Palestinian Protests for Democracy

[Dean]

Why calls for party unity are in the same vein as calls for dismantling of government elsewhere:


When the protests broke into Palestine, however, they weren't attacking their "leaders," at least not in the way that the protests have gone in other countries: they called for collaboration between the two largest parties:

"But tens of thousands of Palestinians took to the streets of Gaza and the West Bank last week to demand that the two factions end their long-running rivalry.
"Following the demonstrations Abbas accepted a Hamas invitation to go to Gaza, saying he was prepared to make the trip in an attempt to "end the division and form a government of independent national figures"." Al Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/2011326151419758861.html)


And here is where the crux of the issue lies: Israel is the ruling force in Palestine, the central theme in nearly all oppression that Palestinians face on a daily basis. Hamas and Fatah are theirs to some extent (though Israeli funding and manipulation of both is well known). They are the only apparent hope, and Palestinian protest follows this to its logical conclusion: support and augment the enemy of my enemy. Democracy will come to Palestinians only after external forces cease daily assassinations, raids, bombardment, expulsions, home-destruction and once the "beehive" structure of Israeli-manned roadblocks are lifted. Maybe then the cynical Hamas-Fatah leadership will be held accountable.

The "Different" Palestinian Protests (http://thethinred.blogspot.com/2011/03/different-palestinian-protests.html#more)

[ComradeMan]

It's about time the Palestinians did something about Hamas and Fatah and all their bullshit. Good on them.

[Viet Minh]

Hamas I believe tried to hijack the protests, but the organisers refused to allow any Hamas flags, only Palestinian ones.

[RATM-Eubie]

Hamas I believe tried to hijack the protests, but the organisers refused to allow any Hamas flags, only Palestinian ones.

Thank god!

[Viet Minh]

Thank god!

Gods the one who got us into this mess in the first place!

[RGacky3]

Great developments.

[CynicalIdealist]

Gods the one who got us into this mess in the first place!

No. More like geopolitics.

[Viet Minh]

No. More like geopolitics.

Yes, but you can't deny the (hugely negative) influence of (pseudo) religious beliefs on the southern levant.

[Dean]

Yes, but you can't deny the (hugely negative) influence of (pseudo) religious beliefs on the southern levant.
Perhaps, but religion is not "what got us into this mess in the first place."

[agnixie]

Yes, but you can't deny the (hugely negative) influence of (pseudo) religious beliefs on the southern levant.

Reactionary religious beliefs largely promoted by british colonial politics because they were seen as preferable to socialism and "god forbid" independence ;)

[Viet Minh]

Reactionary religious beliefs largely promoted by british colonial politics because they were seen as preferable to socialism and "god forbid" independence ;)

Britain gave them independence, after Zionist groups carried out terrorist attacks against the British Mandate. And there wasn't really a Socialist movement there at the time so far as I know, that came later. And yeah I get your veiled reference to N.I thats a very different issue there's no point discussing it itt.

[agnixie]

Britain gave them independence, after Zionist groups carried out terrorist attacks against the British Mandate. And there wasn't really a Socialist movement there at the time so far as I know, that came later. And yeah I get your veiled reference to N.I thats a very different issue there's no point discussing it itt.

It's actually not a veiled reference to NI. While there was not a solid socialist movement in Palestine yet, there were labor movements both among the jews and the arabs. The muslim brethren, which became Hamas, received a lot of funding from Britain because they would have rather had a conservative religious group doing charity than risk a socialist state on independence - I'm pretty sure it's simlarly possible to see them working with jewish conservatives over the more secular and more left-wing central european jews recently arrived there. They also carved up Ottoman Syria (and Arabia) between all these petty kinglets, they did the same regarding support of religious conservatives to divide and conquer in India.

Ireland was merely a laboratory.

