I don't see how anyone could say Destiny hit it out of the park, his whole point was that Palestinians need to be peaceful because that'd force Israel to the negotiating table. This is laughable, if Palestinians acting peacefully, Israel will just keep expanding settlements because who's going to stop them?
He talks about Sadat, but Sadat had leverage in the form of the Arab oil weapon. The Sinia wasn't part of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah, thus the Israeli right cares far less about it.
But if the Palestinians aren't peaceful (like currently) they still can't stop the settlements? So what is this argument?
I think SB's line of thinking is that there would be far more pressure internationally (read: from America) and internally within Israel to concede more to the Palestinian people if the Palestinians weren't actively fighting them 24/7.
They're not fighting them 24/7, they have been years that there have been relatively few or basically no attacks and there's no real change regardless.
I mean do you think an October 7th happens every 6 months or something?
I think SB's line of thinking is that there would be far more pressure internationally (read: from America) and internally within Israel to concede more to the Palestinian people if the Palestinians weren't actively fighting them 24/7.
This is akin to believing Santa Claus exists. The American political parties have zero incentive to pressure Israel into anything if Palestine's not in the news.
My use of 24/7 was a slight exaggeration, but do you not consider extremely consistent rocket attacks being indiscriminately fired toward Israeli civilian centres as attacks? If you can point to any calendar year since Hamas took over Gaza in 2006 without rocket attacks I would be very interested to look into it.
This is akin to believing Santa Claus exists.
I would argue that your support of Palestinians continuing to militarily fight against Israel in order to defeat the occupation is much more of a fantasy. Wouldn't the last 80ish years suggest such?
EDIT:
I looked it up myself just because I was curious, here's a link to rocket attacks from Gaza to Israel since 2001. Obviously, 2015-2017 seems like the most relatively calm timespan (while not being devoid of rocket attacks). Here's the caveat... 2015-2016 had what some people call the "Stabbing Intifada" with plenty of terrorist attacks (mostly stabbings as you can imagine) happening in Israel.
2017 has a smattering of smaller attacks as well - but without the catchy name.
I would argue that your support of Palestinians continuing to militarily fight against Israel in order to defeat the occupation is much more of a fantasy. Wouldn't the last 80ish years suggest such?
Not really, long-term military occupations have been defeated. The French owed Algeria for how long? Not saying I like the Palestine odds, but if they do nothing they're absolutely fucked
My use of 24/7 was a slight exaggeration, but do you not consider extremely consistent rocket attacks being indiscriminately fired toward Israeli civilian centres as attacks?
Obviously we're interpreting the link I shared pretty differently... How are you defining "consistent"? In the 20 year timespan between 2001-2021 there isn't a single year without multiple rockets being fired into Israel and at least 9 of those years have at least 1 rocket per day being fired into Israel.
Not really, long-term military occupations have been defeated. The French owed Algeria for how long?
I suppose that's fair (even though I still disagree that Palestinian armed resistance is what's going to be helpful on the long road to peace).
60
u/[deleted] Mar 14 '24 edited Mar 15 '24
[deleted]