Shin Bet: Hopelessness fueling recent Palestinian attacks

[geek tragedy]

To whom should we listen, Netanyahu and rightwing hasbarists, or the people whose job it is to stop terrorism?

Shin Bet security services said on Tuesday that a “bleak reality,” along with personal problems and false rumors spread on social media, has been driving the current wave of grassroots Palestinian terrorism that has killed nearly a dozen Israelis and injured over 80.

In a report summarizing data covering the attacks during the month of October, the Shin Bet concluded that perpetrators largely fit the profile of lone wolf” attackers: young, single, not affiliated with any organization, and with no previous history of security-related incidents.

Despite there being some 60 attacks in October, the assaults show a “lack of organizational-political framework for a clear, coherent conceptual plan of action, or an organized leadership, leading the protests,” the report said.

Feelings of national discrimination, as well as economic, personal and psychological problems, provide motivation for the attacks, the report said, and noted that seven of the attackers were women.

“For some terrorists, attacks allow an escape from a bleak reality which they perceive as unchangeable.” Meanwhile, the attackers have been “drawing inspiration from social media incitement, including incitement from Palestinian Authority officials,” the report said.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/shin-bet-hopelessness-fueling-recent-palestinian-attacks/

This feeling of hopelessness is not going to go away, or even get better, over the next decade.

[oberliner]

1. Two-state solution will end hopelessness

The Geneva Initiative is the path towards making that a reality.

The Palestinian people deserve their own independent state living side by side with Israel.

Such an event would transform the region.

[geek tragedy]

2. Maybe a unicorn would deliver such a solution nt

[oberliner]

3. Or the next Rabin/Arafat

No one could have imagined that handshake a year before it happened.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. One that farts glitter.

[Little Tich]

28. The Geneva Iniative is a scam.

Nevertheless, it's of no significance whatsoever anymore. Netanyahu and Israel has won, and the prize they won is the one-state solution.

[shira]

32. People against 2 states always say that. Here, I'll prove it....

Arafat turned down a Palestinian state, free of occupation and settlements 15 years ago. Abbas walked away from a better offer in 2008.

Have the last 15 years for Palestinians been worth it? Several wars later, thousands dead....

I don't expect a response to this as I never get one.

But it's something to ponder.

[Little Tich]

36. EVeryone except Israel knows what a two-state solution looks like.

If it can't be implemented because there are 600 000 settlers in wrong place, then there's no place for two states. Any offer that doesn't remove the settlers and the occupation will only be another meaningless offer.

[shira]

37. Therefore, the last 15 years of war & misery has been worth it for Palestinians....

That's your view.

You believe Arafat and Abbas made the right call to reject each offer (which would have made Palestine sovereign, with no occupation or settlements, no ridiculous accusations of Apartheid, half of Jerusalem, and billions of dollars for refugees.

All because you're against land swaps?

Seriously?

That's a really extreme position to take, unbefitting of anyone claiming to be pro-Palestinian. Thousands of lives later on both sides & you think it's worth it. Wow.

[Little Tich]

38. A viable state can't be negotiated.

If the "offer" isn't a viable state, it's a useless offer. If the offer is a turd, no amount of sweeteners will make it into anything but a turd.

All offers so far have been useless turds simply because they don't consist of a viable Palestinian state. The time for useless offers has passed, and it's time for the endgame, which surely seems like a bi-national state. It was definitely not worth it for the Palestinians, but what could they've done otherwise? Israel had all the cards and was never serious about a two-state solution anyway.

Israel has finally won the one-state solution it fought so hard to achieve.

[shira]

39. But you've been against every offer since 1937's Peel Commission, right?

Including the 1947 Partition Plan. Both plans didn't allow for a 'viable' Palestine, right?

All offers have been duds in your view.

Land swaps and settlers don't even factor in when no 2-state solution is possible in your view. How can Israel ever be serious about 2-states in your view when you don't believe any 2 state solution has ever been possible? Why do you appear to be lamenting a 1-state solution when that's the only solution you believe is fair?

[Little Tich]

40. If the Jewish side had accepted the 1947 partition plan in action and not in word only,

there would have been no war in 1948.

Didn't you read what you posted from Avi Shlaim?