[Viet Minh]

It's actually not a veiled reference to NI. While there was not a solid socialist movement in Palestine yet, there were labor movements both among the jews and the arabs. The muslim brethren, which became Hamas, received a lot of funding from Britain because they would have rather had a conservative religious group doing charity than risk a socialist state on independence - I'm pretty sure it's simlarly possible to see them working with jewish conservatives over the more secular and more left-wing central european jews recently arrived there. They also carved up Ottoman Syria (and Arabia) between all these petty kinglets, they did the same regarding support of religious conservatives to divide and conquer in India.

Ireland was merely a laboratory.

The smaller Kingdoms were already there to some degree when the British went into India, and the same goes for religious divisions. The British should never have been there of course (although some argue it was marginally better than being ruled by France for example, some Indians even remained loyal through the Indian Mutinies, particularly the Sikhs who were arguably the most Marginalised with the Mughal Empire) The only division was between Pakistan and India, which was a tragic mistake, but it was done to end religious conflict, and I suppose it worked to a certain extent although the price was very high.

[Baseball]

Great developments.


Would not Palestinian protests against Hamas and Fatah tend to destroy the theory that ISRAEL is the great scourge of the mid-east? Coupled, of course, with the uprisings elsewhere.

[#FF0000]

Would not Palestinian protests against Hamas and Fatah tend to destroy the theory that ISRAEL is the great scourge of the mid-east? Coupled, of course, with the uprisings elsewhere.

Well, I guess.

I've never heard anyone around here ever try and defend that theory, though.

What I actually hear is imperialism is the "scourge of the middle east", or something like that. Which, I think, is true, and backed up by the fact that it's US Friendly Dictators that are being toppled across North Africa.

[ComradeMan]

Well, I guess.

I've never heard anyone around here ever try and defend that theory, though.

What I actually hear is imperialism is the "scourge of the middle east", or something like that. Which, I think, is true, and backed up by the fact that it's US Friendly Dictators that are being toppled across North Africa.

Tunisia- successful revolution?

Egypt- failed revolution

Ghaddaffi- US friendly?

:confused:

[Baseball]

Well, I guess.

I've never heard anyone around here ever try and defend that theory, though.

What I actually hear is imperialism is the "scourge of the middle east", or something like that. Which, I think, is true, and backed up by the fact that it's US Friendly Dictators that are being toppled across North Africa.

US "friendly" dictators have been toppled perhaps because Arabs living in those countries (Egypt, Tunisia) have been heretofore been more free than Arabs living in dictatorships "unfriendly" to the USA. As events are showing, Arabs living in the latter are no less protesting their dictators, just that they have a tougher time organizing and are met with a more determined government.

The problem in the mid-east is not now, nor has it ever been Israel or "imperialism." The "Arab Spring" has nothing to do with either.

[Dimmu]

Good to hear, but i have little hope in few Palestinian "democracy" lovers.. Religious wackos will hijack any revolution. Unfortunately

[#FF0000]

Egypt- failed revolution

Obviously but the point is that there are uprisings.


Ghaddaffi- US friendly?

Oh yeah. Moreso in recent years obviously but yes definitely.


US "friendly" dictators have been toppled perhaps because Arabs living in those countries (Egypt, Tunisia) have been heretofore been more free than Arabs living in dictatorships "unfriendly" to the USA. As events are showing, Arabs living in the latter are no less protesting their dictators, just that they have a tougher time organizing and are met with a more determined government.

Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are very US friendly and they're just as brutal, if not moreso, as any other dictator.

And as for being "more free", I looked into that and decided to check what Freedom House had to say about it (cause anti-communists seem to love that organization so much). Egypt scored pretty much on par with Syria and Yemen and even Libya (though Egypt was geting 1s and 2s on a scale of 0 to 7, which Yemen, Syria. were on a scale of 0-5. In this case, Egypt might actually score lower than these countries).

So, yeah, saying that Egypt is more free than the other middle east dictatorships is silly. It's not Saudi Arabia, but it's a dictatorship nonetheless. The reason I think you'd get the idea it's better is actually because it's US friendly and thus portrayed in a more positive light than, say, Syria.


