A "Self-hating" Palestinian?

[oberliner]

JERUSALEM - Several months ago, I took part in a symposium organised by the Palestinian Academic Society for International Affairs, entitled “Hamas’s Political Agenda 2010”. It took place at a venue a few metres away from the burial site of Yasser Arafat and the office of the current President Abu Mazen. Independent figures from different academic backgrounds spoke on that podium in an attempt to analyze the political discourse of the Hamas movement, as well as to highlight the growing rift between the Palestinian liberation movement and the peace process in general.

Following the talks, the session’s chair opened the floor for discussion and a former member of the Legislative Council representing Hamas commented on the effectiveness of instilling fear through the use of violence, saying: “Israelis became at some point scared to the extent that they did not feel secure anymore, not in their restaurants, buses or streets. This, in itself, resulted in the undermining of all Israeli plans”.

Such words about targeting restaurants and buses quickly drew my attention, and my spontaneous reaction was to interrupt him. I responded that there seems to be a paradox and a misconception on the Palestinian side regarding the definition of resistance and its methods. Resistance, I said, should not mean violating international laws or killing civilians. As expected, I was immediately accused of promoting a Western colonial ideology and adopting Zionist and American rhetoric.

My accuser argued that resistance in all its forms does not represent war crimes, as the West attempts to present the matter, and that there are no civilians in the Israeli “entity”. His words were met with the approval of several members of the audience who cheered him - but I insisted that killing civilians, including children, is not justified.

http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=28857&lan=en&sid=0&sp=0&isNew=1

[bemildred]

1. He's right of course.

But he is also pounding sand. The Palestinians, as a society, are not going to unilaterally renounce violence any more than the Israelis are, or anybody else. Rules and laws do not work unless they are equally applied. What we have now is a half-ass system of "international law" in which outright genocide and ethnic cleansing is looked down on, but anything short of that is pretty much ignored.

[oberliner]

2. I disagree

I agree that he is right but I disagree about pounding sand. I think his arguments can be very convincing to people who may be on the fence. Notice the fluctuation in the poll data with respect to violence against civilians inside Israel. Seems to change yearly.

[Ken Burch]

3. It won't be possible to get Palestinians to change their tactics

Unless that change is met with and IMMEDIATE and EQUAL change in what the IDF does and how the Israeli government deals with the settlers.

As long as Palestinians are expected to change without ANY guarantee of reward for the change, requests that they change will be seen as pointless and insulting and will be disregarded. And were we who sit and observe in comfort and safety in their positions, I'm not sure any of us would do any differently. You can't expect sainthood from the oppressed.

[oberliner]

4. Disagree with that as well

Palestinians are capable of rejecting violence irrespective of what the IDF does.

You don't have to be a saint to oppose killing civilians.

[Ken Burch]

6. Tell that to the IDF. They've killed their share.

And using the phrase "killing civilians" is a meaningless dodge. In a resistance struggle, the lines between civilian and non-civilian no longer exist.

You can't expect the Palestinians to change without ANY guarantees they'll be rewarded for it. If they did, the IDF and the Israeli government would just gloat about "breaking them" and claim victory.

The concessions need to be equal and simultaneous. Israelis have never been the GREATER victims in this conflict and the Israeli government or its supporters have never truly had claims of moral superiority over the Palestinian side. Those were forever lost when the settlement project began.

Both sides have equal blood on their hands, and both most change equally.

[oberliner]

7. "In a resistance struggle, the lines between civilian and non-civilian no longer exist"?

Are you serious?

Wow.

I am speechless.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

9. Alrighty then

Again - speechless.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

12. I completely oppose the killing of civilians under any circumstance

I don't think that civilians and combatants ought to be viewed in the same way regardless of the situation.

It is stunning to me that a poster here could express the views that rendered me speechless in your earlier post.

Specifically the one I cited, where you wrote:

"In a resistance struggle, the lines between civilian and non-civilian no longer exist"

I still find it hard to believe that the person I've been discussing these issues with online could hold an opinion like that.