[shira]

41. Talk about revisionist history. Israel accepted, the Palestinians rejected Partition.

Last edited Thu Nov 12, 2015, 10:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Pitiful. And Shlaim is just as bad as Pappe, happy to lie & slander, just as Pappe admitted. I only brought up Shlaim because he wrote about 5 Arab armies invading Palestine in 1948.

And the Palestinians did have a choice 15 years ago. They should have accepted the Clinton Initiatives like Israel did.

Conflict over. People move on with their lives.

You can't have it both ways, supporting Arafat's rejection in 2000 while also saying the last 15 years haven't been worth it. Obviously they have been worth it as you believe continued occupation, settlements, and make-believe Apartheid the past 15 years trumps Palestinian acceptance of what you perceive as a non-viable state.

[COLGATE4]

5. This feeling of hopelessness is not going to go away, or even get better, over the next decade

Neither is the social media incitement ("false rumors&quot from the PA.

[geek tragedy]

6. incitement exists in every society on the planet.

that's not the primary driver. it never is.

[COLGATE4]

7. A rather facile argument designed to minimize the

result of decades of anti-Jewish incitement by various Palestinian sectors.

[geek tragedy]

8. one does not need to minimize that which is minimal, when people have hope

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-power-and-weakness-of-inciting-violence/2014/12/05/120dedca-74c3-11e4-9d9b-86d397daad27_story.html

We see this among both Israelis and Arabs. Research I conducted for my book “The World Through Arab Eyes” showed that majorities of each side initially reacted to the other’s civilian casualties not with empathy but a sense that the other side “brought it upon itself.” This is not purely a function of hate: Most Palestinians rejected terrorism against Israelis in the 1990s when there was genuine hope for peace, while the overwhelming majority of Israelis rejected expelling Palestinians from their homes. Attitudes changed after negotiations collapsed.


Fighting provocation and incitement in conflicts is difficult because they often serve strategic aims. Just as empathy with the enemy is discouraged because it might diminish the will to fight, so a weaker party will often use incitement to muster the will to sustain the fight. By contrast, provocation is often the tool of the stronger party, as it pushes for an earlier fight while it has the upper hand.

My research shows that countering incitement with information that might humanize the other side often gets the opposite result. When Arabs hear stories of the Holocaust, or Israelis confront reports of historical Palestinian suffering, their reactions are similar: They resent the accounts as instruments intended to elicit sympathy or weaken their will.

Both Arab and Israeli leaders have been guilty of incitement and provocation, but the degree to which their words have effect is itself debatable. After almost five decades of occupation, Palestinians are no closer to freedom, and Israelis are no closer to peace; most have given up hope on the very possibility of two states. This reality is far more powerful than the utterances of any individual.


In the face of angry public sentiments, leaders’ words have limited impact. Jordan’s government, for example, condemned the synagogue attack. But Jordan’s parliament, mindful more of public rage than King Abdullah’s desires, moved to honor the killers.

Highlighting incitement is partly a political decision. After Ehud Barak replaced Netanyahu as prime minister in 1999, the full Anti-Incitement Committee never met again. Barak, who aimed for a comprehensive political deal, didn’t take the issue seriously. Had the negotiations succeeded in shaping a durable Israeli-Palestinian peace, some incitement would probably still occur, but few would pay attention. Conversely, the collapse of negotiations in 2000 and the advent of more violence would have negated any anti-incitement deal. As it was, even the limited steps on media and education that seemed acceptable to both sides were forgotten as soon as casualties started to mount.

[COLGATE4]

9. Nothing more than one Arab writer's opinion piece

minimizing Palestinian incitement by false equivalencies. The pretense that Palestinians have languished waiting in vain for a two-state solution belies the fact of the opportunities Arafat was given for one - and refused, preferring to let his people twist in the wind and remain violently anti-Israel.

[geek tragedy]

10. Ah, so you dismiss his research because he's an Arab.

If someone wrote "nothing more than one Jew's opinion piece" they'd rightly be called out as an anti-Semitic bigot. You have something in common with the more extreme elements in the BDS movement after all.

So I see very clearly what your agenda is. It's one that is very, very, very common amongst you and your fellow travelers who wave the pom-poms for Israel.