The problem in the mid-east is not now, nor has it ever been Israel or "imperialism." The "Arab Spring" has nothing to do with either.

I imagine imperialism was a problem under the, ah, British.

This is just a silly thing to say, honestly. Powerful western countries have been interfering with middle eastern autonomy since England relinquished control over the region. I mean, please. The French in Algeria? America and Britain in Iran, where a decidedly moderate, popularly elected president was removed, parliament dissolved, and replaced by a dictatorship? Iraq, where the US literally put Saddam Hussein into power and armed him with chemical and biological weapons? Afghanistan, where we sided with a force made up primarily of Islamic fundamentalists, who later became the Taliban!?

don't be silly, guy.

[RGacky3]

Would not Palestinian protests against Hamas and Fatah tend to destroy the theory that ISRAEL is the great scourge of the mid-east? Coupled, of course, with the uprisings elsewhere.

Ummm, thats not the theory, it does'nt nothing to the fact taht Isreal is occupying, settling, dispossesing and blockaiding the palestinians and has done so for decades, and they protest against that every day for decades, but they get bombed.

What your arguing is like arguing that the fact that the sink is dirty and someone is cleaning it disproves that the whole bathroom is dirty.

[Viet Minh]

Ummm, thats not the theory, it does'nt nothing to the fact taht Isreal is occupying, settling, dispossesing and blockaiding the palestinians and has done so for decades, and they protest against that every day for decades, but they get bombed.

What your arguing is like arguing that the fact that the sink is dirty and someone is cleaning it disproves that the whole bathroom is dirty.

There are a lot of people in my experience who support one side and refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever on their side, which is why its so difficult to have any meaningful peace talks.
I think the protests are further proof the majority who actually live in Israel and Palestine don't necessarily condone the actions by their supposed representatives, be it Hamas, Fatah or the Israeli Government and IDF. The protests are a very positive step, Hamas and Fatah need to put aside their differences and work together for the good of the Palestinian people, I think even the most radical Palestinian groups would agree. Even to those who think the solution is for Hamas and Fatah to fire more rockets at Israel this is a positive, because then they are not wasting their time fighting each other.

[RGacky3]

There are a lot of people in my experience who support one side and refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever on their side, which is why its so difficult to have any meaningful peace talks.


No thats not the reason, the reason is that Isreal refuses to end the occupations, settlements and blockaid, its difficult to have any meaninful peace talks because one side has no interest in peace talks.

How can you have peace talks when one side does'nt want to make ANY concessions and sufferes no consequences for refusing to do so?

[Bud Struggle]

No thats not the reason, the reason is that Isreal refuses to end the occupations, settlements and blockaid, its difficult to have any meaninful peace talks because one side has no interest in peace talks.

How can you have peace talks when one side does'nt want to make ANY concessions and sufferes no consequences for refusing to do so?

It's not about "sides." It's about people-human beings-living together in some sort of peace. The "sides" issue just continues the fight.

This is where Capitalism works the best. It isn't about a Jew or an Arab owning some piece of land--it's about some Capitalist of any nationality buying it up for speculation--that matters.

[Viet Minh]

No thats not the reason, the reason is that Isreal refuses to end the occupations, settlements and blockaid, its difficult to have any meaninful peace talks because one side has no interest in peace talks.

How can you have peace talks when one side does'nt want to make ANY concessions and sufferes no consequences for refusing to do so?

Exactly. Palestinians want Israel to demolish the settlements and make the people homeless, lift the blockade and risk throusands more bombs and guns flooding into Gaza, and Israel wants Palestine to recognise it as a 'Jewish State' (presumably on the current borders). Both sides are equally stubborn and make unreasonable demands, and talks break down and violence resumes. They are both missing the point of peace talks, using them to threaten violence unless their demands are met, when they should be discussing truce and disarmament. If Hamas and Fatah and the IDF step back there would be very little violence.

