Boycott Israel - No Spam

[VoodooDali]

@Word: the word for Palestinian in arabic is Philistine. If you read the Bible, they are present in the Old Testament (and much despised for being polytheistic), and they are still there in the New Testament. One of the greatest and most enduring pieces of propaganda that Israel ever came up with was "A land without a people, a people without a land." After paying a visit to Palestine in 1891, the Hebrew essayist Achad Ha-Am commented: " Abroad we are accustomed to believe that Israel is almost empty; nothing is grown here and that whoever wishes to buy land could come here and buy what his heart desires. In reality, the situation is not like this. Throughout the country it is difficult to find cultivable land which is not already cultivated." "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don't blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibat; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kfar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al Shuman. There is not one single place that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan's address to the Technion, Haifa (as Quoted in Ha'aretz, April 4, 1969).

Personally, I believe that neither side is being realistic or smart in their present tactics. Sharon's activities, if they continue, are going to further alienate any allies and could result in a UN occupying force. The Palestinians frustrate me because I feel like they have little understanding of the American psyche. If they pulled a Martin Luther King on the Israeli's, the majority of Americans would share their outrage. It is essential IMO for the Palestinians to win the American public over, because only then will our government put pressure on Israel. I am very peeved that Sharon has repeatedly disregarded US requests for withdrawal. I think when another country is giving you around $3 billion per year, you should have a little more respect.

I do believe that both sides have a right to exist. I think huge mistakes were made by the British at the outset, and we now have a situation where the only seeming solution is to create two separate states. That will always be fraught with problems. Ideally, it should have been one democratic state.

Here's a great article about the failure of the Peace Process from Tikkun magazine by Uri Avnery (an Israeli) for Gush Shalom:



80 Theses for a New Peace Camp

[CM]

I will not get involved in this debate at all. Though i will answer some points, not related to Israel.

@weasel, Yes India fought the british many times. There was a massive uprising by Muslims in 1848 against the british army and from within. It was brutually suppressed. Organizations like the RSS and Shiv Sena had been fighting an armed struggle against the British from the early 1900s. Of course according to the present definition, all these people would be called terrorists.

Definition of a Terrorist:
Mandela could be called a terrorist, if the Aparthied regime would still be in power. The People of East Timor and Aceh would be called Terrorists as well by the Indonesia government. India would label all 17 of its indepedence movements as terrorist run. The status of Western Sahara would also become an issue of Terrorism, etc etc. The present definition sucks, as it does not make a distinction between the legit freedom struggles, like Timor and Aceh, as well as Kashmir. According to Swiss history and the present definition of a terrorist, William Tell would be a terrorist, so said by my swiss teacher.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by CM
I will not get involved in this debate at all. Though i will answer some points, not related to Israel.

@weasel, Yes India fought the british many times. There was a massive uprising by Muslims in 1848 against the british army and from within. It was brutually suppressed. Organizations like the RSS and Shiv Sena had been fighting an armed struggle against the British from the early 1900s. Of course according to the present definition, all these people would be called terrorists.

Let me rephase the question, How did India finally get the British to leave?

[CM]

Weasel to put in a quick list it would be as follows:

1. Originally in the 1800's there were armed conflicts.
2. Gandhi and his peaceful demostrations - that in many cases due to stupid idiots in the mobs turned in towards violence.
3. RSS and Shiv Sena carried out attacks until world war 1.

It was only after the 1st world war, that the british realized that the best thing to do would be to give self-autonomy to India.
In 1936, you had elections and an Indian parliament.

From 1920 to 1936, the brits were working actively with the Indian National Congres and the Muslim League. They drafted the 1936 charter together etc.
It was always a cooperation, after the brits realised that they could not stop the desire for self-determination.
Then after 1936, you had problems between the Indian National Congress and The Muslim League, so in 1947 you states were created. India and Pakistan.
1971 Bangladesh was created.

[Weasel]

@CM, this is what I was taught in school.

"Nonviolent resistance to British colonialism under Mohandas GANDHI and Jawaharlal NEHRU led to independence in 1947."

