Palestinian resistance defies Abbas

[QueerJustice]

Palestinian resistance defies Abbas


Friday 14 January 2005, 17:18 Makka Time, 14:18 GMT



A Palestinian official has called for a mutual ceasefire on a day when Palestinians marched in the streets in defiance of President-elect Mahmud Abbas' call for non-violence in the region.



Nabil Abu Rudina, the official spokesman for the Palestinian National Authority, made the remarks after the killing of six Israelis, Aljazeera reported.



"Israel should stop its escalation and military attacks and withdraw from Palestinian towns," Abu Rudina said.



Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has frozen all official contact with the Palestinian leadership until further notice in response to Thursday’s bomb attack, one of his advisers said on Friday.



Thousands of Palestinians marched in the streets of Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip in what they described as a victory march.



The Friday march followed the killing of the Israelis by fighters who mounted their strongest challenge yet to Abbas and his call for resistance groups to lay down their arms

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D69F1986-3269-4335-8458-0B63E9F0BF04.htm

[QueerJustice]

1. Why is it every time Terrorists attack.....

....immedietly after , people are calling for a cease fire....BEFORE Israel retaliates....

The biggest chutzpah then after these murderers attack Israel is to state :

``"Israel should stop its escalation and military attacks and withdraw from Palestinian towns," Abu Rudina said.``

Translation:leave us in peace to kill and murder your people dammitt.....

[King Mongo]

2. Inaccurate assumptions

Well, actually, they are saying that people have the right to defend themselves. If Abbas does not defend Palestinians, then the Hamas will.

Like I said, forget peace. Sharon is still in charge. Abbas will be blamed just like Arafat was blamed. One cannot expect for Palestinians to not defend themselves when Israelis are grabbing their land.

[QueerJustice]

3. if Abbas is blamed....

...he will have deserved that blame....

[King Mongo]

15. demonstrating an end to the occupation

Sharon failed to demonstrate to the Hamas that Israel would end the unnecessary occupation. Why should Abbas succeed in demonstrating such when Sharon failed?

[eyl]

8. Well,

Thursday they killed people who were responsible for bringing food to the Palestinians. what interpretation of "defending themselves" does that come under?

[King Mongo]

14. self-defense

Eyl, if they do not believe that they are defending themselves, then why do they use violence? Hamas members are smart enough to recognize that Israel is here to stay and that the occupation is unnecessary. I think that the folks use violence because they wrongly believe that such is necessary for the purpose of self-defense.

My position is that neither both violent or non-violent resistance will successfully end the occupation.

[theresistance]

4. Don't agree with you...

The record shows that the Palestinians have been on the receiving end of far greater killing ("terrorism" if one was to borrow the official US/Israeli term) and oppression. Suicide bombers have been in RESPONSE to Israeli actions - this isn't my opinion, it is what the United Nations have said in the past.

[QueerJustice]

5. suicide bombers are the BIGGEST cowards....

killing innocent children so the may receive sexual gratification 72 time in heaven does not equal a hero....

[theresistance]

6. I didn't say they were heroes, but they are responses and revenge

for GREATER aggression they experiance from Israel.

[King Mongo]

28. getting killed in greater Isreal

Occupation resistance troops are generally killed no matter what type of resistance is practiced. It really doesn't matter if they kill themselves or not given that the IDF will kill them anyway. Often, soldiers prefer to kill themselves than to be captured by the enemy, for good reasons. Suicide bombings, as wicked as they are, are the natural result of the given sitaution.

[eyl]

7. Look over the record of the last four years

IDF offensives have usually come after major suicide bombings, not before.

[theresistance]

9. Totally disagree

I definitely have been looking at the record over the years and have written dozens of articles for my website about this. For example one point: the first suicide bombing didn't come until after an Israeli ("terrorist", to follow the standards laid down by Israel and US) walked into a mosque and gunned down innocent worshipers. You've just fallen for the Israeli propaganda in how they use suicide attacks as a pretext to INCREASE the level of oppression ALREADY suffered by Palestinians.

