For those who still want to pretend the Palestinian Authority doesn't fund terrorism

[Rayschism]

The conundrum of freedom follows thusly;

You just can not have freedom if you have no means to protect it.

 

[Derec]

These are usual zionist garbage explanations. The fact is that there is no international recognition of anything but 1948 armistice line (i.e. the 1967 border), and that includes East Jerusalem.

That doesn't change the fact that this like is nothing but an arbitrary armistice line.

"Historical connection" is no justification for reclaiming land by force,

The land was not reclaimed by force, it was reclaimed in response to force by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. And again, there is no reason to insist that the armistice line is sacrosanct.

and clearly both sides have more recent historical roots in the area as it's also home to the Al-Aqsa mosque.

The only reason that mosque was even built was as a "fuck you" to Jews. It was deliberately built on the site of the ancient Temple.

Do you think Spain should be given to Muslims just because they had built some mosques there when they invaded it?

As for moral rights, if Israel were to annex the land and give its residents full citizenship rights (like it did in Golan), that would be fine too in my book. But until then, I'm not going to be outraged by any stabbings (or other attacks) that Israel could prevent simply by abiding to international law.

You think that the 16 year old attacker either knew or cared about international law? Who do you think she was? Doogie Howser, JD?
And countries which are attacked routinely get to keep pieces of countries that attacked them. Poland got a huge chunk of Germany for example. France got Elsass and Lothringen.

Or maybe they shouldn't have invaded Israel in the first place?

Indeed.

Violent resistance is a right, not an obligation. Only the people who are being impacted have a right to decide whether they want to use violent or diplomatic means.

I would not call it a "right". Choice, yes. Right, no.

And in this case it is clear that Israel will not withdraw nor negotiate unless Palestinians amp up the pressure in the occupied territories.

How about, for a change, Palestinians show they can go without terrorist attacks or murderous rampages for a while to show that they are willing to live in peace next to Israel?

 

[Jayjay]

That doesn't change the fact that this like is nothing but an arbitrary armistice line.

Most borders are arbitrary in that sense. But they are nonetheless borders, and this particular border was internationally recognized when Israel joined the UN, and by most countries in the world.

"Historical connection" is no justification for reclaiming land by force,

The land was not reclaimed by force, it was reclaimed in response to force by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. And again, there is no reason to insist that the armistice line is sacrosanct.

If that's not sacrosanct, then no border in the world is. And it doesn't matter who responded to whom or who started it (though it was Israel who made the first strike against Egypt): some short war 50 years ago does not give Israel free pass to keep stealing land in 2017, nor does it justify violating the Geneva Treaty regarding occupied territories.

and clearly both sides have more recent historical roots in the area as it's also home to the Al-Aqsa mosque.

The only reason that mosque was even built was as a "fuck you" to Jews. It was deliberately built on the site of the ancient Temple.

Do you think Spain should be given to Muslims just because they had built some mosques there when they invaded it?

Welcome to the world of religions. Most religions have symbols or scripture or monuments whose sole purpose is to be a "fuck you" to their predecessors. As for Spain, of course not. It's not me who is arguing that some buildings or ancient history justifies anything, I was merely using the Al-Aqsa mosque as a counter-example to your contention that Israel could reclaim Jerusalem because they had invaded the area and established a short-lived little kingdom there some millenia ago.

Ancient history is irrelevant; and the more ancient, the more irrelevant it is.

As for moral rights, if Israel were to annex the land and give its residents full citizenship rights (like it did in Golan), that would be fine too in my book. But until then, I'm not going to be outraged by any stabbings (or other attacks) that Israel could prevent simply by abiding to international law.

You think that the 16 year old attacker either knew or cared about international law? Who do you think she was? Doogie Howser, JD?
And countries which are attacked routinely get to keep pieces of countries that attacked them. Poland got a huge chunk of Germany for example. France got Elsass and Lothringen.