Professor Telhami has co-written books on Israel/Palestine with George W Bush's ambassador to Israel and is one of the most widely respected figures in his field.

http://sadat.umd.edu/people/shibley_telhami.htm

Shibley Telhami is the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, College Park, and non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Before coming to the University of Maryland, he taught at several universities, including Cornell University, the Ohio State University, the University of Southern California, Princeton University, Columbia University, Swarthmore College, and the University of California at Berkeley, where he received his doctorate in political science.

Professor Telhami has also been active in the foreign policy arena. He has served as Advisor to the US Mission to the UN (1990-91), as advisor to former Congressman Lee Hamilton, more recently as senior advisor to George Mitchell, President Obama’s United States Special Envoy for Middle East Peace (2009-2011) and as a member of the US delegation to the Trilateral US-Israeli-Palestinian Anti-Incitement Committee, which was mandated by the Wye River Agreements and has served as an advisor to the United States Department of State. He also served on the Iraq Study Group as a member of the Strategic Environment Working Group. He has contributed to The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times and regularly appears on national and international radio and television. He has served on the US Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, which was appointed by the Department of State at the request of Congress, and he co-drafted the report of their findings, Changing Minds, Winning Peace. He has also co-drafted several Council on Foreign Relations reports on US public diplomacy, on the Arab-Israeli peace process, and on Persian Gulf security.

His best-selling book, The Stakes: America and the Middle East (Westview Press, 2003; updated version, 2004) was selected by Foreign Affairs as one of the top five books on the Middle East in 2003. His other publications include Power and Leadership in International Bargaining: The Path to the Camp David Accords (1990); International Organizations and Ethnic Conflict, ed. with Milton Esman (1995); Identity and Foreign Policy in the Middle East, ed. with Michael Barnett (2002), The Sadat Lectures: Words and Images on Peace, 1997-2008, ed. (2010), The Peace Puzzle: America’s Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989-2011, co-authored with Dan Kurtzer, et al. (2013), The World Through Arab Eyes: Arab Public Opinion and the Reshaping of the Middle East (2013) and numerous articles on international politics and Middle Eastern affairs. He has been a principal investigator in the annual Arab Public Opinion Survey, conducted since 2002 in six Arab countries.

He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and serves on the board of the Education for Employment Foundation, several academic advisory boards, and has served on the board of Human Rights Watch (and as Chair of Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch/Middle East). He has also served on the board of the United States Institute of Peace. Professor Telhami was given the Distinguished International Service Award by the University of Maryland in 2002 and the Excellence in Public Service Award by the University System of Maryland Board of Regents in 2006. He was selected by the Carnegie Corporation of New York with the New York Times as one of the "Great Immigrants" for 2013. He is also a recipient of the University of Maryland's Honors College 2014 Outstanding Faculty Award.

But, you saw his skin tone and ancestry, and decided to disregard any possible insight he would have on the world.

Because of his race. He's nothing more than an Arab to you.

There's a word for that . . .

Maybe you should see Arabs as human beings. Though, you might learn something that way and that's quite clearly not on your agenda.


P.S. Maybe I'm giving you too little credit, and you're inclined to disregard anything he says not only because he's an Arab, but also because he's a liberal.

[COLGATE4]

11. Nice try, no cigar. His ethnicity gives him a particular point

of view which he expresses in his opinion piece. I don't disregard it, but I don't have to accept it, either. He is not a disinterested party and all the faux outrage won't make him one.

[geek tragedy]

12. You completely disregarded his research and labeled it dishonest because it came from an Arab.

You have NEVER tried to dismiss anyone's opinion on this matter because they're Jewish, have you?

of course not. You would never dream of writing "just one Jew's opinion" as a means to discredit it.

Because you harbor animosity towards one ethnicity and mistrust anyone from that ethnicity has to say unless it validates your own prejudices.

You couldn't dispute any of his decades of research in the field, so you played the "he's a lying Arab" card that your crowd resorts to with some frequency.


We see you for what you are.

Someone who doesn't like Arabs, doesn't trust Arabs, and seeks to justify depriving Arabs of their human rights.

[COLGATE4]

13. No, I considered the source. Which I also do when

reading Israeli (or Jewish) sources.

[geek tragedy]

15. You didn't consider the source, you disqualifed the source because of that source's race.

You assumed the source was dishonest and presenting a dishonest argument that wasn't supported by his multiple decades of experience in this area.

because that was an Arab.

