Humanize Palestine

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Not true. I don't think anyone embraces violence per se, they resort to it when everything else fails:

This is a quote from Mandela during the apartheid:

On his decision to take up arms against apartheid:

“I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle.” -- Statement at the opening of his defense in the Rivonia treason trial, April 20, 1964.

Another one:

“A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire.

I think Mandela’s peace-loving qualities are oftentimes confused with him being a pacifist, which he certainly is not.Mandela did support violence where it had a clear practical purpose, and then favored property destruction over harm to people . And it is important to note that Mandela remained on the U.S. terrorism watch list until 2008, when then-President George W. Bush signed a bill removing Mandela from it.

Way to go, Muslima. Try to make the change that these two men into a violent struggle to justify your own actions. It was not. They made historic changes without resorting to violence, certainly not on the scale you advocate for the Palestinians.

Change without violence is possible -- but you don't want that. You embrace it.

Here's a link from Mandela's biography for you and the other poster. You both are partially right but Mandela has the final word on this thoughts on non-violence and violence.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/06/anger-at-the-heart-of-nelson-mandela-s-violent-struggle.html

I know you would love for me to embrace violence, I don't. You said Mandela's fight was nonviolent, and I just showed you that that wasn't true. So now, you don't have anything to add to the conversation? Yes, change without violence is possible if you're not oppressing a people and keeping them caged in an open air prison. Just like Mandela said "it was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle.” - Hamas was created 20 years after the state Israel was created. You don't oppress people and expect them to sit down around a fire at night and tell stories & dance!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Where should I begin? First, the discussion is about sacrificing lives for a cause. Many people -- Americans included -- honor the practice of preferring death to life without liberty. New Hampshire's license plates actually say "Live Free or Die". Gandhi entered confrontations knowing that it might result his or other deaths. Mandela, despite your apparent lack of knowledge of the topic, also practiced armed struggle. He certainly was not imprisoned for leading a sit-in. He was the leader of the ANC's armed wing.

Sacrificing your own life for a cause is not the same as killing others for your cause. That is the distinction. The Palestinians are perfectly happy to kill Israelis but cry foul when they are killed. That makes no sense to me. If you embrace violence against your enemy, don't be surprised that they are violent back.

South Africa was not changed as a result of armed struggle. It was changed as a result of a world commitment to change that did not embrace violence.

[Anonymous]

^^^Here's the link on Mandela's views from his biography.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/06/anger-at-the-heart-of-nelson-mandela-s-violent-struggle.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Not true. I don't think anyone embraces violence per se, they resort to it when everything else fails:

This is a quote from Mandela during the apartheid:

On his decision to take up arms against apartheid:

“I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle.” -- Statement at the opening of his defense in the Rivonia treason trial, April 20, 1964.

Another one:

“A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire.

I think Mandela’s peace-loving qualities are oftentimes confused with him being a pacifist, which he certainly is not.Mandela did support violence where it had a clear practical purpose, and then favored property destruction over harm to people . And it is important to note that Mandela remained on the U.S. terrorism watch list until 2008, when then-President George W. Bush signed a bill removing Mandela from it.

Way to go, Muslima. Try to make the change that these two men into a violent struggle to justify your own actions. It was not. They made historic changes without resorting to violence, certainly not on the scale you advocate for the Palestinians.

Change without violence is possible -- but you don't want that. You embrace it.

Wow, you really don't know the history of South Africa, do you? I love the man, but he was not a pacifist. He was given a life sentence for organizing a guerrilla group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^Here's the link on Mandela's views from his biography.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/06/anger-at-the-heart-of-nelson-mandela-s-violent-struggle.html

His the final authority. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^Here's the link on Mandela's views from his biography.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/06/anger-at-the-heart-of-nelson-mandela-s-violent-struggle.html

His the final authority. Period.

So basically, not a pacifist.

i think it incredibly presumptuous for privileged people to demand that oppressed peoples pursue their goals nonviolently. Dr. King believed in it, so did Gandhi. But it's wrong to expect it of people who are suffering. That does not condone human rights violations, but people have the right to fight for freedom.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Where should I begin? First, the discussion is about sacrificing lives for a cause. Many people -- Americans included -- honor the practice of preferring death to life without liberty. New Hampshire's license plates actually say "Live Free or Die". Gandhi entered confrontations knowing that it might result his or other deaths. Mandela, despite your apparent lack of knowledge of the topic, also practiced armed struggle. He certainly was not imprisoned for leading a sit-in. He was the leader of the ANC's armed wing.

Sacrificing your own life for a cause is not the same as killing others for your cause. That is the distinction. The Palestinians are perfectly happy to kill Israelis but cry foul when they are killed. That makes no sense to me. If you embrace violence against your enemy, don't be surprised that they are violent back.

South Africa was not changed as a result of armed struggle. It was changed as a result of a world commitment to change that did not embrace violence.

I have absolutely no doubt that I could form a world championship team of goalpost movers from DCUM posters. Also, a champion straw man debate team. Your point was not about South Africa. It was about Nelson Mandela, the leader of the ANC's armed wing, who you believe to have been a pacifist. Like many independence movements including those of the United States, Ireland, and yes, South Africa, Palestinians have embraced armed struggle.

[Anonymous]

^^^Hell, I embrace armed struggle if you break into my house. And I don't own a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Uhm, Oh, Ok, thanks for educating me. I must have been living under a rock

You are being manipulative. You are simply proving you are spreading propaganda and preying on the empathy of those who feel, rather than think.

Thank you! I can't believe we have to sit here being lied to. Palestinians sacrifice their own family and neighbors in their zeal to lay the guilt of the murders at the feet of others they deeply, deeply desire to murder. Then they call out to the world to witness the suffering they are inflicting upon themselves. Sick. Sick. Sick.

And this is a perfect example of the type of generalization that has reduced my empathy for Israel greatly. It's all of a piece - we must be told over and over again that Palestinians do not really value human life, so that we won't react with horror and outrage when Israel decides to kill so many of them. Either they had it coming to them or it's what they really wanted all along, right?

This attitude and the accompanying rhetoric literally sickens me, and it very much makes me believe that Israel in its current state is a major threat to humanity that requires systemic and fundamental change.

Systemic change. Like the final solution?

More like a one-state solution that recognizes the rights and aspirations of repressed Palestinians. Equating that with genocide is a straw-man argument, particularly considering that the actions of Netanyahu's government are closer to genocide than any actual deeds by Palestinians. At their worst, actions taken by Palestinians are no different from what Begin was doing decades ago.

[Muslima]

Let us imagine, just for a moment, that the deceitful narrative was true. What if Hamas just woke up one fine, clear peaceful morning and said, "Hey, let's start firing missiles at Israel, fellas! Won't that be a hoot?" The fact is that even in that scenario, it would not be an "unprovoked attack," but a legitimate act of self-defense.
How do we know this? Because one of Israel's most honored statesmen told us so. Abba Eban, one of the founding fathers of Israel, used his renowned eloquence to defend Israel in the UN from charges of aggression for striking first in the 1967 Six-Day War. Rising to address the global body -- where he had once served as vice-president of the General Assembly -- Eban put forth his case. The surprise attack was justified, he said, because Egypt had blockaded an Israeli port. He said :

The blockade is by definition an act of war, imposed and enforced through armed violence. Never in history have blockade and peace existed side by side. From May 24 onward, the question who started the war or who fired the first shot became momentously irrelevant. There is no difference in civil law between murdering a man by slow strangulation or killing him by a shot in the bead. From the moment at which the blockade was imposed, active hostilities had commenced and Israel owed Egypt nothing of her Charter rights. If a foreign power sought to close Odessa or Copenhagen or Marseilles or New York harbour by the use of force, what would happen? Would there be any discussion about who had fired the first shot? Would anyone ask whether aggression had begun?

The entirety of the American political-media establishment perpetually fails to point out that Gaza has been subject to a stringent and ruinous blockade by Israel since 2007. Israel has imprisoned the people of Gaza in a stateless limbo while carefully controlling almost every aspect of their lives, including what medicines they can have, what manufacturing and building materials they are allowed and even, at times, how much food they are allowed to eat to keep the population weakened but just above malnutrition levels. This brutal regimen in daily life is of course punctuated with regular night raids, bombings, kidnappings, “disappearings” and almost weekly civilians deaths at the hands of Israeli overseers. This has gone on year after year.

Eban said Israel was justified in retaliating with military force when Egypt had blockaded a port for a few weeks. How much more justified would the Palestinians be in retaliating against a total blockade -- by land, sea and air -- that has lasted almost eight years?

I do know that by the terms of the world's great and good, who speak portentously of the "laws of war" and analyze in great detail the "justifications" for violent conflict, the Palestinians have a right to resist the "slow strangulation" of the blockade ... and the "shot in the head" (and the missile in the crib) that they are now being subjected to. By Abba Eban's own reasoning, from the very first day of the Israeli blockade of Gaza, "the question who started the war or who fired the first shot became momentously irrelevant."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if you could explain why Palestinians and their supporters often continue to use the word "martyrs" to refer to Gazans killed in this conflict. The pain and devastation is obvious and palpable, yet I believe the language suggests to many Americans that Hamas treats killed "martrys" as their currency in trade.

I wish for a world with fewer martyrs and more children growing up with their basic needs met.

Totally agree. People who eagerly and willingly engage in war can't turn around and say how horrible war is. If you are against war, don't engage in war.

A man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" and urged the local population to launch an armed rebellion in order to seek independence from an unwanted occupier. That man, Patrick Henry, later became the governor of Virginia and is honored as one of America's esteemed founding fathers. To think that those lost in America's war of independence might be considered nothing but "currency in trade".

I'm not that man. In this day and age, we admire people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.

Both Mandela and Gandhi had many, many followers killed as a result of their liberation struggles. Both were clearly willing to sacrifice their own lives as well.

Yes but they did not embrace violence as a way to make change. They rejected it.

Where should I begin? First, the discussion is about sacrificing lives for a cause. Many people -- Americans included -- honor the practice of preferring death to life without liberty. New Hampshire's license plates actually say "Live Free or Die". Gandhi entered confrontations knowing that it might result his or other deaths. Mandela, despite your apparent lack of knowledge of the topic, also practiced armed struggle. He certainly was not imprisoned for leading a sit-in. He was the leader of the ANC's armed wing.

Sacrificing your own life for a cause is not the same as killing others for your cause. That is the distinction. The Palestinians are perfectly happy to kill Israelis but cry foul when they are killed. That makes no sense to me. If you embrace violence against your enemy, don't be surprised that they are violent back.

South Africa was not changed as a result of armed struggle. It was changed as a result of a world commitment to change that did not embrace violence.

I have absolutely no doubt that I could form a world championship team of goalpost movers from DCUM posters. Also, a champion straw man debate team. Your point was not about South Africa. It was about Nelson Mandela, the leader of the ANC's armed wing, who you believe to have been a pacifist. Like many independence movements including those of the United States, Ireland, and yes, South Africa, Palestinians have embraced armed struggle.

So you support the bombings in Ireland? Dreadful.

I support the Irish who came to America and made a new life for themselves and became an integral part of American culture.

We just mourned the loss of Nelson Mandela and pretty much everyone recounted what a great man he was and the amazing changes he brought about through peaceful means. I don't know how I could be changing the goal posts when I keep saying that change took place in South Africa through world-wide non-violent commitment to change. That's how it happened.

No one should ever win a political struggle through violent means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^Here's the link on Mandela's views from his biography.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/06/anger-at-the-heart-of-nelson-mandela-s-violent-struggle.html

His the final authority. Period.

So basically, not a pacifist.

i think it incredibly presumptuous for privileged people to demand that oppressed peoples pursue their goals nonviolently. Dr. King believed in it, so did Gandhi. But it's wrong to expect it of people who are suffering. That does not condone human rights violations, but people have the right to fight for freedom.

Dr King also said that if he had not had Malcom X coming from the other direction, ( by any means necessary) he was sure that his non-violent movement would not have been as successful in getting whites to join his movement.

[Anonymous]

For all the posters advocating peaceful means, when will you begin boycotting companies that do business with Israel? When will you begin demanding the US stop supporting Israel. This and only this is what broke the South Africa Apartheid. Money.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
So you support the bombings in Ireland? Dreadful.

I support the Irish who came to America and made a new life for themselves and became an integral part of American culture.

We just mourned the loss of Nelson Mandela and pretty much everyone recounted what a great man he was and the amazing changes he brought about through peaceful means. I don't know how I could be changing the goal posts when I keep saying that change took place in South Africa through world-wide non-violent commitment to change. That's how it happened.

No one should ever win a political struggle through violent means.

I am not sure to which bombings in Ireland you referring. The armed struggle for Irish independence to which I referred is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence

I understand that you have limited knowledge of history, particularly history involving Nelson Mandela. But, since political struggle should never be waged by violent means, how do you feel about the Zionist terrorist groups that helped achieve Israel's independence. These include:

The Irgun, led by eventual Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, which blew up the King David Hotel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

The Stern Gang, led by another eventual Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir. The Stern Gang assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East and used a truck bomb to destroy the Salam building in Haifa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Gang

The Haganah, who blew up the Christian-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 20 persons, among them Viscount de Tapia, the Spanish Consul

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiramis_Hotel_bombing

The Irgun and Stern Gang joined forces to commit the massacre of Deir Yassin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

I assume that you consider it tragic that these proponents of violence against civilians succeeded in their goal of an independent country?

[Anonymous]

jsteele, when did wikpedia become an accepted source? You question info but now quote wikpedia? Seriously?