Acquired through peace treaties that both sides agreed to. Israel so far has not made peace with Palestinians.

Or maybe they shouldn't have invaded Israel in the first place?

Indeed.

Now apply the same logic to Palestinians, whose land Israel has invaded.

Violent resistance is a right, not an obligation. Only the people who are being impacted have a right to decide whether they want to use violent or diplomatic means.

I would not call it a "right". Choice, yes. Right, no.

When all other means are exhausted, such as in war or resisting an illegal occupier, violence may become the only option.

And in this case it is clear that Israel will not withdraw nor negotiate unless Palestinians amp up the pressure in the occupied territories.

How about, for a change, Palestinians show they can go without terrorist attacks or murderous rampages for a while to show that they are willing to live in peace next to Israel?

Do you think Israel will remove it's half a million illegal settlers from West Bank just out of goodness of their hearts? There is a huge profit motive for Israel to keep on doing what it's doing. Besides Palestinians played nice for most of the time since 1967, and that bought them absolutely nothing in return.

Sometimes, violent resistance is the only way... Although apart from a few sporadic stabbings, there really isn't one in West Bank right now. But if Palestinians don't want to fight for their own country, that's their business.

Edited to Add: Besides, why should israel care if Palestinians go on murderous rampages in Palestinian territory? This is why resistance in occupied territory is justified, but outside occupied territories (like when Hamas fires rockets at Israel) it is not: in the former case, Israel can stop the violence simply by withdrawing and thereby removing the target. In the latter case, there is no guarantee that the violence will stop.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit!

You mean like when they shoot 16 year olds who attack them with a knife?
Israeli police kill Palestinian girl who tried to attack them in Jerusalem: police

The Old City of Jerusalem is on Arab side of the 1948 armistice line, so the target was justified (although an argument could be made that the Old City is kind of special as it has bunch of religious sites). If not for the moral ambiguity of using minors to carry out the attack, this would be an act of legitimate resistance.

That's not to say the police should've just let her stab them, either. But this type of attacks are to be expected within occupied territories.

These recent attacks are basically a form of socially acceptable suicide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am familiar with the expression "shot him/her/yourself in the foot".

"Head, meet bullet" is miles beyond that. I know of no expression regarding a bullet impacting a head except references to suicide and death threats.

The whole point is that the Palestinians view them as their soldiers. The terrorists. They're seen as government forces and thus such attacks are acts of war.

There's nothing controversial about the Palestinians calling their fighters soldiers, and continuing to pay them if/when they become prisoners of war.

Anyway, the issue here is money. The PLO is handing out welfare payments to the families of imprisoned Palestinians, many of whom are PLO fighters and some of whom are probably terrorists, and you don't like it. I suppose you want their children to starve.

So you're fine with terrorism so long as you don't like the victims.

Non-sequitur. Also bullshit.

You complained that the Palestinians regard the prisoners as soldiers. I agree with you that they do, but I don't think there's anything remarkable about it.

I think you're employing your usual double standard. If it was an Israeli family getting welfare checks from the government after Dad was captured fighting in the Occupied Territories, you wouldn't have a problem with it. But if it's a Palestinian fighting at the same time in the same place, well that's different, right?

Anyway, your own source points out that some of the Palestinians are imprisoned for crimes, not terrorism, and approx. 500 of them haven't been charged with any wrongdoing. Why are you so aggrieved that their families are on the welfare rolls? Do you think their children should starve?

Then the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes. Shall we reconvene Nuremberg and send the Palestinian government there?

- - - Updated - - -

So now you have two lowest scum. Make up your mind. Unfortunately your bible isn't going to resolve this for you.

Lets look at that economic opportunity. The Palestinians used to have about the best economy of a non-oil Arab nation. Then came the second intifada and their economy was cut to a third of what it was (Although this number is questionable as it excludes their terrorism-related expenses.) That's their choices, not Israel. The real oppressor of the Palestinians is their own government (which is actually just a puppet of the Arabs.)