Anyway at least there's hope for the future http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12666919


It's not about "sides." It's about people-human beings-living together in some sort of peace. The "sides" issue just continues the fight.

Exactly. Its like if I disagree with you on your capitalist shit :tongue_smilie:we might not agree but if I called you, for instance, a moron you'd only be more adamant about your point. :cursing: :)

[Che a chara]

Exactly. Palestinians want Israel to demolish the settlements and make the people homeless,

Israel deliberately builds on disputed land because they want to legitimise their occupation and illegally expand their border. There is enough land to build settlements in already sanctioned Israeli land, but they provocatively and condescendingly refuse to do this.


lift the blockade and risk throusands more bombs and guns flooding into Gaza,

Israel doesn't want Gaza to economically develop. That's the reason for the inhumane blockade. There has been numerous attempts to get the UN to man the borders, but once again, Israel throws obstacles in the way. Israel doesn't allow certain household and domestic goods through. They don't allow building materials through. Fuck that. that is systematic deprivation and total denial to allow the occupied territories to live, breathe, grow and develop.

Palestine has no national army, air force or Navy. Gaza is not allowed their right to defend themselves or their national security despite daily Israeli incursions, land theft and human rights abuses contrary to UN resolutions and international law. Hamas has to rely on cheap homemade devices as deterrents and as retaliation.


and Israel wants Palestine to recognise it as a 'Jewish State' (presumably on the current borders).

Smokescreen and impossible. Recognising Israel as a Jewish state gives nearly 5MILLION illegally ousted Palestine refugees their legal entitlement to a right to return to their native homeland and would give Israel stolen land including what should be the future capital of Palestine, East Al-quds. There is no moral or ethical justification to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

This should break anyone's heart:

http://i56.tinypic.com/30sbqmg.jpg

yet the international community remains silent except for a little telling off and refuse to act on these disgusting practices. and it's happening right under our noses

[Bud Struggle]

Israel doesn't want Gaza to economically develop.

Yup. I can attest to that personally. No one was happier than I when Gaza became "free." I had a bunch of Palestinian developer friends that wanted to make Gaza into the Middle East Cancun. Between Israel's economic blocade and Hamas's graft--it all fell apart.

Both parties suck. It could have been good.

[Viet Minh]

Israel deliberately builds on disputed land because they want to legitimise their occupation and illegally expand their border. There is enough land to build settlements in already sanctioned Israeli land, but they provocatively and condescendingly refuse to do this.

You're talking to me as though I'm defending Israel, I'm not in the least. Israel needs to move back to its 1947 borders and stop any interference on Palestinian territory. The settlers can either remain as Palestinians or move to Israel. However thats a lot easier said than done, it won't happen overnight, and it won't happen at all when people on both sides are crying for revenge.


Israel doesn't want Gaza to economically develop. That's the reason for the inhumane blockade. There has been numerous attempts to get the UN to man the borders, but once again, Israel throws obstacles in the way. Israel doesn't allow certain household and domestic goods through. They don't allow building materials through. Fuck that. that is systematic deprivation and total denial to allow the occupied territories to live, breathe, grow and develop.

Its nothing to do with the economy, they want to starve Hamas and Fatah into submission, which won't happen. They need to withdraw and the UN needs to intervene, with or without Israel's permission.


Palestine has no national army, air force or Navy. Gaza is not allowed their right to defend themselves or their national security despite daily Israeli incursions, land theft and human rights abuses contrary to UN resolutions and international law. Hamas has to rely on cheap homemade devices as deterrents and as retaliation.

If Hamas or Fatah had an army, air force and navy at their disposal it would be world war 3, just read the Hamas charter. As for the incursions yes Israel are 99% the aggressor but its naive to think its purely one-sided, and retaliation is no excuse and certainly no solution for either side. My opinion is that the UN should enforce security along the legal borders, but this was dismissed as an impossibility iirc.