World opinion does have IMHO a way of forcing something to happen.

Would the World allowed British "reserve" troops (Indians dressed as Bristish troops) to beat down peaceful resistance, I don't believe the world would have allowed it. And I believe England knew this and took the only path allowed to them.

Now if they had fought, I believe India might to this day still be a British Colony.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

What do you mean, it's not like the UK sells them Tanks or anything....oh wait It is interesting, the House of Commons was lamenting how bad the Israel situation was, and they seem to have forgotten how they sell them armaments and tanks

My comment that the UK should feel some guilt in the Israel-Palestine was a joke, but what I was referring to is that the UK:s acting when Palestine was a British Mandate, is part of what has caused today's problems. When Palestine was British mandate, the Brits promised both the Jews and the Arab Palestines to get a state of their own. When conflicts between the groups escalated, the British got cold feet and handed the situation over to the UN.

What can I say about the House of Commons, it's like all countries where weapon export is a big industry - they are not very selective to whom they sell to, and they don't seem to care what about the weapons being used to committ crimes or violations of human rights

[CM]

Weasel, that statement is rather simplistic to say the least. non-violence did play a big role I agree. However it was not the only thing. The independence was not achieved in a vaccum with only the protests being it. There political diaolgues all the time. The Viceroy's met the leaders of both parties all the time. Nehru and Mountbatten were good friends. I doubt they became good friends by Nehru sitting on the roads and batten in his office. They talked discussed the issues all the time. Mountbatten is just one example.

But Weasel they did fight. From 1848 till the 1900's the military did not allow India officers, as that would give them control over their troops and may lead to a repeat of 1848.
The british established an excellent system in the military. Commands are followed no matter what. Pakistan and india still work on those old british military prinicples.

Indian soldiers were used to beat back protestors and counter attacks by radicals. It was only until after WW1 that there were actual talks from what I know.

At that time, India was part of the British empire. Only the british could say what went on in their lands. This was not an issue where humanitarian values were dominant. Heck Churchil referred to Gandhi as a dirty little begger. World opinion then was how make Germany pay and how to make sure there is no more WWs.
It was not lets be humanitarian and stuff to the Indian people.

[Gruntboy]

If you go back far enough, we all come from the same place (for the religious among us - God, for the scientific, monkeys).

So what is the problem here? People do not want to acknowledge their common roots. I mentioned anti-semetic before. I was surprised no-one picked up that semetic peoples, properly, refer to race, not religion. The peoples of the middle east are essentially the same peoples. The current troubles are a modern fabrication, perpetuated by out-dated and anchronistic rhetoric.

How do you stop it? Unless you can bring acknowledgement to the above facts, the only alternative is continued conflict (or the proverbial "one side is wiped out" - an impossibility in today's world).

[Tom]

This really grew

there is a lot to comment on but many have already voiced my opinion - as always its comforting to agree with CE and Dottie.

Fable asked me if I boycott things produced in China. I don't see how it is relevant to the arguments here but I can assure you that if I see that something is made in china I will look for another product. Now I am not as dedicated as I would like to be - I don't have lists of companies etc. ( in fact I will try to do better - CE if you have those lists at hand I would be grateful if you could send them to me)

The freedom fighter or terrorist debate is really interesting. I don't have any definitions handy but I would note that Mandela was arrested as a terrorist for loading explosives on a truck. I don't agree with a lot of the ways that the Palestinians resist the occupation but I am sure they would say that they are so out gunned that this is the only way they can make an impact.

One thing I would emphasis is that I expect better behaviour from the Israelis than from the Palestinians. Why is that not unfair?! I don't think so. Israel is a democratic state made up of educated people while the Palestinians are a scattered over a territory with no conjoining borders living under siege, poorly educated and dominated by extremist organisations. Now by no means am I saying that the Palestinians can be excused for everything but I think that with greater power and education comes greater responsibility.