The economic oppressor is clearly Israel.

And you don't justify further oppression because people resisted your initial oppression.

Losing a war usually has pretty catastrophic economic consequences.

When you picked the war in the first place you don't have any gripe, though.

(Especially since the economic harm was a desired outcome--the people were getting too well off to want to be used as cannon fodder.)

- - - Updated - - -

The whole point is that the Palestinians view them as their soldiers. The terrorists.

Well, no, the whole point is that the Palestinians view them as prisoners and have a moral obligation to help take care of those families whose main providers -- fathers, brothers, uncles, etc -- can no longer provide income for them. This is a separate consideration from what those prisoners were originally arrested for.

You're partially right in that it IS a question of whether or not the Palestinian people have a right to resist Israeli occupation and whether or not Israel actually has a right to continue to occupy them. Israel may cite its REASONS for the continued occupation, but reason and right are two very different things.

Reality check: Common criminals don't get the same treatment.

 

[Arctish]

I am familiar with the expression "shot him/her/yourself in the foot".

"Head, meet bullet" is miles beyond that. I know of no expression regarding a bullet impacting a head except references to suicide and death threats.

The whole point is that the Palestinians view them as their soldiers. The terrorists. They're seen as government forces and thus such attacks are acts of war.

There's nothing controversial about the Palestinians calling their fighters soldiers, and continuing to pay them if/when they become prisoners of war.

Anyway, the issue here is money. The PLO is handing out welfare payments to the families of imprisoned Palestinians, many of whom are PLO fighters and some of whom are probably terrorists, and you don't like it. I suppose you want their children to starve.

So you're fine with terrorism so long as you don't like the victims.

Non-sequitur. Also bullshit.

You complained that the Palestinians regard the prisoners as soldiers. I agree with you that they do, but I don't think there's anything remarkable about it.

I think you're employing your usual double standard. If it was an Israeli family getting welfare checks from the government after Dad was captured fighting in the Occupied Territories, you wouldn't have a problem with it. But if it's a Palestinian fighting at the same time in the same place, well that's different, right?

Anyway, your own source points out that some of the Palestinians are imprisoned for crimes, not terrorism, and approx. 500 of them haven't been charged with any wrongdoing. Why are you so aggrieved that their families are on the welfare rolls? Do you think their children should starve?

Then the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes. Shall we reconvene Nuremberg and send the Palestinian government there?

Another non sequitur. But I support putting people who have committed human rights violations and war crimes on trial in the Hague.

Now if only there was a way to sort out which of the Palestinian prisoners committed acts of terrorism, and which ones have been imprisoned for things like protesting the Occupation. Neither you nor the article's author has made the attempt, although the author at least has the honesty to admit that approx. 500 of the prisoners haven't even been charged with a crime.

I suppose you want them all to hang, and their children to starve.

 

[Jayjay]

Regarding the topic of "sending people to Hague" or "reconvening the Nuremberg trials"...

PA joined the International Criminal Court last year, so if Israel did have some war crimes that they wanted Palestinians to be charged with, it could bring its grievances the court. The fact that Israel is not party to the treaty doesn't actually matter, the choice of not doing so is political; Israel doesn't want to give any credence to the ICC and rather wants to administer its own justice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am familiar with the expression "shot him/her/yourself in the foot".

"Head, meet bullet" is miles beyond that. I know of no expression regarding a bullet impacting a head except references to suicide and death threats.

The whole point is that the Palestinians view them as their soldiers. The terrorists. They're seen as government forces and thus such attacks are acts of war.

There's nothing controversial about the Palestinians calling their fighters soldiers, and continuing to pay them if/when they become prisoners of war.

Anyway, the issue here is money. The PLO is handing out welfare payments to the families of imprisoned Palestinians, many of whom are PLO fighters and some of whom are probably terrorists, and you don't like it. I suppose you want their children to starve.