Smokescreen and impossible. Recognising Israel as a Jewish state gives nearly 5MILLION illegally ousted Palestine refugees their legal entitlement to a right to return to their native homeland and would give Israel stolen land including what should be the future capital of Palestine, East Al-quds. There is no moral or ethical justification to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Agreed, that was my point. I support Israel's right to exist within the 1947 borders as a secular state in which jews can live peacefully but not a jewish state per se, that goes against everything I believe in politically. Likewise hamas need to drop the 'Islamist' ideology.


This should break anyone's heart:

http://i56.tinypic.com/30sbqmg.jpg

yet the international community remains silent except for a little telling off and refuse to act on these disgusting practices. and it's happening right under our noses

The international community is far from silent about it, I would go so far as to say the majority outside the USA and UK (and of course Israel) support Palestine in some form or another, the question is what can they actually do? There are positive developments to recognise Palestine as a State but that is impossible with Hamas and Fatah at each others throats, at best you could recognize the little thats left of Gaza or the West Bank independently under the authority of the PNA or Hamas.

[Viet Minh]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Palestine_recognitions_only.png/350px-Palestine_recognitions_only.png
Nations who recognize Palestine

[Bud Struggle]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Palestine_recognitions_only.png/350px-Palestine_recognitions_only.png
Nations who recognize Palestine

Only one nation matters.

[Baseball]

Ummm, thats not the theory, it does'nt nothing to the fact taht Isreal is occupying, settling, dispossesing and blockaiding the palestinians and has done so for decades, and they protest against that every day for decades, but they get bombed.

What your arguing is like arguing that the fact that the sink is dirty and someone is cleaning it disproves that the whole bathroom is dirty.

That analogy is incorrect; its the bathroom being cleaned. The sink has some problems, but its got nothing to do with the previous unclean tub.

[RGacky3]

Exactly. Palestinians want Israel to demolish the settlements and make the people homeless, lift the blockade and risk throusands more bombs and guns flooding into Gaza, and Israel wants Palestine to recognise it as a 'Jewish State' (presumably on the current borders). Both sides are equally stubborn and make unreasonable demands, and talks break down and violence resumes. They are both missing the point of peace talks, using them to threaten violence unless their demands are met, when they should be discussing truce and disarmament. If Hamas and Fatah and the IDF step back there would be very little violence.


THat a bunch of shit, the blockaid is ILLIGAL, so are the settlements, so they are not unreasonable demands, this is not a equal sided problem.

[#FF0000]

yeah honestly i don't understand people who say "man the palestinians and the israelis really need to work together on this"

I mean yeah sure they do but you have to acknowledge that Israel is 10000000% the aggressor.

[Che a chara]

The international community is far from silent about it, I would go so far as to say the majority outside the USA and UK (and of course Israel) support Palestine in some form or another, the question is what can they actually do? There are positive developments to recognise Palestine as a State but that is impossible with Hamas and Fatah at each others throats, at best you could recognize the little thats left of Gaza or the West Bank independently under the authority of the PNA or Hamas.

But the thing is the international community don't or can't act on their concerns though. Recognizing Palestine's existence was meet with utter contempt by the USA and Israel and Israel reacted by building more illegal settlements. I mean look at what has happened to Libya via intervention by the international community, despite a worse scenario happening in the Israel-Palestine conflict over the decades.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Palestine_recognitions_only.png/350px-Palestine_recognitions_only.png
Nations who recognize Palestine


Only one nation matters.

As The Bud says, it's up to the US who is allowed to exist and who is not. Recognizing Palestine means shit when the US is allowed to veto ANY UN resolution with Israel also not being made to be applicable or accountable to any international law.

Palestine is on the verge of extinction, and the only thing they have nearly left is their pride, which I see as a contributing factor in Hamas' presence and rhetoric.

[Viet Minh]

yeah honestly i don't understand people who say "man the palestinians and the israelis really need to work together on this"

I mean yeah sure they do but you have to acknowledge that Israel is 10000000% the aggressor.