I still believe that that slowly escalating and targeted sanctions together with increased diplomatic pressure can work. I still am not sure what many of the other commentators in this thread think about this idea.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by CM
Weasel, that statement is rather simplistic to say the least. non-violence did play a big role I agree. However it was not the only thing. The independence was not achieved in a vaccum with only the protests being it. There political diaolgues all the time. The Viceroy's met the leaders of both parties all the time. Nehru and Mountbatten were good friends. I doubt they became good friends by Nehru sitting on the roads and batten in his office. They talked discussed the issues all the time. Mountbatten is just one example.

But Weasel they did fight. From the military did not allow India officers, as that would give them control over their troops and may lead to a repeat of 1848.
The british established an excellent system in the military. Commands are followed no matter what. Pakistan and india still work on those old british military prinicples.

Indian soldiers were used to beat back protestors and counter attacks by radicals. It was only until after WW1 that there were actual talks from what I know.

Simplist or not when India got their independence they did not have to blow everyday people up for it. There were no armies marching on the British in India. Instead the smart one's used used passive resistance to anything British. And I agree there was dialog between certain members of both side and this most likely helped.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Tom


I still believe that that slowly escalating and targeted sanctions together with increased diplomatic pressure can work. I still am not sure what many of the other commentators in this thread think about this idea.

I cannot ask my government to put sanctions on a country and then two or three months down the road have every peace loving person bashing the US for doing it.

Look at Iraq and see what sanctions really do.

[Gruntboy]

Freedom Fighter Vs Terrorist

Its all a matter of perception.

You cannot get a proponent of suicide bombers to ever admit they are wrong and should stop when they believe they are martyrs and are doing the right thing. To the victims, these people are obviously terrorists.

I cannot even begin to imagine what it would take to alter those perceptions - I'd even say it was impossible given my experience.

Try telling me the 9/11 attackers were freedom fighters. Go on, just try it.

[HighLordDave]

@Weasel:
The success of passive resistance for Ghandi in India and MLK, Jr. in the US was in part due to the threat of violence from militant elements, and not successful purely on its own.

Why did the white establishment deal with King when they could have just supressed him? Because their alternative was the Black Panthers, and King was a far cooler head than anyone else. Same thing with Ghandi. As long as militant groups existed, the passive resistance folks could say, "Hey, we're doing our part and we're not fighting back. Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! We're being repressed!" and they would look like the good guys (and thus win the PR battle).

Since there was always the spectre of a violent reaction, the people doing the repressing looked like the bad guys when that spectre never materialised. However, without the threat of a violent reaction, the changes in India and the Civil Rights Movement never would have taken place.

[fable]

Simplist or not when India got their independence they did not have to blow everyday people up for it. There were no armies marching on the British in India. Instead the smart one's used used passive resistance to anything British. And I agree there was dialog between certain members of both side and this most likely helped.

Passive resistance has never won the freedom of any people, without the lack of will in their occupiers to hold onto what has been taken in the past. If the British had not been tired of war, with a populace that was turning against colonialism, and the renewed, very strong threat of Hindu and Muslim militancy, Churchill would never have agreed to bow out of India.

For a very alternative view of Gandhi, check out the second volume of Nirad Chaudhuri's Thy Hand, Great Anarch.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Its all a matter of perception.

You cannot get a proponent of suicide bombers to ever admit they are wrong and should stop when they believe they are martyrs and are doing the right thing. To the victims, these people are obviously terrorists.

I cannot even begin to imagine what it would take to alter those perceptions - I'd even say it was impossible given my experience.

Try telling me the 9/11 attackers were freedom fighters. Go on, just try it.

You daring me like that makes it almost irresistible.
But I don’t think they were freedom fighters.

I disagree however that whether a given person is a terrorist or freedom fighter is a matter of perspective. While it is not easy to determine - especially without having definitions everybody can agree on I believe there is a difference. The people that fought the German occupation in Europe were without doubt freedom fighters while 9.11 people were undoubtedly terrorists (and I think you would agree with me on that)

I don't think that it is easy to define a freedom fighter as opposed to a terrorist but there are certain things we can say a freedom fighter must arguably have.

