The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict!

Scroll to see replies

Original post by anarchism101
No, that's your inference and conflation.

Then what is "resistance"? Just spreading lie and fake pictures? :cool:
Original post by admonit
Then what is "resistance"?


What it says, any action aimed towards resisting their colonisation and dispossession. It includes a huge range of things. At the most basic level, it includes mundane and conventional protest activities such as petitioning, protest marches, etc. It can also include, in order of 'heaviness', non-violent civil disobedience, strikes, stone-throwing, roadblocks and barricades, throwing molotov cocktails, armed attacks on enemy combatants, etc.

Now, the issue of what are morally legitimate acts of resistance is a different, and for the topic at hand essentially secondary, question. The important issue of what I said is over the justice of the campaign of colonisation,dispossession and expulsion waged against them, and the denial of their political rights, and whether, in the abstract, they have the right to resist and struggle against that campaign.
I do not support either both have committed war crimes. and I do not agree with Israel Existing in the state that it is a very pure Jewish population. I am waiting for the Cries of me being a Nazi but it does not matter what they are, if They started a Atheist Colony in Berkshire and began taking land and committing war crimes I would be equally against it.
Original post by anarchism101
What it says, any action aimed towards resisting their colonisation and dispossession. It includes a huge range of things. At the most basic level, it includes mundane and conventional protest activities such as petitioning, protest marches, etc. It can also include, in order of 'heaviness', non-violent civil disobedience, strikes, stone-throwing...

So, solemnly proclaiming your support of "the Palestinian people's right to resist the campaign of colonisation, expulsion and dispossession" you mostly meant petitions and marches? Who deny them these rights? Nonsense. Strikes? Palestinians are happy to get permissions to work in Israel. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Original post by Saba XD
Do you support Palestine, Israel or would want a two-state solution?

Spoiler



Palestine all the way!

What right did Britain have to grant the lsraelis somebody else's country?

The Palestine that was wiped out off the map had Jews living side by side with Christians and Muslims for centuries without any trace of discrimination or violence.
What's happened is that the anti Semitism in Europe which massacred 6 million Jews was paid for not by the countries who turned the blind eye to that anti Semitism, but was paid for by the very people who were completely innocent of that holocaust who had never persecuted the Jews. So why are the people of Palestine suffering?

And You can't argue that the Jews had that land first cuz then technically the majority of the population of America should be thrown out of there too.
The "Two State Solution" was nothing more than a pipedream.

The Arabs themselves rejected the original UN partition plan and tried to genocide the Israelis, the Israelis won the 1947 war (and numerous other arab instigated wars in the decades that followed).

Now Israel has the land, it's not going anywhere.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by admonit
So, solemnly proclaiming your support of "the Palestinian people's right to resist the campaign of colonisation, expulsion and dispossession" you mostly meant petitions and marches?


I don't see how you got 'mostly' when that was one among several things I listed. In fact, I'd consider everything on that list to be legitimate, including armed action.

For the record I don't think mundane basic stuff life petitioning and marching is v ery effective real political change requires more action. I include the mundane stuff because there are some people for whom that's as far as they're willing to go, and if that's the case it's a lot better they're doing something than nothing.
Original post by anarchism101
I don't see how you got 'mostly' when that was one among several things I listed. In fact, I'd consider everything on that list to be legitimate, including armed action.

If you list several actions as "most basic level", and after the word "also" list other actions, then what conclusion can I make?
As for "legitimate acts of resistance" ( starting with "stone-throwing" ), I have bad news for you: civilian violence is illegitimate.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by admonit
If you list several actions as "most basic level", and after the word "also" list other actions, then what conclusion can I make?
As for "legitimate acts of resistance" ( starting with "stone-throwing" ), I have bad news for you: civilian violence is illegitimate.


I never said violence against civilians was legitimate. The only time I referred to violence being directed against anyone in particular, I specifically referred to combatants.
Original post by Galaxie501


Yawn. Israel has admitted it used human shields as a matter of policy until 2005. Human rights groups have provided plenty of examples of IDF soldiers continuing to use them in the engagements since, though some of the culprits have been punished (albeit with mild, largely symbolic sentences). There have not been similar such findings with Hamas - most of the Israeli shouting about Hamas 'human shields' are actually just cases of people choosing to stay in their homes rather than run away. The main charge against Hamas in this regard is that they fired from, and based military installations in, civilian areas. Which Israel also does, it just never comes up because the actual fighting is always in Gaza, and despite the fact that Israel has a far greater range of non-civilian areas than Gaza - where 2 million people are packed into an area the size of the Isle of Wight - does.
Original post by anarchism101
I never said violence against civilians was legitimate. The only time I referred to violence being directed against anyone in particular, I specifically referred to combatants.

The last case also is illegitimate. Only soldiers and policemen have the right to use weapon and kill people. This is also true regarding military occupation.
Original post by admonit
The last case also is illegitimate. Only soldiers and policemen have the right to use weapon and kill people. This is also true regarding military occupation.


It is not being a combatant that gives you "the right to use weapon and kill people", but the practice of using weapons and killing people that makes you a combatant.
Original post by anarchism101
It is not being a combatant that gives you "the right to use weapon and kill people", but the practice of using weapons and killing people that makes you a combatant.

