The recent killing of four West Bank settlers by Palestinian gunmen raises the ever-present issue of violence in resistance to occupation and oppression. I write in respectful response to Seham, who has expressed some understanding and perhaps sympathy for the killers, and disagreement with my analysis.
It seems to me that there are two principal issues here: morality and effectiveness. Let me first deal with the more contested issue of morality. So many of the arguments I hear in defense of this murder seem like the mirror image of Israeli claims. We have been driven to the point of desperation. What else could we do? These people aren’t really civilians; on the continuum of civilianality, they lean toward the military end and are therefore more killable than other civilians. We live under a constant threat of terrorism, where everyone in the country knows someone who died in the wars or were victims of terror, thousands of people going about their daily business until their bodies were suddenly blown apart. Until you’ve had to live like this, we are told, don’t tell us how to act.
Seham, you no doubt feel that your arguments are more cogent and theirs more hypocritical and dishonest, that you are fighting evil oppression and they are perpetrating and defending it. Indeed, I am in complete agreement with those positions. But just as I feel that Israel’s use of double standards is wrong, so is ours. If we are going to adopt an ethos that excuses killing civilians in certain circumstances, that same ethos can be used by Israel.
Perhaps because I am a lawyer I am very sensitive to the question of universally applied principles. If I accept a principle of conduct, I anticipate that there may be other applications of that principle that I might not like so much. The principle here seems to be that if a group of civilians generally acts in brutal fashion toward fellow human beings, it may be OK to kill a random sample of them to teach the collective a lesson. I absolutely reject that principle. For one thing, it certainly has been a driving force of Israeli ideology for many decades. They rationalize that Palestinian civilians overwhelmingly support terrorist attacks, so it’s perfectly reasonable to kill Palestinian civilians in an attempt to reduce that support.
Let me propose another hypothetical. For the past decade, Americans, who have the electoral power to control their government, have obliviously gone about their daily business while their government and military has wreaked havoc in Iraq and Afghanistan. In sheer numbers – well over a million dead and several million forced to flee their homes, not to mention all sorts of consequent suffering -- these catastrophes have dwarfed the awful experience of the Palestinians over the last six decades. It would not be surprising if some of the many millions adversely affected by our government’s actions (and our citizenry’s near-total indifference) retaliated with another terrorist attack directed at random US civilians. In my opinion, though it would be heretical to say so in the wake of such an attack, the US would be partially responsible for fomenting such anger, but I certainly would not excuse or forgive the terrorists themselves.
My bottom line is that I don’t want to parse those circumstances that give rise to justifiable homicide of civilians. In my view, it’s never justified, period – not in Lebanon, Gaza, New York, Hiroshima, Dresden, and no, not even among the settlers of the West Bank, a good percentage of whom are surely loathsome and reprehensible. The shooting victims were not killed in the course of perpetrating an act of violence themselves. The people who killed them knew only one thing about them, that they were probably settlers. They might well have been vicious racist settlers.
But maybe not. Maybe they were recent immigrants from Russia who were offered generous subsidies by the government to settle in the West Bank. Maybe they were human rights activists who live within the green line and had just come from a meeting with Palestinian counterparts, and were attacked because of the mistaken assumptions made about their Israeli license plate. We may now know that this wasn’t the case, but the gunmen most probably had no idea who they were killing. Maybe these were four parents who left behind 16 children who are going to grow up with the same anger that you have, Seham, but more power to translate that anger into physical brutality directed at Palestinians.
Which brings me to your personal story. You have been commenting here for quite some time without revealing this memory before, and I am truly sorry that I played any role in compelling you to publicly recall this horrible experience if you were reluctant to do so. I’m sure you know it was not my intention to cause any discomfort. Please accept my sincere condolences, however belated and ineffective they may be.
Finally, this distance between us may be smaller than it first appears . We both think the settlers are willing participants in an international crime. We both think their brutal treatment of Palestinians inevitably leads to shocking acts such as this. You are angrier than I am because you are a Palestinian who has suffered a grievous wound at the hands of Israel’s insistence on its right to control your people’s lives. I don’t deny your right to anger, nor do I resent your refusal to join me in condemning the gunmen in this case. I do have much less tolerance for those who would agree with me in this instance of Palestinians killing Israelis, but ignore, excuse or even praise Israel’s violence which has been so much more costly and destructive.
Now to the question of effectiveness. Even some of those, such as yourself, who have expressed understanding for the perpetrators’ hatred of their victims, have noted that there seems to be no good that can come of this. Many have observed that the attack appears to be a gift to the Israeli government, and some have even theorized that Israel might have been surreptitiously behind it. I think there is no evidence to support that speculation, but I understand its source, because the potential benefit to Israel is quite significant. Will this killing convince settlers that they can never be safe, and that they had better evacuate to a location where their legal right to reside is recognized by at least somebody outside Israel? Of course not. It will steel their resolve to never budge from “their” land to which they have a divine right that definitively trumps world opinion. Even greater repression of Palestinians and settlement building are far more likely outcomes than panicky flight, whether or not that was a motivation for the gunmen.
A spokesman was quoted as saying the killing demonstrates that the “armed Palestinian resistance is present in the West Bank despite the war to uproot it.” Great, so you’re still here, and they’re dead. Excellent point. The attack came on the eve of the Washington peace conference, and it’s hard to view this as a coincidence. As I argued in my original post, and Richard Silverstein argued as well, the peace conference is bound to fail anyway, and this incident was hardly necessary to push it over a cliff. In fact, many have commented that each party appears to be primarily concerned with the PR chore of blaming the other party for failure.
One of the actual reasons for failure is that the Palestinians are not adequately represented by Abbas, and that Hamas has been shut out of the negotiations. There are all sorts of persuasive reasons why Hamas should have been included, but now, the decision to exclude it – supposedly because they are murderous thugs who can’t act civilized like we do – seems a little more justified. Moreover, it will be easier for Netanyahu & co. to argue that the talks failed because they couldn’t recover from the initial trauma of the terrorist murder of four Israelis designed to derail the talks. Once again, Palestinian intransigence has destroyed whatever chance their was for peace ... missed opportunities ... blah, blah blah.
A few years ago, the great Israeli columnist, Ran HaCohen, persuasively argued that Ariel Sharon, when faced with periods of cessation of violence against Israeli civilians, initiated some new horror to provoke further terrorist attacks. Ask yourself why Sharon would risk Jewish life and limb, which you know he valued far higher than others’? It’s because of the public relations bonanza reaped by Israel whenever Israelis, especially civilians, are attacked. Palestinians may well feel that non-violence has not worked, that it has never been rewarded with an alleviation, much less elimination, of their hell. That’s true, but maybe things are changing.
Israel’s hold on public opinion has been sharply eroding, with its murderous wars in Lebanon and Gaza, the Goldstone report, and the Mavi Marmara massacre. Why, in the midst of Israel’s series of self-inflicted wounds, does Hamas (or whoever) remind the world that Palestinians are capable of shocking violence? People sympathize with those who are victimized by intolerable crimes; why at this point did the gunmen shift that sympathy from Palestinians to Israelis? In the absence of violence, Israel must be forced to explain, in ever more shrill and transparently dishonest ways, why a few people the world over who believe they have an ancient connection to this strip of land have superior rights to it over those who have lived there for centuries.
Let them explain why native Palestinians must accept domination and subjugation in perpetuity by this more recently arrived ethno-religious group. There are no reasonable arguments likely to appeal to those with no stake in the conflict. In fact, more and more Jews such as myself are rejecting this undeserved privilege because it is so indefensible, because we could not tolerate living as second-class citizens or worse, and we must not impose such civil liabilities upon others, especially based on accident of birth. Ahmed Moor no doubt is correct when he states that superior morality is infinitely more likely than guns to win Palestinian freedom. I haven’t seen any defense of this killing on the ground that it is likely to be strategically effective.
There is no way this incident could be viewed as a positive step forward in the liberation of the Palestinians, and it might very well be a giant step backward. On this issue alone, the decision to carry out this operation is inexcusable. This was not an act perpetrated in the heat of the moment, but a well-planned execution perpetrated in cold blood. Some people got together in a room and hashed this out. As I stated in the title of my original post, what were they thinking?
Postscript: I anticipate that some will criticize my right, as a person who lives in complete comfort and security, to “lecture” oppressed people on the acceptable methods they may utilize to win their freedom. I don’t look at it that way at all. I’m merely expressing my opinion, and do not need to earn the right to do so. Moreover, I have taken rather strong stands against the barbarity unleashed by Israelis against Palestinians, and I’m perfectly entitled to identify which responsive measures I endorse and those that I condemn.
David, the right to self-defense, including defense of one’s property, is a universal principle justifying the use of force. Israel certainly uses it to justify all kinds of aggressive acts.
Why does it not apply to the Palestinians? Why are they, alone, forbidden to defend themselves and condemned when they try?
Potsherd, consider the law in many American jurisdictions forbidding the use of spring guns or traps to protect one’s property at all times, even those times when nobody’s home to be in fear of their very life.
Potsherd. I agree with 100% of what David said; self-defense is one thing and cold blooded murder is another. Israel has been using this self-defense or self-preservation bogus alibi to kill Palestinian civilians left and right for decades. Whoever did it was either extremely smart to have known where it would lead or extremely stupid not to have thought so. I still haven’t discounted Israel being behind this eventhough someone or other from some Hamas outfit appears to have claimed credit for it. Those guys that go around dressed in those spooky costunes don’t appear to be the most brilliant guys around anyway and I wouldn’t be surprised if they had nothing to do with it and still chose to take the credit for it because of some twisted logic about them. Either way, we have to take the position that killing any civilians is wrong and to start going into definitions of what constitutes a civilian would be reduced to playing the game according to Israeli rules. Wasn’t that the gimmick that Israel used to justify having killed the 9 Turks when it claimed they really weren’t civilians?
potsherd, you are certainly right that Israel claims the “right to self defense” to justify all sorts of aggressive acts. They do so dishonestly and only by perverting the right of self defense. That of course does not justify Palestinians committing an aggressive act and falsely claiming self-defense. It not only is illogical, it undermines any criticism of Israel’s outrageous behavior.
As for genuine principles of self-defense, there is no question that this killing would not qualify under any reasonable standard. The use of deadly force is authorized only when there is an imminent danger of deadly force being used by another. Treat it for what it is – a planned execution of random settlers. If you can justify it, do so, but to compare it to Israel’s transparently bogus claim of self-defense wins no points.
David, I don’t justify this particular act, because the real target wasn’t the settlers or Israel, but the Abbas government. Murder is not a legitimate political statement.
But I do consider the settlers legitimate targets when self-defense is at issue.
Absolutely, but when is self-defense an issue? If armed settlers are about to engage in an armed attack on Palestinians, self-defense is an issue. But perverting the principle of self-defense like the Israelis constantly do is simply perverting the principle of self-defense.
I agree with your refusal to justify this particular act, but was under the impression that you were justifying it in your first comment. I also don’t get your distinction about the settlers’ motive. You seem to be saying that since this action was directed against Abbas, it was wrong, but if it had been directed against the settlers alone, it might be justified. I don’t get it.
On the other hand, when you say, “Murder is not a legitimate political statement,” that really sums up my entire essay.
David,
Ultimately, you make a well-reasoned and compelling argument. I certainly cannot dispute the logic behind it.
I think from an emotional point of view it may be difficult for many — certainly for me — to reconcile the logic and the emotions.
Admittedly, as I can’t speak for others, perhaps this is something on which I need to work on my own. I don’t doubt that others may be in the same position. Certainly the posts in this thread indicate as much.
You seem to be saying that since this action was directed against Abbas, it was wrong, but if it had been directed against the settlers alone, it might be justified.
Yes. It’s the distinction between an internal enemy and an external one. The dispute between Hamas and Abbas is purely internal and political. As such, it should be addressed politically. The conflict between Hamas and Israel is essentially a state of war. The political path of resolution is blocked.
If one concedes the Israeli settlers who carry guns are effectively para-police, where do they get the authority to do so? If they shoot someone, are they brought into criminal court by the Israeli government? If not, why not? If so, is there a pattern of getting at most a slap on the wrist?
If the Israeli settlers are occupiers, then they have their own armed police. Wasn’t Israel the first to sign onto the Geneva laws on occupation?
Does Israel instead maintain the gun-carrying settlers are “administrators” and hence Geneva does not apply?
What were the facts surrounding the killing of the settlers? Were they all unarmed as I assume the pregant woman was? It seems only by defining the status of those killed as harmless civilians is it very clear
those killings were pure murder. Geneva relies on legal conclusions as to status of the parties involved there and then, yes? Even combat soldiers have limits on what they can do, yes? Lt Calley anyone? And even under criminal law governing civilians protecting one’s property is not a blank check to kill unless the killer’s life had been reasonably thought by that killer to be endangered, yes? Anybody yet have a good grasp of the ground facts on the subject killings of this thread? In addition to legal status, proportionately of reaction is important under Geneva, yes?
David Samel,
You’re never gonna win this argument on the streets of the West Bank or Gaza, you know, where it ultimately counts.
Yes yours is a civilized and good proposition, but it’s just too idealistic and means nothing when the IDF tanks are at your doorstep.
I really wish you would understand this for once and for all.
I think David has shown he understands what you say, Taxi. Both sides may use the “too idealistic” argument. In fact, the state of Israel argues it all the time by asserting Geneva is not applicable to what it does because Israel’s (complicated and dire) situation is “unique.” And it tops that by saying it is not engaged in “occupation” but in “administration.” The whole point of Geneva is to protect civilians. Is an unarmed Israeli settler
walking down a road on an innocent errand a “civilian”? What is the errand? Is he a trespasser? Is it ok to be shot for that? Usually, it’s the other way around, it seems to those paying attention. What’s clear as many have already said here is that any event will be used for propaganda purposes by leaders on either side–and it’s hard to get beyond the loaded lingo and obfuscation of any incident that happened across the sea. All governments lie to their own people and to the world.
