Finally, your "possible explanation" is what I would call grasping for some pretty pathetic straws. Anything to slander/slime, I guess, when you've run out of rational arguments.
No, not at all. I thought it was an honest question. There are some underground activists past and present here at RP.
Based upon the bolded, I'll take it that you do not support any of the positions of the FLQ. That's ok. Just thought it was a fair question.
When someone tries so hard to be enigmatic, all questions are fair, eh ?
You forget Palestine existed, as well as the official rhetoric that the Israeli government spouts, as well as former agreements that exist on this matter. It's clear you're a denier in yet another topic.
Finally, your "possible explanation" is what I would call grasping for some pretty pathetic straws. Anything to slander/slime, I guess, when you've run out of rational arguments.
Remember FUD from your climate change/evolution denialism? You're doing it again.
History For more details on this topic, see Timeline of the Front de libération du Québec. Members and sympathizers of the group were called "Felquistes" (French pronunciation: ), a word coined from the French pronunciation of the letters FLQ.Some of the members were organized and trained by Georges Schoeters, a Belgian revolutionary. FLQ members Normand Roy and Michel Lambert received guerrilla training from the Palestine Liberation Organization in Jordan.The FLQ was a loose association operating as a clandestine cell system. Various cells emerged over time: the Viger Cell founded by Robert Comeau, history professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal; the Dieppe Cell; the Louis Riel Cell; the Nelson Cell; the Saint-Denis Cell; the Liberation Cell; and the Chénier Cell. The last two of these cells were involved in what became known as the October Crisis. From 1963 to 1970, the FLQ committed over 160 violent actions, including bombings, bank hold-ups, kidnappings, at least three killings by FLQ bombs and two killings by gunfire. In 1966 Revolutionary Strategy and the Role of the Avant-Garde was prepared by the FLQ, outlining their long-term strategy of successive waves of robberies, violence, bombings, and kidnappings, culminating in revolution. The history of the FLQ is sometimes described as a series of "waves". What is your relationship with the FLQ ? I know it is officially defunct, but that doesn't mean its not still around. Perhaps you support their ideals or had family members involved.
. Congratulations on winning the limbo contest with a new low.
It effectively denies the right of self-determination and statehood to the Palestinians. There can only be one state, Israel, and some Bantustans controlled by Israel. No two-state solution. That's the goal of the extreme-right Likud.
One cannot destroy something that does not exist. Your headline is false. point c does not support the headline.
So I've been looking around and stumbled on a possible explanation for your fascination with Palestine ...
History For more details on this topic, see Timeline of the Front de libération du Québec. Members and sympathizers of the group were called "Felquistes" (French pronunciation: ), a word coined from the French pronunciation of the letters FLQ.Some of the members were organized and trained by Georges Schoeters, a Belgian revolutionary. FLQ members Normand Roy and Michel Lambert received guerrilla training from the Palestine Liberation Organization in Jordan.<8>The FLQ was a loose association operating as a clandestine cell system. Various cells emerged over time: the Viger Cell founded by Robert Comeau, history professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal; the Dieppe Cell; the Louis Riel Cell; the Nelson Cell; the Saint-Denis Cell; the Liberation Cell; and the Chénier Cell. The last two of these cells were involved in what became known as the October Crisis. From 1963 to 1970, the FLQ committed over 160 violent actions, including bombings, bank hold-ups, kidnappings, at least three killings by FLQ bombs and two killings by gunfire. In 1966 Revolutionary Strategy and the Role of the Avant-Garde was prepared by the FLQ, outlining their long-term strategy of successive waves of robberies, violence, bombings, and kidnappings, culminating in revolution. The history of the FLQ is sometimes described as a series of "waves". What is your relationship with the FLQ ? I know it is officially defunct, but that doesn't mean its not still around. Perhaps you support their ideals or had family members involved.
It effectively denies the right of self-determination and statehood to the Palestinians. There can only be one state, Israel, and some Bantustans controlled by Israel. No two-state solution. That's the goal of the extreme-right Likud.
It says (in point c) there can be no Palestinian state West of the Jordan river (handy link for the geographically challenged). I also addressed your highlighted section that you claimed was omitted, and then some, Mr. "Neutral".
Maybe your hatred for brown people affects your reading skills?
No we are talking about the headline you posted ...