You saw the name, your "Arab" neuron fired, and that was that.

You have never written "that's just one Jew's opinion" in an effort to discredit it.

What's funny is that his article explicitly sees the conflict through both sets of eyes and sees a common dynamic between them.

And that's what really offended you--the idea that maybe Arabs and Jews aren't so different. "How dare that Arab pretend his people share human traits with Jews?"

So, you played the "he's just a lying Arab" card.

Nothing more than one Arab writer's opinion piece minimizing Palestinian incitement by false equivalencies

[COLGATE4]

17. I didn't say he was dishonest. I said he was not

a distinterested party. And scream, kick the floor, do whatever makes you feel better but the fact of his ethnicity colors his opinion on the subject of his piece.

[geek tragedy]

19. You engaged in a racist ad hominem attack on the author.

You couldn't argue against his research, or his experience, so you went straight to "he's just an Arab, so whatever he's saying is invalid."

And, no, it's your racism towards Arabs that makes you assume:

the fact of his ethnicity colors his opinion on the subject of his piece.

He is a professional and an academic, trained to be objective and to avoid bias in his own work. But, since he's an Arab, you just assume that he's writing as an Arab rather than a professional.

He has more relevant experience, insight, and credibility on this subject than anyone else.

But, you see his race and just assume he's a biased, lying hack. Because that's how you view Arabs.

And no, you don't pull this kind of racist bullshit when the author is Jewish. People can read your posting history and see that.

[shira]

25. Do you think you're qualified to accuse others....

....considering your posts that savage all Orthodox Jews?

[COLGATE4]

14. "We see you for what you are"

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[geek tragedy]

16. No, just someone who despises Arabs in front of me. nt

[COLGATE4]

18. Well, with the majestic "We" language,

I thought you had company.

[geek tragedy]

20. Anyone who's reading this, and who isn't also racist against Arabs, can see your prejudice radiating

out from their computer monitor.
Imagine if someone had written a preeminent African-American professor's research re: urban riots "Just one black writer's opinion using false equivalencies . . . "

They'd be considered a David Duke clone.

Well, that's you, except the target of the bigotry is Arabs instead of African-Americans.

You are not the first, nor in all likelihood the last, hardcore supporter of Israel's policies to out themselves in this manner.

[COLGATE4]

23. It's unfortunate that you let your own prejudices

and your own emotional enthusiasm for the 'cause' make you try to project on others that which you can't recognize in yourself. Your statement alleging that writing a post beginning with "One Black writer's opinion..." somehow makes the writer (in your eyes, at least) a "David Duke clone" is laughable. There is nothing - repeat nothing - inherently wrong in identifying the race or ethnicity of an opinion writer when that race or ethnicity can rationally be expected to have influenced that opinion whether it be "One Israeli writer...", "One African American writer..." or "One Arab writer,,,". That Telhami uses false equivalencies between Palestinians and Israelis to make his point is beyond question. The reader is allowed to, and should in fact be encouraged to, take into account the potential baggage he brings with him in order reach his conclusions.

[geek tragedy]

24. all you noted about his writing was his skin color. That's an ad hominem fallacy as well as racist

you reduced the man to his race.

That Telhami uses false equivalencies between Palestinians and Israelis to make his point is beyond question

No, it is not "beyond question." It's not even presumably true. It's not even likely to be true.

It is nothing more than your biased opinion.

Something is not "beyond question" because you--a severely biased Internet bloviator--proclaims it so.

Something is not ipso facto false because you disagree with it.

You have provided no one with any reason to buy into your opinion. No facts, no research, no links, no relevant expertise.

Just Tea-Party style bloviating.

Shibley Telhami knows what he's talking about. You do not.

He was appointed by the United States government to address Palestinian/Israeli incitement at the highest possible level.

What are your qualifications? Relevant expertise? Experience? Research? Publications?

Zilch.

You assumed, in a manner as comical as well as prejudicial, that Arabs can't be trusted to present research on what motivates Arabs. That any research they've done, all the decades of expertise, all of the awards, and accomplishments, and critical scrutiny they have

But you think the Arab must be the one who's so biased he can't be trusted.

Because you, an anonymous Internet bloviator with no relevant expertise or experience, say "nyah nyah nyah Arab says stuff that is false because I say it is false."