I consider all settlers living inside of ’67 Palestine as criminal invaders and conspirators to future crimes. It doesn’t matter if they’re armed or not.
Let’s not semantically or philosophically convolute this simple and clear statement of fact based on international law.
I mentioned this on another thread, citizen, but this side of the Mexico/USA border, we’re shooting unarmed Mexican peasants who’re crossing the border to earn an honest buck. So where do we get off telling Palestinians that they can’t be shooting at ACTUAL INVADERS, not mere illegal migrant workers?
“I consider all settlers living inside of ‘67 Palestine as criminal invaders and conspirators to future crimes. It doesn’t matter if they’re armed or not.”
Force out the minorities, is a fascist sentiment, that Israel has not done. Even if you interpret 1948 as only ethnic cleansing (a ludicrous interpretation of history), active ethnic cleansing has not occurred for 62 years.
The presence of the settlers is not ethnic cleansing. Its just the presence of the settlers.
>> Force out the minorities, is a fascist sentiment, that Israel has not done.
Never ever? Not at all? Not even a little bit?
>> … active ethnic cleansing has not occurred for 62 years.
Yeah, but that passive ethnic cleansing’s a real bitch.
>> The presence of the settlers is not ethnic cleansing. Its just the presence of the settlers.
Right, just like the killing of settlers is not terrorism, it’s just killing. Ta-dah!!
Unbelieveable…
RW
Have you got early onset Alzheimers? Where did all those extra refugees come from in ’67? What about all those expelled to Gaza & forbidden from returning to their homes & families? You’re being daft again!
Does the fact Dick’s post was approved by moderators mean that Holocaust denial is permitted on Mondoweiss, as well? If so, then what’s the point of having moderated posts?
What counts as free speech around here, anyway? It seems the lines are blurred by virtue of allowing trolls to continue to troll as they wish.
Those were from 1948.
Are there refugees from 67?
And those who leave the country and discover they can’t get back in.
link to badil.org
link to alertnet.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
@RW
Ethnic cleansing is ongoing, from Bedouin tribes in the Negev to Palestinian families in Jerusalem>.
God forbid, Witty, that you ever suffer a home invasion. You can tell yourself that it’s just a “presence.”
The presence of the German settlers in the occupied lands in the east is not ethnic cleansing. Its just the presence of the settlers. Blast from the Past.
“ven if you interpret 1948 as only ethnic cleansing (a ludicrous interpretation of history), active ethnic cleansing has not occurred for 62 years.”
Rubbish. Israel has done so continuously since 1948, with the greates cleasing taking place in 1967.
“The presence of the settlers is not ethnic cleansing. Its just the presence of the settlers.”
The settlers didn’t magically appear out of nowhere. They live in illegal settlements, which are illegally built on land that was stolen by drivign out the indigenous population and destroying existign homes.
And who are they Adam? How specifically did they come to be refugees?
The three articles you posted really didn’t say very much.
Thank you for acknowledging at least that the vast majority of refugees you (collectively) are speaking of are from 1948.
Are there others from after Oslo say that you would consider refugees ethnically cleansed?
Or, primarily 1948? And, if after, to what specific extent?
Israel; the “Nelson Muntz” of nations.
“Stop hitting yourself.”
Taxi,
I don’t think you give “the streets of the West Bank or Gaza” nearly enough credit. David Samel offers a cogent, principled argument, not lacking in empathy and solidarity. Some Palestinians will agree and some will not. Colouring the Palestinian “street” as unanimously supporting all forms of armed struggle (strategically or morally) is incorrect and unfair – despite the varying degrees of hardship they experience.
Despite persistent efforts to tarnish their image as a people, the vast majority of Palestinians have endured and resisted Zionist brutality, dispossession and oppression with remarkable dignity and humanity. I believe many of them would agree wholeheartedly with David’s analysis.
“I believe many of them would agree wholeheartedly with David’s analysis.”
I disagree with your evaluation, based on the many Palestinians that I’ve met, befriended and (some) whom I’ve known for over thirty years.
I want to maintain that the Palestinian people, like any other occupied people, have the inalienable right to defend/protect themselves and their loved ones and property by any means necessary – this includes the use of violence. I didn’t make up this rule, it’s the international accepted norm.
I don’t live under occupation and would never dream of telling people living under a crushing occupation to give up ANY of their inalienable rights, DESPITE what I personally may configure to be the right ‘reaction’ to occupation.
I most certainly will not judge the occupied on what decision and action they make.
So long as Seham keeps blogging us stories from the front line, David Samel’s argument will remain pure idealism.
Taxi,
I don’t think anyone here, least of all David Samel, has denied the right of Palestinians to defend themselves – with violence when necessary. That is not the same as justifying any and all violence perpetrated by those living under occupation. Neither you, nor David nor I have expressed such a view. So it is a matter of where one draws the line. Many (most?) Palestinians may be reluctant to condemn the random killing of settlers (which is what this would appear to have been), but that is not the same as condoning it. Although the right to armed struggle in itself may be universally acknowledged by Palestinians, there are many nuances and differences of opinion regarding how, when and against whom – and not merely on utilitarian grounds.
Again, I believe you do Palestinians a disservice by characterising them in such monolithic terms. I have no doubt that the recent attack is a subject of much debate in Jenin, Jerusalem and Jebalya, whether the “official” press reflects this or not.
“I have no doubt that the recent attack is a subject of much debate in Jenin, Jerusalem and Jebalya, whether the “official” press reflects this or not.”
You really think Palestinians have the time or inclination to ‘debate’ the killing of four illegal settlers around the iftar dinner table? You think these deaths mean so much to the Palestinians that it’s a priority moral conundrum? You really think that they believe in an Abbas, Natanyahoo, Obama peace plan? That average Palestinians are now angry these settler-killings almost ruined their chances at actual manifest statehood?
Well I beg to disagree. Yes Palestinians are talking/gossiping about these killings, but NOT debating them. Sure you hear the odd debating voice here and there, especially from the intelligentsia/diaspora, but MOST CERTAINLY not from the mainstream mass of Palestinians both in the WB and Gaza – most certainly not from Palestinians living in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan.
You can think my statements are a ‘disservice’ to the Palestinians’ all you like, Shmuel. It means nothing to me because none of the Palestinians I personally know feel this way in the slightest. Also, it doesn’t suit you to assume yourself the position of arbitrating who is good and who is bad for Palestine. No my friend, you are not the arbitrating guardian of the Palestinian cause – do you guys even speak fluent Arabic, you know, so you can really grasp the nuances of what the Palestinian psyche is? Well I speak fluent Arabic, have been visiting and breaking bread with Palestinians for a good three decades now, and I’m STILL learning about them.
I should like both Shmuel and David Samel to go debate with some of the victims that Seham reports on. I would love to see a debate like that on youtube or printed right here on Mondo.
I kinda think Shmuel and David really don’t fully understand the enemy when they state their oh so ‘civilized’ arguments about the moral duties of the occupied towards their occupiers and tormentors.
So, who’s gonna win the suit by Arizona against the Obama government, Taxi?
To answer your rhetorical questions: Yes, I think that many Palestinians do have the time and the inclination to debate anything and everything that pertains to their situation. No, I don’t think these deaths, in and of themselves, “mean so much” to Palestinians. For that matter, I don’t think they “mean so much” to Netanyahu either. That is not the same as saying that this type of attack enjoys universal approval (or indifference). No, I do not think they believe in the Abbas-Netanyahu-Obama charade, nor that this attack has affected their (non-)chances of statehood in any significant way.
With all due respect to your friends’ views and your important linguistic skills, your summary dismissal of “the intelligentsia/diaspora” and deification of some mythical and monolithic “Palestinian street” strikes me as rather superficial and somewhat patronising.
All human beings have moral duties toward other human beings – even when the use of violence is warranted. Palestinian public opinion ranges from those who justify all attacks against Israeli civilians (not just post-’67 settlers) to those who advocate or prefer non-violent resistance as a matter of conviction as well as a matter of strategy. The majority lie somewhere in between. And as terrible as the occupation is, Palestinian life goes on – including discussions of the best and most acceptable ways in which to carry on the struggle – as romantic as the idea of all-out, all-encompassing revolution might seem to some outside observers.
And, if they actually desire that their condition improve and reject the fantasy that they can “drive the Zionists from the land”, then they have to be concerned with their “representatives” standing in the world.
If they desire to eliminate Zionism from the land, then they live in a suicidal fantasy. Zionism will not disappear from the west of the green line in their grandchildren’s lifetimes, and to adopt only resistance as their response is to then suppress and/or expel their children and grandchildren.
There are only three choices:
1. Remove the Zionists (impossible and gruesome self-destructive war)
2. Separate from the Zionists (fundamental compromise)
3. Merge with the Zionists (impossible, nearly certainly resulting in civil war and likely further and permanent dispossession).
As galling as accepting that Zionism is there to stay is.
It is better than being murdered, and better than murdering.
I’m sorry to say, Shmuel, but Palestinians don’t give a damn about settler deaths. These kinds of stories get very old very quickly over there. I have no doubt that the Arabic word ‘Khay’ (an expression of glad satisfaction) was uttered by millions of Palestinians when they heard of the incident.
I’m not ‘intellectualizing or presuming’ here when I state that Palestinians are too busy ‘dealing’ with the grim practicalities of occupation to even stop to ponder the smallest of meanings in this incident.
But you go ahead and ponder and pontificate on their behalf – why not – sounds like you got plenty time to do this, no? It can’t harm the cause, I suppose.
“All human beings have moral duties toward other human beings”
Really? Says who?
Would you show your ‘moral duties’ towards Hitler then? And how exactly would you do that?
My point is, a sweeping moralistic pronouncement like the above only confirms you as an idealist. I’m not critiquing the loftiness and desirability of such a statement, merely pointing out that it’s formulaic and absolutist and frankly impossible to practice in times of warfare.
War is grit and sweat and piss. And until the battle has been won, by any means possible, your didactic moralizing really belongs in the salons of post-liberated Palestine and not while the battlefield rages on, homes are being bulldozed, people being denied water, medicine, personal liberty, freedom of movement and the absurd Orwellian practice of denying Palestinians their right to grieve their Nakba.
Simply, we gotta save the body before we save the soul – just as a matter of practicality.
Anyway, I maintain, the settler killings mean nothing, will mean nothing to Palestinians so long as they’re under the settler’s boot.
No human will give empathy to their sadistic bone-crusher while their bones are being crushed.
I dunno, Citizen, my crystal ball’s been confiscated by the Arizona Alien Vision & Thought Police.
And so, the war continues, escalates, and is rationalized away as inconsequential by solidarity.
Witty, how come it is always practical to ethnically cleanse Palestinians permanently, in your eyes, but never practical to expect your “Jewish state” to respect international law and stop colonizing its own citizens on the land of other people?
The war continues so long as the land-theft continues.
It really is as simple as that.
>> And so, the war continues, escalates, and is rationalized away as inconsequential by solidarity.
And so, the occupation, oppression, land-theft, colonialism and brutality continues, and is rationalized away as “rocks in the stream around which the Palestinians must paddle” by a “humanist”.
And when the land theft stops, the resistance stops?
You promise?
“All human beings have moral duties toward other human beings” Really? Says who? Would you show your ‘moral duties’ towards Hitler then? And how exactly would you do that?
Moral duty toward another does not necessarily imply doing them no harm or empathising with them. It means weighing one’s actions, choosing one’s targets and methods, and not exceeding a level of harm that is morally justified. Failing to live up to this duty may be more understandable in some circumstances (e.g. under brutal occupation or threat of genocide) than others, but it is still a failure. In terms of moral justification, views and convictions will vary, and will probably be coloured by personal experience. Is the target an adult, male, female, pregnant, an active participant in oppression, etc. These are all factors that must be weighed in reaching a moral decision. Assuming that the vast majority of Palestinians engaged in armed struggle are not psychopaths, they make moral judgements and moral decisions. Some are easy, some more difficult and some are avoided or relegated to commanders and leaders.
My point was not to reject the legitimacy of armed struggle or even to accept David’s reasoning (although I do), but to disagree with your contention that arguments such as David’s are of no concern to the “Palestinian street” (i.e. “real” Palestinians). Do I think many Palestinians feel “sorry” for these settlers and their families? No. Do I think many Palestinians ask themselves whether killing settlers at random is the right thing to do? Yes – even if, in the end, they may come to the conclusion that such attacks are morally justified.
“Moral duty toward another does not necessarily imply doing them no harm or empathising with them. It means weighing one’s actions, choosing one’s targets and methods, and not exceeding a level of harm that is morally justified.”
Excellent point.
A civilian target of oppression is a civilian. If you are concerned with conformity with international law, war crimes, then you have to unconditionally conclude that the targeting of civilians is either a war crime, or murder.
Some Palestinians may reason that resident settlers are the forward wing of the Israeli state, but that is false, anymore than the statement that Palestinian Israelis that empathize with Hamas are the forward wing of Hamas, and legitimate targets in war or exclusion from civil rights or representation in the knesset.
To reason so at all, is to be an active foot soldier, a ranting maniacal machine, a willing tool.
Not a hero, but a hail-Mary gambler betting others’ lives.
Thanks for taking the time to respond again, Shmuel.
I think we both managed to present a different shade to the same color.