You're changing the subject. The subject was your article that said that the Likud Charter calls for the destruction of any Palestinian state. I presume its an attempt to rationalize the Hamas Charter which outright calls for genocide. Fail.
It says (in point c) there can be no Palestinian state West of the Jordan river (handy link for the geographically challenged). I also addressed your highlighted section that you claimed was omitted, and then some, Mr. "Neutral".
Maybe your hatred for brown people affects your reading skills?
kurtster wrote: And you actually believe what it says there? Does it reflect the reality of the Palestinians? Look at Gaza and West Bank reports, and then also look at encroaching settlements (i.e. steadily decreasing bulldozed Palestinian land), and tell me they "can live their lives freely in a framework of self-rule"? Surely, you're joking.
You're changing the subject. The subject was your article that said that the Likud Charter calls for the destruction of any Palestinian state. I presume its an attempt to rationalize the Hamas Charter which outright calls for genocide. Fail.
You, and I say you, because you vetted this article and posted it, omit this from the piece ...
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."
And you actually believe what it says there? Does it reflect the reality of the Palestinians? Look at Gaza and West Bank reports, and then also look at encroaching settlements (i.e. steadily decreasing bulldozed Palestinian land), and tell me they "can live their lives freely in a framework of self-rule"? Surely, you're joking.
kurtster wrote:
So keep up your insidious lying about the nuts and bolts of the Palestinian situation. Your hatred of all things Jewish and American are causing you to get sloppy.
You sound exactly like someone saying that all hatred for Obama is because of racism, Mr. "Neutral", i.e. it must be your hatred of all things black.
A tactic of bullies trying to shut down discussion/opponents.
Since virtually every comment on Hamas in American media includes the assertion that the group’s Charter rejects Israel’s right to exist, it’s worth noting the following from the Likud Platform of 1999:
a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
I just gotta call bullshit to this headline of yours.
Nowhere does the Likud Charter call for the destruction of anything. It may be strong worded, but it does not advocate any violence or destruction of anything. It calls for the prevention of establishing a Palestinian state, but that is nowhere near what you claim.
You, and I say you, because you vetted this article and posted it, omit this from the piece ...
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."
So keep up your insidious lying about the nuts and bolts of the Palestinian situation. Your hatred of all things Jewish and American are causing you to get sloppy.
Here are some more sources for you to peruse. I challenge you to find anything factual that supports your claim of calls for the destruction of a Palestinian State.
Since virtually every comment on Hamas in American media includes the assertion that the group’s Charter rejects Israel’s right to exist, it’s worth noting the following from the Likud Platform of 1999:
a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
There have been some updates to the platform more recently, reflecting Israel’s withdrawal of settlements from Gaza in 2005. But the Likud Party has *never* in its statements of principles, accepted a Palestinian State. Its electoral partner, Yisrael Beitenu, has likewise categorically rejected the possibility of an independent Palestinian State, insisting that the idea is nothing more than a ploy to facilitate the destruction of Israel.
The Hamas charter, of course, does more than just reject Israel as a sovereign political entity. It’s a vile document that echoes some of the worst anti-Semitic tropes of the modern era. But on the central question of one side denying the other’s legitimacy — it’s hard to ignore the symmetry between Likud – the party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and Hamas.
Some defenders of Israel become indignant at the mention of these realities as scurrilous and spurious because the Likud platform quoted above is just an “old” statement of principles not reflective of the Party’s actions in power. But by that logic, the Hamas Charter, written over 25 years ago, cannot be said to be the sole controlling document of that organization, since much more recent statements and actions by its leadership have, at least some times, included an expressed willingness to pursue a long-term agreement with Israel. Furthermore, Hamas also agreed to join the Palestinian Authority in a unity government that accepts all previous PA agreements with Israel.
Too much political discussion in the United States about Israel/Palestine proceeds from the premise that Palestinians have no other interest than to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. Therefore, it is said, well-intentioned Israel has no viable negotiating partner for peace. The political reality on the ground does not conform to such a simple-minded tale of good vs. evil. Israeli hardliners in power have repeatedly rejected any basis for a viable Palestinian state. Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s qualified statement in support of a two-state solution in 2009 – which his American apologists repeatedly invoke to demonstrate his “moderate” bona fides – was characterized by a member of his own cabinet as “the spin of our lives.” In fact. Likud leaders have said unequivocally that no two-state deal is possible. And just three weeks ago, speaking at a press conference, Netanyahu said:
“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
As David Horovitz wrote in The Times of Israel:
“He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He was saying that it’s impossible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance.”