So you're fine with terrorism so long as you don't like the victims.

Non-sequitur. Also bullshit.

You complained that the Palestinians regard the prisoners as soldiers. I agree with you that they do, but I don't think there's anything remarkable about it.

I think you're employing your usual double standard. If it was an Israeli family getting welfare checks from the government after Dad was captured fighting in the Occupied Territories, you wouldn't have a problem with it. But if it's a Palestinian fighting at the same time in the same place, well that's different, right?

Anyway, your own source points out that some of the Palestinians are imprisoned for crimes, not terrorism, and approx. 500 of them haven't been charged with any wrongdoing. Why are you so aggrieved that their families are on the welfare rolls? Do you think their children should starve?

Then the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes. Shall we reconvene Nuremberg and send the Palestinian government there?

Another non sequitur. But I support putting people who have committed human rights violations and war crimes on trial in the Hague.

Now if only there was a way to sort out which of the Palestinian prisoners committed acts of terrorism, and which ones have been imprisoned for things like protesting the Occupation. Neither you nor the article's author has made the attempt, although the author at least has the honesty to admit that approx. 500 of the prisoners haven't even been charged with a crime.

I suppose you want them all to hang, and their children to starve.

Protesting isn't going to get you jail time. And note that basically all of the ones the issue is about are terrorists. It's the terrorists in Israeli jails that the Palestinians care about, not the common criminals. If money is being paid they were terrorists.

 

[laughing dog]

I am familiar with the expression "shot him/her/yourself in the foot".

"Head, meet bullet" is miles beyond that. I know of no expression regarding a bullet impacting a head except references to suicide and death threats.

The whole point is that the Palestinians view them as their soldiers. The terrorists. They're seen as government forces and thus such attacks are acts of war.

There's nothing controversial about the Palestinians calling their fighters soldiers, and continuing to pay them if/when they become prisoners of war.

Anyway, the issue here is money. The PLO is handing out welfare payments to the families of imprisoned Palestinians, many of whom are PLO fighters and some of whom are probably terrorists, and you don't like it. I suppose you want their children to starve.

So you're fine with terrorism so long as you don't like the victims.

Non-sequitur. Also bullshit.

You complained that the Palestinians regard the prisoners as soldiers. I agree with you that they do, but I don't think there's anything remarkable about it.

I think you're employing your usual double standard. If it was an Israeli family getting welfare checks from the government after Dad was captured fighting in the Occupied Territories, you wouldn't have a problem with it. But if it's a Palestinian fighting at the same time in the same place, well that's different, right?

Anyway, your own source points out that some of the Palestinians are imprisoned for crimes, not terrorism, and approx. 500 of them haven't been charged with any wrongdoing. Why are you so aggrieved that their families are on the welfare rolls? Do you think their children should starve?

Then the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes. Shall we reconvene Nuremberg and send the Palestinian government there?

Another non sequitur. But I support putting people who have committed human rights violations and war crimes on trial in the Hague.

Now if only there was a way to sort out which of the Palestinian prisoners committed acts of terrorism, and which ones have been imprisoned for things like protesting the Occupation. Neither you nor the article's author has made the attempt, although the author at least has the honesty to admit that approx. 500 of the prisoners haven't even been charged with a crime.

I suppose you want them all to hang, and their children to starve.

Protesting isn't going to get you jail time. And note that basically all of the ones the issue is about are terrorists. It's the terrorists in Israeli jails that the Palestinians care about, not the common criminals. If money is being paid they were terrorists.

Do you have any actual evidence that
1) protesting does not get Palestinians jail time, and
2) only the families of terrorists receive payments?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Losing a war usually has pretty catastrophic economic consequences.

Palestine has never fought a war against Israel, let alone lost one. You seem to be confusing the Palestinian Authority with the Jordanian and/or Egyptian governments. These are not the same things.

When you picked the war in the first place you don't have any gripe, though.