P.S. I'm trying to be careful in relation to this, keeping in mind the forum rules in relation to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Might end it at that...

[pelsar]

10. back up a bit.......

The particular choice of suicide bombers as a weapon, was not "by chance". The preperation, the planning and the infrastructure is not done by amatures. Quite the opposite, the chosing of the bomber, the belt preparation, the sending of the belt across the green line, the bombers handler etc are part of a very sophisticated network. From plan to execution takes weeks, consequently its not "in response" to a particular IDF action. Its part of an ongoing system of attacking israel.

The actual use of suicide bombers, in my opinion, is a very poor choice as it makes every palesteniain, man, women, child, it makes every transport vehicle suspect of being part of that system. The consequence of that are roadblocks, checks, walls etc...making life far more miserable for the avg palesteniains.

The intensity of the roadblocks started AFTER the suicide bombers occured, the wall was built after it was shown that the roadblocks, etc arent enough. More than that, the erez industrial area where 4,000 palestenains work is now closed because of the suicide bombers as is the rafiah crossing. The final crossing, Karmi, was just attacked by the same method...that too is now closed-Today gaza has no access to the outside world.

its a great system as long as you dont mind your own population suffering the consequences.

btw, using the UN to show a point to an israeli doesnt really work very well, we're still waiting for them to condem anybody for any agression against us (i dont believe that even uganda was "condemed for taking israeli hostages, let alone the PA, by name), so we dont take much stock in what the UN claims, especially when there is a zillion condemnations against us, as if we're the evil of evils.

nor do we need an "excuse" to send in military missions, though we do use a "death credit system" the more israeli deaths, the longer and deadlier to mission will be. A bit cynical perhaps, not very effective, but its a compromise system.

[theresistance]

11. Let's agree to disagree...

I could respond to your post, but its a never ending debate. If the situation was the other way around, and the Israelis were the ones occupied and oppressed and suffering far greater death and destruction, then I would be supporting the Israeli side straight away.

[pelsar]

12. to agree to disagree....

ah but thats the easy way out....the trick is to find some common ground.....

the thing is that us israelis are the children of the "genocide of WWII". The fact that we were supported in general up to 67 doesnt do much good, if we lost in 67.....you would be "supporting us in that we would then be the "oppresses" once again. Except that we've had 1,000 of years of being opressed.....we dont like it.

So the lesson is, is that there is no justice in the sense of absolute, there is only accepting situations and consequences for ones actions.

for the palestenains, their best bet, and those that support them, is to tell them to stop with the violence....and we'll be glad to follow....the short history of the intifada II shows that when an area is quiet, the IDF pulls out (but then there are usually suicide bombers that follow from that same area), so the IDF goes back in.

the lesson? shooting as us is not a good idea, Egypt figured that out, so too did jordan, Syria as welll, its time the palestenians figured it out

[King Mongo]

17. Don't harm Palestinians because of the holocaust

The holocaust is not a reason to cause Palestinians to suffer.

'67 was Israeli land expansion. If Israel had not attacked and expanded in '67, then Israel today would still be west of the green line.

Don't you think that it would be a good idea for Israel to not shoot at Syria, Jordan and Egypt?

[eyl]

19. Don't you think it would have been a good idea

for Syria, Jordan and Egypt not to shoot at Israel?

[King Mongo]

26. great idea

Yes, that's a great idea. That's why Israel should stop shooting at Syria and Lebanon, for starters and stop grabbing land.

[King Mongo]

27. dealing with international crime

I don't think that gangs like the Hamas and others are Israeli or Palestinian problems. Rather, I think that these groups are international problems because they practice international crime extending beyond political borders. Once Palestinians have their own place based upon fair agreements, then international forces should deal with the problems of international crime.

[eyl]

13. I don't understand

why some people, when "Palestinian terrorism" is mentioned, seem to fixate on suicide bombers, as if nothing else occurs. While suicide bombers are the most lethal form of terrorism Israel faces, they are actually a minority of attacks against Israelis (approximately half a percent). Before the suicide bombings, shootings and knifings were popular - case in point, some of Goldstein's apologists claim he snapped after treating (he was a doctor) too many Jewish children killed by Palestinians.

