Comments on: As Palestinian frustration grows, young man considers armed struggle

By: pelsar

pelsar — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:45:49 +0000

Palestinians Gains: Intifada I.

What your not understanding about intifada i was that it was limited violence and limited to the territories. The Palestinians also built social networks at the time to control their movement.

The actual result was a gray strike within the army reserve units. No one felt as if their life was in danger (most of the time) but we did ask what were doing there, and people started not showing up for the reserves.

the short versions is that the Palestinians knew how much to push and where and they got results.

Arafat came, tossed out the locals, replaced them with his corrupt friends and started intifada II which had a very different character to it…and they lost all that they had gained

By: The Trespasser

The Trespasser — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:58:59 +0000

Sh,
You can start in ole good Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule#19th_century
Lots of references.

By: sh

sh — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:08:58 +0000

“Organized violence against Jews begun at least 100 years earlier.”
Care to back that up with evidence, Trespasser? It isn’t that this claim isn’t made by various sources of a certain inclination, but it isn’t backed up there either. The concrete evidence supplied always seems to begin in 1920 for some reason.

By: Vicky

Vicky — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:02:21 +0000

I wouldn’t take any of Hakem’s ideas to the bank. Based on what Mya has written about him, I would bank only on the following: he was born under occupation and his parents were too. Mya says he’s young, so he was probably a child in the Intifada years, and the article implies that he’s seen some nasty stuff. He won’t even let his first name be used, so he’s clearly afraid, although the article contains nothing very revelatory. He could be any one of a number of teenagers and young men whom I know in Bethlehem. Based on what he says, he experiences the same sense of frustration and powerlessness as they do, and he has the same old hurts and humiliations in his background. I don’t know what his contact with Israelis and Jews outside the army has been, but it’s unlikely to have been anything very great. This is why I’m glad that Mya sat and talked to him even though the resulting article isn’t anything special. But when you look at this article, you don’t seem to pick up on these signals about what his life may be like – instead you start talking about the grand sweep of religion and political nationalism, when the focus needs to be on something much more basic, the dignity of this one guy. It might help to read his views in this light instead of trying to treat them as a fixed political blueprint. For me this story is a means of understanding more about one pretty ordinary person and what his life has been, rather than a manifesto to be debated.

By: The Trespasser

The Trespasser — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:31:44 +0000

Sh,
“And we lecture them on non-violence instead of going and screaming our outrage in the hundreds of thousands in front of the ministries and offices (or the state of Israel’s representations abroad) that produced and perpetuate this situation.”

Palestinian Arabs have no-one to blame but themselves for the current situation.
They have begun violence long before the state of Israel appeared on maps and now they are facing consequences of their leader’s mistakes.

By: The Trespasser

The Trespasser — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:12:00 +0000

You are wrong, XYZ.
Organized violence against Jews begun at least 100 years earlier.
However for Greg Pollock and such there is only one kind of violence exists – Jewish violence towards Arabs. Whatever happening outside that simply does not interest them. I guess it has to do with certain mental state.

By: XYZ

XYZ — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:41:19 +0000

Greg said:
————————————
Hakem’s nascent ideology is a warning sign to all sides.
————————————

“Nascent” ideology? Where have you been for the last 100 years, Greg? Are you one of these Jewish Leftists who think the Arab-Israeli conflict began in 1967? There has been organized Arab violence against the Jewish Yishuv since 1920. They were saying the same thing as Hakem then and ever since.
The Arabs do no accept the existence of any Jewish state within any borders, as Hakem has stated. But even if the Jews had not set up a state in 1948, there still would have been a civil war between Arabs and Jews then and the Arabs, driven by the extremists in their camp, would have worked to drive the Jews out of the country entirely. It simply would have been another version of Lebanon.

Any removal of settlements simply makes the Arabs think the Jews are folding up, just as happened after the destruction of Gush Katif, and this would stoke increased violence. That is why no contractual peace will be possible, only an evolving modus vivendi. Hakem will realize eventually that his violence is a dead-end for the Palestinian people and their only way forward is by them deciding they want a better life for themselves, and an ideologically pure jihad will only lead to defeat for them.

By: richard witty

richard witty — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:06:21 +0000

Armed struggle is more of the same when change is needed.

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:00:52 +0000

The vanguard settlers have not been curtailed; that attaches their ideology of ownership of the Bank to the State. Bibi has made it clear that he will not let the courts be used “against us.” Absolutely nothing is lost by stopping and removing vanguard settlements if you really want an accord with resident Palestinians. Rather, you want to place near religious guilt on the other side to justify continued expansion. Hakem’s nascent ideology is a warning sign to all sides. If you treat all the Bank as infected with Hakems you guarantee resurgent violence. Should I be silenced for saying this as a supporter of violence? As said before, you do not cure cancer by denying its efficacy.

By: sh

sh — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:28:23 +0000

“There is no other single action that would do two things:

1. Elect likud again
2. Change hearts and minds of Israelis, and the European world, for the very gross negative, resembling the second intifada”

1. Likud will be elected “again” even if the Palestinians stay non-violent (actually Kadima was elected in the last election)
2. And they will be elected precisely because hearts and minds have not changed since the 2nd intifada. I suspect Hakem’s desperation stems from that.

It must take enormous self-control for a normally constituted young lad to remain non-violent when thugs are destroying his family’s wells, the produce he and his family have toiled for, with complete impunity (never mind all the other daily inconveniences). They have no protection and no recourse. And we lecture them on non-violence instead of going and screaming our outrage in the hundreds of thousands in front of the ministries and offices (or the state of Israel’s representations abroad) that produced and perpetuate this situation.