Then the Israelis have no reason to complain, seeing how THEY initiated that lead to the capture of Gaza and the West Bank.

Reality check: Common criminals don't get the same treatment.

They do, actually. It's one of the few reasons the Palestinian authority is able to assert any sort of law enforcement power over the Palestinian people. It's because they figure it's better to be caught and judged by their own security forces than by the Israelis, since at least the PA will treat them fairly and won't let their families starve. Hamas doesn't always or even usually give a shit about the families of their own prisoners unless they're soliciting bribes.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Protesting isn't going to get you jail time.

Except when it does.

According to Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the detainees have been subject to preventive arrests before they attended demonstrations. Like Tartour, most of those detained have no criminal record.

As of today, between 160 to 200 Palestinian activists have been arrested either before or during protests, according to Adalah. Of those detained, 40 are still being held as Israeli authorities seek to lengthen their imprisonment.

And note that basically all of the ones the issue is about are terrorists.

Well, no, about a third of them are wanted for connections with "attacks" or other "unspecified violent offenses against Israeli citizens," which in most cases is legalese for "throwing rocks at soldiers." And even the OP points out that several hundred of them have not even been charged with a specific crime.

So much like your very specific and surprisingly consistent use of the word "thug," it's becoming evident that you consider "terrorist" to be synonymous with "Palestinian."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Palestine has never fought a war against Israel, let alone lost one. You seem to be confusing the Palestinian Authority with the Jordanian and/or Egyptian governments. These are not the same things.

When you picked the war in the first place you don't have any gripe, though.

Then the Israelis have no reason to complain, seeing how THEY initiated that lead to the capture of Gaza and the West Bank.

Reality check: Common criminals don't get the same treatment.

They do, actually. It's one of the few reasons the Palestinian authority is able to assert any sort of law enforcement power over the Palestinian people. It's because they figure it's better to be caught and judged by their own security forces than by the Israelis, since at least the PA will treat them fairly and won't let their families starve. Hamas doesn't always or even usually give a shit about the families of their own prisoners unless they're soliciting bribes.

Hamas and the PLO are neither Egypt nor Jordan.

And what I was saying about common criminals is that they don't get money from the government like the terrorists do.

- - - Updated - - -

Except when it does.

According to Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the detainees have been subject to preventive arrests before they attended demonstrations. Like Tartour, most of those detained have no criminal record.

As of today, between 160 to 200 Palestinian activists have been arrested either before or during protests, according to Adalah. Of those detained, 40 are still being held as Israeli authorities seek to lengthen their imprisonment.

And note that basically all of the ones the issue is about are terrorists.

Well, no, about a third of them are wanted for connections with "attacks" or other "unspecified violent offenses against Israeli citizens," which in most cases is legalese for "throwing rocks at soldiers." And even the OP points out that several hundred of them have not even been charged with a specific crime.

So much like your very specific and surprisingly consistent use of the word "thug," it's becoming evident that you consider "terrorist" to be synonymous with "Palestinian."

You realize that those "demonstrations" are violent in nature? Anything less than gunfire is not newsworthy.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Palestine has never fought a war against Israel, let alone lost one. You seem to be confusing the Palestinian Authority with the Jordanian and/or Egyptian governments. These are not the same things.


Then the Israelis have no reason to complain, seeing how THEY initiated that lead to the capture of Gaza and the West Bank.

Reality check: Common criminals don't get the same treatment.

They do, actually. It's one of the few reasons the Palestinian authority is able to assert any sort of law enforcement power over the Palestinian people. It's because they figure it's better to be caught and judged by their own security forces than by the Israelis, since at least the PA will treat them fairly and won't let their families starve. Hamas doesn't always or even usually give a shit about the families of their own prisoners unless they're soliciting bribes.

Hamas and the PLO are neither Egypt nor Jordan.