And you still sit there and try to pretend that because you're not an Arab, that your uninformed opinions have more credibility than the pre-eminent researcher in Arab public opinion, when the subject is what motivates Arabs.

Because you're not an Arab, you think that your bloviating carries more persuasive weight than the planet's #1 expert in polling Arab public opinion. Because that expert is an Arab.

Do you realize how stupid you're making yourself look?

[leftynyc]

29. You are being WAY over the top here

This is an OPINION piece being discussed and pointing out that the author isn't a disinterested party and that his opinion just could be skewed because of his non-disinterest is not racist. I think you owe that poster an apology.

[geek tragedy]

34. selectively using race as a disqualifying trait is racist.

And given your history of treating John Bolton's anti Muslim think tank as a legitimate source, your pretense of thinking that poster's Arab-baiting was about intellectual rigor is risible. You, that poster, and all of your collective fellow travelers have not once between you tried to disqualify an authority on a subject matter because they are a Jew. Not that you should have, because that would be anti-Semitic.

No apology is deserved, no apology will be offered.

If people don't want to be perceived as a racist, they should not engage in racist speech.

[shira]

31. Colgate, join the club. Every Zionist in I/P has been called a racist.....

Every last one of us.

Go figure.

[COLGATE4]

35. Funny, that.

It's called projection.

[King_David]

21. C'mon that's jumping to ridiculous conclusions ....you owe the dude an apology...

Take myself for example ...I do not express the fact that there is a poster in this group that is 100% homophobic and I know this for sure ( and no it is not you..., your progressives thinking unlike the other dude ,are bonafide) and I will not engage it....and I do not jump to ridiculous conclusions ....but to allege that Colgate hates Arabs,because you disagree with his view, is patently ridiculous.

[geek tragedy]

22. No, I owe no one an apology. A blatantly racist ad-hom against a preeminent Arab-American

scholar is per se proof of underlying bias.

Res ipsa loquitur.

You cannot with a straight face claim that if someone wrote "that's just one Jew's opinion using false equivalencies" in order to repudiate a thoughtful research piece by an expert in a field, that your anti-Semitism alarm wouldn't be ringing loudly.

That would be something David Duke would say about an opinion piece by a Jew.

One can certainly support Israel vociferously without being biased against Arabs.

But when the response to the pre-eminent author in a field is "just one Arab's opinion" that's fucking racist. It says that the person is unwilling to consider the person's argument because they're an Arab, that they can't be providing any useful insight because they are an Arab, and that any claims that they make must be false because they're an Arab.

Let's try this and see if it gets any better:

"Just one Jewish writer's opinion using false equivalence."

"Just one black writer's opinion using false equivalence."

"Just one homosexual writer's opinion using false equivalence."

"Just one Muslim writer's opinion using false equivalence."

"Just one woman writer's opinion using false equivalence."

"Just one trans author's opinion using false equivalence."

Still not sounding bigoted?

[shira]

26. You're just as - if not more dismissive of all Orthodox Jews....

....when it comes to views about Israel.

So nu?

[COLGATE4]

27. It just depends on whose ox is being gored.

[leftynyc]

30. Don't sweat it

Being called a racist is just part of being a supporter of Israel here on DU's I/P. It's happened to all of us. Maybe they'd stop if they knew it went in one ear and out the other which is my advice to you. Especially from posters who have a history of being very ugly towards all Orthodox Jews.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. No, you don't owe anybody an apology. Neither do I, but some just can't stop

projecting their own problems onto me: looking to self-victimize.

We both know of who I speak.

[shira]

33. This article is wrong about incitement & the proof is.....

There are no Palestinian government figures - certainly not Abbas & no one in Hamas - no media people, nor are there Palestinian leaders in entertainment or business (no leaders whatsoever) who are allowed to voice their disgust against Palestinian terror that targets random Jews of all ages, even 80 year old Jewish women in Israel. No voices to counter "Jewish apes and pigs".

Nothing. Nada.

THAT's the problem, and the author of this piece either completely misses the boat due to ignorance or he's intentionally misleading.

"Leaders words have limited impact".

Bullshit. Germany 75 years ago shows leaders' words have a lot of impact, and the dehumanization we see coming from Hamas and the PA is no different 75 years later.