Skip to main content

View Diary: Didya Hear? The Arab Spring Has Arrived in Palestine (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But then (4+ / 0-)

    what's the appropriate response to Israeli soldiers entering Palestinian villages? Surely, that counts as agressive storming.

    Using the standard in your comment, do Palestinians have a right to use force when Israelis move beyond the Green Line? Is it OK to follow Israeli rules of engagement and shoot at their feet when they enter Palestinian territory?

    If the people one day wish to live / destiny cannot but respond / And the night cannot but disappear / and the bonds cannot but break. -- Abu'l-Qasim al-Shabbi

    by unspeakable on Wed May 18, 2011 at 03:43:56 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It will be when there is a Palestinian State (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paul in Berkeley, livosh1

      with set borders. It will absolutely be within their rights to do just that.

      DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

      by volleyboy1 on Wed May 18, 2011 at 04:03:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How does that work (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Flyswatterbanjo, soysauce, poco

        when the general framework that has been set forth in over 20 years of negotiations precludes Palestinians having control over their borders and the right to self-defense?

        In fact, even in the unlikely eventuality that a Palestinian state would ever come into existence, your statement that

        It will absolutely be within their rights to do just that.

        will be far from "absolute."

        If the people one day wish to live / destiny cannot but respond / And the night cannot but disappear / and the bonds cannot but break. -- Abu'l-Qasim al-Shabbi

        by unspeakable on Wed May 18, 2011 at 05:22:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Israel has no agreed borders (4+ / 0-)

        as you are well aware, since you regularly apologise for its attempts to expand them.

        A nearly unanimous international political and legal consensus does say that Israel's borders run along the Green Line - borders the Israeli government (and, far less importantly, you) reject, and the Palestinian leadership, including Hamas, accepts.

        The Syrian unarmed, nonviolent demonstrators did not attempt to cross Israeli borders, since Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights is "null and void", as the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice have repeatedly affirmed.

        A lot of the violence took place in the village of Majdal Shams in the occupied Golan Heights. Again, no Israeli borders were crossed or threatened, because Israel has zero legal title to Majdal Shams.

        Meanwhile in the West Bank, protestors attempted to march into East Jerusalem. Again, no Israeli borders were crossed, because, as repeatedly affirmed by the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice, Israel has zero legal title to any of East Jerusalem.

        So it's important that people be clear about this: when commentators here and elsewhere claim that Israel was justified in killing or indeed doing anything to the unarmed demonstrators because it has a right to defend "its borders", they are taking a position, contrary to the entire international community and the International Court of Justice, that Israel has the right to unilaterally determine its borders, even when they run through other people's territory.

        Meanwhile, if Palestinian refugees in Lebanon seek to return to their homeland, they are only upholding the internationally recognised right of return. If Israel wants another solution, it should end its rejectionism and make Palestinians a serious offer. Shooting unarmed refugees is not a legitimate substitute for that, and this really shouldn't need saying.

    •  No, nor do I think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paul in Berkeley, livosh1

      Israel's rules of engagement that offer some sort of blanket acceptability for shooting at the feet of any illegal border crosser are OK either. Even when the opposing party is not acting peacefully, as I believe those storming Israel's northern borders were not, I believe in using the minimum amount of force necessary.

      These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

      by Red Sox on Wed May 18, 2011 at 04:32:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, (4+ / 0-)

        the reason that I referred to the Israeli rules of engagement is because you haven't specified what you think is appropriate use of force.

        Are Palestinians entitled to use the minimum amount of force necessary when Israelis step beyond the Green Line?

        If the people one day wish to live / destiny cannot but respond / And the night cannot but disappear / and the bonds cannot but break. -- Abu'l-Qasim al-Shabbi

        by unspeakable on Wed May 18, 2011 at 05:19:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not in my estimation (0+ / 0-)

          Israelis stepping over the Green Line is not, in my opinion, the same as crossing into Israel from another country, since the Green Line does not demarcate entry from one country into another. Thus, I think volley's point about when there is a Palestinian state is a valid one. I don't think civilians on either side of the Green Line are fair targets of force for the Israeli government, the PA, Hamas, Fatah, etc. out of their mere presence.

          These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

          by Red Sox on Thu May 19, 2011 at 05:59:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Flyswatterbanjo

            I don't mean that you're a ridiculous person, but the contrast between your words and the actual events on the ground are absolutely ridiculous.

            1) Palestinians are actually subjected to these levels of force, as this vile user justifying the use of attack dogs on human beings pointed out. They are also shot at and injured as well. And the larger point is that only Israelis are allowed to use this sort of violence. Any attempt by Palestinians to act similarly is automatically condemned by The People That Matter and investigations are called for.

            2) Your argument that only states have the right to do this is quite convenient when Israel refuses to allow a Palestinian state to come into being. And as I said above, throughout the negotiating process, one of Israel's consistent demands has been that a Palestinian state lack the ability to defend itself and any control over its borders. The United States fully supports this, and it's likely to be a part of any solution in the foreseeable future. So in fact, Palestinians wouldn't have that same right to deal with "trespassers," would they?

            3) The Israeli army — not civilians but the army — has repeatedly violated Lebanese territory since 2006. No one would countenance a response from Lebanon.

            There is a hypocrisy here where Arabs may be killed and no one bats an eye while an uproar would emerge if the target were an Israeli Jew.

            If the people one day wish to live / destiny cannot but respond / And the night cannot but disappear / and the bonds cannot but break. -- Abu'l-Qasim al-Shabbi

            by unspeakable on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:53:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry you feel that way (0+ / 0-)

              But I don't think you're comparing apples to apples. If a gang of Israelis were to storm the Syrian border, or the Jordanian border, and were met with force by those countries, I can't say I'd find any fault with Damascus or Amman.

              I've don't really have a strong stance on the militarization or demilitarization of a Palestinian state, so I don't quite know why I get held responsible for the positions of others. I believe that the security concerns of Israel and the security concerns of Palestine ought to be part of the peace process and that Palestine ought to be able to defend itself, while also accounting for Israel's desire not to be attacked. Both sides seem to present Palestine's defense abilities as an all or nothing proposition, part of the absolutism that poisons the chance for peace.

              These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

              by Red Sox on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:23:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wasn't holding you (0+ / 0-)

                responsible for others' words and behaviors, and I'm not calling you a hypocrite.

                What I'm saying is that from where I stand, which for better or worse is opposite of you, your words sound impotent given the reality of the situation.

                Ultimately, what you believe matters a lot less than what Israeli and American policymakers do. It doesn't matter that you wouldn't find fault with Damascus or Amman shooting at Israeli "gangs" (I wholly reject this framing but that's a different point) because the people with guns and microphones would.

                If the people one day wish to live / destiny cannot but respond / And the night cannot but disappear / and the bonds cannot but break. -- Abu'l-Qasim al-Shabbi

                by unspeakable on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:45:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site