What is the Palestinian Legislative Counsel?

I think the interesting category here is “long term occupation by another power with significant cultural differences and the government isn’t benevolent to the conquered.” The most analogous one is Ireland; they seem the same today, but the cultural differences were extreme for the time, the occupier treated it like a colony, famously let it starve, etc.

Some other ones - when Japan occupied China in World War II, the Communists ended up winning the Chinese civil war in no small part due to their more radical opposition to Japan. Germany/France - Charles de Gualle, guerillas, not Vichy. Tito in Yugoslavia. The mujaheddin in Afghanistan.

In general, when the occupiers stick around and bleed it dry, people don’t support polite, well-behaved political parties or revolutionaries. It’s very hard to build a political coalition around “beat us a little less, please”, contrary to “we may not get it today, but we promise you we’ll get rid of them.”

The normal response is “well, if only Palestine would be nice, we’d stop being so mean to them.” I don’t believe it any more. For whatever reason - Zionism, the level of cultural conflict, possibly correct paranoia about the vulnerability of the Israeli state, two-way manipulation between the US and Isreal - since the 1960s or so Israel has made it clear it’s not interested in being nice. Every Palestinian could adopt Gandihan non-violent resistance tomorrow and all it’d get them is continued clubbing.

There we go! Now you’ve got the spirit of it. Keep it up and you’ll be inducted into the Global Conspiracy too!

I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re right; Israelis are done being nice, have been done being nice for quite some time. I’d argue that after the Intifadas, Israelis will never be willing to try being nice again.

At the same time, it’s important to recognize that the Arab nations surrounding Israel have never -tried- being nice, except for those that… surprise surprise! are now at peace with Israel.

Neither side is a shining example of Good.

I may be totally off-base, but Israel didn’t seem to me that big a factor in the elections. The people who voted for Hamas, by and large, were voting against Fatah. Sort of like voting Democrat because the Republicans fucked up, when you don’t actually agree with the Democrats but voting for a third party is wasting your vote.

True enough. Which is why it’s so damn annoying to see the mainstream press in the US depict Israel as the forces of goodness and niceness. Hamas is bad, however, that doesn’t necessarily make Israel good.

I think that was true for a while, but not any more, and hasn’t been true since the early 90s.

The Israeli perspective would be almost the opposite–the more concessions Israel makes, the worse the attacks get. There were some horrific bus bombings under Oslo, for example (and Rabin came under a lot of criticism because he didn’t respond, saying that the peace process had to take its course). Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza was followed by the election of Hamas.

Not directly connected with the Palestinians, I know, but I think Israel’s experience with Lebanon also makes Israel wary of more concessions–Israel pulled straight out of Lebanon, and hezbollah responded by attacking Northern Israeli cities. Many Israelis see that as a model for Arab responses to concessions–they see them as a sign of weakness, and go on the offensive.

I’ll put on the Tim hat for a second: Does anyone have a link to a translation from somebody other than MEMRI? As Lum points out, they’re notorious for their translations of Arabic, and for . . . leaning the possible meanings in one particular way. It’s pissing in the wind to get upset until somebody less biases translates the speech.

H.

It’s not so much the, “Remove the occupation,” stuff that gets to me. I just don’t recall the Dalai Llama praying and calling for the horrible death of every last Chinese man, woman, and child.

In fact, the Tibetan occupation could be an interesting analogy. Anything similar in terms of the Tibetan opposition?

I just had a Palestinian girl in the hot tub last night, I’ll ask her any questions you guys want.

See? All things topical.

Three things she mentioned I thought interesting.

  1. Most (as in the majority, but obviously not all) the families of suicide bombers are ashamed, didn’t see it coming (like any suicide), and the family suffers for it. Obviously there are some (extremists) who are proud.

  2. She knows a lot of people who wear their keys around their necks. That is, the keys to actual houses they lived in that they were kicked out of and even owned the deeds to, that Israeli settlers now live in.

  3. She claims (I haven’t verified this) that it is against Geneva conventions to move settlers (your citizens) into territory you have captured during a war. I have no idea if this is true. Sounds suspicious to me.

Dalai Lama said no, CIA said yes. China killed anyone who looked at them funny. Apart from the occupying force, it’s difficult to draw parallels between the two as the outside world doesn’t have a vested interest in Tibet, so sucks to be them.

Nobody gives a flying fuck about the Palestinians, either in the region, or in the west and everyone has constantly made that abundantly clear to them.

Yup, she’s right. UN even said so. Thank god Palestinians aren’t actually people.

The last sentence of Article 49, 4th Geneva convention:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Wow. Well, there you go. Another part of the Geneva Convention Israel has ignored. Another thing that binds us together, I guess.

Palestine is clearly no better when it comes to tactics. But with an enemy like that who ignores the Geneva Conventions themselves . . .

Sorry I’m late! I was travelling from Albania to Macedonia yesterday, so I missed this :).

So Israel was being nice before the Intifadas? How do you define nice? Is it nice to take people’s land and settle it? There’s a bunch of bastards in Palestine, but you can’t pretend that Israel doesn’t shoulder a large chunk of the responsibility for that.

Israel took their land, rightly or wrongly, and didn’t give them any say in the governing of that land. No option to become Israeli citizens, no option to become their own state. They had to fight for that right, and what they got were a series of offers that were a long way from giving the Palestinians control over their own lives. That’s because the Israelis will not dismantle the settlements.

