose not to fight on the terms where he cannot win. In the Israeli/Palestinian-Arab conflict, the Palestinian-Arabs cannot win on terms of armed conflict. They just don't have the resources. The best they can achieve is to keep the conflict in the world spotlight, and hope that world pressure will eventually force Israel to withdraw, but history shows that tactic is not working. In constantly targeting civilians, and through the corruption that ZN illustrates, they eventually lose the support of even the most die-hard apologist. (Misinformation only goes so far)

A truly peaceful movement would win for the Palestinian-Arabs a moral high ground that would win back international support, plus it would give the Israelis assurance that a potential state of Palestine could live in peace with them and not just be a platform to launch further attacks.

Also, winning independence in this way would give the Palestinian-Arab people a national myth on which to build a society based on positive values, not negative.
 
ZN:
"I have named the relevant treaties/documents above. Feel free to Google them at your leisure.

There isn't a rational or sane human being on Earth that can say Arafat has been good for the Palestinians. Look what 10 years of his rule has brought the Palestinians. They are worse off today than before Arafat arrived from exile in Tunisia. Several American and Israeli leaders have tried to make peace with Arafat, all have failed because of Arafat.

If you spent as much time hating Arafat and what he's done to the palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank as you did the "evil zionists" then you would be doing the palestinians a service, otherwise you are nothing more than another Saeb Erekat. Arafat says the sky is pink, Saeb Erekat says the sky is pink, Arafat says massacre in Jenin, Saeb Erekat say massacre in Jenin...and on...and on...keep the spotlight off Arafat, his broken promises, his embezzlement of international aid, his duplicity, his incompetence, and all is well. Meanwhile who suffers the most? Palestinians and Israelis, not Arafat and the Palestinian Authority."

Can`t argue with that...they so need occupying.
 
demon said:
Can`t argue with that...they so need occupying.
Click to expand...
Once again you never cease to amaze me with your special brand of intellect.
Nikk said:
For it to end would require a change in the political climate, e.g. as a first step the replacement not only of Sharon and his cronies but also of Arafat and his cronies.
Click to expand...
Sharon wasn't even around before 2000. So I cannot fathom how he and "his cronies" are responsible for Arafat's and the Palestinian Authority's actions, or inaction depending on ones viewpoint, from 1993-2000. Let us not forget that the "reason" for the second intifada was Sharon's visit to al-Haram al-Sharif where the al-Aqsa mosque is located, the SAME al-Aqsa mosque where Palestinians attacked the Egyptian Foreign Minister for just talking with the Israelis. And the "reason" Sharon was elected is because of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, is the Palestinian Intifada over?

Mycroft said:
The Palestinian-Arabs need a Ghandi.
Click to expand...
Ghandi led the nonviolence movement; he didn't create it. There are already a few Arabs wanting a peaceful solution, but as long as they lack broad support, their efforts will be unsuccessful.

demon
Yes, nothing to do with an illegal occupation at all. Fools, we are all fools to not realise this, I`m now a zionist, I`ve seen the light.
Click to expand...
The word "illegal" in this context is just meaningless rhetoric; there is no controlling authority. And while I can see how people would have a problem with particular aspects of the occupation, I don't see how anyone can disagree that the occupation itself is justified. Every country has the right to occupy any other country, or territory, that wages an aggressive campaign to destroy the former.
 
From: Hamas Scrambles for Role in Running Gaza - Sat Jun 19,12:30 PM ET - AP
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - The Islamic militant group Hamas is seeking a role in running the Gaza Strip once Israel withdraws, lobbying for posts in the education and health ministries as well as the security forces, Palestinian officials told The Associated Press.

Analysts say a stake in the system might make Hamas less likely to attack Israelis, to avoid provoking a reoccupation. But its leaders say — at least in public — that they have no intention of halting attacks.

A deal with the Palestinian Authority could lead to a moderated Hamas focused on governmental responsibility, Palestinian officials said. Ziad Abu Amr, one official involved in the talks, said attacks on Israelis would have to stop because Hamas would "be part of a binding agreement."

But Haniyeh, whose group says its goal is the destruction of Israel, insisted that "no single Palestinian is going to grant Israel any security commitment in return for its one-sided withdrawal from the strip."

