BlackDoomShadow
Member
I'm still waiting for an answer on the statute of limitations for when it's no longer okay for people to violently retake "stolen land."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Three Israelis killed in gun attack by Palestinian assailant
- Thread starter CCS
- Start date
Murdering civilians is.
Widdle Puppy
Banned
These "civilians" aren't complicit ?
This isn't just a regular civilian though, is it? Using the word is pretty charged when it comes to settlers. They are, but they're also complicit in ethnic cleansing unlike a regular Israeli citizen who is living their life in Tel Aviv. These people are quite literally on the front line living in illegally occupied territories. There is no question that these individuals should not be there whatsoever. They have no right to live there.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Indiscriminate killings of those who have no control over your situation absolutely checks the boxes I require to define an act as terrorism. Accepting that doesn't need to annul the many guilty acts of the Israeli government, nor should it be used to condone or support future hostile actions.
This is not an armed conflict so you can't go around killing folks you don't like.
Widdle Puppy
Banned
Who decides when it's an armed conflict and when it isn't? Who is in charge of this system?
Hard to say. I'll admit, 35 years is longer than I'd expected this particular settlement to have existed, and I'll admit it weakens the guy's case. Still, seeing the gunman was 37, I'm leaning towards a metric of "as long as the attacker has been alive." Definitely a biased judgment, but it also makes sense in a way, so I kinda like it.
What about you? How long do I need to squat in your home before it's mine and I'm allowed to shoot you if I think you're being uppity?
KonradLaw
Member
The difference between ressistance fighters and terrorists is mostly in their targets. Ressistance targest foreign military/goverment, terrorists target civilian population. Ressistance aims at crippling occupying power structures, terrorors aims to create fear in civilian population.
Of course, when it comes to invasion and occupation those lines quickly get blurry. Because where do you draw the line? Is it ok to murder foreign civilian if he works for it's goverment? or your own countrymen if they decide to work for foreign power?
Ever heard of the Geneva convention?
Widdle Puppy
Banned
You somehow think that convention has any sway here, especially regarding the actions of the isralie government ?
BlackDoomShadow
Member
I don't really have an answer for you because the reality is that every nation in the world is built on stolen land and territory, so I don't know where we're supposed to draw the line. However, it seems that modern leftism has drawn the line at "every country founded on stolen land before Israel is okay" and "every country founded on stolen land after Israel is bad."
You can't go around stealing land and building settlements for your own citizens either. But alas, here we are. Are these civilians complicit in the ethnic cleansing? Yes or no? And if they're not, why not?
Ethnic cleansing isnt any better than armed conquest.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
That's obviously case-by-case. You can't just say 'civilians' as if there aren't those working within the system to oppose those in control. And I doubt either of us have enough information on the three dead to make a call.
Widdle Puppy
Banned
All of Israel is stolen land, but a war was fought over whether the stolen property could be kept and Israel won so an agreement was made to stop the fighting. That agreement has not been honored and they are slowly taking more land.
Its different because other countries anex conquered territory. If Isreal wasnt an ethno state. They would just formally anex Palestine and then palestinians get civil rights as isreali citizens, but isreal wants to maintain ethnic purity so they continue a campaign of ethic cleansing
Where on earth did I say that these settlements are ok? Killing civilians has no place in any kind of conflict, no matter the side they're on.
FlutterPuffs
Member
Fucking hell lad I don't know what you're going with this. Have I said that I support what Hamas or any Palestinian terrorist organisation has done to Israeli civilians?
Doesn't make what Israel is doing is right, and they are still doing it.
Also I fully support Israeli having their own settlement in the middle East, with Palestinian having a considerable share of their own.
It's not a case-by-case basis though is it? It's occupied territories. This isn't disputed. It's illegal under international law. This isn't disputed. You're quite obviously not working "to oppose the system" if you've deliberately chosen to live on a settlement that is there for the sole purpose of expansion by means of settler colonialism. Regardless of this specific case, the wider point stands.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
If you were born in an occupied place you aren't suddenly complicit in that.