In other words, no independent Palestinian state. Period. Ever. (...)
The Israeli government is saying that it will only let in building materials so that Palestinians in Gaza can rebuild or repair the some 40,000 buildings that have been damaged or destroyed if Hamas disarms.
It is legitimate for Israel to seek the disarming of Hamas, but it isn’t legitimate or legal in international law for it to hold non-combatants’ lives and welfare hostage in order to accomplish that goal.
Israel is the occupying Power in Gaza because it controls its land and sea borders and its air space, and decides policy for its inhabitants, such as whether they can export their made goods (the answer is no). I.e. it has effective control. Israelis sometimes attempt to escape the obligations of the occupier by saying that they “withdrew” in 2005. But that doesn’t change their status as occupier, and, indeed, the very fact of having sent 8,000 Israelis into Gaza where they attempted to usurp 40% of its land and a lion’s share of its water was a war crime. The Geneva Conventions don’t allow the occupier to transfer its own citizens to the militarily occupied territory! (Article 49: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” So that they are no longer committing this crime is all very nice, but it doesn’t relieve them of their obligations as the occupying Power.
In the Geneva convention of 1949 on the treatment of occupied populations by the military occupier, civilian non-combatants are called “protected persons”:
So Gaza civilians cannot be denied building materials because somebody else fired a flying pipe bomb into the Israeli desert. The noncombatants don’t bear a personal responsibility for those little rockets.
As Time also notes in the article, Hamas eventually acknowledged that Israel more or less correctly identified the number of combatants killed in the last war and that previous claims about overwhelming civilian casualties had been fabricated.
A Time opinion piece (with link removed from excerpt), authored by one of them "undisputed sources", i.e. another insidious propaganda/activism outfit (claiming to be neutral/apolitical/non-partisan, yadda, yadda, yadda):
Steven Stotsky is a senior analyst with The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), a U.S.-based group that monitors the news media for what it considers to be anti-Israel bias.
You're on a roll with the CAMERAs and MEMRIs of this world, trying to pass them off as 'objective' or 'corrective'. Revisionist is more like it.
Former President Bill Clinton on Saturday sharply criticized Hamas for deliberately endangering civilians and using international aid to build a network of tunnels into Israel.
“How could the people in Gaza, who started rocketing Israel, think that it was OK to use international aid money to dig tunnels to increase their ability to destabilize the region and kill people?” Clinton told about 150 Trib Total Media employees at the memorial service at Scaife's boyhood home in Ligonier.
“How could they put rockets in a school to follow a deliberate strategy to force the deaths of their own civilians so as to make Israel look bad in the world?” Clinton said.
Bill C., who talks a lot nowadays, also said (though not today):
(...) Hamas won, in other words, for the same reason voters all across the world boot out parties that have grown unresponsive and self-interested after years in power. That’s not just Shikaki’s judgment. It’s also Bill Clinton’s. As Clinton explained in 2009, “a lot of Palestinians were upset that they (Fatah) were not delivering the services. They didn’t think it (Fatah) was an entirely honest operation and a lot of people were going to vote for Hamas not because they wanted terrorist tactics…but because they thought they might get better service, better government…They (also) won because Fatah carelessly and foolishly ran both its slates in too many parliamentary seats.”
This doesn’t change the fact that Hamas’ election confronted Israel and the United States with a serious problem. After its victory, Hamas called for a national unity government with Fatah “for the purpose of ending the occupation and settlements and achieving a complete withdrawal from the lands occupied (by Israel) in 1967, including Jerusalem, so that the region enjoys calm and stability during this phase.” But those final words—“this phase”—made Israelis understandably skeptical that Hamas had changed its long-term goals. The organization still refused to recognize Israel, and given that Israel had refused to talk to the PLO until it formally accepted Israel’s right to exist in 1993, it’s not surprising that Israel demanded Hamas meet the same standard.
Still, Israel and the U.S. would have been wiser to follow the counsel of former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, who called for Sharon to try to forge a long-term truce with Hamas. Israel could also have pushed Hamas to pledge that if Abbas—who remained PA president—negotiated a deal with Israel, Hamas would accept the will of the Palestinian people as expressed in a referendum, something the group’s leaders have subsequently promised to do.