[Ken Burch]

13. I'm also against all killing of civilians.

And when I say the lines are blurred, I'm not saying I LIKE that. I hate it. But we both know the IDF high command and the Israeli government caused it by starting the settlement project and arming the damn settlers in the first place.

What I'm saying is, you and I are observing this from the standpoint of secure outsiders. Neither of us will ever know what it's like to live under the Occupation. As Americans, we CAN'T know what oppression does to a person.

And what you're forgetting here is that, in the West Bank, the lines are blurred and will never become unblurred. Should the West Bank settler who uproots olive trees and beats or shoots Palestinians truly be considered a "civilian"? What about the right-wing Israeli politicians who incite those settlers to unjustified attacks on Palestinians?

And, given that everyone serves in the IDF at some point, how clear is the line between civilian and military in Israel at all? Is anyone there, other than children or the heroic military resisters who refuse to take part in the completely unjustified repression in the West Bank a "civilian"?

The killing needs to stop. But so does the pretense that what Palestinians do is any worse than what the IDF does. There needs to be a universal admission that what both sides do is on the same moral plain and that both sides need to pull back.

There's no such thing as moral superiority in this conflict, and the IDF hasn't respected the boundary between civilian and non-civilian Palestinians for decades. It's high command basically refuses to admit that ANY Palestinian is an innocent civilian.

Do you see what I'm saying?

If you're against "killing civilians" you need to admit that BOTH sides do it, and do it in equal measure, and that both sides have an equal responsibility to change and to change at the same moment. No one has the right to expect Palestinians to change first, especially since they were never rewarded for changing in the past(as the settlement construction and land theft all through Oslo proves).

I'm not pro-violence, I'm anti-hypocrisy. And the IDF has never waged this war on the playing fields of Eton or by Marquis of Queensbury rules. Understood?

[oberliner]

15. What part of "it's NEVER acceptable to kill civilians" do you not get?

To paraphrase a rhetorical question you yourself wrote on another thread.

[Ken Burch]

16. That goes equally for what the IDF and the settlers do.

It can't be legitimate to expect the Palestinians to change first. Both sides have to change simultaneously. That's not asking too much.

And what part of "The Israeli side is not entitled to claim moral superiority" do YOU not get?

Both sides are the same on this. The killing is the same on both sides.

[oberliner]

21. I didn't write anything about civilians and non-civilians being the same, you did

I don't view them as the same regardless of the circumstance. I believe civilians should be protected.

You wrote:

"In a resistance struggle, the lines between civilian and non-civilian no longer exist"

That is what I am shocked and, to be honest, disgusted by.

[Ken Burch]

23. The IDF caused that by arming the settlers.

When they KNEW the settlers were going to use the weapons for a reign of terror.

And by doing nothing when the settlers attacked Palestinians and stole their land.

And by repeatedly killing PALESTINIAN civilians themselves.

No civilians should be killed.

But the Israeli side has no moral superiority on that point.

The violence on BOTH sides has to end simultaneously.

That's the only fair way.

I don't defend the killing of civilians.

I just object to hypocrisy.

When you're willing to admit that the Israeli side is just as bad on this and that the settlers and the IDF ARE the oppressors, then I'll listen to sanctimony about "killing civilians". Otherwise, as long as you're an apologist for the status quo, you have no standing to criticize anything the oppressed side does.

[oberliner]

24. Be that as it may - civilians should be protected - killing them is not acceptable

Your statements to the contrary are staggering.

Specifically this one:

"In a resistance struggle, the lines between civilian and non-civilian no longer exist"

[Ken Burch]

28. It was the IDF and the Occupation that caused that.

If you want civilians on both sides protected, work to END the Occupation.

And again, you know perfectly well I wasn't ENDORSING that state of affairs, simply pointing out the obvious.

It was the same in Vietnam and in what Reagan did in Central America.

[oberliner]

33. Civilians should also be considered different than non-civilians

This is one of the fundamental tenets that most of the international community (and the people in it) accept.