And as pelsar pointed out, the level of attacks against Palestinians intensified after suicide bombings became prolific. During the 90s, the IDF went to great lengths to avoid conflict with the Palestinians, especially the PA police forces.

[King Mongo]

18. expansion in the 90's

During the 90's, Israel was busy building illegal settlements. Israel doesn't want to kill Palestinians, it just wants to have their land. Killing Palestinians causes land expansion to be difficult to achieve, unless Palestinians can be blamed for something, like hostilities related to expanding illegal settlements.

[King Mongo]

16. revenge

In my opinion, revenge is no different from suicide bombings. Killing people because of revenge is simply stupid.

Israel should withdraw so that Palestinians can focus on fighting against crime in their nation with interenational assistance and pressure.

[QueerJustice]

20. we shall see....

in case you never noticed they are withdrawing from Gaza..

[pelsar]

21. bets anyone?

and like the hizballa in the north, israels withdrawl will not cause the palesteniains to attempt to build a better life in Gaza. Instead of using the oppertunity to show israel that they can live side by side with us in peace...they will continue to attack..at least thats where I would place my bets.

I admit I will be incredibly surprised if the palestenians get themselves together and start putting together a society that we can live with as neighbors


and if i am right king, your theory will simply be shot down.....but it would be nice to be wrong here

[drdon326]

22. I want some action....

on your side of the bet.

I see N O T H I N G that leads me to believe they want to live in peace.

It seems they are more interested in destroying a state than starting on...sadly.

[King Mongo]

25. PA efforts & Israel failure to squash the Hamas

The PA has done much in the direction of a two-state solution. Given that Bush and Israel cannot destroy the Hamas, the PA certainly can't do such using force. Yet, maybe such can be done with a fair two-state solution?

I think that Israel blames the PA for Israel's inability to destroy the Hamas since Israel is still expanding towards the dead sea.

[King Mongo]

24. two-state solution.

Gaza is not enough for independence. The West Bank is needed too and East Jerusalem would make very many people happy. As long as it is believed that Israel is expanding in the West Bank, the Hamas will grow in strength.

[King Mongo]

23. West Bank

No, Israel is not withdrawing from the West Bank. A Gaza withdrawal means nothing without the West Bank. There are still over 100 illegal settlements all over the place in the West Bank.

[pelsar]

29. tough....

they will have to start off with gaza....such are the realities in life, you simply cant get every thing you want. There is no reason at all for us to trust the palestenians. (nor do they have a reason to trust us).

This is their chance, we're now making the first step, breaking the cycle that every one cries about....it will soon be up to the palestenians to show that they can reciprocate.

all those cheerleaders will now (as you are) find fault in israel leaving gaza....well tough, this is first step, were not idiotes, the idea of handing over the westbank and even east jerusalem while while there is absolutly not even a hint of proof that neighborly relations is possible would be absurd.

and what if your wrong king?....what if we did as you suggest and west jerusalem, netanya, hadera had mortors and kassams pouring down as fast as they could import and make them...what would your reaction be?

[drdon326]

30. Probably some other reason.

Its ALWAYS Israels fault.:eyes:

The palestinians are never wrong and never have any responsibities.

:crazy:

[drdon326]

31. OMT.....

I ALWAYS find it interesting how people are willing to play arm-chair

generals/diplomats and bet the lives of israelis on the faint promise

that these terrorists will suddenly stop when there is absolutely no

history to back that up.

'yeah...i'm willing to bet more innocent israeli lives ....whats the worst that could happen?....yeah..... if theyre killed, then i was wrong".

[King Mongo]

34. dealing with international crime

This is true. International terrorism will not end with an end of the unnecessary occupation. International terrorism will also not end with a Gaza withdrawal. Seeking an end to international terrorism as a condition to withdraw from Gaza is a failed agenda.