In the interest of serving my argument, I may have come across a little patronizing. Apologies as this was not intended to offend. I have always read and respected your take on pretty much everything, Shmuel. Always happy to see your name posted, especially after a long absence.
>> And when the land theft stops, the resistance stops?
Land theft is an offensive action; resistance is a defensive action. Eliminate the offensive action, there’s nothing to defend against. If Israel is really serious about peace, the very least it should do – something that is entirely within its power to do immediately, completely and permanently – is to halt the theft of land, the on-going colonization and the on-going destruction of property.
>> You promise?
I can’t promise something over which I have no control.
Thanks, Taxi. I kind of hitched a ride on your posts to stress Palestinian humanity (so sad that this is necessary). Always a pleasure thrashing things out with you.
“No human will give empathy to their sadistic bone-crusher while their bones are being crushed.”
That is true. Every child unfairly beaten by a parent, every wife or husband unfairly beaten by a spouse, every citizen unfairly beaten by another human, knows this is the truth.
———————-
Look what the bone-crushing of WWII hath wrought: bone-crushers who maintain the memory, yet continue the failure of it.
And yet, that is exactly what each person, each community must do, reconcile.
The analogy of a dysfunctional marriage is a good one. Mutual harms, escalating then receding, shifting victims, with no possibility of divorce short of murder.
Better to reconcile. And, the only way that will happen is if BOTH communities self-inquire as to what they did to contribute to the dysfunction.
>> MRW: Every child unfairly beaten by a parent, every wife or husband unfairly beaten by a spouse, every citizen unfairly beaten by another human, knows this is the truth.
>> RW: The analogy of a dysfunctional marriage is a good one. Mutual harms, escalating then receding, shifting victims, with no possibility of divorce short of murder.
Wow! You took MRW’s analogy of unfair assault in three separate aggressor/victim scenarios and turned it into an analogy of “mutual harms” and “shifting victims”! Your mind is seriously messed up!
I guess the rape victim really was asking for it and, thanks to the magic of “shifting victims”, she caused “mutual harm” to the rapist.
What a disturbing person you are.
>> Wow! You took MRW’s analogy of unfair assault in three separate aggressor/victim scenarios and turned it into an analogy of “mutual harms” and “shifting victims”!
Two additional problems with your analogy:
1. The relationship between Israel and the Palestinians is not one of equals – it is unbalanced, with Israel as the stronger, offensive brutalizing party and the Palestinians as weaker, defensive brutalized party. The victims “shift” when the brutalized lashes back at the brutalizer. To suggest that both forms of violence are equal is incorrect and, quite frankly, xxxxxx. Halt the brutalization, and the victim has no reason to lash out.
2. Before reconciliation can happen, two other very imporant things need to happen:
a) Justice must be applied to the situation – and both parties must be punished for transgressing laws – in accordance to the nature and seriousness of their crimes. Laws, and and the consequences of breaking them, are not to be waved away whenever they are inconvenient.
b) The brutalizer must reform, fully and sincerely. Without reform, there is every likelihood of re-offense. (The brutalized must also reform, but without the threat of brutality, there is no reason to “re-offend” defensively.)
I’m sure none of this will make any sense to you but, then, I don’t expect it to. You are disturbingly blind to your hypocrisy and your bias.
Witty, I hope you are not considering a job counseling domestic (or any other) abuse victims. When a woman comes to you, all slashed and beaten up, you’ll no doubt advise her to reconcile!
Actually, you’ll first advise her to “self-inquire” as she mops up the blood and someone else tends to her bruises. Like, what had she done to bring such wrath upon herself, or, as you say, “contribute to the dysfunction”?
Why doe anyone take you seriously here is beyond me. Your reasoning reminds me of the dawn of civilization. Something to evolve beyond.
taxi, comparing this incident to shooting Mexican migrant workers, which we both think is detestable, doesn’t excuse it: it just renders the incident detestable as well. Shmuel, as always, I greatly appreciate your analysis and energy in “thrashing things out” with taxi. I would not have had what it takes.
Potsherd: what is self defense?
Should Israel’s twisted, immoral definition of “self defense” be adopted as THE definition of self defense or should we, the rest of the world, finally wake up from our slumber and get back to determining definitions from reliable dictionaries, sources not Israel’s. Israel must be challenged; held accountable to international standards and their practice of playing by their own set of rules and definitions no longer tolerated.
During the past six months, in fact the past 18 months, has been, if not shooting themselves in the foot shooting close enough for the dust to settle on their toes. And the world has not needed a magnifying glass to see this.
Unfortunately Palestinians are believed to be terrorists. Israel has defined them as terrorists. Also, for many people their point of reference for Palestinians is the killing of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics…a terrorist act…performed by Palestinian terrorists..played over and over again, step by step on television….reinforcing the thought that Palestinians are terrorists…all of them. Israel has certainly capitalized on that, turning the thought into belief.
The shooting of the settlers can do nothing but hurt the Palestinian cause. It was a misguided act by thugs…not freedom fighters. If the shooters think their act makes them appear as heroes they should think again. At a time when it appears Israel’s factions may be causing the country to head for self destruction. It is also a time when the world and American Jews are beginning to seriously question Israel. Palestinians should seize the moment, put differences aside and develop united strategies to begin gaining world support. They need positive PR.
Shooting civilians does nothing to further a positive opinion of Palestinians.
David,
I am inclined to agree with your assessment. Although the presence of settlers reflect a systemic violence perpetrated against the Palestinians on a daily basis, I don’t feel their murder to be strategically or morally justified. They are a symptom of this systemic violence, rather than a direct cause of it. I will still assert that explicitly military targets are legitimate targets of violent resistance. For example, the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit.
I have often thought that for non-violent resistance to be effective, however, it requires a) media that propagates images of oppression and b) an audience that wields political power to consume these images (i.e Americans, American Jews). Palestinians are afforded neither of these things, if you look at Bil’in as a case study. I understand that the Mavi Marmara was an incident that did gain international attention, but the people involved were not Palestinian, which to me explains why it got as much media play as it did.
I would be curious to hear your thoughts on non-lethal violent resistance similar in strategy to the MK’s bombing of buildings that symbolized apartheid in South Africa. I have often entertained thoughts that if a Palestinian paramilitary group used similar methods to draw attention to and disrupt the mechanisms of the occupation, such as the Civil Administration, they would retain a moral high ground AND gain the media attention necessary to change public opinion in the United States. But these are perhaps fantasies that gestated during my time growing up in the West Bank during the second Intifada.
Palestinian civilians on a daily basis are performing numerous feats of humility and patience that Mother Teresa could only dream of. But it means nothing if no one ‘knows’ about it.
musamusa is right on this point.
I don’t think the concept of ‘higher-moral-ground’ even occurs to the victim as he/she is being strangled by a pair of thug hands.
You need to first be ALIVE AND SAFE before you can indulge in the luxury of debating morality this and that.
Yep. So long as Seham keeps blogging us stories from the front line, David Samel’s argument will remain pure idealism–musamusa nails why.
We know Taxi has claimed that settler families are fair game for assassination. You are joining in this too Citizen?
Is that the royal ‘we’, Richard?
“I consider all settlers living inside of ‘67 Palestine as criminal invaders and conspirators to future crimes. It doesn’t matter if they’re armed or not.”
The above is what I actually wrote. But you decided to insert the emotive words ‘families and assassination’ in your interpretation of my statement.
Boy you really do have a persecution complex.
Or you’re just the saddest amateur propagandist that ever live.
Take your pick world.
“We know Taxi has claimed that settler families are fair game for assassination.”
Agree with Taxi..Emotive manipulation..Mendacious of Witty..
I don’t think my math was off.
You don’t consider settlers as justifiable targets?
Witty, do you consider the settlers to be international criminals? No one here has ever said they deserve to die, but unless you are really willing to accept that Israelis have no business taking land for Israel from the Palestinians, and that civilians who do so are committing crimes against both the Palestinian state and the international community, you will never be anything more than complicit in the crime yourself.
Musamusa I agree with your analysis that for non-violent activism to succeed, it needs publicity and receptivity. Maybe my brief reference to the tide turning was overly optimistic, maybe not, but the main thrust of my article – that this incident was awful – remains undisturbed, a conclusion that you seem to reach as well.
The people killed were not Israelis. Israelis live in Israel. The people killed were foreign invaders who used militant power, supplied by the US, to seize land and colonize it while excluding the indigenous people from living their with violence. Killing these foreign invaders is wrong, but much less wrong than the killing these invaders used to obtain the territory and then to colonize it. If the settlers were subject to the enforcement of lawfulness for their crimes, they would not have been victims of vigilantism.
The whole world characterizes those Israeli settlers as foreign invaders in that the occupation is illegal; even the US has maintained such, though it supports it de facto. Only Israel says otherwise for the record. If the US
enforced its own official determination by threatening to withold military gifts to Israel there would be no need for vigilantism, nor any support of it directly or indirectly. But the American masses are out to lunch on this and their leaders in congress are whores of AIPAC. They are enablers of those addicted to ziocain and they don’t even realize all Jews are not Zionists; most never even heard the word “zionist.” But they’ve heard the words “Jewish” and “the Jews” and “Israel.” When they hear those words they think of the bible (“Old Testament”), “the chosen people,”and Hitler. That’s it. Now, if you wanna talk about sports or Snookie…or that job they’d like to have…
The significance of the murders that Hamas took credit for, was far more disastrous for Hamas (and any that cling to regarding them as current representatives of the Palestinian people) than David described.
The largest break is with the assertion made by many that Hamas has given up terror on civilians, long-term if not forever. Its now CURRENT.
On Potsherd’s contention that the mission really was an attack on Abbas, an internal power struggle between Hamas and Fatah, the murder of civilians is that much more cruel and inhumane, as if the message was to Fatah, killing Israeli civilians is to directly attack a third party. Its beyond collective punishment in political immaturity and immorality.
The only strategically positive statement it could be conceived of making for Hamas, is “we can still wreck all your hard work if we want to”, and to make that statement only because they weren’t invited (by a faction that they were in civil war with) is petulant, childish literally.
The only basis that one could justify Hamas’ position onto the Arab street, is through rage alone. But, rage NEVER describes reality, ever. The best that it can be is a violent approximation, an arrow shot 400 yds with the wind blowing, a Qassam fired in the direction of an Israeli “army post”.
No Arab states have supported Hamas’ murders. Hezbollah did. But, none other.
No western states supported Hamas’ murders.
No BDS faction that seeks to retain its standing as non-violent. No democratic single-state advocacy (some nationalist single-state advocates rationalize it).
And, relative to the Palestinian population, the effort to derail the construction of a proposal to the Palestinian people, is a betrayal, a stealing of their choice.
I agree with David’s post. As for you, David took care of your position with this sentence–
“I do have much less tolerance for those who would agree with me in this instance of Palestinians killing Israelis, but ignore, excuse or even praise Israel’s violence which has been so much more costly and destructive.”
RW has been quite obvious and transparent in this regard. He agrees with David on matter where Palestinians are the perpetrators, but should David defend Palestinians (or any other group in the region) against Israeli perpetrators, then RW is more than happy to call him a “propagandist” as he did in the thread about the reconstruction of the synagogue in Beirut. RW’s hypocrisy is nauseating.
Donald,
And you live in imagination to conclude that that describes me in reality.
“Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the site in peace! “
Where is Eowyn when you need her?
“And you live in imagination to conclude that that describes me in reality.”
It’s a fair description of your behavior here. What you are in reality I couldn’t say, because you don’t seem to make many references to reality when posting.
He lives in New England, in a spot where he sees young US military recruiters as akin to pornographers and pedophiles. Meanwhile, he wants the USA, the happenstance place of his birth,
to continue fully arming and funding the IDF forever at minimally the present pace, and will cheer when his people attack Iran and eventually the US military draft is reinstated to aid the predator Israel. That’s Witty in his nutshell. His real estate rule of perpetuities.
A few months ago, after reading my consistent responses to right-wing Zionists, you claimed that your opinion of my views had changed.
The views that I express to right-wing Zionists, in Jewish communities face to face, and the views that I express here are consistent.
They are most independantly conveyed on my own blog, free from reaction and stacked rooms.
They are oriented to solution (and appreciation), NOT to condemnation. I regard fears, pains, criticisms as information only, useful literally only for a present-future reconciliation of needs.
I consistently observe the history of the region through ecological eyes, meaning of the interaction between what I call a two-dimensional world view (direct interactions between parties, analagous to ecological interactions on the ground only, two and four legged ground species perceptions and action) and a three-dimensional world view (ecology that includes what happens in three dimensions literally and figuratively – rain, birds, wind, sunlight).
Politically, what comes out of a two-dimensional world view is ideology, fixed tracks. While you call my attitudes that are supportive Zionism, and critical of resistance as a rut, I entirely disagree.
I consider your habitual dissent approach (excluding appreciation) as unreal, bias, propaganda, actively creating a rut from what is already a rut.
As odd as it is to say, yesterday Netanyahu made a statement analagous to “lets roll up our sleeves, now that we know what we need to design into an agreement, lets use our creativity to accomplish a better mousetrap” (my words, perhaps too generous).
If that is representative of his words, then I am truly hopeful, and regard the habitual condemnations of dissent to the extent that they convey distraction from that, not providing information but only condemnation, to be frankly an imposition, a drag on justice’s goal – peace.
How come Witty is allowed to resort to name-calling as long as he couches it in pseudo-intellectual crap? Why is that tolerated on Mondoweiss?
“A few months ago, after reading my consistent responses to right-wing Zionists, you claimed that your opinion of my views had changed.”