[Ken Burch]

36. Tell that to the IDF and the settlers, then

It's not like the Palestinian side INVENTED "killing civilians".

The Zionist side was doing it in 1948 and earlier.

The U.S. had it done for them by proxies in Central America in the Eighties, and did it in Vietnam and earlier wars before that.

It's wrong, it shouldn't happen, but you make it sound like nobody but the Palestinian forces EVER did it.

All I'm saying here is...you need to admit BOTH sides are guilty of this and that both sides need to stop at the same time.

You can't ask more of the oppressed than you ask of the oppressor.

[oberliner]

38. I will tell that to anyone who makes the statement that you made

If anyone says (or writes) to me what you wrote:

"In a resistance struggle (or any other scenario), the lines between civilian and non-civilian no longer exist"

I will respond in exactly the same way.

The shock was finding it posted by someone on this message board of all places by a generally reasonable poster.

[Ken Burch]

39. And you know perfectly well I didn't AGREE with killing civilians

(I don't agree with killing ANYBODY).

I was just making a statement against hypocrisy.

Both sides of this war have been just as bad on this.

And there's no war anywhere these days where that line exists.

There is no army on the planet that still tries to avoid killing civilians (Which is another case against war, but that's another discussion)

Face reality.

War doesn't have nice little borders between "civilian" and "military" any more. And it never will again.

The way to end this is to end the things that cause war.

Like the Occupation.

Lose the hypocrisy already.

(btw, I didn't say "(or any other scenario)" so that was totally inappropriate to add that to my quote. You owe me an apology for that.)

You have no right to be morally offended at me for simply pointing out the truth. I wasn't endorsing it, and you KNOW that, I was simply pointing out.

And you would HAVE to agree that you can't ask more of the oppressed than you ask of the oppressor. It's that simple.

[oberliner]

40. The statement you made speaks for itself

I make no other claims about any of your other beliefs other than the one you posted.

That is what I found, and still find, to be objectionable.

[Ken Burch]

42. My statement is merely reality.

You KNOW I'm against killing civilians, or anybody else.

I've explained what I meant and you know perfectly well I wasn't endorsing the situation.

The IDF caused the loss of civilian life by enforcing what it knew was an illegal and unjust Occupation.

Every IDF soldier should have refused to serve in the Territories. Service in the Territories was NEVER about defending Israel, let alone defending civilians.

You need to admit that my statement wasn't an endorsement of killing civilians.

And you also know that the line DOESN'T, in fact, exist in any combat zone anywhere in the world anymore.

And in practice, it probably never did.

You're hopelessly naive if you think any army EVER tried to protect civilians.

[oberliner]

45. It is not reality - international law states the exact opposite

And this article argues for upholding those values. And the person who wrote it is a Palestinian.

[shira]

46. Reality is that Hamas/PLO intentionally targets civilians...

...meanwhile Israel does more to protect civilians during combat than any other military in the history of warfare (according to an expert like Richard Kemp).

Equating Hamas to the IDF is disgusting.

[Ken Burch]

47. And the international is pretty much disregarded by the armies of the world

None of them give a damn about "rules of engagement" anymore.

All of which is a case for giving up on war and violence-NOT implying that any one side is worse than the other, or demanding that the oppressed side be held to higher standards than the oppressor side.

If you want to protect civilians, on BOTH sides, the way to do it is to end the Occupation. Not to make sanctimonious comments about what the oppressed do.

[Ken Burch]

49. Sorry...that should have read "the international LAW is pretty much disregarded..."

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

44. In practice, it's no longer followed in any combat zone.

Ask Iraqi civilians.

Ask Nicaraguan civilians over the age of forty or so.

Ask Vietnamese civilians of a certain age.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Agreed.

And your comments apply to Israelis as well as Palestinians.

It may seem like a pipe dream at this stage, to hope that a significant number of Israelis and Palestinians will renounce violence. But 15 years ago, one would have said the same about the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland.