He must be fighting for a morally worthy cause. (don't ask what that is please)
He must use appropriate force.
He must be under occupation and facing overwhelming odds.

This leaves it open what the Palestinians are of course depending on whether they use appropriate force and whether they fight a morally worthy cause. I think that it is inappropriate to blow up clubs full of teenagers no matter what it was in retaliation for. I think that the Palestinian struggle is a mix of the two - freedom fighting and terrorism and I think that the Israeli struggle is a mix of legit counter-terrorism and state terrorism.

But ultemetly I think that the Israeli are the occupying force, is a wealthy (relatively) and highly educated state and so the onus is on them to act in a far better way than they have.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

In their eyes, and the eyes of those who agree with their tactics, the 9/11 attackers were freedom fighters. It all comes down to perception.

[HighLordDave]

I don't think they were freedom fighters in this context because they were generally not living in occupied lands. Many were from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, although they were striking a blow against the United States. I think the term "holy warriors" may be a better term them because they saw that they were doing God's will. I think our friend Tom rightly points out that freedom fighters (ie-resistance fighters, partisans, or whatever other term you use) must by definition be in opposition to an occupying force, whether it is from within the occupied lands or as expatriates living in exile.

As a side note, some Arabs would make the argument that the US is an occupying force in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Holy Land with its sizeable military presence left over from the Gulf War, but they are there at the invitation of the current Saudi regime (which is view as illegitimate by its opponents). The semantic cycle continues . . .

[CM]

@Weasel, HDL and Fable have made my point. Though more succinctly and much clearier. There were military wings, and only after the British themselves decided that they would give freedom did they start a dialogue. The peace movement did not force the brits to start a dialogue.

@Gruntboy the Sept 11th were terrorists pure and simple. The Fatah Movement, the AHPC in Kashmir etc are not terrorist groups no matter what Israel and India would like you to think. I am prove that the Fatah movement is actually a legit resistance movement. As well as Hizbollah and AHPC.

[Jace]

Its all a matter of perception.

You cannot get a proponent of suicide bombers to ever admit they are wrong and should stop when they believe they are martyrs and are doing the right thing. To the victims, these people are obviously terrorists.

I cannot even begin to imagine what it would take to alter those perceptions - I'd even say it was impossible given my experience.

Try telling me the 9/11 attackers were freedom fighters. Go on, just try it.

@Grunty, I agree with everything you said, up to the last sentence. You don't believe that they were freedom fighters, and that's fine, but they will have seen them selves as freedom fighters.

I, like most of the world, think that their actions were heinous and terrible. Without an understanding of and respect for their motivations (and respect does not equal approval!) it will be impossible to safeguard against more atrocious acts.

This, IMO, is the major obstacle with Israel and Palestine. There seems to be little understanding and respect on either side for the motivation of the other. The only thing that is respected is the actions themselves and so they are trapped in an Eye for an Eye struggle with no way out.

@Tom, I find it difficult to agree with your definition of a freedom fighter.

He must be fighting for a morally worthy cause. (don't ask what that is please)
He must use appropriate force.
He must be under occupation and facing overwhelming odds.

Worthy Cause - This could be anything and must be individually motivated.
Appropriate Force - Who is to judge what is appropriate?
Occupation and Overwhelming Odds - What is occupation? Do you mean just physically having an army near your place of residence? What about a civilian population that has been given your land to settle on? What if the overwhelming odds are not guns pointed in your face, but economic power?

It strikes me that the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist is one that only history can decide (and then, it will probably get it wrong)

[Gruntboy]

Oh yeah, that's it. Every single person on the face of the planet sees them as terrorists - but they perceive themselves not to be.

Sure. But it doesn't make them right.

Likewise, you could argue with me that they are freedom fighters, or that they see themselves as freedom fighters. I'd still cut the lot of them in two with a machine gun given a chance. No questions.

I will not change my perception, my reality.

(Slightly OT, but in arguing the role of perception in the terrorist/FF discussion).