There was a brief period after the flotilla killings where you seemed shocked–you even vanished from this website for a couple of weeks and I took this as a good sign. Soon, though, you were back to your usual apologetics. So I was wrong to think better of you. This has happened to me before, though I’ve forgotten details–you’d say something that made me think maybe you were coming around, but soon you’d be back to your apologetics It’s like I’m Charlie Brown trusting that this time Lucy will hold the football in place. You’ll never change, because facing up to the sheer ugliness of what has been done in the name of Zionism would shatter much of what you believe in. I know what you say over at Realistic Dove–you stress Israeli crimes a bit more over there, but you still judge Palestinian crimes more harshly, just as you do here.
“I consider your habitual dissent approach (excluding appreciation) as unreal, bias, propaganda, actively creating a rut from what is already a rut.”
I think ordinary Palestinians should be the ones deciding what solution is acceptable to them–not you or other condescending “liberal” racists. They are the primary victims here–they don’t have the right to fight “by any means necessary” if that means shooting pregnant women (nobody has the right to commit coldblooded murder), but they have the right to return to the land from which they were expelled–certainly they have that right far more than you have it and yet Israel gives you that right and not them. If they wish to give it up that’s their choice, but the choice should be entirely theirs.
As for appreciating Israel, there are many positive things that could be said about it. Their apartheid policies are not all there is to say about them, not by a long shot. But until they start treating Palestinians as human beings, I don’t feel obligated to say too much positive about them. They receive too much flattery in the US as it is.
BTW, there were many positive things that could be said about the South under Jim Crow. Going back further, there was much to admire about the courage and determination of the Confederate soldiers in the Civil War. But their cause stunk.
“I think ordinary Palestinians should be the ones deciding what solution is acceptable to them–not you or other condescending “liberal” racists.”
Relative to the peace talks progressing as you name-call, the positions that you articulate here PROHIBIT Palestinians from determining whether to ratify or reject a prospective proposal that would emerge.
If there is ANYONE pretending to tell the Palestinians what to do, it is you and other militants here, that functionally subscribe to Hamas’ pettiness and willingness to murder rather than allow their brothers to receive a proposal to consider themselves.
My views are consistent from Realistic Dove, to my own blog, to here. The emphasis is slightly different here because of the overwhelming radical left and left/right presence and logic here.
What you describe as racism is largely a product of your own imagination.
Perhaps you can articulate the principles by which you assess the presence of racism in one’s consciousness, so we can all explore our racism or not.
Please don’t again bow out of that question. Actually address something substantive, rather than dismissal or propaganda.
“he positions that you articulate here PROHIBIT Palestinians from determining whether to ratify or reject a prospective proposal that would emerge.”
False. Palestinians can endorse whatever comes out of these talks.
“Perhaps you can articulate the principles by which you assess the presence of racism in one’s consciousness, ”
You judge Palestinian acts of murder much more harshly than Israeli acts of murder. Therefore you’re acting like a racist. Your “consciousness” is irrelevant.
“… No Arab states have supported Hamas’ murders. Hezbollah did. But, none other.” (RW)
Richard, you’re sounding like a scorekeeper that has nothing to say. Arab states that don’t support Hamas are the same ones that support Israel and even you should be able to understand that simple equation.
It was only yesterday afternoon during his Jerusalem Day speech that Nasrallah repeated that the killing of civilians was nothing other than murder and he described the legitimate resistance in Iraq that had been attacking American soldiers as valiant acts to rid their country of the occupier while the suicide bombings of civilians in public places acts of cowards and most probably attributable to either the Americans or the Israelis and before you go through an indignation fit, just think back to the Israeli fun and games of Georgia and Dubai. He also referred to murderous suicide bombing of Quetta, Pakistan and decribed it as an act of murder. Your conception of Hizbullah needs to be refreshed.
Show me a translation of the speech describing the murder of Israeli civilians as murders.
link to haaretz.com
Hezbollah leader praises Hamas for West Bank shooting attacks
“Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah praised Hamas on Friday for the West Bank shooting attacks which left four Israelis dead and two injured on two consecutive days, saying “this is the way to free Jerusalem and Palestine.” “
Richard, you have to get your information from better sources. I listened to the speech and Nasrallah said no such thing and he certainly had no praise for the killing but discussed at length the wrongful killing of civilians anywhere; the Haaretz article made things up. For one thing, Nasrallah didn’t say that the negotiations were born to die, a Haaretz or MEMRI purposely mistranslated term intended to rile the walking ziombies, but that they were stillborn. Nasrallah didn’t praise Hamas for the shooting of the 4 settlers, as Haaretz implied, but simply said that the everyone should stand by any resistance that is devoted to end the occupation. In a summary of his speech reported on the al-Manar TV site, the part that discussed Palestine was:
“… Today we say to the whole world that the challenges have not changed a single letter in our fundamental principles, although some fell in the middle of the road,” his eminence said, recalling the principles which say that the whole Palestine is the right of the Palestinian people and that nobody has the right to abandon any part of it.
“We tell the whole world again and again that Jerusalem cannot be the eternal capital of the so-called State of Israel, but is the capital of Palestine, the capital of heaven and earth,” Sayyed Nasrallah stressed. “Not even one street of Jerusalem can be the capital of the so-called Israel,” his eminence said, reiterating that Israel is an illegitimate state, inhumane which was built on the logic of massacres and killings. “Israel can’t get legitimacy no matter who acknowledges it. This is the logic of Al-Quds Day, the logic of saying the right things without surrender.”
PEACE TALKS ARE BORN DEAD
Sayyed Nasrallah said that the so-called peace negotiations launched in Washington between the Israeli enemy and the Palestinians were “born dead.”
While rejecting the negotiations as “silly,” Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted the facts that the talks’ use was clear. “The political need ahead of the Congress elections in the United States is clear, the Israeli need is clear, and the need of some of the Arabs is also clear. These negotiations were born dead”
However, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the majority of the Palestinian factions have rejected the talks. “Some factions reject the simple principle of talking with the enemy. However, even the factions which do not discuss the principle, announced its rejection of the talks. All polls also showed that the majority of the Palestinian nation rejected the talks. Therefore, the talks are useless…”
“… PALESTINIAN REFUGEES: WHAT HAPPENED GOOD, NOT ENOUGH
To conclude, Sayyed Nasrallah raised the issue of the rights of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. “What happened at the Parliament needs discussion. What happened is good, but not enough. The refugees were not satisfied, but at the same time, there are legal and justifiable worries. There should be serious discussions to think of a way to unify the worries and the rights and needs.”
In conclusion, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Resistance feels that it’s closer to Al-Quds than ever. “The issue with the Zionist scheme is only a matter of time,” his eminence said, renewing that the Zionist entity is entitled to “vanish” sooner or later.”
link to almanar.com.lb
“Hezbollah leader praises Hamas for West Bank shooting attacks”
Nasrallah praised the resistance, not the murders.
From Walid’s translation, I regard the Haaretz article as primarily accurate.
There is math Walid. If the murderers are regarded as resistance, and Nasrallah praises ALL resistance, then he is praising the murderers.
How do you conclude differently?
Witty, you regard Zionism as a “precious jewel.” If you regard ethnic cleansing as a “precious jewel,” what does that make you?
That sword of Damocles you’re swinging over your head is double-edged, bucko.
The only reason HAMAS was not invited is that Uncle Sam refused to invite. The world does not support Israel’s illegal occupation and steady dispossesion and persecution of the Palestinian people. The balance of what you said, Witty, is attributable to the fact that the US is the only supepower. Nothing else. Israel does what it wants solely because of
US regime support and funding. That in turn is due mostly to AIPAC and special interest lobbying/political campaign funding.
Most Americans know nothing about the history of the state of Israel now and then.
>> The only basis that one could justify Hamas’ position onto the Arab street, is through rage alone. But, rage NEVER describes reality, ever. The best that it can be is a violent approximation, an arrow shot 400 yds with the wind blowing, a Qassam fired in the direction of an Israeli “army post”.
Jesus f*cking Christ, RW. You were making decent sense up until you decided to trot out another one of your messed up sloganalogies. But please explain – since you haven’t yet – why you don’t condemn Israel’s “rage” when, by your own admission, it kills Palestinians at a ratio of 100:1 Israelis killed. If you actually meant some part of the stuff you seem to enjoy preaching, you’d at least show a modicum of disgust – even if you can’t find the balls to ever call any of it terrorism – at what Israel does.
David Samel, my compliments on your well-reasoned and – unlike RW – well-stated commentary. May your arrow of reason never hit the target of discord due to blowing winds of disgruntlement.
DAVID SAMEL- I don’t intend to argue either the morality or wisdom of these killings, I’ll leave that to others who can put themselves into the minds of these “killers” who perform “executions” in “cold blood.”
My problem, David, is with your choice of vocabulary. Seems to me that you have to a degree bought into Israel’s framing of the issue. While you might disagree with Israel’s description of the victims of Operation Cast Lead as terrorists, suspected terrorists, and terrorist sympathizers, you apparently agree with Israel that the Israeli’s in the occupied territories are “settlers,” “civilians,” etc. Result? You are supporting half of Israel’s depiction of events. To wit, Israel preemptively kills terrorists and their sympathizers while Palestinian killers execute civilians in cold blood. Jeez, with framing like that we may as well throw in the towel right now.
David, may I respectfully suggest that supporters of Palestinian human rights need to reevaluate their choice of words. As a start, may I suggest that the heavily armed “settlers” around Hebron, etc, be referred to as paramilitary occupiers. I think this much more accurately reflects who they are and what they do. Those unarmed civilian “settlers” in occupied Jerusalem and other areas of the West Bank be referred to as civilian occupiers. This too more accurately reflects who they are and what they do. This ain’t “Little House on the Prairie,” this is ethnic cleansing involving paramilitary terrorism. Let our vocabulary reflect this reality rather than becoming entrapped in self-defeating Israeli framing.
Keith, yours is a very astute comment. Perhaps “para-police” is more accurate than “paramilitary.” And yes, the Israeli settlers are civilian occupiers, not civilian administrators. Israeli framing is a red herring, a false and intentionally confusing frame
in light of the big picture. Only the whore Uncle Sam buys the Israeli frame and ignores what’s so large yet left out.
Keith – you make an interesting point. However, the word “settlers” is almost universally used, either favorably or derisively. I don’t think adoption of the word throws in the towel, as would adoption of “disputed territories” or “moderate physical punishment.” But your suggestion for a change in terminology is thought-provoking.
I think one of the arguments made by the IRA to justify their mainland bombing campaign was that the army had made itself almost impossible to target effectively, along with the rationale that their civilian population was suffering under the occupation. It took three decades to fix that one, yet the oppresssion was not one percent of that which the Palestinians undergo. Whoever carried out the attack, it is almost a certainty that they and their families have suffered daily humiliation, degradation, deprivation – ie water – as well as loss of property, physical harm and maybe even deaths as a result of the occupation. I find I cannot condemn it anymore than the leadership of Sinn Fein would ever condemn the IRA bombing campaigns. And those organisations, of course were interchangable with each other. Living under such conditions, how could we not expect some to be unable to take the path of peaceful resistance? They are as human and as diverse in character as you and I and it is an unreasonable expectation in the circumstances. By its ignoring of international law, its wilful nurtuing of the settlement projects, its state approval of violence to the people already there, Israel is itself responsible in greater degree than the actual perpetrators of the killings.
And the US government is Israel’s sole major enabler. Perhaps one day the American people will be paying reparations to Palestine for what the US government did in their name, rather than paying Israel now for what it does to uphold “American/Western values” in the Middle East wasteland.
Armed settlers are classed as non-uniformed combatants under the laws of war.
If there was weapon in that car, an argument could be made that it was a legitimate target.
However, if they were not armed, then I believe that it would be a war crime.
That’s certainly the logic of many international law scholars.
The shooting of the 4 colonists cannot be considered a ‘war crime’ unless and until it is etablished that there was an armed, national force behind the act; logic which, quite obviously, would not hold up to scruitiny in this case.
This is precisely the reasoning behind the US’s classification of Afghan resistants’ response to occupation as ‘war crimes’ and classification of the alleged perpetrators of acts of resistance as ‘prisoners of war’, emprisoned without trial for as long as the occupier proclaims that what it is fighting is indeed a war.
The US invaded and destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq in what were wholly illegal acts. It is now engaged in brutal occupation of these countries.
Pre- and mid – WWII European Zionists immigrants to Palestine engaged in horrific, planned murder of indigenous Palestinians [Jews included]. These are widely viewed as criminal acts.
Since the self-declaration of the state of Israel, the country has developed the fourth most powerful military force in the world, which is a key supporter of illegal theft of land in the West Bank, engaging daily in the most violent acts: assassination, detention, torture, destruction of livelihoods, etc. These are the acts of an organized state and rightfully considered to be unlawful crimes of occupation.
In this context, can a convincing case be made that the murder of four colonists, on the part of the whatever faction may have committed it, be considered a war crime?
I think not, as there is no evidence of the involvement of an organized, armed beligerant counterforce.
The US’s free-style, unlawful claims of war crimes against armed resistance to occupation has created a dreadful precedent which has been adopted readily by Israel.
The murder of the settlers must be condemned, but what is equally unacceptable is the prevailing hypocrisy in US, EU and Israeli policy.
It’s a long and slippery slope, which has been justified by all sorts of pretexts, from anti-communism to islamophobia.
The murder of the four settlers was a crime, not an act of war. And if Israel would like to limit incidents of this sort, it would do best to take a look in the mirror.