[shaayecanaan]

18. Had Irish Catholics been spat on, shat on and humiliated...

with anything like the daily frequency to which Palestinians have been thus subjected, I doubt that any of them would have been interested in peace, and the IRA would still be doing a brisk trade today.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Historically they were.

For example, the British response to the Irish Famine has far more claim to be called 'genocide' than anything that has happened on either side of the I/P conflict.

By the late 20th century, this had improved considerably (but cf Bloody Sunday for example). Yes, British oppressive policies - and the actions of Protestant 'paramilitary' i.e. terrorist groups in Northern Ireland, *had* made the situation much worse and delayed any prospect of peace. But so did IRA bombings of civilians.

As in Northern Ireland, both sides have to negotiate for peace.

[shaayecanaan]

22. Not since Oliver Cromwell's time, they weren't

and the IRA and other Republican groups killed far more people in Northern Ireland than both the British army and Protestant paramilitary groups combined:-



Even more incredibly, the IRA killed about seven British soldiers for every Provo killed by the British during the Troubles. That doesn't sound anything like oppressive to me. That sounds almost saintly, to be perfectly honest.

To put that in context, in the Second Intifada, Israelis killed about 5 Palestinians for every dead Israeli. In contrast to the IDF's actions, the British Army was a model of restraint.

[LeftishBrit]

25. There was a big time span between Oliver Cromwell and the most recent Troubles

Most Irish Catholics would not agree with you that it hasn't been a big problem since Cromwell. At the very least, they would include King William III who crushed the Irish at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, and soon after introduced the 'Penal Laws'. These laws, which continued in action for much of the 18th century, prohibited most Irish Catholics from owning land; from higher education; from many professions; from living within five miles of a corporate town; and from voting and holding political office. Catholics could not sit in the British Parliament till 1829.

While most of these laws had been repealed by the end of the 18th century, this mainly benefitted the upper classes, and life was still very oppressive for most ordinary Irish Catholics. Of course, it was very oppressive for most ordinary people anywhere at that time; but the Irish had it particularly badly and were described as the most destitute peasants in Europe. Most were tenant labourers, badly exploited by their Protestant landlords and/or by the agents of these often-absentee landlords. They lived in appallingly poor conditions; at the best of times rarely had enough to eat, lived in far-from-weatherproof shacks, and were lucky if they owned so much as a bed. They were charged high rents; and typically the only way they could pay them was by working as essentially slave labour for the agents. They could easily be evicted at any time.

There were famines at times throughout the 19th century; by far the worst was in the mid-19th-century which led to the deaths of at least one million out of a population of 7 million; another two million managed to emigrate. The English response to famine was at the very least negligent, and could be described in worse terms. Sir Charles Trevelyan, the man in charge of famine relief, infamously stated, "The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people".

Things were not *quite* so bad for the Irish in the late 19th and early 20th century, but oppression, poverty and prejudice were still common, as were ferocious military responses to rebellion. By the time of the late 20th century Troubles, the English had indeed become much more restrained than in the past. It is rare indeed for me to say anything in favour of Maggie Thatcher, but when people argue on the lines that 'no one other than Israel would put up with terrorism on their borders without bombing the region into a parking lot', I do point out that despite IRA bombings on the mainland as well as in Northern Ireland itself, and despite their nearly blowing up Maggie and her Cabinet in 1983, she did *not* bomb anyone!

I am no fan of the IRA or similar groups, to put it mildly; but few Irish, or nowadays even English, would agree that oppression ended with Cromwell.

[bemildred]

26. Shhhh. History is boring.

Especially other peoples history.
:sarcasm:

No offense to you or the English as such, but the British colonial government was a brutal as any when it came to dealing with its colonial possessions. Dean Swift's utilitarian satire on the proper disposal of Irish infants had bite because is was close to home. It is worth remembering that Dean Swift was Anglo-Irish.

Israel could learn a lot from the history of British colonial rule in Ireland.

Well said, BTW.