So this is not an act of aggression for example? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12845019


THat a bunch of shit, the blockaid is ILLIGAL, so are the settlements, so they are not unreasonable demands, this is not a equal sided problem.

No of course not, far from it, but its not a one-sided problem either. Both sides need to stop, and if they don't someone needs to force them to.

[#FF0000]

So this is not an act of aggression for example? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12845019 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12845019)

It's something that happens when you dislocate millions of people from their homes with tanks, bulldozers, and bombs.

[#FF0000]

Honestly people wouldn't have an issue with the Palestinians if they used conventional tactics against the Israeli army. If it was army vs. army instead of army vs. dispossessed and desperate civilians with bomb vests, I imagine a lot of people would be way more sympathetic to the Palestinians.

[Viet Minh]

It's something that happens when you dislocate millions of people from their homes with tanks, bulldozers, and bombs.

Its not purely retaliatory its slef-defence to some extent, but regardless its not excusable. To say a Palestinian rocket is more justified than an Israeli bullet or airstrike is hypocritical, and does not bring them any closer to peace and resolution.


Honestly people wouldn't have an issue with the Palestinians if they used conventional tactics against the Israeli army. If it was army vs. army instead of army vs. dispossessed and desperate civilians with bomb vests, I imagine a lot of people would be way more sympathetic to the Palestinians.

For me its the opposite, I can sympathise with Israelis initially as they were attacked by Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc, but not now when they snipe at civilians, and the same goes for Palestinians who target Israeli civilians.

[#FF0000]

Its not purely retaliatory its slef-defence to some extent, but regardless its not excusable. To say a Palestinian rocket is more justified than an Israeli bullet or airstrike is hypocritical, and does not bring them any closer to peace and resolution.

No it's not. One side is a well-funded and well-armed army defending land that was taken from people by force. This is like saying it's hypocritical to demonize home invaders but give people who shoot them a free pass. It isn't hypocritical at all. One is in the right, and one is in the wrong, no matter what they do.


For me its the opposite, I can sympathise with Israelis initially as they were attacked by Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc, but not now when they snipe at civilians, and the same goes for Palestinians who target Israeli civilians.

Rewind a bit further, and you have Israel being established on land that is literally not theirs, though. Seriously I don't understand how anyone can sympathize with Israel at all at this point.

[Viet Minh]

No it's not. One side is a well-funded and well-armed army defending land that was taken from people by force. This is like saying it's hypocritical to demonize home invaders but give people who shoot them a free pass. It isn't hypocritical at all.

None of these analogies are accurate, why not just talk about the situation as it really stands? Israel have massive firepower and manpower, they snipe at Palestinian civilians from sniper towers, they bulldoze palestinian homes, they bomb Hamas and Fatah buildings. Hamas respond with rockets and suicide bombs against israeli civilians. Why is it so easy for you to condemn violence on one side but not the other? Regardless of the severe imbalance, the problem in the Middle East is violence, supporting violence will never result in peace. Palestinian violence will only lead to more Israeli violence, and vice versa, how many times do we have to make the same mistake?


One is in the right, and one is in the wrong, no matter what they do.

That pretty much justifies my position


Rewind a bit further, and you have Israel being established on land that is literally not theirs, though. Seriously I don't understand how anyone can sympathize with Israel at all at this point.

For the last time I do NOT sympathise with Israel as a State, I sympathise with both the Israeli and Palestinian people who suffer through no fault of their own. Of course to an Israel apologist I would probably appear to support Palestine and vice versa, but I don't.

[eric922]

Why is Egypt considered a failed revolution? If the goal of the protesters was to remove Mubarak from power didn't they succeed? Granted I'm not sure how democratic their new government will be, so perhaps that is why is said to have failed.

[Viet Minh]

Why is Egypt considered a failed revolution? If the goal of the protesters was to remove Mubarak from power didn't they succeed? Granted I'm not sure how democratic their new government will be, so perhaps that is why is said to have failed.

At least the next guy will know he is not infallible.. :(