Right. And therefore, neither of them have ever actually fought a war with Israel, let alone LOST one. So it's not as if the Palestinians having "severe economic consequences" is actually something you can connect to them having fought and lost in a war.

And what I was saying about common criminals is that they don't get money from the government like the terrorists do.

Of course they do, provided they're imprisoned by the Israelis. Criminals imprisoned by the PLO are treated differently, but that's mainly because the PLO actually has a say in what happens to their own prisoners while they have no such say in prisoners taken by Israel.

You realize that those "demonstrations" are violent in nature?

Typically when demonstrators clash with Israeli police and/or Zionist counter-protestors.

But that's a nice shift of the goalposts there from your original statement:

Protesting isn't going to get you jail time.

You're wrong, because it DOES. Not is protesting equivalent to "terrorism."
Nor is attending a protest that devolves into violence equivalent to "Terrorism."
Nor is clashing with police officers, throwing stones at police officers, or getting into fist fights with Zionists equivalent to "terrorism."
Nor is "being a Palestinian on land that Israel wants" equivalent to terrorism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Palestine has never fought a war against Israel, let alone lost one. You seem to be confusing the Palestinian Authority with the Jordanian and/or Egyptian governments. These are not the same things.


Then the Israelis have no reason to complain, seeing how THEY initiated that lead to the capture of Gaza and the West Bank.

Reality check: Common criminals don't get the same treatment.

They do, actually. It's one of the few reasons the Palestinian authority is able to assert any sort of law enforcement power over the Palestinian people. It's because they figure it's better to be caught and judged by their own security forces than by the Israelis, since at least the PA will treat them fairly and won't let their families starve. Hamas doesn't always or even usually give a shit about the families of their own prisoners unless they're soliciting bribes.

Hamas and the PLO are neither Egypt nor Jordan.

Right. And therefore, neither of them have ever actually fought a war with Israel, let alone LOST one. So it's not as if the Palestinians having "severe economic consequences" is actually something you can connect to them having fought and lost in a war.

Just because the tactics are terrorism doesn't make it not a war. There is a de-facto state of war between Israel and Gaza.

And what I was saying about common criminals is that they don't get money from the government like the terrorists do.

Of course they do, provided they're imprisoned by the Israelis. Criminals imprisoned by the PLO are treated differently, but that's mainly because the PLO actually has a say in what happens to their own prisoners while they have no such say in prisoners taken by Israel.

Just because you want it to be this way doesn't make it so.

You realize that those "demonstrations" are violent in nature?

Typically when demonstrators clash with Israeli police and/or Zionist counter-protestors.

The point is that they aren't simply protesting.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

There is a de-facto state of war between Israel and Gaza.

Cool story, bro.

But the West Bank is not Gaza. And your OP says:

PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s foreign affairs adviser Nabil Shaath on Thursday told Israel Radio the demand was intentionally designed to sink any potential for renewed US-led Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

He told the radio station that the Palestinian prisoners were victims of Israel’s control over the West Bank.

And while you can make the case Israel has fought one or more de facto wars against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, this is UNEQUIVOCALLY false in regards to the West Bank.

Just because you want it to be this way doesn't make it so.

True. The fact that it IS this way makes it so. You're well aware of that, on some level, but you're sitting there hoping that nobody else will call you on your bullshit because then you'll have to back up your assertions with facts.

The point is that they aren't simply protesting.

No, the point is you claimed: "Protesting isn't going to get you jailtime" which is factually untrue. Equally untrue is your claim that all of the prisoners in question are imprisoned for terrorism-related crimes; this is ALSO untrue, as it was pointed out to you that many of them were imprisoned for vandalism, trespassing, or "attacks" on Israeli citizens that range from fist fights to rock throwing to stabbings and/or robberies. About one half to two thirds of them are actually there in connection to anything a rational person would consider "terrorist" attacks, and that is without differentiating whether or not their targets in those attacks were civilians or military.

Facts, dude. Stick to the facts.