[shaayecanaan]

30. I don't disagree with much in all that, but my original point was...

to take issue with the lazy historical analogy equating Northern Ireland and Palestine. The UK, to its credit, behaved a lot better during the Troubles than Israel during either intifada. Moreover, the UK managed to look after Palestine for a time without launching air strikes on residential neighbourhoods as well.

[bemildred]

41. No offense meant to you personally in my previous post.

I like what you have to say, and you know more than I do most of the time.

I quite agree about Ireland. Ireland is like Palestine; N. Ireland is like, hmmm, what is N. Ireland like, it's basically a colonial remnant, like Hong Kong or Taiwan, only bigger. And with a religious component to it, it's not just ethnicity. Well, I better stop, I'm going to get myself in trouble.

[shaayecanaan]

50. None taken!

I quite like what you have to say, and you say it better than I do more often than not.

[Ken Burch]

37. And the IRA DID have it's "soft targets campaign" in the 1980's

At that point, you might end up blown to bits if you were simply having a beer in a Protestant pub(and the Loyalists did the same to civilians in Nationalist/Catholic areas).

And there was a woman named Jean McConville, a Protestant who married a Catholic and converted, bearing him twelve children, who was killed and "disappeared" (her body was found years later buried on an isolated beach)because, during a shootout on a mainly Catholic council estate(public housing project)she comforted a dying British soldier who'd happened to fall at her doorstep(the Provisionals thought this meant she was a British spy).

So, in Ulster, the lines were blurred as well.

[Ken Burch]

51. Weirdly enough, if i'm reading that graph right

The republicans killed MORE republicans than the Loyalists or the British did.

[oberliner]

52. Friendly fire?

Or how do you account for that?

[Ken Burch]

53. From what I've heard, they tended to enforce discipline rather harshly.

In some cases, it was probably retribution against informers or those thought to be informers.

Also, the IRA tended to waste drug dealers, so I'm guessing they'd be especially brutal to republicans who were selling drugs on the side.

[shira]

20. Palestinians are spat on, shat on, and humiliated in Lebanon, Gaza...

...under those regimes (also under the PA in the West Bank as well). The reason there are no terror attacks against their oppressors in those regions is because those in charge are 10x more ruthless than Israel in suppressing such acts of violence.

In fact, it can also be argued that since 1948 (before any occupation or settlements) many Israelis have been spat on, shat on, and humiliated by their Arab enemies. Their actions can therefore be explained or excused away just as simply as Palestinians, and it's no wonder they're indifferent at this point to genuine peace.

[bemildred]

17. I am not suggesting that he won't convince anybody.

I am suggesting the he will not change the overall dynamic of the situation.

[oberliner]

27. Maybe he'll convince everybody

Worth a shot!

[bemildred]

29. Well, it can't hurt.

"Keep hope alive", "Can't we all just get along", and all that.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

14. Folks here like to derail discussions away from the actual content of the OP

No one ever seems to want to discuss the articles themselves.

It can be really frustrating.

[azurnoir]

31. yes I agree it is true in fact I have recently

seen a thread where a poster seemed to obsess on one relatively minor detail that was claimed to be untrue without giving corresponding evidence to prove that claim and even went as far to admit to attempting t 'delegitmize' the article, even after additional evidence was given proving the major fact in the story was true, I would give an example but I believe that could be construed as a 'breaking of forum rules'

[oberliner]

32. Totally different

In that instance, the poster was referencing something in the article itself, as opposed to talking about an entirely different topic unrelated to the article at hand (as is happening on this thread).

[azurnoir]

34. IMO on this thread the discussion simply evolved

something that happens on many threads here, something that again IMO is better than simply stalling a thread on one detail

[oberliner]

35. That is fair

But I do wish that more people would weigh in on their thoughts on the OP.

[Ken Burch]

43. Btw, azurnoir, do you find my statement upthread to be truly objectionable?

All I was doing was telling the truth about the reality of war in this age.

[azurnoir]

48. that is quite true n/t