Yes, it makes you a combatant, but it not necessary makes you a legal combatant. If you don't wear a distinguishing mark (usually uniform) or carry arms openly, you are considered as a criminal and should be tried as a criminal in civilian court.
Original post by admonit
Yes, it makes you a combatant, but it not necessary makes you a legal combatant. If you don't wear a distinguishing mark (usually uniform) or carry arms openly, you are considered as a criminal and should be tried as a criminal in civilian court.


Guerillas are only required to distinguish themselves by openly carrying their arms during or immediately prior to an attack. Strictly speaking even the latter only applies while one is "visible to the adversary".

But again, this is a somewhat secondary point, particularly as the IHL in question here is primarily concerned with the status of detainees rather than the attacks specifically. But even so, whether or not an attack was carried out in accordance with the laws of war does not have a bearing on whether an attack was morally justified in the abstract.
Original post by anarchism101
Guerillas are only required to distinguish themselves by openly carrying their arms during or immediately prior to an attack. Strictly speaking even the latter only applies while one is "visible to the adversary".

But again, this is a somewhat secondary point, particularly as the IHL in question here is primarily concerned with the status of detainees rather than the attacks specifically. But even so, whether or not an attack was carried out in accordance with the laws of war does not have a bearing on whether an attack was morally justified in the abstract.

It's not an academic forum and we don't need to consider technical questions in depth. Practically it would be enough if you present any respected international decision, which considers Palestinian violence as legitimate.
In this conflict every party has its own morality and considers as not acceptable the morality of the opposite side. So you have your opinion and I have mine: justification of a crime doesn't make it legal or moral, and in Palestinian case there is no even justification.
Original post by Saba XD
Do you support Palestine, Israel or would want a two-state solution?

Spoiler



Both are in the wrong, as most everyone is in some way.

Palestine and the Palestinians for supporting terrorism (even though what else is a population under occupation that's seen next to no progress in decades supposed to do?)

Israel for morbidly mismanaging the entire situation due to deep seated ideological hate and paranoia and an inability to think long term (the latter of which is shared by most democracies; it's not unique to Israel)

I think there should be more objectivity when it comes to the matter at hand. Both sides have done plenty of atrocities; I don't think many capable people deny that. However, that tends to be the case in wars. At the same time, far more should be expected of Israel than of Palestine because it is a country that is very well entrenched, politically in the world, as well as economically. Palestine has little to nothing.

Israel deserves to exist not based on some holy book written thousands of years ago, but due to the fact that they make up a considerable % of the population in their territory. Palestine deserves to exist just as much.

It should also be considered that many Arabs, including Palestinians, live in Israel and are represented democratically; Israel can be an accepting country (although Netanyahu did post a video calling the Palestinians out as brewing some form of conspiracy to multiply within Israel to gain citizenship and take the country over, but at least people can make a living for themselves if they live in Israel unlike in Palestine).

Israel must think long term and understand that going on like this can only worsen its standing in the world not only with governments, but with billions of civilians. They should develop Palestine and maintain control over it in terms of security to suppress terrorism and foreign nations from working against Israel, while allowing Palestine at least some self determination, its population a chance to dream of an actual future, and cease expanding their settlement. Wishing for any more things going in favor of Palestine would be unrealistic; Israel is in a position of power.

But either way, not this:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/israel-water-tool-dominate-palestinians-160619062531348.html

Al Jazeera is horribly biased, but at least they've provided sources:

'Indeed, as pointed out by the World Bank in its 2009 report about the water sector in Palestine, due to the dual Israeli permit regime, Palestinians have been unable to maintain and develop their water infrastructure. '

Other sources:

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.726132

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/26/commentary/world-commentary/israel-uses-water-weapon-palestinians/#.V69mDNV96xk


Besides, it would be best for Israel as then they'd have yet another source of income (businesses in Palestine from development; there would be even less of a reason for Israeli settlements then) while offering the Palestinians a livelihood (far fewer people with no alternatives but terrorism), and going a huge way to fostering better relations in the long term, while not losing control over Israel's own safety from terrorists and foreign elements. Maintaining the current state of affairs is a slow death for both Israel and Palestine, considering the changing political dynamics in the world, including the foreign civilian discontentment with regards to Israel's occupation.
(edited 7 years ago)
I support Palestine and and Abbas and that Saruman guy


Now gimme my bag of dinars.
Original post by admonit
It's not an academic forum and we don't need to consider technical questions in depth. Practically it would be enough if you present any respected international decision, which considers Palestinian violence as legitimate.
In this conflict every party has its own morality and considers as not acceptable the morality of the opposite side. So you have your opinion and I have mine: justification of a crime doesn't make it legal or moral, and in Palestinian case there is no even justification.


This is precisely what I was trying to argue about in the first place, jus ad bellum rather than jus in bello. Whether any side has a just reason to fight a war is a different question to whether they conduct themselves morally within that war. Of course any side in any war will believe that their cause is just and that the cause of whoever they're fighting against is not, but we're perfectly capable of evaluating and debating which ones really are. And a cause may well only be partially just, or just only within certain conditions, and so on.
Original post by Brahmin of Booty
I support Palestine and and Abbas and that Saruman guy


Now gimme my bag of dinars.

Ask in gold dinars. You know, inflation etc.. :cool:

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you