Unlike most of the rest of the world, the Palestinians are aware that there’s not going to be any peace, nor any viable Palestinian state, until there is a sea change in Israeli opinion. I don’t mean a sea change as in “lets be nice to the Palestinians”, but a sea change as in “let’s dismantle those illegal settlements that make such a state impossible.”

While the Palestinians believe there is not going to be any peace, there won’t be any peace. While the settlements exist, there will not be any peace.

Sorry if I sound combative. I don’t want to get into an argument. I won’t have enough time to discuss this anyway. Just thought I’d put some tinder onto the fire :).

No, I didn’t mean to imply that Israel was being nice before. They might or they might not; I don’t know that much.

You need to read up on the last offer that Arafat turned down, though. It doesn’t quite fit within your framework. :)

As far as the rest of the stuff goes, I (and most Israelis) do not support the settlements. But there is a very large minority who do.

The settlements were being dismantled until the terrorism started again. Then, for some retarded reason, the Israeli leadership decided that putting in new settlements would “punish” the Palestinians and make them stop acts of terror. Or something.

The whole history of the region is replete in idiocy and hatred, meaningless death and religious fervor. It’s stupid.

As far as the “Palestinians being kicked out of their homes” thing goes, there are two sides to that. There are those that left willingly, believing that Israel would be crushed in a couple of days by the Arab nations and they could merrily go back to living there; and there were those who were kicked out.

While I have sympathy for the second group, I have none whatsoever for the first.

Anyway, this whole Israel vs Palestine thing is kind of retarded. I’ve said this before. What Israel should do is, in exaggerated terms, is:

1 - Build a wall across its borders. Decide them unilaterally if needed. Make sure they’re defensible. Shoot anyone who tries to cross onto the Israeli without a visa.
2 - Pull the soldiers out of the settlements. Give a three-month warning, and offer to pay for the settlers’ moving elsewhere, and actually do it this time, and do it right. But once the time is up, any settlers remaining … are going to be a sacrifice on the altar of peace, if you will.
3 - If anyone hits you with Katyushas or other long-range weapons, level the place with bombs. Any civilian casualties are the terrorists’ fault; using civilians as a shield automatically means it’s your fault, not the person who has to kill the civvies to get to your rocket launchers.
4 - Any political official who publicly advocates the killing of Jews or the destruction of Israel, assassinate. If called on it, admit it, and tell anyone who complains to go to Hell.

And before you go apeshit, those are not what I really think should be done or could be done.

Or, I suppose Israel could obey UN resolution 242 and leave those territories annexed in 1967. Not just those parts they don’t want. Maybe they could remove those illegal colonies they have established in the West Bank.

Israel is implementing point 1. And has done points 3 and 4 for years (citations should be trivial to find, so I won’t bother). All that remains is point 2. Which curiously is more or less what the Palestinians want.

PS A large minority? You mean a large contingent of nutcases like Yigal Amir or Baruch Goldstein?

This is just turning into another “Is Israel wrong?,” debate.

Does anyone really mean to ask that question in connection with whether it is right for an elected representative of a people to call for the murder of every last member of a society, religion, or nation?

Is it okay to murder every Jew and American if Israel was wrong in its settlement policy, or in taking the land in the first place?

Israel is partially implementing number 1. They don’t shoot everyone who tries to cross without a visa. But yeah, I’m all for them doing it!

I’ve never heard of Israel assassinating politicians who advocate the destruction of Israel. Cites please.

Israel’s military is also very, very civilian-casualty shy. The fact that civilians die anyway is more an indication of the fact that the vast majority of the targets are using civilians as shields. And bombs are not exactly precision weapons, even nowadays.

I’m totally for them removing the illegal colonies they established in the West Bank. But leaving the territories annexed in 1967, all of them? Not happening. Israel considers some of that territory necessary for its defense.

And as I believe history and the politics of the region show, what Israel needs for their defense, they need to take, because A: nobody will give it to them except for the USA and B: everyone in the area will continue to try and destroy Israel no matter what they do.

All that remains is point 2. Which curiously is more or less what the Palestinians want.

No. The Palestinians want the destruction of Israel, no more and no less. For the Israelis to be driven into the sea, the Jews killed by whatever means necessary.

The political demands they make to move the situation closer to the possibility of that holy cause being accomplished include the territories being evacuated by Israel and unpoliced, embargoes removed, free movement into Israel, a move back to previous (and less defensible) borders, and the Right of Return.

PS A large minority? You mean a large contingent of nutcases like Yigal Amir or Baruch Goldstein?

Unlike you, I actually live in the country. And no. There is a very small contingent of nutcases like Yigal Amir and Baruch Goldstein. There is a very large minority of people who happen to believe that for various reasons, the settlements should not be pulled out. Most of them are even sane. Shocking when people disagree with you and yet are sane!

Wait… do you mean you had sex?

I have a question for ElGuapo to ask her.

What do the Palestinians think of Hamas and Fatah now that Hamas is in power?

I’m interested to know if the views of the parties have shifted at all since their election.

OK, I’ll ask her that.

Yeah, we had kinky sex where I asked her to call me Ben Gurion.