Related to that, this is a good article :
link to emptywheel.firedoglake.com
From Philip Alston’s report (UN GA Human Rights Council) :
Debating morality is silly. Robespierre was a proud moralist. Caesar Augustus was so moral he became a god. Dubya lurved him some morals.
not sure what “having a life of complete comfort and security” means, or whether it’s even possible, at least not in the world I live in. And isn’t it likely, considering the power differential between Jewish occupier and occupied Palestinian, that at their meetings what Hamas leaders* discussed wasn’t so much a risk/benefit analysis of what killing Israeli “civilians” would mean for their organization, but instead was focused upon a risk/benefit analysis of what another “Oslo”-like agreement would mean in terms of justice for Palestine. And if so, then isn’t it also likely that the decision was that since continued nonviolence couldn’t prevent Palestine from suffering another Nakba or worse, and that since, from experience, Palestinians never benefit from playing by the existing rules set by the settlers (& friends), never ever — that they decided the only sure way to derail this agreement was to attack Jewish settlers? The means justifying the end? Except where there’s a total imbalance of power (slave-slaveowner relationship), when has nonviolence alone ever succeeded in liberating a people? Hasn’t there always been, if not violence, the threat of it? For those of us who say no taking of life ever is justifiable, doesn’t the way to no taking of life depend upon our dedicating ourselves ever more to getting the word out, that the Palestinian is the victim, the Jewish settler, the victimizer, and what it’ll take** to resolve the Mideast conflict?
*assuming here that the four settlers weren’t killed in a covert Massad opertion by Israel intelligence, as per what happened to Jews living in Egypt and other Arab nations shortly after the partion.
**that Jewish occupier and occupied Palestinian sit down together for the purpose of working things out based on one equals one with liberty and justice for all.
Sounds plausible to me, utter lack of hope the Palestinians won’t get screwed royal once again by “the peace process” as the motive. And yes,
the American moral response is for us to get the word out, get it passed our own media and congressional and White House muzzle. That’s the way to live up to our own highest principles.
The “life of complete comfort and security” sounds like Eden Abergil.
Thanks for this very powerful and sincere essay, David.
If we think of your spectrum of civilianity-militarity I would say that there’s something about the victims of closures and blockades that puts them off the scale, ‘beyond civilianity’, since they are typically those who are already sick (Seham’s father) or hungry, not just non-combatants but too weak to become combatants.
There’s something about armed men who are sent outside their recognised borders to control, intimidate or displace the existing population but who are not members of the armed forces and not subject to the discipline and restraint that are at least supposed to exist in an army, that puts them off the scale at the other end, ‘beyond militarity’, at least when they’re waving guns in the faces of defenceless people.
Just to add that with blockades and the like you can’t always tell who exactly the victims are – a number of sick and weakened people would have died anyway. But there are still victims and there is still responsibility. One of the things that showed me the enormity of this problem was an estimate in the Economist, early in 06, which as well as I recall said that Israel’s measures against Gaza – attack and blockade – were responsible for 30 deaths there every month, of which at least half were non-combatants. A death a day.
@David Samul
On morality: I agree with you that killing people is never a good thing. But, as you agree, there are some exceptionial cases, when killing somebody is acceptable as a last way out. One such exception is immediate self defense. Another is self defense on behalf of a 3rd person. Killing of an enemy soldier may be, depending of circumstances, another such case. So exceptionial cases are somehow important. Your analysis of morality is missing the important fact, that the struggle in the west bank is not beween equals, but between occupiers and occupied. The people killed (should) have known, that they were illegal occupiers. They didn’t care for the international law. What happens in Texas if you go with dubious intentions on land owned by somebody else? I am loath to judge the resistance.
On effectiveness:
Mahmud Abbas, whose presidency trm ended, is seen by the resistance as a traitor, a puppet of Israel and the U.S., financed by the U.S. and Israel, empowered by an US-Israeli puppet militia – google Abbas Dayton thugs – financed and trained by the U.S. What is happening now – in the eyes of the resistance – is that Israel tries to make a binding contract with it’s own puppet – Abbas. The outcome will be a binding contract between long term friends on behalf of a third party – the resisting Palestinians. US-led world media and politicians are encouraging this farce as negotiations. Hamas has beaten Abbas in elections. Since then Abbas canceled all elections and tried a coup against Hamas. The civil campaign did not manage to stop this farce of negotiations. The resistance and the elected government of Palestine led by Haniyya is completely excluded from all saying in negotiations. There is no intention to ask the Palestinians in a referendum about the resuts of the negotiation.
What do you expect the resistance to do at this point? How to stop this conspiracy against the Palestinians? How to stop Abbas to commit this allegdly intended serious betrayal of the Palestinians? I am loath to judge the resistance.
Yes, even Chief Joseph eventually split off from those of his peacenik tribe who continued to turn the other cheek in the face of the continuing stream of settlers and the White Chief who spoke with forked tongue and ever stronger blue coats. Israel wants to make the Trail Of Tears happen. Perhaps one day the post-Nuremberg US government will stamp out a new nickel with a Palestinian brave’s head on it, the tail a new kind of buffalo. Its silver will be painted on.
I have read David’s thoughtful post as well as most of the responses and, of course, had my own opinion from the beginning. First, the settlers who were killed were not like the majority who live in the large blocs in the West Bank who are for the most part not ideological and moved there as a result of economic inducements offered by the government. In short, illegal and contemptuous of Palestinian rights as they may be, they don’t walk around with guns while thinking about new ways to steal more Palestinian land or uproot Palestinian crops.
The latter describe the settlers shot while traveling in their car near Hebron, supposedly on their way to Kiryat Arba where one can find a monument to the Jewish terrorist, Baruch Goldstein who is revered as a hero by all of the settler communities outside the main settlement blocs and to many of those, no doubt, within them. These settlers carry arms which they have frequently used against unarmed Palestinians and when doing so, they go largely unpunished. (The fact that one of the passengers was a pregnant woman, which has been played up, of course, in the US and Israel press, was coincidental).
Were they a legitimate target by Hamas or any other Palestinian individual or group under those circumstances? I would argue that they were. That David says that the Israelis can make the same argument does not mean their argument has the same or any validity. Every single Jew living in a settlement on the other side of the 1967 line is there illegally while the Palestinians are indigenous. Thus, there can be no comparison between the actions of the two peoples. Nor can one question morally their right to attack those who have stolen their land and aggressively are attempting to take more while continuing the ethnic cleansing that their predecessors began well before 1948.
Having said that, I think the attack on the settlers was unwise, or better yet, stupid, since it gains Hamas and the Palestinians nothing that I am aware of, and, as others have suggested, it plays into the hands of the Israeli hasbara machine and threatens to hurt such important external movements as the BDS campaign. I would have preferred that Hamas attacked Israeli soldiers as did Hezbollah when it resisted Israeli occupation and have long wondered why they haven’t followed the same course.
The last time that I recall an attack with military weapons (as opposed to a knife) was in 2004, when a Palestinian sniper, hiding on a hill overlooking the Ofra checkpoint began picking off Israeli nine soldiers and one civilian, one by one, and escaped. The act was celebrated at the time in the West Bank and Gaza but now has strangely receded into history which make me believe that Israeli officials warned all the Palestinian groups that there would be severe pain inflicted on certain Palestinian leaders if it ever happened again and, as we can see, it never has. That’s just my guess, of course, but I can find no other reason to explain why Israeli soldiers seem to be immune from attacks in the West Bank when Hamas, as demonstrated in the attack on the car, has lethal weapons.
Here is the how Ha’aretz reported although I have had problems opening the link:
link to haaretzdaily.com
10 slain near Ofra; soldier dies in Gaza
(Wed., February 04, 2004 Shvat 12, 5764)
By Ha’aretz Staff
(…) IDF sources reported that a lone Palestinian sniper, probably trained by Force 17 and using an old World War II-era carbine outfitted with a telescopic sight, had taken up a position on a hilltop overlooking a military checkpoint near the settlement of Ofra. From about 50 meters away, the sources said, the gunman had begun cutting down the soldiers at the bottom of the hill.
The 6:40 A.M. attack began on three soldiers who were out in the open. One had gone to check an Israeli car coming from the north, while the other two had waited behind at the checkpoint. An officer and eight more soldiers were in residential quarters near the checkpoint at the time.
The sniper shot single rounds, at a rate that IDF sources said later had been about one shot every 45 seconds. First, he shot at the soldier and the car, killing the driver and the IDF man immediately. He then took aim at the other two soldiers who were outside, killing them instantly too. After stepping out from behind a building, a fourth soldier was wounded in his hand.
Platoon commander Lieutenant David Damlin heard the shooting and left the barrack. He went around the building to the north of the checkpoint and was shot dead when he appeared in the sniper’s sights.
At this stage, the medic emerged, looking for wounded. He tried moving around the checkpoint from the south and was shot dead. The remaining soldiers understood that whoever left the barricaded barrack was in danger, so they tried to conduct a battle from there. But they were unable to pinpoint the source of the gunfire.
The soldiers had been told of intelligence reports saying that they might be attacked from the east, where there had been some suspicious movements before the attack began; so they fired toward the eastern hill. But the sniper was on the western one. Indeed, the fact the gunman fired single shots made it even more difficult to identify the source of the shooting and from his commanding position overlooking the checkpoint, the gunman could see everything below, while remaining hidden behind an old olive tree on a terrace above.
The seventh victim was a civilian who arrived from the north. The eighth was the reserve company’s sergeant, Avraham Ezra, who arrived on the scene in a patrol jeep after the soldiers at the checkpoint had radioed for help. When Ezra tried to aim at the sniper, he was shot and killed. Some of the soldiers in the jeep with him were also wounded.
The last two victims of the attack were soldiers who arrived in the area in civilian cars. Lieutenant Ariel Hovav, 25, from the settlement of Eli, was due to command a unit of basic trainees in the Paratroop brigade and was on his way to a training session at the brigade HQ. He was shot when he got out of the car to try identifying the source of fire. The tenth victim was a new immigrant from France.
Those killed in the attack were Hovav; reservist Kfir Weiss from Beit Shemesh; Damlin, 29, from Kibbutz Meitzar; Ezra, 38, from Kiryat Bialik; Sergeant Yohai Porat, 26, from Kfar Sava; Sergeant Rafael Levy, 42, from Rishon Lezion; Eran Gad, 24, from Rishon Lezion; Yitzhak Didi of Eli; Sergei Beauturo from Ariel; and Vadim Balbula from Ariel.
The gunman got away after claiming his tenth victim and 25 minutes of shooting, apparently because his weapon gave out. As of dusk, the IDF had not found any evidence to support the theory that there was more than one shooter. The carbine was found, dismantled, though it’s not clear if this had been the result of one of the soldiers’ bullets or simply because it was old and had given out. There were signs of a telescopic sight, but none was found.
@Jeffrey Blankfort
“I would have preferred that Hamas attacked Israeli soldiers as did Hezbollah when it resisted Israeli occupation and have long wondered why they haven’t followed the same course.”
Yes, me too. Attacking unarmed civilian occupiers I see as a sign of weakness of the resistance. For the fight on moral grounds it would have been better – if at all – to attack armed occupation personnal. But would it have been morally higher grounds to blow up an Israeli military outpost in the West Bank killing dozens of armed Israeli occupation personnal? I doubt that there would have been much difference in world opinion.
“The last time that I recall an attack with military weapons (as opposed to a knife) was in 2004, when a Palestinian sniper, hiding on a hill overlooking the Ofra checkpoint began picking off Israeli nine soldiers and one civilian, one by one, and escaped.”
Just see here ABC News, June 14, 2010: “Israeli Police Officer Killed in Shooting Attack”
link to abcnews.go.com
Armed occupation personnal is hardly to be seen as “civilians”. I think, it doesn’t matter, if armed occupation personnal is called “soldier” or “police”, if they fulfill the same occupational function.
“I think the attack on the settlers was unwise, or better yet, stupid”
See my comment above. I see the damage to civilian struggle and international soidarity, too. But how to stop this farce of negatiations between Israel and her puppet Abbas? The outcome can only be more than another betrayal of the Palestinians. The civilian struggle – sadly – failed to combat this important point successfully. I don’t know if resorting to armed resistance will succeed to manage this.
But I am loath to judge the resistance for trying.
“Were they a legitimate target by Hamas or any other Palestinian individual or group under those circumstances? I would argue that they were. ”
A fascist view, pretending to be a progressive. Are you really serious that you regard killing civilians as a “valid target” of resistance?
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Funny how when its four Israelis who are killed, that’s “fascism.” When it’s over 1,300 Palestinians who are killed, that’s “their own fault.”
Jeffrey – The fact that one of the victims was a pregnant woman may have been coincidental, but it was entirely foreseeable, as it was foreseeable that there could have been four children in the car. The killers didn’t seem to care whom they killed, and any variety of ages and physical conditions could have been present. When the Israelis bombed the residential building in Qana in 2006, they claimed that they didn’t realize there would be many civilians, including children, inside. Maybe true, but inexcusable as it was quite foreseeable that the building would be inhabited in the middle of the night, and that children might be among the residents.
The “right” to armed struggle??
@Richard Witty
There is a right for an armed struggle against an illegal armed occupying power. There is no question about it in universial human rights and world opinion.
Have you read Witty’s apparently damning rebuke of the American Revolution yet?
Let me rephrase that for you Richard, so we can all understand your question. Here it is–
“How can anyone think that Palestinians have the same right to use violence that the Zionists used to establish their state? Now sure, Zionists used terror tactics and ethnic cleansing, but they had the right to do it, because they were Zionists. How can anyone think Palestinians have the right to use the same techniques against Zionists that Zionists used on them? ”
There, that’s much clearer.
Yes, Richard, an under international law an occupied people have the right to armed struggle. The 1949 additional protocols to the Geneva Convention (which Israel is a signatory too) allows for the right to guerilla warfare, particularly by an occupied people.
In 1960, UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) recognised the rights of the colonised people (ie. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples). In articles 1 and 2 states:
1. The subjection of a peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The UN has subsequently passed a range of resolutions support the right of an occupied people to armed struggle against alien occupation
eg: UN General Assembly resolution 37/43 (3/12/1982): “reaffirming the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples against foreign occupation by all
available means, including armed struggle… [The United Nations]
Affirms the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to resist the
…Israeli occupation by all available means in order to free its land and be able to exercise its right of self-determination”.
eg: UN Gen Assembly resolution A/RES/46/51 9 December 1991
makes a distinction between terrorism and armed struggle and reaffirms the “inalienable right to self-determination and
independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination and foreign occupation, and upholding the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of national liberation movements …”
You do know that a general assembly resolution is NOT international law, as a law passed by the US House of Representatives is not law until passed by the Senate and signed by the president.
Where in FACT does international law affirm the right of “armed struggle”.
Again, international law also affirms the responsibility of a temporarily occupying state to maintain order in the region.
How do you reconcile the two?
Comparisons with 1946-8 Israel apply to sentiment, NOT to law Donald. They are cute.
But, you need to make a persuasive argument, not just cute invocations.
The path of negotiations, formation of the new state Palestine, and treaty, are the means by which international law is affirmed.
The negotiation that is happening now, is the affirmation of international law, the negotiation to end the temporary occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
To fight that negotiation, to seek its failure, is to actively seek to oppose international law.
After it fails, you can rationalize armed resistance to your hearts’ content, still with the result of war and mutual harms (with the weaker and less organized harmed the most).
I’m amazed at you guys. In the name of affirming international law, you don’t advocate for an assertive negotiation on the part of Palestine and US as mediator, but for the dismembering of it.
I find it wierd.
Richard, if you read my post again you will see that I start off by stating that Geneva Convention recognises the right of armed struggle. The Geneva Convention/s are key conventions on which international law is based.
Three sets of Protocols have been added to the Geneva Convention. The 1977 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva convention of 1949 (Act 1 C4), re-arms this and declares that as a last resort armed struggle can be used as a method of exercising the right of self determination.
So yes, international law gives the right to armed struggle against an occupier.
The UN General Assembly resolution, while not binding, are based on international law as outlined by the Geneva Conventions.
As for your assertion that Israel is carrying out an “temporary occupation” – how typically Zionist of you Richard – only Zionists like yourself would call a 43 year old occupation “temporary”.
As for the right of a “temporary ccupying state to maintain order in the region”, the right to maintain order, does not negate the right of people to armed struggle against occupation (in fact in international law, the right of the occupied people takes precedence over the rights of the occupier) and neither does it give the occupier the right to carry out transfer of citizens, the right to demolish houses or to carry out arbitary arrest, extra-judicial assassinations and restriction of the freedom of movement, all of which Israel carries out daily.
Not wanting to speak for anyone else, the reason I oppose the US as “mediator” is because the US is not a neutral mediator. Instead, it has vested interests in supporting the Israeli state, in order to further US interests in the region.
As for negotiation – there has been “negotations” going on for since 1993, Richard. And what have these “negotiations” got the Palestinians – more occupation, more illegal colonies being built by Israel, more theft of Palestinian land, resources and water, more repression, more house demolitioins, more restrictions of movement. And you wonder why so many Palestinians and their supporters think “negotiation” and the “peace process” are nothing except pure fakery.
A “mediator” that gives one side over $7 million a day and free jet fuel, white phosphorous and cluster munitions which are routinely used against civilians? A “mediator” whose Senate is 15% representative, by your logic, of the “Jewish state” by virtue of their “Jewishness?”
“Comparisons with 1946-8 Israel apply to sentiment, NOT to law Donald. They are cute.”
“Cute” IS your NEWEST buzzword. It’s CUTE, really, AS is YOUR use of CAPITAL letters.
Anyway, the comparison to the behavior of Zionists is pretty straightforward–if you condemn what Hamas does in killing civilians you have to condemn what the Zionists did in 1948 to establish a Jewish state. They had to murder civilians and drive them from their homes and shoot them if they tried to return. So if that was justifiable behavior then, it’s justifiable for Palestinians now. If it wasn’t then, it isn’t now. That’s pretty basic , applying the same standards to people no matter what their ethnicity, so I can see why you’d have problems with it.
Red,
the word for maintaining order is legal responsibility.
A very different word than a right, much more compelling.
A right is something that a person may choose to do. A responsibility is something that a person or organization MUST do.
Comparing a “right” stated in exagerated terms with a legal responsibility, the responsibility outweighs.
You yourself actively oppose the current talks, am I correct? How can you claim that the effort to complete international law, the clarification of borders, clarification of parties’ rights, is to be discouraged and stated in the name of opposing violations of international law.
I definitely see that there is basis for skepticism in the outcome of the discussions.
I DON’T see how that skepticism is a motivation to take actions that would stop them.
That strikes me as an active opposition to international law, stated in the opportunistic name of affirming it.
Let me get this straight. Israel builds hundreds of settlement homes ON PALESTINIAN LAND; you regard negotiations as intact.
Militants kill four illegal settlers WHILE THEY ARE COMMITTING THEFT ON PALESTINIAN LAND; you regard negotiations as endangered by this.
So everything Israel does is exonerated; Anything the Palestinians do that is less than accommodating is “a threat to peace?”
“A very different word than a right, much more compelling.”
You’re always making the claim that your arguments are compelling, yet everyone here rejects them.
That doesn’t sound too compelling does it?
Right Red. Resolutions passed by the UN do represent international law as does the Geneva Convention and the International Court at the Hague. The UN represents the concensus of international governmental opinion, or the nearest thereto.
Practically every nation state in the world is a member of the UN. I don’t know of any other international organisation that comes closer to representing the views of the world’s governments. In fact if the UN didn’t represent international law then the organisation’s recognition of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 would be null and void making Israel an illegal state. Funny how Israeli supporters acknowledge international law when it suits them and not at other times:)
“that as a last resort armed struggle can be used as a method of exercising the right of self determination.”
And you feel that Palestinians have exhausted all other means of self-determination?
What the f… are the peace talks now under way? The are an alternative means of affirming self-determination.
By the international law that you quote, armed resistance in Israel/Palestine is ILLEGAL, not legal.
The occupation IS temporary. The concept of two states for two people has been endorsed now by EVERY Israeli administration, albeit reluctantly.
The actions by the “resistance” were designed to derail the negotiations, to derail the application of international law.
You are now in the realm of militant opportunism, not in the realm of affirmation of international law.
“And you feel that Palestinians have exhausted all other means of self-determination?”
And you feel that Israelis exhausted all other means of protecting the public, such as their rejection of the offer to return to a ceasefire in 2008?
“What the f… are the peace talks now under way? The are an alternative means of affirming self-determination.”
No, they are a means of legalizing Israel’s land theft and affirming Israel’s self-determination only.
“By the international law that you quote, armed resistance in Israel/Palestine is ILLEGAL, not legal.”
False Witty. Of course you know nothing about international law.
“The occupation IS temporary.”
Indeed. It will end when Israel has stolen all of the West Bank.
“The concept of two states for two people has been endorsed now by EVERY Israeli administration, albeit reluctantly.”
False. It gas been given lip service by EVERY Israeli administration, while they practically sought to undermine it.
“The actions by the “resistance” were designed to derail the negotiations, to derail the application of law.”
False again. The laws are already on place. The application of law doesn’t require talks to implement.
“You are now in the realm of militant opportunism, not in the realm of affirmation of international law.”
What international law might that be Witty? Bibbi has rejected 1967 borders, hence rejected international law and Israel is returning to building settlements, hence violating the Geneva Conventions.
Like the right to massacre and demolish Jericho?
“The “right” to armed struggle??”
If there is an armed occupation, absolutely. Why so hypocritical Witty?
Um yes…you know how Israel came about to be???
David Samel, I commend you on an excellent piece, although I can’t say I completely agree with you, for various reasons, all of which have been articulated by various commenters above.
I find such intense debate slightly anti-climatic, given that the story seems to have died down. That is not a comment on the need for such discussion; more of it is needed, especially in the civil vein conducted here. I also disagree with Ahmed Moor’s assertion that the time of armed struggle is over, however both he, David and others such as Abunimah raise some valid points in opposing such attacks which are conducive to the continued evolvement of the Palestinian cause’s new strategies (if I understand correctly, all three have not denied the right to violent resistance).
Jeffrey, that incident has also stood out in my mind for many years. While I was living in the West Bank, I heard that the man behind it had been arrested by the Israelis and is currently in prison, but I couldn’t tell you for sure.
However, I don’t think Israeli threats against Palestinian leaders has anything to do with that tactic not being emulated, since he acted alone and independent of any faction. I would assume it has more to do with the fact that others probably do not have access to the necessary type of weapon.
Armed paramilitary settlers are fair game. As I’ve said countless times all violence in this “conflict” stems from the original sin of occupation. These settlers are crimmimals, nothing more, nothing less. They trample through someone elses home like thieves, and when they are dealt with as such there will be no lamentation from me. I’ll leave that to the fair and balanced mainstream media and doyens of the establishment. Is it strategically beneficial? It’s probably not even tactically beneficial, but it is to question why water flows downward, that is the nature of things.
“Armed paramilitary settlers are fair game. ”
Settlers are civilians. Those that are caught breaking laws should be prosecuted.
Murder based on their existence or residence is fascism, no matter what term you cloak it in.
>> Settlers are civilians. Those that are caught breaking laws should be prosecuted.
Yes, they should, shouldn’t they.
Time to phone the Hague and bring in the ICC then.
Settlers are civilians. Those that are caught breaking laws should be prosecuted.
Settlers are criminals, for settlement itself is a crime accepted and defended by the Israeli government and military.
I was away all day and just returned home at 1:30 to see many thoughtful comments, which I sincerely appreciate. Tomorrow will be even busier, but I will try to answer some of these on Monday, if you have the interest and patience to check in.
Mr. Samel, let me assure you that the Palestinians are deeply deeply sorry for this tragedy. That there will be a full and complete investigation. The Palestinians always try to spare innocent lives, it is not their intention to harm women and children, we do not target civilians…
DEEPLY SORRY
I take it you get my point
VR, I get your point, and although you probably dashed it off quite quickly, it is very important and profound.
Thank you, David, you and Adam are among the few that have the courtesy of replying to comments to your articles. Most of the other authors just plunk them down and walk away from them and don’t appear interested in the comments.
We will check in, David. Any lessons to be learned and/or projected from the pied noir armed struggle in Algeria? Would Camus be Netanahu?
David the I/P conflict is not an even playing field. Please don’t equate the occupiers with the occupied. Neither compare the world’s fourth most powerful military with armed groups.
Having said this nobody disputes attacking civilians is wrong. But you are being obtuse in refusing to acknowledge the possibility that armed, military-trained settlers who serve in the IDF and work closely with the IDF to kill Palestinian civilians, steal their land and commit various other atrocities as a collective organisation known as the Yesha Council of Settlers could be legitimate targets. Even if as individuals (like soldiers in the IDF) they might not have carried out these crimes in a personal capacity. Again I refer specifically to the male settlers.
I wonder if you can answer the following question honestly? If a group of armed Lebanese farmers (not belonging to any organisation) crossed the Israeli border and some of the farmers as individuals killed some Israeli civilians, moved into Israeli towns and took over land and apartment buildings and kicked the Israelis out, would they in your eyes be a legitimate military target for the IDF to shoot and kill? And if so would they have to be in the act of killing/stealing/plundering to be a legitimate military target or would killing them as they ate dinner and presented no immediate threat be a crime?
I think we both know that before they even made it over the border they would be shot dead by the IDF and that very few people would be outraged.
David, while I agree with you that you have the right to express our opinon and do not need to earn the right to do so, I still find your article very problematic.
While I believe the killing of anyone is a horrendous thing and is a tragedy for their families and their loved ones (whether they be Palestinian or Israeli), I am also opposed to the attempts by writers such as yourself to draw an equal sign between the violence of an oppressor and the violence of the oppressed people.
While certainly, it can be debated whether or not these shootings will advance or detract from the Palestinian struggle for independence, you are very wrong to try and draw an equal sign between the violence prepetrated on the Palestinians by the Israeli state and their settler stormtroopers and the violence of a people born out of resistance to brutal and repressive occupation and 60 years of ethnic cleansing. They are not equal and never will be and as a result you can not apply a “one size fits all” morality, as you attempt to do.
In attempting to apply this “one-size fits all” morality, you ignore the fact (either by accident or by design) that colonialism has no morality. Instead, as Frantz Fanon, who was active in the Algerian struggle for self-determination and decolonisation, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth : “colonialism is not a thinking machine, nor a body endowed with reasoning faculties. It is violence in its natural state”.
Every single day the Palestinians, as a colonised people face violence and as Fanon writes for the colonised’s “morality is very concrete” – because “All the native has seen in his country is that they can freely arrest him, beat him, starve him: and no professor of ethics, no priest has ever come to be beaten in his place, nor to share their bread with them. As far as the native is concerned, morality is very concrete; it is to silence the settler’s defiance, to break his flaunting violence – in a word, to put him out of the picture”.
Unfortunately, you ignore this and instead proceed to give Palestinians a lecture in abstractions.
In particular I found most patronising your argument that “People sympathize with those who are victimized by intolerable crimes; why at this point did the gunmen shift that sympathy from Palestinians to Israelis? In the absence of violence, Israel must be forced to explain, in ever more shrill and transparently dishonest ways, why a few people the world over who believe they have an ancient connection to this strip of land have superior rights to it over those who have lived there for centuries”.
Firstly, there is no “absence of violence”, every single day violence is experience by the Palestinians but is ignored by the colonialiser and their allies. Secondly you seem to be basically telling the Palestinians that they should sit quite and accept that violence which is perpetrated against them every single day, while others (who in your own words sit in comfort and security and have never experienced the brutality of the colonial machine) sit around the “green blaize table” (as Fanon argues) and discussing non-violence.
As Fanon notes, the intellectual who argues for universal abstractions in relation to the issues of violence and the colonised is following the footsteps of the coloniser but doesn’t realise it because he/she is permeated by colonialism and all its ways of thinking. Unfortunately, David, your article and your advocation of a “one-size fits all morality” is very much permeated with abstractions and colonialism and all its ways of thinking.
Very adeptly said. There are chauvanisms so internalised one isn’t even aware of them, these are the most insideous.
Red (and Bandolero and MDM and tommy) – You complain that I consider this incident equal to Israeli violence. I don’t think I did. Israelis and their supporters often decry those who claim a “moral equivalence” between Israeli and Palestinian violence. My answer has always been that I don’t think they are morally equivalent. I think Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians often takes the form of mass murder and collective punishment and should be condemned, while Israeli violence is much, much worse, and for two reasons. One is the sheer number of victims, but the other is that Palestinian violence is in opposition to oppression and Israeli violence in defense of it. I believe I did make this point, but perhaps not as prominently as I should, for all four of you to make this similar point.
Red, you quote me out of context about the “absence of violence.” Did I really need to say “the absence of this type of violence”? Obviously I did not mean that there was an absence of violence, and I consider every day without an actually violent incident to be a day of great violence, since Israel enforces its rule over millions of people solely through the threat of violence if they disobey.
Finally, the death of four people is not an abstraction. It is quite concrete. I have publicly voiced support for the Palestinian struggle for liberation, and I have no difficulty divorcing myself from this incident.
@David
Thank you for your comment.
As I see you see the point, that there is a moral difference between violence of the oppressed and violence of the oppressor, too. So our difference there may be only a gradual difference.
But my comment had a second part, which I see unaddressed – and unchallanged – so far. Hamas sees US and Israeli power regarding Palestine largely more or less as one entity. When we see the power of the Israel-lobby inside the US, I think, it’s imposible to say that this claim is entirely baseless. Hamas claims Abbas is a US-Israeli puppet, holding power only due to financial and military aid supplied by the oppressors, US and Israel. When we see that Abbas elected term ended and the US financed and trained illegitimate Abbas-PA-Dayton-Dahlan-militia, which took power in a coup 2007, I think, it’s imposible to say that this claim is entirely baseless. Hamas thinks, that now the Israeli puppet Abbas is going to transfer the rights of the Palestinians to his master Israel.
Hamas has won the last elections, but is totally excluded from the political process. The Palestinian people is totally excluded from this sell-out process led by Abbas. Civil resistance failed to stop Abbas to sell the Palestinians. Due to Abbas-Israeli puppet-forces Hamas is too weak to blow up the Israeli military in the West Bank.
What better, milder political options than violent resistance against settler-occupiers are left for Hamas to prevent Abbas fom transfering the rights of Palestinians to the Israeli settler-occupiers?
I would appreciate your comment on this issue.
Bandolero, my short answer to your last question is I don’t know what other options are available, but I will speculate. First, I would argue that your reasoning does not support your implied conclusion that violence against the settler-occupiers is a viable option to derail the peace talks. Hypothetically, let’s say there are no more peaceful alternatives. It still would not be reasonable to conclude that such violence is a viable option. If Abbas is going to be pressured to shamelessly sell out Palestinians, he can do so regardless of whether Hamas commits these attacks or not. In fact, your question does resemble the odious Israeli question asked repeatedly, what milder alternatives to invasion and bombing of Gaza could be used to prevent the rockets? OK, maybe yours is not quite so bad, but it is in the same ballpark. The question itself offers no justification for proposing the violent option as an effective possibility. btw, I still believe that these talks will come to nothing, not even a bad result, but simply no result at all.
Second, I of course agree that excluding Hamas from the talks is absurd and should act to render them a nullity, and that this incident changes absolutely nothing.
Finally, as to my speculation, I would love to see Hamas go on a PR offensive of its own, explicitly addressing the three preconditions for recognition of its role and explaining why they are formulated to sound superficially legitimate while being intolerably unfair. Hamas could make demands of its own, including a solution based upon complete equality for all citizens regardless of ethnicity or ancestry, an Israeli pledge to renounce violence (which has continued to kill Palestinians even since the end of the Gaza attack), etc.
David, I join other in commending your analytic and thoughtful take, and am glad to see so many considered and excellent comments in response. Along with others, I also think this conversation is worth having partly because such killings will happen again, our opinion as to the wisdom and/or morality of such action notwithstanding. But at the risk of repeating what others have already pointed out, there are three things I wanted to mention:
1. Actions of individual rage vs collective rage resulting in killing operations vs vigilantism. Out of 100′ of thousands of people subjected to the inhumane treatment Israel is keen to met out, we have to expect that there will be some whose rage will take them to a place where they are beyond caring, and are desperate enough to exact a measure of revenge, no matter how many “innocents” get caught in the line of fire. This happens among people all the time, everywhere, and I am sure the criminal courts have plenty of cases where someone who was gravely hurt took matters into their own hands to get back at the perpetrators.
But this is not quite the action we are talking about here, since this particular operation seems to have been planned, almost too well, to my mind. The element of rage was – the kind seham is talking about, would seem to me to be missing-in-action, and what there was is a relatively cool, planned action, resulting in the death of settler associated with some of the more extreme in their movement. This kind of semi-professional action no doubt purports to speak on behalf of collective rage, ie, it is action of the “avenging angel” type, rather than, say, vigilantism.
Personally, I think that discussions of “moral rights” should take into account the distinctions between these types of actions. Partly because the aftermath is likely to be quite different, and partly because the issue of “morality” is complex enough as it is without mixing different types of actions, whose only common thread may be that they resulted in violence. In the end, for the Paletinians themselves – as well as for those supporting their cause – it is more about the repercussions than about the action itself.
2. Regarding the effectiveness issue, it seems that everyone agrees that, given where the Palestinians are now, and especially the gains they have made in the public opinion, this type of action is of little help, and is, in fact, detrimental to the very cause it purport to support. I am with Ahmed Moor on this one (sort of): the Palestinians are, in truth, in a completely weak position. All the great forces – Israel, the US, the Lobby, big money politics, the establishment, and even some arab states, are arrayed against them. In this kind of highly uneven battle, the ONLY hope they have is to shift public opinion, especially in the US. Which take time, in the course of which a killing operation such as this one represents a serious set-back. It can only be considered a strategic blunder that serves to undermine the claim of justice on which the palestinians’ cause ultimately rests. And when a quest for justice is the essence of your struggle, the weapons need to be carefully selected so as to keep justice front, back and center.
Which makes this liberation struggle an extremely difficult one for all involved. Especially for an entire population that’s asked to practice enormous forbearance – possibly over a long time – in the face of grievous and unrelenting persecution. I believe most Palestinians instinctively understand this – as the paucity of violent reactions in recent years demonstrates.
3. All we can do here, is to exercise the privilege of ones not in the midst of conflict to try and highlight – the strategic downsides of concerted action by groups, such as Hamas, or other Palestinian militants. Though perhaps most of us – even the best of us – have still much to learn in discussing things in the true language of the oppressed. So oppressed that the uual instruments of law and the courts set up to deliver justice do not even begin to address the crimes committed against them. So perhaps when the law itself is of such limited power to redress grievances, the terminology some people use in these kinds of discussions may well seem to the victims to be strangely disconnected. May be that’s something, we – the sympathetic outsiders – need to learn. Which is what I think seham was trying to say also. Somehow, I feel David’s arguments, cogent as they are, did not entirely address her grievance – and others’ like her who paid a personal price. Not because he didn’t try well enough, but because words themselves are not quite sufficient. And that’ what I see some of the comments here illustrate.
Danaa, that’s a great comment.
The term “civilians” is being used in an incantatory way throughout this thread. What I mean by this is that the mere presence of the term automatically establishes the point to be proved: if they were “civilians,” then shooting them was wrong, end of discussion. But in this case they weren’t “civilians,” because riding around east of the red line is a politico-military act of aggression, whatever kind of uniform or non-uniform the riders wear (khaki and/or tallit & kippot). Jeffrey brings a bit of political sociology to the discussion when he distinguishes between the dormitory dwellers near the line, who commute to work west of it and are too politically stupid to grasp that living to the east of it is a politico-military act of aggression, and those who live in places like Kiryat Arba, and know exactly what their act is. But being too politically stupid to appreciate the implications of one’s acts is no excuse.
Another rationalization for murder, stated in the name of political “consciousness”.
You should know about those “rationalizations” RW, you have employed them repeatedly on this site. You hold the prize for excusing murderous colonial settler state activity.
What, as opposed to your disgusting justifications for Operation Cast Lead?
You know I severely differ with you on the legality and morality of armed struggle, especially when it includes prominently (often solely) the mass murder of civilians and over an extended period.
I regard some Israeli responses as excessive, but I regard most of them literally as defensive, actually fulfillment of Israeli state responsibility to protect civilians from political violence.
If you regard Israeli civilians as just targets for military assault, then you are advocate for war crimes.
I am sickened by the apologetics rationalizing assault on civilians.
It extends beyond advocacy for revolution (which itself is extra-legal), to advocacy for mass murder.
Yet you are in complete support of the legality and morality of armed occupation, especially when it includes prominently (often solely) the far greater mass murder of civilians and over an extended period.
We regard some Palestinian responses as excessive, but regard most of them literally as defensive, actually fulfillment of Palestinian responsibility to protect civilians from political violence.
If you regard Palestinian civilians as just targets for military assault, then you are advocate for war crimes.
We are sickened by the apologetics rationalizing assault on civilians.
It extends beyond advocacy for defense (which itself is extra-legal), to advocacy for mass murder.
So… you’re talking about the 1948 uprising and subsequent ethnic cleansing in Palestine? Or… are you talking about Operation Cast Lead?
>> RW: I regard some Israeli responses as excessive …
Palestinians commit murder, terror, war crimes: Barbaric! Ruthless! Hateful! Terrifying!
Israel occasionally – my goodness, almost never! – responds in an “excessive” manner: Sterile, inoffensive, calm, soothing.
Could you be any more obviously biased? I’d like to think ‘no’…but you’re full of surprises.
Compare and contrast–
“I regard some Israeli responses as excessive, but I regard most of them literally as defensive, actually fulfillment of Israeli state responsibility to protect civilians from political violence.”
“I am sickened by the apologetics rationalizing assault on civilians.”
@Richard
It may be, that this diffenrence is based on different views on history.
I see the 67 war as a clear Israeli war of aggression, with the sole purpose of conquering and colonializing land belonging to others. The operation was and is carried out by armed and unarmed Israeli forces together.
So naming settlers in occupied territories by means of a war of aggression just “Israeli civilians” falls short to what they really are: they are part of an illegal combined military and civilian occupation structure.
So what I demand from the resistance is the “mildest” possible measure to end the occupation. Given the rather complete level of this completely illegal and criminal occupation, rather harsh measures are justified to fight the oppression.
Just as a comparison: what defensive measures would you allow a woman against a strong but unarmed rapist? I would demand the “mildest” possible measure and I would have a lot of compassion to what – given the circumstances (rapist protected by armed forces) – this mildest possible measure would be.
A complete different question is effectiveness: was taking this measure “clever”? But see my comment above. What milder measure Hamas has to stop the illegitimate puppet Abbas from conspiring against the Palestinians?
RW translation:
“The Zionist mouthpieces taught me what to say & I will regurgitate it in my own idiosyncratic, inimitable way. If thhey say black is white I will take their word over any evidence presented by or linked to on this blog.”
Whatever, it goes in at the eye and gets lost in space, doesn’t it?
I liked this:
“The 12 Commandments of the Israel Lobby”
link to sott.net
I assume my reply to Mr Witty turned Phil’s delicate stomach. In any case, it doesn’t appear above.
One of mine didn’t either. Couldn’t help it….it was bad. Witty just so seems to bring the worst out of us (well, it wasn’t that bad!!). When I read the RW (Resident Wit) I get the point of Sartre’s Nausea – the dread that’s part of living but also that of the walking (posting?) morally dead. It’ good for us all to read the Wittylogues though, now and then. Just so we know what the Night of the Living Dead Logic can look like.
To quote the King of England himself – who will rid us of this meddlesome priest?
Phil/Adam, you better not censor this (or else Mooser will never show up again! ).
Settlers are residents. Residents are civilians. Settlers are civilians.
I agree that the Israeli state encouraged settlers to move there, facilitated the transition of land status and title by at least questionable legal means.
But, people are people, period.
Hamas and Al Aqsa Martyrs suicide bombings and executions of civilians were directed at people solely, terror only. That is why I call it gruesome, inhumane, barbaric.
Of the accusations of Israeli atrocities, I would grant that a portion of them were atrocities. I would NOT grant that of all. It is obvious to me that Israel was required by its responsibility as a state, to protect its civilians from escalating Hamas shelling of civilians in December 2008.
The only possible questions are of extent and specific conditions.
“It is obvious to me that Israel was required by its responsibility as a state, to protect its civilians from escalating Hamas shelling of civilians in December 2008.”
Because you’ve ignored, time and time again, every response pointing out that Hamas offered a renewal of the ceasefire on terms including a lifting of the blockade which was itself a crime against Gazan civilians. Israel killed civilians because it chose to do so, and you defend them because you’re a hypocrite.
“Israel killed civilians because it chose to do so, and you defend them because you’re a hypocrite.”
That is utterly false if you bother to look at the question beyond justification for your own political opinion.
For example, that is 120 degrees different than what Goldstone concluded. You want to not quote Goldstone ever, go ahead.
RW
“Settlers are Residents”
What feeble logic are you using to then inform us that this means they are “civilians”? Some are. Many are paramilitaries. Many serve in the IDF.
Is it the Israeli state’s sole responsibility to protect (and encourage and fund, and in as many ways as possible further enable) these Israeli “civilians” whatever the hell they do to non-Israelis in pursuance of their common dream of a greater, ethnically purified Israel?
Where is their legal responsibility in international law to protect the Palestinians and their land and property? Oh, they dismissed that. There’s no such thing as “Palestinians” or “Palestine”. There’s only “infiltrators” according to Israeli Military Order No. 1650:
link to imemc.org
Israel’s responsibility is twofold:
1. To protect civilians from murderous crime
If the settlers are there under Israeli law, then the IDF must protect them militarily. The way to change that status in conformity with international law, is to work to change the Israeli law.
2. To maintain law and order in the occupied territories
If the settlers undertake illegal activities directed at Palestinians, then the settlers should be prosecuted for their individual crimes.
The targeting of general settlers as if they were individual criminals, is extra-judicial, terror, vigilante or politically orchestrated murder (as Samel indicated his impression that the murders were planned over an extended period).
You really have to make a personal decision as to whether you are a moral being, or a personal military/propaganda tool of the vanguard.
Accusations of me that I am a “hasbara agent” are utterly false. I am know one’s tool, but my politics are essentially moral in origination and in continuous and regular self-evaluation.
I am NOT a political man. I reject and oppose the political methodology of forming moral decisions. I support the moral methodology of forming political decisions.
Israel is required by its responsibility as a state not to support the illegal settlement building over the past several decades. It is required as a state not to practice apartheid. It is required as a state to protect the lives and property of the Palestinian civilians under its control and it is required as a state not to take their lives or steal their property or make their lives a constant misery. It is required as a state to protect the lives of Israeli civilians by doing everything in its power not to provoke Palestinians with state-sanctioned theft, apartheid, and murder.
After Israel has fulfilled all of those requirements, then we can talk about how Israel has a duty to use extremely precise methods to take out those Palestinians who pose a direct threat to the lives of Israeli civilians, while taking great care to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties.
Why is this hard for you to understand? It’s hard because you don’t see Palestinian lives as worth that much trouble. Protecting basic Palestinian rights is something that has to be negotiated–protecting Israeli lives is just taken for granted as a moral absolute.
“t’s hard because you don’t see Palestinian lives as worth that much trouble. Protecting basic Palestinian rights is something that has to be negotiated–protecting Israeli lives is just taken for granted as a moral absolute.”
That’s part of it Donald,
Yes, Witty sees Palestinians as sub human (while ironically claiming to be a humanist), but as we’ve seen so many times from Witty, he simply can’t bring himself to permit criticism of Israel to cross a line where he feels it begins to tarnish Israel’s legitimacy.
I don’t know if Witty’s racism has gotten worse over the last year, or that that the veil has simply fallen away.
” he simply can’t bring himself to permit criticism of Israel to cross a line where he feels it begins to tarnish Israel’s legitimacy.”
That’s the other part–maybe the deeper part. And if it was just Witty it would be an example of a troll taking over the thread, as we let him do, but you’ve pinpointed what’s wrong with most liberal Zionists. I just saw another example of this at another blog–someone well-intentioned,a professor at a divinity school who was criticizing both pro-Israeli fanatics and what she saw as pro-Palestinian fanatics. What she couldn’t see was that the Palestinians she criticized were simply pointing out that Israel exists as a Jewish state because of ethnic cleansing. To her, it was questioning Israel’s “legitimacy”.
Zionists are going to have to get used to the idea that whatever solution people reach, Palestinians are never going to state that it was legitimate to force them out of their homes.
There is no “after”. All responsibilities must be applied in the here and now.
Ducks are birds. Ducks quack. Therefore all birds quack.
“Hamas and Al Aqsa Martyrs suicide bombings and executions of civilians were directed at people solely, terror only. That is why I call it gruesome, inhumane, barbaric.”
But, people are people, period. Israel encouraged settlers to move there, facilitated the transition of land status and title by their own means of terrorism which were far more severe than anything Hamas and Al Aqsa Martyrs ever did.
“Of the accusations of Israeli atrocities, I would grant that a portion of them were atrocities. I would NOT grant that of all.”
We know you don’t Witty, because you are a ideologue and blinded by Zionism. You only see the actions of Hamas and Al Aqsa Martyrs as terrorism and always justify Israeli actions.
“It is obvious to me that Israel was required by its responsibility as a state, to protect its civilians from escalating Hamas shelling of civilians in December 2008.”
If you deliberately go out of your way to ignore the fact that Israel broke the ceasefire on November 4th and then rejected an offer to return to ceasefire, then it is possible to come to that conclusion, but it would be false and fraudulent, seeing as you’ve been reminded of these prior events on countless occasions.
Israel was required to protect it’s civilians, and had Israel not found itself in a position of being infinitely better armed that Hamas, they would have accepted the offer to renew ceasefire. Israel simply opted for the military option because they wanted a fight and had planned for one 6 months prior.
“The only possible questions are of extent and specific conditions.”
No, it’s most definitely a question of facts, which you deliberately ignore.
Settlers are residents. Residents are civilians. Settlers are civilians.
Wrong. Settlers are colonists with civilian privileges accorded to them by the Israeli government.
If residency accorded citizenship, there would be no such thing as a Palestinian refugee crisis, as Israeli would have granted the Palestinians citizenship based on their residency, as per your logic. But as it is fallacious, we witness that Israel is content with just having Palestinian residents in EJ (not citizens), and that it selectively accords rights and citizenship based not on residential status, but race/ethnicity. Thus the apartheid.
Another rationalization for murder, stated in the name of moral “consciousness”.
But, people are people, period.
Apparently not when Israel is “defending” itself.
Of the accusations of Israeli atrocities, I would grant that a portion of them were atrocities. I would NOT grant that of all.
Settlers are the spearhead of the expansionist state. These in particular are the Eugene TerraBlanche element of that spearhead. They are in violation of International as well as Natural Law. There very residence is provocative, as it is their intended function to be. They are defacto agents of The State apparatus.
Their very residence
RW: Settlers are residents. Residents are civilians. Settlers are civilians.
Settlers can be soldiers. Take for example the classic example of the Nachal soldier/settlers. So they can be resident soldiers. In addition, settlers are usually reservist soldiers. Some of them are on active duty.
The settlers in Hebron are armed with the same arms as the military (M-16s and Uzis). They often carry IDF-issue weapons.
These Hebron settlers are also undoubtedly trained soldiers who still do regular military service in the reserves. Many of the settlers are on call at all times for hagmar, the IDF’s regional “defense” units. That is: military units comprised completely of settlers.
They regularly use their military weapons and their military training to terrorize their unarmed Palestinian neighbors. In an accounting of relative guilt, the armed settlers are more guilty than the uniformed IDF soldiers who protect them and enable their aggression.
I’m against the attacks on the settlers but to claim that the settlers are civilians is misleading.
When they are driving in a car with women and children, they are not soldiers at that moment.
You thereby choose to eliminate the reasoning that the Palestinian residents of an apartment building in which a single Palestinian rocket-maker resides is not a civilian.
The murderers of civilians are murderers of civilians. Not even anywhere near the rationalization of even opportunistic collateral damage or a genuinely military target.
Do you see how strained your position becomes, how impotent your moral argument becomes to the world when terror is part of the palette of “dissent”.
You can’t argue with a Zionist..Richard is a Zionist..You can’t argue with Richard..
What we’re discovering here, the fruitlessness, the sterility of arguing with Zionist Witty have already been discovered and experienced for a long time by the Palestinians themselves and that’s also why they gave up on trying to reason with them..When Witty incessantly invokes Palestinian terror he does not understand that, at least, part of it was the result of their awakening to the reality that one can not and should try to reason with a wall..In Arabic, saying of someone that he/she is a ‘hayt’ (wall) is quite an insult and from what I see happening here, I can only conclude that Witty is, indeed, a wall.
I am a wall to dehumanization, certainly, and proudly. And, I am a wall to the political rationalization that that entails.
I name dehumanization for what it is, fascism.
Again and again, Israelis are not disappearing, and part of what that means is that the ideology that speaks of them in terms of political function only, and not as human, becomes then a fascistic approach.
Dogma as Stalinism was more fascist than liberatory. Dogma as European fascism portrayed itself as liberatory.
In an assimilated Palestine/Israel, commercialism will be the norm. There will be Mizrahi/Arab styles, European styles, Palestinian urban styles, Bedouin styles to it, but there will be no Palestine nation unless a separate state is carved, even if it is significantly smaller than what many wish.
And, likely even then, Palestine will be largely commercial perhaps more than national, as the whole world is largely commercial and most Palestinians desire to be part of the world, not a utopian subject to the judgement/demonization of the international romantic self-appointed political vanguard.
You can’t argue with Richard, if you’re me, because half your comments get censored. This is not Richard’s fault, but Phil’s. His capacity to endure serious disagreement is distinctly limited. Despite his protestations of “naivety” and “idealism,” he is playing a classical tough-cop con-cop game, dedicated to establishing that Jewish liberals are the salt of the earth, and anyone who steps outside that framework can expect to have their views censored.
They rationalize that Palestinian civilians overwhelmingly support terrorist attacks, so it’s perfectly reasonable to kill Palestinian civilians in an attempt to reduce that support.
I strongly disagree with this judgment. A cursory glance of Hasbara at any level would indicate that the primary Israeli defense of the IDF, the motivating rationale of the occupation and relentless violence IS that Israel kills only militants, while Hamas (and Palestinians) kill indiscriminately. I don’t believe Israel has ever officially given credence to the notion that it kills civilians to reduce Palestinian support for terrorism. It’s PR machine is very well-financed and operated, and as far as diplomacy and politics go they play by the handbook of the complete and utter purity of Israeli arms that targets only militants, not civilians, whom just happen to be “collateral damage.” Other times, any Palestinian killed by the Israelis is due to their “terrorist” nature and “self-defense”, the routine rationalization offered by Israel.
The fundamental flaw with Israeli defense of its killings against the occupied Palestinian people, is that it is carried out under Israel assuming the role of the judge, jury and executioner. Thus, if a Palestinian child is shot by the IDF, the Israeli ministry issues a statement of the requisite militancy/and or terrorist threat constituted by the victim necessitating that Israel murder him and “defend” itself. And that is that, without any concrete proof, with the flimsiest pretext and without any evidence that the victim demonstrated any hostility or was anything but a civilian.
The settlers are guilty due to their political nature because the act of settlement is internationally, politically and legally accepted to be criminal and tantamount to crimes against humanity (as the settlement construction inherently requires activity that is indefensibly criminal, namely ethnic cleansing, land grabs and home/village demolishment). Thus, a settler is guilty not ONLY because he serves in the IDF or carries around a gun terrorizing the occupied Palestinians (as many do routinely), but because they are active participants in a crime against humanity as per the recognition of internationally accepted norms of morality and legality. Of course Israel disagrees with these standards, but then again it is expected of the criminal to dismiss his guilt, and it is important to remember that not even its closest ally America, not even Bush accepted the legitimacy of the WB settlements or the settlement enterprise.
In short, the settlers are not innocent, but are in fact guilty of some very horrendous crimes against the Palestinians at large (and not just in isolated incidents such as this). That does not mean that they deserve death, but that does not entitle them to the rights of legitimate Israeli and Palestinian civilians either.
So, Samel will have to take that into consideration. Hamas in fact did discriminate in its murder, and they did not pick Israeli civilians. On the scale of morality, perhaps a soldier would have been best justified in this political killing as others have indicated in previous discussions, but that does not render the settler pure either.
On the question of whether the murder is justified, it is not. But going behind why Hamas chose this act of violence, is another topic relating to the politics of the conflict. However, those who consistently advocate mutual dialogue and discussion over force should realize that Hamas’ deliberate sidelining in the so-called peace talks would have shown itself in the ways it did.
Are you sure about that, David? The Brigades of the Martyr Ezz ad-Din al-Qassam are disciplined and tactically proficient, and if indeed they were responsible for the settler attacks, it’s not implausible at all that they not only planned the attack, but targeted the people specifically. These settler paramilitary units train, and in order to conduct training, a unit needs an area in which to train. Those areas and the training conducted in them can be easily surveilled, especially in a condensed area like the West Bank. It’s also not difficult to gather human intelligence (i.e. via intelligence assets) on enemy settler units, their personnel, equipment, et cetera when Palestinians hold labor positions in and around settlements (e.g. constructing them). Beyond that, I myself have seen numerous websites maintained by settler paramilitary groups posing for pictures in which they are flaunting their weapons and conducting training exercises, all while tagging the images with the full names of the participants involved. I haven’t even touched on electronic surveillance, which of course the Brigades are capable of. It would not be difficult at all for a professional paramilitary organization like Kata’ib ash-Shaheed 3zz ad-Din al-Qassam to target, say, settler unit commanders and assassinate them. These are not ragtag, disorganized bands of men-at-arms with no military awareness.