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zohri said that even if Israel withdraws from Gaza, the Palestinians will continue to resist Israeli occupation "in every corner of Palestine" — including inside Israel's pre-1967 borders.
Click to expand...
Imagine if Afghan President Hamid Karzai let Al-Queda lobby for posts in the education or health ministries or the security forces in Afghanistan...welcome to Arafatistan....
 
zenith-nadir said:
From: Hamas Scrambles for Role in Running Gaza - Sat Jun 19,12:30 PM ET - AP Imagine if Afghan President Hamid Karzai let Al-Queda lobby for posts in the education or health ministries or the security forces in Afghanistan...welcome to Arafatistan....
Click to expand...

Hey, putting them in government positions is probably the quickest and easiest way to get the population to turn against them. Everybody hates bureaucrats.
 
It's worth considering that the killing of the established leadership of Hamas and Islamic Jihad have allowed a new generation to change their strategy. The obsession with suicide - which is a fairly recent phaenomenon - may have been dropped, as may attacks within Israeli borders. The recent Israeli military fatalities might indicate that the Hizbullah military strategy is being tried. I'd be surprised that it hasn't been before if I didn't know so much about recent Arab history.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, is the Palestinian Intifada over?

Mycroft said:


Not every conflict that involves Arabs is interchangeable with every other conflict that involves Arabs.

Ghandi's purpose was to liberate India from the British. If you believe the United States needs to be "liberated" from Al Qaeda, I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on how that works, and how Ghandi-like passive resistance would help.

 If you claim that a passive resistance model should be adopted in a conflict of interest it is up to you to show why and how it would work. There is a conflict of interest between the U.S. and Al Q. Feel free to show the merits of the policy you advocate. If you wish to argue that the passive approach is only applicable to territorial conflicts could you explain why this is so. In such a case you could show how the Gandhian model would have operated to the benefit of american indians.

In any conflict, a wise tactician will choose not to fight on the terms where he cannot win. In the Israeli/Palestinian-Arab conflict, the Palestinian-Arabs cannot win on terms of armed conflict. They just don't have the resources. The best they can achieve is to keep the conflict in the world spotlight, and hope that world pressure will eventually force Israel to withdraw, but history shows that tactic is not working. In constantly targeting civilians, and through the corruption that ZN illustrates, they eventually lose the support of even the most die-hard apologist. (Misinformation only goes so far)

Where is the evidence that the Palestinians are losing support among Arabs?

A truly peaceful movement would win for the Palestinian-Arabs a moral high ground that would win back international support, plus it would give the Israelis assurance that a potential state of Palestine could live in peace with them and not just be a platform to launch further attacks.

Also, winning independence in this way would give the Palestinian-Arab people a national myth on which to build a society based on positive values, not negative.

The history of anti colonial struggles suggests that the Palestinians are quite likely to win in the end, although it must be admitted that this conflict is unique. A small, deeply resented colony, surrrounded by hundreds of millions who dislike it seems unlikely to survive despite displaying and impressive fighting spirit so far.

If Fundamentalist Islamic regimes were to become dominant in the region the balance of forces would tilt heavily against Israel
Click to expand...

I am afraid that I am very suspicious of references to Gandhi. It usually seems to be a way of asking the opposition to lay down their arms so as to make life easier for your side.

And here are Gandhi's words on Palestine in 1938.......

"
"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.......................

I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds ." Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr..................
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, is the Palestinian Intifada over?

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Ghandi led the nonviolence movement; he didn't create it. There are already a few Arabs wanting a peaceful solution, but as long as they lack broad support, their efforts will be unsuccessful.
Click to expand...

Presumably when they get tired of the killing, the dying and the poverty of the conflict they will be willing to lend their support to a non-violent movement. What they really need is someone to give them permission to struggle in a different way.

BTW, welcome to the forum. You are a refreshing change from the same old tired arguments. :)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, is the Palestinian Intifada over?

Originally posted by Nikk
If you claim that a passive resistance model should be adopted in a conflict of interest it is up to you to show why and how it would work.
Click to expand...

Saying it’s applicable to one conflict is not the same as saying it’s applicable to every conflict. I’m sorry that’s confusing to you, but I think it’s obvious.

I’m afraid I’m not inclined to show the same kind of patience with this sort of argument as I have when E.J.Armstrong does it. If you can think of a way passive resistance is applicable to Al Qaeda or the American Indians, feel free to demonstrate how. If not, I’ll just remind you that you brought it up, and it’s not for me to justify the validity of your speculations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom