What is proper resistance?

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem fine with killing the children if they are Jewish.

No, I apply the same rules regardless of who the victims are. If Israel has a right to defend itself by killing Palestinian children in Gaza, which is something you have defended multilple times, then Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation by killing Jewish children in West Bank. I'm merely being consistent.

You continue to be incapable of telling the difference between those caught in the crossfire with those deliberately targeted. And thus you reward Hamas for the use of human shield tactics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I were a Palestinian, I would have worked for a political solution which would include acceptance of Israeli sovereignty, in exchange for full voting rights in Israeli election, freedom of travel inside Israel, and full equality under the law. In a generation, Palestinians would be a majority and we'd have our country back. Of course, I would be assassinated either by Palestinians or Israelis, whichever got me first.

Which is why it's not going to happen. Your approach would result in extirpation of the Jews. They aren't going to agree to commit suicide.

You want us to condemn the Palestinians and their cause, because of the way they wage war. One of the primary factors in how to wage war, is we must choose from the available options. I'm sure if the Palestinians had precision guided missiles, we'd see less suicide bombings, but they have bombs and suicidal people, so that's what they use.

If you want a solution to this problem, look at the causes of the problem, not the problems it has caused.

Still ignoring the fact that the deliberate targeting of those who are clearly innocent is never valid.

 

[Jayjay]

Sometimes, children are not just innocent bystanders, but tools. Palestinians encourage their children to throw rocks at IDF, for example. In case of the settlers, theire presence in West Bank is a war crime. That includes the children. If some of them happen to die due to resistance, whether it's by accident or if they are deliberately targeted, the fault lies with the people who brought them there.

Let's say a Palestinian kid puts a bomb on a bus, then goes around the corner with a trigger. IDF soldier notices what happened and he has a choice to either put a bullet in the kid to stop him from blowing up the bomb, or try to capture him alive but risk the lives of everyone on the bus. Could we blame the soldier if he chooses the former?

Yes, because he is an invader and occupier. He is in the wrong to begin with.

Sure, but wouldn't that be true even he chooses not to kill the child?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As others have pointed out, resistance isn't something done with the permission of authorities. Also, to be a proper resistance there must be an authority to resist, otherwise it's simply aggression. Active opposition by the Palestinian people to the Occupation and colonization of the West Bank is proper resistance in that sense.

Judging by the rest of your post, what you really want to discuss is what we all consider to be acceptable tactics of resistance. So then, let's discuss tactics.

Note the almost total lack of overlap between what you suggest and the tactics they actually use.

1. Civil disobedience. This means Palestinians should ignore Israeli demands that Palestinians seek and comply with Israeli building permits when building in the West Bank and Gaza. They should not obey instructions on which roads they may use, or where they can install or repair a well, or how many of them can be gathered in one place at a time, or what they can bring into or out of the West Bank and Gaza. Bringing in items with military uses would be an important part of the resistance but it's not quite Gandhi-like so that can come later if the pacifist tactics fail to produced the desired results.

Note that there are no Israeli restrictions on what can be brought in unless it is stuff with military use.

5. Tearing down the Separation Wall in places where Palestinians are denied access to their land, or where Israelis are attempting to build beyond the 1967 borders. Also tearing down the walls along the borders of the West Bank and Jordan and Lebanon, and Gaza and Egypt, unless the Palestinians themselves want those walls to remain. Palestinians should resist all attempts made by Israelis to encircle and imprison them.

Lets look at that wall with Egypt: It's there because the Egyptians want it. Any country is free to seal it's borders against any outsiders they choose.

These last two will no doubt result in bloodshed. That is not necessarily the fault of the Palestinians. The IDF will use force to defend the ill-gotten gains of the beneficiaries of natural resource extraction in the West Bank lands and Gaza territorial waters. But it still would be proper resistance to return control of those resources to the Palestinians, even if it means shooting and rocket attacks.

It will result in bloodshed because it's clearly a military act. Those walls do not block civilian commerce other than to the extent that Hamas attacks the checkpoints in order to force a closure and make their people suffer.

Many on here have said the Palestinians are engaging in acceptable resistance.

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=21483

Killing 22 children is a heroic act?? They targeted a school, they took children hostage.

How can anyone on here defend this?

Killing hostages and bystanders isn't proper resistance IMV.

Then why do you defend them?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sometimes, children are not just innocent bystanders, but tools. Palestinians encourage their children to throw rocks at IDF, for example. In case of the settlers, theire presence in West Bank is a war crime. That includes the children. If some of them happen to die due to resistance, whether it's by accident or if they are deliberately targeted, the fault lies with the people who brought them there.

Let's say a Palestinian kid puts a bomb on a bus, then goes around the corner with a trigger. IDF soldier notices what happened and he has a choice to either put a bullet in the kid to stop him from blowing up the bomb, or try to capture him alive but risk the lives of everyone on the bus. Could we blame the soldier if he chooses the former?

You're not the original occupant of the land you're on. As an invader the original occupants should feel free to kill you and your children. You don't have a right to defend yourself, either.

And your example with the bomb involves someone who is clearly a combatant. Combatant status trumps age, valid target, no wrongdoing in shooting him.

The issue I was raising with this thread is the deliberate murder of captive (no possible threat) children.

- - - Updated - - -

Sometimes, children are not just innocent bystanders, but tools. Palestinians encourage their children to throw rocks at IDF, for example. In case of the settlers, theire presence in West Bank is a war crime. That includes the children. If some of them happen to die due to resistance, whether it's by accident or if they are deliberately targeted, the fault lies with the people who brought them there.

Let's say a Palestinian kid puts a bomb on a bus, then goes around the corner with a trigger. IDF soldier notices what happened and he has a choice to either put a bullet in the kid to stop him from blowing up the bomb, or try to capture him alive but risk the lives of everyone on the bus. Could we blame the soldier if he chooses the former?

Yes, because he is an invader and occupier. He is in the wrong to begin with.

Are you a Native American?

No? You're an invader. We have some actual Native Americans on here, should they feel free to kill you?

 

[Jayjay]

No, I apply the same rules regardless of who the victims are. If Israel has a right to defend itself by killing Palestinian children in Gaza, which is something you have defended multilple times, then Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation by killing Jewish children in West Bank. I'm merely being consistent.

You continue to be incapable of telling the difference between those caught in the crossfire with those deliberately targeted. And thus you reward Hamas for the use of human shield tactics.

No, only refraining to shoot if the enemy shields itself behind children (or uses them some other way) would be rewarding those tactics. Which is acceptable in a war. The death of the innocents is on those who use their presence to advance their own agenda.

You are the one who is making irrelevant distinctions between what's "deliberate" and what isn't. When IAF bombs an apartment building to assassinate a Hamas commander visiting his family, they know that the family will die in the strike with the same certainty as the main target. That means that their deaths are just as deliberate, women and children included. Likewise, when israel uses children as a tool in their illegal land grab, those children are valid targets to the resistance. Should some of them end up dead or as hostages, that is the fault of their zealot parents, just as the deaths of the family members of Hamas commanders are the fault of the particular Hamas commander.

 

[Jayjay]

You're not the original occupant of the land you're on. As an invader the original occupants should feel free to kill you and your children. You don't have a right to defend yourself, either.

The original occupants of the land I'm on are long dead. Nobody here but the Israeli apologists are using the argument from some ancient right to land (though only for the Jewish people), I care much more about what is happening now than what happened to my ancestors. Some of whom were kicked off by an invader when my country conceded land to the soviets, but at least these refugees had the rest of the country to resettle in. Palestinians don't have a country, their back is against the wall.

And your example with the bomb involves someone who is clearly a combatant. Combatant status trumps age, valid target, no wrongdoing in shooting him.

The issue I was raising with this thread is the deliberate murder of captive (no possible threat) children.

The civilians in west bank are engaged in a war crime, for purposes of land theft and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from West Bank. For purposes of this discussion, they are morally equivalent to combatants in a war. Just because they don't wear uniforms and instead lobby the IDF to do their fighting for them, doesn't make them innocent bystanders.

If children are used as tools of war, then they become legitimate targets unfortunately. But unlike you, I don't try to apply different rules for Jews than Arabs.

 

[LordKiran]

Yes, because he is an invader and occupier. He is in the wrong to begin with.

Sure, but wouldn't that be true even he chooses not to kill the child?

Yes. So your question is ridiculous.

 

[Bronzeage]

Which is why it's not going to happen. Your approach would result in extirpation of the Jews. They aren't going to agree to commit suicide.

You want us to condemn the Palestinians and their cause, because of the way they wage war. One of the primary factors in how to wage war, is we must choose from the available options. I'm sure if the Palestinians had precision guided missiles, we'd see less suicide bombings, but they have bombs and suicidal people, so that's what they use.

If you want a solution to this problem, look at the causes of the problem, not the problems it has caused.

Still ignoring the fact that the deliberate targeting of those who are clearly innocent is never valid.

I'm not ignoring anything. I never said targeting the "innocent" is valid, whatever innocent and valid mean in this context. I am being realistic.

Yes, living peacefully with the Palestinians would inevitably result in the extirpation of the Jews, just as living peacefully with the Europeans meant the extirpation of the Wampanoag, Massachusett, Nipmuck, Pennacook, Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Quinnipiac, Mohegan, Pequot, Pocumtuc, Tunxis, and Narragansett. That's the way it's done. I wonder how many innocent Wampanoag children died in the process.

 

[Arctish]

Note the almost total lack of overlap between what you suggest and the tactics they actually use.

The only thing to note here is your inability and/or unwillingness to admit that the Palestinian people regularly use these tactics and are regularly arrested for it.

Palestinians engage in civil disobedience against the Occupation. They rebuild homes the IDF destroyed. They smuggle in what they want and need. They repair damaged infrastructure, plant olive trees to replace the ones bulldozed by settlers, graze their flocks on their traditional ranges despite attempts to force them off those lands, and maintain their communities despite threats and pressure to relocate. At this very moment the PA under Abbas has forsworn terrorism and is seeking a diplomatic solution through the UN and the World Court. All of these are Gandhi-like tactics of resistance.

Tell me Loren, when you said the Palestinians should use Gandhi-like tactics, what did you have in mind? Did you think it meant fasting and meditation and sitting on the porch smiling at anyone who comes to visit? Did you think it meant being completely passive and submissive until your oppressor decides to stop trashing your home, stealing your land, and denying you your means of survival? Did you think it means willingly walking into the ghetto that has been prepared for you? If so, then you don't know much of anything about Gandhi or the tactics of resistance he advocated.

1. Civil disobedience. This means Palestinians should ignore Israeli demands that Palestinians seek and comply with Israeli building permits when building in the West Bank and Gaza. They should not obey instructions on which roads they may use, or where they can install or repair a well, or how many of them can be gathered in one place at a time, or what they can bring into or out of the West Bank and Gaza. Bringing in items with military uses would be an important part of the resistance but it's not quite Gandhi-like so that can come later if the pacifist tactics fail to produced the desired results.

Note that there are no Israeli restrictions on what can be brought in unless it is stuff with military use.

I note bullshitting. You and I both know that Israel controls the import of goods into Gaza and the West Bank, and that you fully support Israel's interference with Palestinian commerce even when the goods being interfered with have no military uses. Shall I go find the threads where we discussed Israel's requirement that Palestinians buy their produce and dairy items from Israeli sources? No citrus from Jordan, no dates from Egypt, no cheese from Lebanon; those goods enter the West Bank or Gaza by way of smuggling, because Israel has a captive market for it's own produce and dairy goods and doesn't want the competition. You know this, Loren. You've defended it.

5. Tearing down the Separation Wall in places where Palestinians are denied access to their land, or where Israelis are attempting to build beyond the 1967 borders. Also tearing down the walls along the borders of the West Bank and Jordan and Lebanon, and Gaza and Egypt, unless the Palestinians themselves want those walls to remain. Palestinians should resist all attempts made by Israelis to encircle and imprison them.

Lets look at that wall with Egypt: It's there because the Egyptians want it.

^This^ looks like one of your cockamamie 'Just So' stories. It's also missing the point. Palestinians have every right to blow holes in the Wall where Palestinians are denied access to their land, where Israelis are attempting to build beyond the 1967 borders, or where Israel is blocking their access to their own international borders. If they want to keep the Wall, that's fine, but tearing it down is proper resistance and a Gandhi-like tactic.

Any country is free to seal it's borders against any outsiders they choose.

So Palestine is free to seal it's borders against Israelis? Good to know.

These last two will no doubt result in bloodshed. That is not necessarily the fault of the Palestinians. The IDF will use force to defend the ill-gotten gains of the beneficiaries of natural resource extraction in the West Bank lands and Gaza territorial waters. But it still would be proper resistance to return control of those resources to the Palestinians, even if it means shooting and rocket attacks.

It will result in bloodshed because it's clearly a military act.

Not necessarily. It could be the result of a massive sit-in, blocking access roads, and disabling pumps. None of those actions need be a military operation. Anyway, the point is that proper resistance to Occupation and economic exploitation includes bringing the theft of resources to an end. Proper resistance using Gandhi-like tactics means stopping the flow of water and natural gas from Palestinian sources to Israel and the Settlements by non-lethal means if possible but by force if necessary, so long as the force doesn't exceed the minimum required to do the job.

Those walls do not block civilian commerce other than to the extent that Hamas attacks the checkpoints in order to force a closure and make their people suffer.

Many on here have said the Palestinians are engaging in acceptable resistance.

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=21483

Killing 22 children is a heroic act?? They targeted a school, they took children hostage.

How can anyone on here defend this?

Killing hostages and bystanders isn't proper resistance IMV.

Then why do you defend them?

I don't defend those who kill hostages. I don't defend those who kill worshippers at prayer, or invalids, or bystanders, or kids at play, or sleeping families, or helpless wounded individuals lying on the ground. I regularly condemn them. Haven't you been paying attention?

 

[Jayjay]

Let's say a Palestinian kid puts a bomb on a bus, then goes around the corner with a trigger. IDF soldier notices what happened and he has a choice to either put a bullet in the kid to stop him from blowing up the bomb, or try to capture him alive but risk the lives of everyone on the bus. Could we blame the soldier if he chooses the former?

Yes, because he is an invader and occupier. He is in the wrong to begin with.

Sure, but wouldn't that be true even he chooses not to kill the child?

Yes. So your question is ridiculous.

If he's wrong to begin with anyway, then you're not really condemning the soldier for his choice of action, but for something else entirely (which he may or may not have had a choice in). Besides I didn't really speficy whether this happens in the occupied territory, or in Israel proper. The choice is simply whether to protect the kid, but risk other lives doing so, or just play it safe and kill the kid even knowing that he's too young to be nothing but a tool.

 

[LordKiran]

Let's say a Palestinian kid puts a bomb on a bus, then goes around the corner with a trigger. IDF soldier notices what happened and he has a choice to either put a bullet in the kid to stop him from blowing up the bomb, or try to capture him alive but risk the lives of everyone on the bus. Could we blame the soldier if he chooses the former?

Yes, because he is an invader and occupier. He is in the wrong to begin with.

Sure, but wouldn't that be true even he chooses not to kill the child?

Yes. So your question is ridiculous.

If he's wrong to begin with anyway, then you're not really condemning the soldier for his choice of action, but for something else entirely (which he may or may not have had a choice in). Besides I didn't really speficy whether this happens in the occupied territory, or in Israel proper. The choice is simply whether to protect the kid, but risk other lives doing so, or just play it safe and kill the kid even knowing that he's too young to be nothing but a tool.

Wether it occurs in Israel or Palestine doesn't really matter since the conflict in this scenario stems from the same source regardless. Unless Israel has a mandatory draft (I'd believe it), then I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame the soldiers, a volunteer army is a complicit army after all.

 

[Jayjay]

Let's say a Palestinian kid puts a bomb on a bus, then goes around the corner with a trigger. IDF soldier notices what happened and he has a choice to either put a bullet in the kid to stop him from blowing up the bomb, or try to capture him alive but risk the lives of everyone on the bus. Could we blame the soldier if he chooses the former?

Yes, because he is an invader and occupier. He is in the wrong to begin with.

Sure, but wouldn't that be true even he chooses not to kill the child?

Yes. So your question is ridiculous.

If he's wrong to begin with anyway, then you're not really condemning the soldier for his choice of action, but for something else entirely (which he may or may not have had a choice in). Besides I didn't really speficy whether this happens in the occupied territory, or in Israel proper. The choice is simply whether to protect the kid, but risk other lives doing so, or just play it safe and kill the kid even knowing that he's too young to be nothing but a tool.

Wether it occurs in Israel or Palestine doesn't really matter since the conflict in this scenario stems from the same source regardless. Unless Israel has a mandatory draft (I'd believe it), then I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame the soldiers, a volunteer army is a complicit army after all.

Israel has a conscription army; some soldiers refuse to serve in the occupied territory though.

But that's still besides the point. Even if the soldier is complicit in the occupation, it doesn't mean that whatever else he does suddenly becomes irrelevant.

 

[LordKiran]

Let's say a Palestinian kid puts a bomb on a bus, then goes around the corner with a trigger. IDF soldier notices what happened and he has a choice to either put a bullet in the kid to stop him from blowing up the bomb, or try to capture him alive but risk the lives of everyone on the bus. Could we blame the soldier if he chooses the former?

Yes, because he is an invader and occupier. He is in the wrong to begin with.

Sure, but wouldn't that be true even he chooses not to kill the child?

Yes. So your question is ridiculous.

If he's wrong to begin with anyway, then you're not really condemning the soldier for his choice of action, but for something else entirely (which he may or may not have had a choice in). Besides I didn't really speficy whether this happens in the occupied territory, or in Israel proper. The choice is simply whether to protect the kid, but risk other lives doing so, or just play it safe and kill the kid even knowing that he's too young to be nothing but a tool.

Wether it occurs in Israel or Palestine doesn't really matter since the conflict in this scenario stems from the same source regardless. Unless Israel has a mandatory draft (I'd believe it), then I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame the soldiers, a volunteer army is a complicit army after all.

Israel has a conscription army; some soldiers refuse to serve in the occupied territory though.

But that's still besides the point. Even if the soldier is complicit in the occupation, it doesn't mean that whatever else he does suddenly becomes irrelevant.

If such a scenario did occur, I'd still still say that it's ultimately a bed of israel's own making. Had Israel heeded the words of its moderates during its formation rather than murder them they might have been more justified in its acts against the Palestinians. As it stands, they will reap what they have sown and good riddance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You continue to be incapable of telling the difference between those caught in the crossfire with those deliberately targeted. And thus you reward Hamas for the use of human shield tactics.

No, only refraining to shoot if the enemy shields itself behind children (or uses them some other way) would be rewarding those tactics. Which is acceptable in a war. The death of the innocents is on those who use their presence to advance their own agenda.

1) They are benefiting from the propaganda.

2) When Israel knows about the shields it usually doesn't shoot. Once again, rewarding the tactics.

You are the one who is making irrelevant distinctions between what's "deliberate" and what isn't. When IAF bombs an apartment building to assassinate a Hamas commander visiting his family, they know that the family will die in the strike with the same certainty as the main target. That means that their deaths are just as deliberate, women and children included. Likewise, when israel uses children as a tool in their illegal land grab, those children are valid targets to the resistance. Should some of them end up dead or as hostages, that is the fault of their zealot parents, just as the deaths of the family members of Hamas commanders are the fault of the particular Hamas commander.

Is there any act whatsoever you find too evil to justify?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only thing to note here is your inability and/or unwillingness to admit that the Palestinian people regularly use these tactics and are regularly arrested for it.

Palestinians do not engage in peaceful protests. What's reported as "non-violent" means no firearms or explosives.

Palestinians engage in civil disobedience against the Occupation. They rebuild homes the IDF destroyed. They smuggle in what they want and need. They repair damaged infrastructure, plant olive trees to replace the ones bulldozed by settlers, graze their flocks on their traditional ranges despite attempts to force them off those lands, and maintain their communities despite threats and pressure to relocate. At this very moment the PA under Abbas has forsworn terrorism and is seeking a diplomatic solution through the UN and the World Court. All of these are Gandhi-like tactics of resistance.

Israel doesn't try to stop people from rebuilding destroyed houses, that's not civil disobedience. The reason there's still a lot of destroyed houses in Gaza is because Hamas wants it that way.

The olive trees are a repeated sham. I can't recall a claim of bulldozing, what they usually show simply looks like normal pruning.

And how would you graze a flock on developed land?? I haven't heard that claim before, it doesn't make much sense.

As for forswearing terrorism, that's just deception for western ears. Plenty of encouragement of it in Arabic.

I see no Ghandi tactics from the Palestinians.

Tell me Loren, when you said the Palestinians should use Gandhi-like tactics, what did you have in mind? Did you think it meant fasting and meditation and sitting on the porch smiling at anyone who comes to visit? Did you think it meant being completely passive and submissive until your oppressor decides to stop trashing your home, stealing your land, and denying you your means of survival? Did you think it means willingly walking into the ghetto that has been prepared for you? If so, then you don't know much of anything about Gandhi or the tactics of resistance he advocated.

Mass peaceful protests. Something that's never going to happen. Ghandi tactics would be good at getting a two-state solution but that's anathema to their leadership.

I note bullshitting. You and I both know that Israel controls the import of goods into Gaza and the West Bank, and that you fully support Israel's interference with Palestinian commerce even when the goods being interfered with have no military uses. Shall I go find the threads where we discussed Israel's requirement that Palestinians buy their produce and dairy items from Israeli sources? No citrus from Jordan, no dates from Egypt, no cheese from Lebanon; those goods enter the West Bank or Gaza by way of smuggling, because Israel has a captive market for it's own produce and dairy goods and doesn't want the competition. You know this, Loren. You've defended it.

They control it but they don't restrict it except for prohibited items.

You are citing some old information--Israel used to block shipments to Hamas, regardless of their nature. Somehow I don't see any great evil in blocking shipments to an enemy army.

Lets look at that wall with Egypt: It's there because the Egyptians want it.

^This^ looks like one of your cockamamie 'Just So' stories. It's also missing the point. Palestinians have every right to blow holes in the Wall where Palestinians are denied access to their land, where Israelis are attempting to build beyond the 1967 borders, or where Israel is blocking their access to their own international borders. If they want to keep the Wall, that's fine, but tearing it down is proper resistance and a Gandhi-like tactic.

Total misdirection. I was pointing out that the wall with Egypt is there because Egypt doesn't want the Palestinians coming in. It's on Egyptian land, the Palestinians have no right to mess with it.

And where is Palestinian land cut off by the border wall? Some areas are pretty much surrounded, I'm not aware of any area that's actually cut off.

Any country is free to seal it's borders against any outsiders they choose.

So Palestine is free to seal it's borders against Israelis? Good to know.

Palestine doesn't exist, it has no borders to seal. The Palestinians have very carefully avoided becoming a nation. They could declare statehood, they have refused to do so ever since 1948. That's because they don't want a nation, they want to conquer Israel.

I don't defend those who kill hostages. I don't defend those who kill worshippers at prayer, or invalids, or bystanders, or kids at play, or sleeping families, or helpless wounded individuals lying on the ground. I regularly condemn them. Haven't you been paying attention?

Yet you defend those who do such acts.

- - - Updated - - -

Wether it occurs in Israel or Palestine doesn't really matter since the conflict in this scenario stems from the same source regardless. Unless Israel has a mandatory draft (I'd believe it), then I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame the soldiers, a volunteer army is a complicit army after all.

Learn something about the world!

Israel doesn't have a draft. What it does have is mandatory military service.

 

[Jayjay]

No, only refraining to shoot if the enemy shields itself behind children (or uses them some other way) would be rewarding those tactics. Which is acceptable in a war. The death of the innocents is on those who use their presence to advance their own agenda.

1) They are benefiting from the propaganda.

2) When Israel knows about the shields it usually doesn't shoot. Once again, rewarding the tactics.

What are you talking about? Shooting or not shooting is Israel's choice. Sometimes they may deem that the bad press they get from dead civilians is worse than trying to get the target some other way. I'm not saying that Israel should always shoot the civilians who are used as shields, just that if there is no other way to protect themselves then that is an understandable and an acceptable course of action. The only difference between you and I in that regard is that I grant Palestinians the same right, whereas you apply different rules as to what is acceptable depending on whether you're talking about Jews or Arabs.

You are the one who is making irrelevant distinctions between what's "deliberate" and what isn't. When IAF bombs an apartment building to assassinate a Hamas commander visiting his family, they know that the family will die in the strike with the same certainty as the main target. That means that their deaths are just as deliberate, women and children included. Likewise, when israel uses children as a tool in their illegal land grab, those children are valid targets to the resistance. Should some of them end up dead or as hostages, that is the fault of their zealot parents, just as the deaths of the family members of Hamas commanders are the fault of the particular Hamas commander.

Is there any act whatsoever you find too evil to justify?

You've already admitted yourself, that in case of combatants, age doesn't matter. And you've also said in multiple occassions elsewhere that being a "combatant" doesn't require one to wear a uniform or be a member of a regular army. Nor does it require one to engage directly in combat, it's enough to merely support it (for example by providing shelter). So whatever "evil" you are talking about, is merely things you have already justified yourself ... as long the targets are not Jews.

 

[Jayjay]

And Gandhi wasn't actually against violent tactics. He just thought non-violent means were preferable, but even violence was better than doing nothing.

 

[Arctish]

The only thing to note here is your inability and/or unwillingness to admit that the Palestinian people regularly use these tactics and are regularly arrested for it.

Palestinians do not engage in peaceful protests. What's reported as "non-violent" means no firearms or explosives.

Palestinians engage in civil disobedience against the Occupation. They rebuild homes the IDF destroyed. They smuggle in what they want and need. They repair damaged infrastructure, plant olive trees to replace the ones bulldozed by settlers, graze their flocks on their traditional ranges despite attempts to force them off those lands, and maintain their communities despite threats and pressure to relocate. At this very moment the PA under Abbas has forsworn terrorism and is seeking a diplomatic solution through the UN and the World Court. All of these are Gandhi-like tactics of resistance.

Israel doesn't try to stop people from rebuilding destroyed houses, that's not civil disobedience. The reason there's still a lot of destroyed houses in Gaza is because Hamas wants it that way.

The olive trees are a repeated sham. I can't recall a claim of bulldozing, what they usually show simply looks like normal pruning.

And how would you graze a flock on developed land?? I haven't heard that claim before, it doesn't make much sense.

As for forswearing terrorism, that's just deception for western ears. Plenty of encouragement of it in Arabic

<snipped images>

I see no Ghandi tactics from the Palestinians.

You're proving my point here. You are unable or unwilling to admit that the Palestinian people regularly use the same tactics of resistance Gandhi championed (btw even Gandhi had fellow travelers doing things that were against his beliefs about what constitutes proper resistance).

Some Palestinians use force. Some of them pursue their goals through violent means. The fact that some Palestinians pursue the goal of ending the Occupation through violence does not mean that all of them do, or even that most of them do. It only means some do, and it doesn't negate the efforts of the non-violent resisters. It doesn't make the current policy of Abbas and the PA any less Gandhi-like as they pursue the goal at the UN and World Court. It doesn't mean that any tactic used against the Occupation is exactly the same as the bloodiest one.

Tell me Loren, when you said the Palestinians should use Gandhi-like tactics, what did you have in mind? Did you think it meant fasting and meditation and sitting on the porch smiling at anyone who comes to visit? Did you think it meant being completely passive and submissive until your oppressor decides to stop trashing your home, stealing your land, and denying you your means of survival? Did you think it means willingly walking into the ghetto that has been prepared for you? If so, then you don't know much of anything about Gandhi or the tactics of resistance he advocated.

Mass peaceful protests. Something that's never going to happen. Ghandi tactics would be good at getting a two-state solution but that's anathema to their leadership.

Never going to happen? It's been happening since the beginning of the Occupation. It's been happening with both Israelis and Palestinians marching together. It's been happening weekly in Bil'in for over 12 years.

And, yes, peaceful protesters are frequently arrested and jailed on charges like Disturbing the Peace, just like Gandhi was.

I note bullshitting. You and I both know that Israel controls the import of goods into Gaza and the West Bank, and that you fully support Israel's interference with Palestinian commerce even when the goods being interfered with have no military uses. Shall I go find the threads where we discussed Israel's requirement that Palestinians buy their produce and dairy items from Israeli sources? No citrus from Jordan, no dates from Egypt, no cheese from Lebanon; those goods enter the West Bank or Gaza by way of smuggling, because Israel has a captive market for it's own produce and dairy goods and doesn't want the competition. You know this, Loren. You've defended it.

They control it but they don't restrict it except for prohibited items.

You are citing some old information--Israel used to block shipments to Hamas, regardless of their nature. Somehow I don't see any great evil in blocking shipments to an enemy army.

Lets look at that wall with Egypt: It's there because the Egyptians want it.

^This^ looks like one of your cockamamie 'Just So' stories. It's also missing the point. Palestinians have every right to blow holes in the Wall where Palestinians are denied access to their land, where Israelis are attempting to build beyond the 1967 borders, or where Israel is blocking their access to their own international borders. If they want to keep the Wall, that's fine, but tearing it down is proper resistance and a Gandhi-like tactic.

Total misdirection. I was pointing out that the wall with Egypt is there because Egypt doesn't want the Palestinians coming in. It's on Egyptian land, the Palestinians have no right to mess with it.

And where is Palestinian land cut off by the border wall? Some areas are pretty much surrounded, I'm not aware of any area that's actually cut off.

Any country is free to seal it's borders against any outsiders they choose.

So Palestine is free to seal it's borders against Israelis? Good to know.

Palestine doesn't exist, it has no borders to seal. The Palestinians have very carefully avoided becoming a nation. They could declare statehood, they have refused to do so ever since 1948. That's because they don't want a nation, they want to conquer Israel.

Are you trying to derail your own thread? Your responses here have nothing to do with the concept of proper resistance or what we posters think are acceptable tactics.

I don't defend those who kill hostages. I don't defend those who kill worshippers at prayer, or invalids, or bystanders, or kids at play, or sleeping families, or helpless wounded individuals lying on the ground. I regularly condemn them. Haven't you been paying attention?

Yet you defend those who do such acts.

No, I don't.

Perhaps you think I do because I refuse to condemn all Palestinians for the behavior of a few. If that's the case then I'll just point out that I also don't condemn all Israelis because Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 people and wounded 125 others as they knelt in prayer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) They are benefiting from the propaganda.

2) When Israel knows about the shields it usually doesn't shoot. Once again, rewarding the tactics.

What are you talking about? Shooting or not shooting is Israel's choice. Sometimes they may deem that the bad press they get from dead civilians is worse than trying to get the target some other way. I'm not saying that Israel should always shoot the civilians who are used as shields, just that if there is no other way to protect themselves then that is an understandable and an acceptable course of action. The only difference between you and I in that regard is that I grant Palestinians the same right, whereas you apply different rules as to what is acceptable depending on whether you're talking about Jews or Arabs.

But the cases aren't comparable. I cited an example of where the children were the targets. You still can't tell the difference between targets and caught in the crossfire.

You've already admitted yourself, that in case of combatants, age doesn't matter. And you've also said in multiple occassions elsewhere that being a "combatant" doesn't require one to wear a uniform or be a member of a regular army. Nor does it require one to engage directly in combat, it's enough to merely support it (for example by providing shelter). So whatever "evil" you are talking about, is merely things you have already justified yourself ... as long the targets are not Jews.

So a child is a combatant by being in the wrong place?

The degree that you will twist things to justify the murder of Jews is incredible.