In my opinion, the best way to protect Israel is for Israel to defend itself behind the green line while gaining international support and assistance to deal with international terrorism. Israel cannot crush the Hamas on its own, but it can crush the Hamas with Palestinian, US, EU, Arab and Muslim assistance military and financial assistance. The international desire to crush crime is so great that Israel can focus on self-defense while others do the rest.

[pelsar]

36. er King....seems we've been there.....

its was in 67 i believe....that was the border, the green line....and that international support really helped when the egyptians closed the straits blocking off israels southern port (an act of war) or when the UN acting as a buffer force, suddenly pack up and dissappeared.

Or when jordaninan snipers would take pot shots at israelis in west jerusalem....

yes sir or when fedaayan (pre PLO) massacred the passengers in a bus going from eilat to beersheva (each passenger got a bullet in the head I believe)-just an example.

yes, that international support really came through in the pre 67 times....

true things have changed, though I really dont have much confidence if its long term. Just as saudi arabia is going strong with the "jews are evil" and iran is really being imaginative with its latest TV series...Egypt will soon be getting a new dictator.....

whats worse, the present status quo? or a repeat of 67? 73?

seems to me were in a bit of catch 22 where not only are there no guarentees but the risks sure dont look good.

[King Mongo]

38. UN failure to defend Egypt in '67

The UN is not perfect. It did allow Israel to attack Egypt in 1967 and didn't defend Egypt from the invasion. Yet, with Kuwait and Afganistan, international forces did make some changes and help some people.

International forces along the green line would be quite effective, especially when used by the Palestinian Authority to deal with crime.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. It's the first and ONLY step...

That's the problem with the disengagement plan...

Also, many states don't have warm and fuzzy relationships with their neighbouring states. That's no excuse to illegally hold onto territory that doesn't belong to Israel.....

Violet...

[QueerJustice]

33. how do YOU know...

``It's the first and ONLY step``

nobody knows this....Indeed if the terrorism stops ,Sharon says the roadmap will continue....

[King Mongo]

35. negotiating with terrorists

Isn't that called negotiating with terrorists? Offering terrorists land if they don't use violence?

I don't buy that policy. Terrorists are terrorists in my opinion and they can't be bribed to do certain things.

There are only two ways to squash terrorism, in my opinion:

Help the people (end the unnecessary occupation) and increase funding for international special forces.


The only reason why Sharon negotiates with terrorists like the Hamas is because he doesn't want to divide the holy land, given that he understands that it's a failed policy to begin with.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Because he hasn't outlined any future steps...

In fact, Sharon hasn't done anything other than flap his gums, and given his past, there's no reason for anyone in their right mind to believe that the disengagement plan will lead to the West Bank being relieved of all those illegal settlements. While extremists who adore Sharon and everything he does will tell all us rational folk to *trust him*, that he's *said* he'll do it, it's interesting to notice that the very same folk demand actions rather than words from the Palestinian leadership. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. What a bunch of hypocrites...

The Israeli govt does not merely demand an end to terrorism. It demands an end to ANY resistance to the occupation while being allowed to still kill Palestinians at will. And in the past Israel has refused to recognise a Hamas ceasefire and continued to carry out attacks on Palestinians. If anyone can explain this away as the moves of a govt that wants *peace*, I assume that their definition of the word peace would be along the lines of "Let's nuke Iraq for Peace!!!!!'


Violet...

[pelsar]

37. you've forgotten us....

Sharon is the present PM, but hes not a dictator, nor does he have such power, nor do the settlers have complete control.

the formula is very simple, and if the europeans and palestenains supporters would get behind it....it would work (no matte what sharon has or doesnt have in mind). The catch is, and this is where it gets really tricky.

israelis have to be seen as humans, that we would like to live in peace. The problem with that is that it means somehow breaking through all the massive propaganda of how evil israelis are, zionism is, etc how subhuman we are. If that psychological barrier can be broken, and us israelis are seen as real people with real concerns then and only then is there a chance.