There's kind of a difference between Something like america where natives at least got citizenship and it happend quite a while ago, and something that is happeing literally right now is considers illegal by our moral standard. Also, when people say stolen land, I don't think they mean israels official borders, I think they mean the lands they're taking right now. And It's not just a Israel thing, because Russia didn't get much support when they annexed parts of Ukraine recently.
BlackDoomShadow
Member
Yeah, nobody lived in Palestine except Arabs for all of human history until those thieving Jews suddenly appeared out of thin air in 1948 and stole their land.
Native peoples are absolutely not treated fairly in America; we committed a horrific genocide against them, conquered an entire continent, sent them on mass exoduses across the country, and to this day we send them to live on reservations where they are treated as second-class people. But it's okay as long as it happened "a while ago"? Seriously?
Also, there are definitely people who consider the entire nation of Israel to be stolen land (see the other quoted post). This is a very widespread view among people in the Middle East, various other nations, and (here comes that word everyone hates so much)
anti-Semites
Children are children. But if you're an adult and choose to stay, you are complicit. Absolutely.
Could you just answer the question? It's a yes or a no.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
You're gonna need to do a better job than 'you just are'.
It doesn't matter.
You can't murder your racist neighbour even If you're 99,9% sure he killed some immigrants earlier that day.
llien
Member
After centuries of it being basically Arab, Palestine started getting large Jewish migrant groups starting in 1882. You can't simply brush it off, but I think history will get us too far into irrelevant details.
Nowadays issue is that for Israeli government and most of its citizens Israel is entire former Palestine, including West Bank and Gaza strip. Arabs living on those territories are merely nuisance (nobody even knows what number of Palestinians lives there), not worth their own state.
It's hard to perceive that situation as fair.
The people project unfairness into terrorist acts and, with all that bias, re-evaluate what terrorism is.
For me, it is terrorism and it is land grab, both are evil in their own way.
You've yet to make a convincing argument as to why someone who lives on a settlement isn't complicit. Being born there isn't justification to live there when we are considering the specifics of these settlements.
Settler colonialism is a real thing. Ethnic cleansing is a real thing. If you're an adult and you have made a conscious decision to move to the settlements or to continue to stay there, you are evidently complicit.
It does matter. Keep ignoring the question, that's fine by me.
And the other prevailing opinion on the matter is "Israel conquered that land fair and square, and any attempt to reclaim it or prevent Israel from gradually taking more is anti-Semitic terrorism."
You can't have it both ways. If armed conquest is fine, then the Palestinians have the right to try to conquer it back.
I certainly not trying to downplay the horrors of imperialism. But with that kind of whataboutx mentality then everything can be justified. Nobody can say war is bad because every nation has had wars before. When did war suddenly become something that is bad?
jakonovski
Member
The only time anyone gives even the tiniest fuck about Palestinians is when one of them commits an attack on Israelis. Outside of that, they might as well not exist.
Mainly, because they're still 'claiming' land. They're still actively destroying Palestinian communities to build new settlements. Israeli land appropriation is still an ongoing process.
Leyasu
Banned
At this point I really hope your profile pic of comrade Lenin is some ironic statement.
You've said nothing to counter or answer my posts, refused to answer a simple question and instead resorted to a thinly veiled insult.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Israel is a rogue state to begin with consider they outright ignore UN resolutions so international law matters little here.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Lol.
Try asking this to the Israeli government and people who chose to live in the illegal settlement.
They don't give a fuck about the "Geneva Convention" for the Palestinians, that's for sure.
I never know how to feel about situations like this. I'm no fan of Israel and the "settlers" are living on stolen land, but did those random ppl deserve to be shot? They might have not even been the ppl who chose to move to the settlement, maybe their family moved them there. It's a huge shit show.
Westbahnhof
Banned
Call me a dirty liberal, but I believe unless it is done as a last way out of a life threatening situation, nobody deserves to be shot. Even if they did something wrong.
Of course it's not that simple, this situation is as complicated as it gets imo.
But if we simply ask ourselves the bolded question, I'm saying the answer is clearly no, and the killer is a murderer.
I answered your question. Even if they are 100% complicit they don't deserve to be murdered.
This goes for private security guards employed by illegal settlements as well as Hamas operatives.