Instead, the Bush administration—suddenly less enamored of Middle Eastern democracy–pressured Abbas to dissolve the Palestinian parliament and rule by emergency decree. Israel, which also wanted Abbas to defy the election results, withheld the tax and customs revenue it had collected on the Palestinian Authority’s behalf. Knowing Hamas would resist Abbas’ efforts to annul the election, especially in Gaza, where it was strong on the ground, the Bushies also began urging Abbas’ former national security advisor, a Gazan named Mohammed Dahlan, to seize power in the Strip by force. As David Rose later detailed in an extraordinary article in Vanity Fair, Condoleezza Rice pushed Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to buy weapons for Dahlan, and for Israel to allow them to enter Gaza. As General Mark Dayton, US security coordinator for the Palestinians, told Dahlan in November 2006, “We also need you to build up your forces in order to take on Hamas.”
Unfortunately for the Bush administration, Dahlan’s forces were weaker than they looked. And when the battle for Gaza began, Hamas won it easily, and brutally. In response, Abbas declared emergency rule in the West Bank. (...)
Palestinian relatives mourn for victims of the Duheir family, near the rubble of their home, after it was destroyed by an Israeli air strike in Rafah on July 29, 2014, in the southern of Gaza strip. Photo Credit: Said Khatib/AFP/Getty Images
As I’ve writtenmanytimesbefore, “terrorism” is, and from the start was designed to be, almost entirely devoid of discernible meaning. It’s a fear-mongering slogan, lacking any consistent application, intended to end rational debate and justify virtually any conduct by those who apply the term. But to the extent it means anything beyond that, it typically refers to the killing of civilians as a means of furthering political or military goals.
Below are two charts reflecting the deaths of civilians, soldiers and “militants” in both Gaza and Israel since the July 8 Israeli attack began. The statistics used are unduly generous toward Israel, since “militants” in Gaza are often nothing more than residents who take up arms to defend their homes against an invading and occupying army. Even with that generous interpretation, these numbers, standing alone, tell a powerful story:
If you landed on earth from another planet this week, knowing nothing other than the most common use of the word “terrorism,” which side do you think would most frequently be referred to as “terrorists”?
Often, the most vivid illustration of the criminality of this attack comes not from data but from isolated stories. Yesterday, for instance, “in Khan Younis, five members of the Najjar family, which lost 21 people in a previous strike, were killed.” Meanwhile, “in the Al Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza, an airstrike from an F-16 killed the mayor, Anis Abu Shamala, and four others in his home, some of whom had taken refuge there from intense artillery shelling nearby.”
At the same time, the Israeli government’s messaging machine quickly switched from hyping rocket attacks, which were causing relatively little damage, to featuring what it began calling “terror tunnels”. The U.S. media dutifully followed suit, with CNN anchor (and former AIPAC employee) Wolf Blitzer touring a “terror tunnel” led around by the IDF and his flashlight, while the New York Times’ Jodi Rudoren did the same in an article headlined “Tunnels Lead Right to the Heart of Israeli Fear,” quoting “Israeli military officials”, “an Israeli military spokesman”, and “Israeli experts”. But a separate article in the NYT highlighted how these “terror tunnels” are actually used:
The strikes during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr came after the latest humanitarian halt to hostilities was punctured by attacks on both sides, culminating in the most deadly incursion yet by Palestinian militants through an underground tunnel from Gaza into Israel.
Colonel Lerner said Tuesday that between four and eight gunmen had burst from the tunnel near a military watchtower near the border and killed five soldiers in an adjacent building with antitank missiles.
In American media discourse, when Palestinians overwhelmingly kill soldiers (95% of the Israeli death toll) who are part of an army that is blockading, occupying, invading, and indiscriminately bombing them and killing their children by the hundreds, that is “terrorism”; when Israelis use massive, brutal force against a trapped civilian population, overwhelmingly killing innocent men, women and children (at least 75% of the Palestinian death toll), with clear intentions to kill civilians (see point 3), that is noble “self-defense.” That demonstrates how skewed U.S. discourse is in favor of Israel, as well as the purely manipulative, propagandistic nature of the term “terrorists.”
. Congratulations on winning the limbo contest with a new low.