Why? because then it will be understood why we see gaza as a first step a test if you will. If it succeeds the people of israel who have in every poll for the last years have stated that we are willing to leave the westbank will force the issue...but we have to be sure, feel confident. What is so hard about that?...why is it so hard to understand that after 50+ years of fighting we need a bit confidence that this new state right next to us, wont be used as a springboard for new attacks? nothing in our short history shows other wise, infact, this would be doing just the opposite, so why are our concerns "so easily ignored"?

and for those who see us as humans, with concerns it would be reasonable....but perhaps thats asking too much, now excuse me, my favorite show is on in a few minutes of how we steal palestenain organs for our own, and my favorite palestenian blood drink is on the stove, B+ (I like it with cinnamon)

[King Mongo]

39. Sharon the dictator

Sharon is indeed a dictator in greater Israel. He kills many people without giving them the opportunity to vote against him.

[QueerJustice]

40. Arik melech yisrael?

[Violet_Crumble]

42. what does that mean?

n/t

[Scurrilous]

44. Arik, King of Israel?

Speaking of Kings...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1105418785934

Hear ye, hear ye: Sanhedrin seeks David's scion as king

<snip>

"Will Jews begin proclaiming "Long live the king" in the near future?

According to a group of 71 Jewish scholars who met this week in the Old City of Jerusalem in the form of a modern-day Sanhedrin – a duplicate of the religious tribunal which convened during the time of the Second Temple – a coronation day is growing closer."

<snip>

"There hasn't been a genuine Sanhedrin in Israel for nearly 1,600 years; the last one to be proclaimed was in France, by Napoleon, for political gain. Shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel, religious affairs minister Judah Leib Maimon raised the notion of reinstituting the ancient body, to no avail.

The group composed largely of Kahane sympathizers that gave itself the name Sanhedrin in October, however, met Sunday to discuss the creation of a Jewish monarchy in the State of Israel.

For the past several years a group called the Monarchists has conducted extensive research into the lineage of several families in an effort to discover who has the closest bloodline to the biblical King David – a requirement for any future Jewish king.

Rabbi Yosef Dayan from Psagot, known for his recent threats to place a death curse on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, is said to be a leading candidate to become the "king of Israel."

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Nah, I haven't forgotten the Israeli people...

Sharon doesn't need to have dictatorial powers or wield all that much power for the *first step* to be the only step. The impression I've gotten is that the majority of Israelis who are resentful of the settlers and their demands that Israeli troops risk their lives to act as a sort of private security firm for the settlements aim that resentment at the Gaza settlers. For Israelis that believe there's some biblical claim to the West Bank, there's nothing like that to hold them to Gaza. There's fewer settlers in Gaza, and I suspect how it'll work is that Israelis will be relieved that the settlements have been removed and forget all about the West Bank. After all, what would the Palestinians be complaining about? They've got their state if they want it - it's just not going to include the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Israelis are indeed human beings, and all human beings have a reasonably short attention span when it comes to what their leaders say and do. Any criticism of the continuing occupation of the West Bank will be met with attempts to argue that they DID remove the settlements (using Gaza as an attempt to act like all settlements are gone) and these things take time so what's everyone complaining about?

The problem I have with arguing that Israel has some right to continue to retain the settlements in the West Bank is that the Palestinians must be equally as distrusting of a hostile state right next door to them, but I'd never argue they've got the right to move into Tel Aviv and build Palestinian only settlements and start destroying Israeli homes. So it doesn't make sense to me that it'd be considered okay for Israel to do something similar. And the bottom line is that in all the time the opinion polls have been showing support for removing the settlements from the West Bank, the settlements have been expanded and the govt has encouraged Israelis to move to the West Bank. There's Israeli-only roads connecting those settlements to Israel, and to be honest, it's impossible to see any intent to dismantle any West Bank settlements rather than a few uninhabited outposts which will promptly reappear after the publicity fades away...

So, as someone who sees both Israelis and Palestinians as humans, I can understand disquiet and mistrust from both towards the other, but that doesn't mean I should support one group of humans withholding the others right to self determination and freedom..

Violet...