And regarding my other remark: I'm sorry I came off as overly agressive (I can see why you would think that). I'm just genuinely interested because you don't see many people openly supporting communism/leninism on here.
CyclopsRock
Member
Christ on a bike, guys. "Terrorism" isn't defined by the cause or the degree to which you agree with the goals of the person committing the act. It's a methodology. It's a tool wherein the death itself isn't the relevant thing - ie these three people dying wasn't important itself - but rather to generate fear for everyone, in order to make their way of life cause them sufficient fear that they change it. Whether it's the IRA making people fear going into pubs in London, Palestinians killing Israeli's in settlements or ETA blowing up trains in Spain, the goal is to make people fear for their life (as opposed to some tactical goal that requires killing those people) and, in doing so, cause them to alter their lifestyle or apply pressure to their government to change things. The cause of the terrorists - a unified Ireland, Basque separatism, the removal of settlements - doesn't affect this definition.
It's why the old adage "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is, whilst rhetorically useful, a false dichotomy. You can be one, the other, both or neither. They're not mutually exclusive.
It's why the old adage "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is, whilst rhetorically useful, a false dichotomy. You can be one, the other, both or neither. They're not mutually exclusive.
jakonovski
Member
By your examples you're implying that terrorism an act only done from a position of weakness against a ruling power. A thought which IMO should explicitly be dispelled. Otherwise it legitimises authoritarian rulers' use of violence as a political tool.
CyclopsRock
Member
My examples, yes, but not my description. You're right - any sort of "pour encourager les autres" heavy-handedness counts, designed to create an atmosphere of fear to keep everyone in line.
Well that's another point really. My issue is that just calling settlers "civilians" is deceptive because it absolves them of their collusion with the Israel's colonisation of Palestinian land. By making that decision, they're a part of the ethnic cleansing that is taking place. Did they deserve to die for it? I would say no. But they certainly had no right to be there and this cannot be understated.
There are a few Communists on here, I lean towards Anarchism myself or rather Anarcho-Communism. But that's for another discussion.
I can agree with this. And by moving there they acknowledge the risk of stuff like this happening to them, at least in my eyes.
CyclopsRock
Member
Whilst this doesn't specifically apply to people who chose to be security guards, surely the fact that some people "certainly had no right to be there" can be understated, because that town's been there for 35 years. There will be people who were born there, just like the Palestinians who were born in the next town over. For them, that's their home, possibly the only home they've ever known. It's not unlike the whole "Dreamers" thing in the US, where kids who had absolutely no agency were taken somewhere that "they certainly had no right to be" but who, nonetheless, find themselves there. So whilst I recognise your distinction between the security guards and "civilians", there's a whole generation of settlers now for whom that land is their only home.
This has been an armed conflict for over a century.
Also, the people who were killed were a soldier and two security guards who were manning a security post at the entrance to a settlement.
Do with that information what you will, just making sure you have an accurate picture of what happened.
I think you're being pedantic here. People who rush to label it as terrorism or to reject that label are doing it for the same simple reason - when you call something a terror attack the majority of the people immediately think it's a bad thing done by bad people.
And I think that discussion is rather useless, I mean I think the important question here is pretty simple - do Palestinians are justified to use violence in their fight against Israel and what level and type of violence is acceptable.
CyclopsRock
Member
Indeedy, and it's worth talking about. But if we're gonna use the word, why don't we use it properly? Using a word as baggage-laden as "terrorism" incorrectly makes it even harder to have the discussion you've mentioned.
You see, the mere fact that it is an illegal settlement and a part of Israel's settlement policy says to me that there isn't adequate justification for being there. It doesn't matter that someone was born there, it's Palestinian land that is currently under occupation. If you've grown up there and are conscious of this, then you should make a decision to move.
I'm not pinning blame on those who aren't autonomous and don't have that freedom to choose or to move, but those that do most certainly share in the crime. It's both the responsibility of the State of Israel and those who willingly and quite purposely moved into these settlements. There is one purpose to these settlements, and the entire world knows it.
Making a comparison between settler colonialism and the 'Dreamers' program is pretty absurd seeing as the circumstances are so wildly different.
Similar threads
- Locked