Marwan Barghouti

[Phoenall]

Mandella was not a peaceful man. He invented the "burning necklace". Mandella was a terrorist. If you truly want to look for peaceful then look at Sadat.

Of course he was killed by islamic terrorists for his work.

Mandella was a terrorist, but - he also moved past that and accomplished something great - peace and reconciliation. Anwar Sadat and Yitzak Rabin were both great advocates for peace who were cut down by extremists on their own side.

Thing is - if anything is to be accomplished here, you need someone who can unite the Palestinians.

Mandela was a freedom fighter. Only the West and the Apartheid regime considered him a terrorist. Oppressed people can no longer fight oppression without being called terrorists these days.

You people can't have it both ways. Those that resisted the Nazis, like the French resistance, were terrorists under those conditions.

BULLSHIT he was a neo Marxists and thought nothing of mass murdering his own that went against his commands. he told his troops to execute any black that worked for a white boss in his attempts at forcing the issues.

 

[Phoenall]

So, are freedom fighters and terrorists the same then, in your dictionary?

Freedom fighters get more terrorism than they give. Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

The problem is - that isn't much of a distinction and it ignores certain realities such as targeting civilians and a right to self defend.

Mandela WAS a terrorist. The fact that his cause was just doesn't change that. I admire Mandela, not for his terrorism but for what he did afterwards but that doesn't erase the fact that he was a terrorist.

And Israel is a terrorist state. Israel commits mass terrorism while the Palestinians commit a piddly little bit.

Israel has always been the aggressor while the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but it has to apply to both side. You can't expect the Palestinians to stop while giving Israel a free pass. It is Israel who refused to have both sides stop attacking civilians.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal. He said that he is not giving us the chance to kill his soldiers while his hands are tied behind the back because he retaliated against civilians.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​

Link to the parts of the Geneva conventions that say this, and in full not cherry picked

 

[Phoenall]

Mandella was not a peaceful man. He invented the "burning necklace". Mandella was a terrorist. If you truly want to look for peaceful then look at Sadat.

Of course he was killed by islamic terrorists for his work.

Mandella was a terrorist, but - he also moved past that and accomplished something great - peace and reconciliation. Anwar Sadat and Yitzak Rabin were both great advocates for peace who were cut down by extremists on their own side.

Thing is - if anything is to be accomplished here, you need someone who can unite the Palestinians.

Mandela was a freedom fighter. Only the West and the Apartheid regime considered him a terrorist. Oppressed people can no longer fight oppression without being called terrorists these days.

You people can't have it both ways. Those that resisted the Nazis, like the French resistance, were terrorists under those conditions.

So, are freedom fighters and terrorists the same then, in your dictionary?

Freedom fighters get more terrorism than they give. Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

Once they start firing illegal weapons across borders to murder children then they are terrorists. The consensus is very clear on this, and the UN has stated they view each firing to be a war crime

 

[Phoenall]

Mandela was a freedom fighter. Only the West and the Apartheid regime considered him a terrorist. Oppressed people can no longer fight oppression without being called terrorists these days.

You people can't have it both ways. Those that resisted the Nazis, like the French resistance, were terrorists under those conditions.

So, are freedom fighters and terrorists the same then, in your dictionary?

Freedom fighters get more terrorism than they give. Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

The problem is - that isn't much of a distinction and it ignores certain realities such as targeting civilians and a right to self defend.

Mandela WAS a terrorist. The fact that his cause was just doesn't change that. I admire Mandela, not for his terrorism but for what he did afterwards but that doesn't erase the fact that he was a terrorist.

And Israel is a terrorist state. Israel commits mass terrorism while the Palestinians commit a piddly little bit.

Israel has always been the aggressor while the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Not in the slightest, just as using civilians to protect rocket launchers and such is not acceptable. Once that line is crossed then they cant complain when the civilians get killed as collateral damage.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Freedom fighters get more terrorism than they give. Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

The problem is - that isn't much of a distinction and it ignores certain realities such as targeting civilians and a right to self defend.

Mandela WAS a terrorist. The fact that his cause was just doesn't change that. I admire Mandela, not for his terrorism but for what he did afterwards but that doesn't erase the fact that he was a terrorist.

And Israel is a terrorist state. Israel commits mass terrorism while the Palestinians commit a piddly little bit.

Israel has always been the aggressor while the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but it has to apply to both side. You can't expect the Palestinians to stop while giving Israel a free pass. It is Israel who refused to have both sides stop attacking civilians.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal. He said that he is not giving us the chance to kill his soldiers while his hands are tied behind the back because he retaliated against civilians.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​

Link to the parts of the Geneva conventions that say this, and in full not cherry picked

ICRC service

 

[Phoenall]

The problem is - that isn't much of a distinction and it ignores certain realities such as targeting civilians and a right to self defend.

Mandela WAS a terrorist. The fact that his cause was just doesn't change that. I admire Mandela, not for his terrorism but for what he did afterwards but that doesn't erase the fact that he was a terrorist.

And Israel is a terrorist state. Israel commits mass terrorism while the Palestinians commit a piddly little bit.

Israel has always been the aggressor while the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but it has to apply to both side. You can't expect the Palestinians to stop while giving Israel a free pass. It is Israel who refused to have both sides stop attacking civilians.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal. He said that he is not giving us the chance to kill his soldiers while his hands are tied behind the back because he retaliated against civilians.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​

Link to the parts of the Geneva conventions that say this, and in full not cherry picked

ICRC service

So what parts say that the Jews are not civilians when they choose to live on their lands in the west bank ?

You need to remember that the land was granted to the Jews in 1924, it was never granted to the arab muslims

 

[Freeman]

Mandella was not a peaceful man. He invented the "burning necklace". Mandella was a terrorist. If you truly want to look for peaceful then look at Sadat.

Of course he was killed by islamic terrorists for his work.

The zionazis settlers are the most "peaceful" creatures!

 

[RoccoR]

Freeman, et al,

Whether or not the Israeli Palestinians are "peaceful" or not is not really germain to the issue.

The zionazis settlers are the most "peaceful" creatures!

(QUESTION)

The question is, whether or not the Oslo Accords; --- granted Israel the Israel civil and security control over Area "C?"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Let's stick to the topic please, and not derail into the usual.

 

[Coyote]

Barghouti has said 1967 lines, but I wonder if it's hard and fast, is he a negotiater AND will Israel work with him as they would not with Abbas?

 

[Shusha]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

 

[Coyote]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

I fail to understand how a 3 yr child can be anything but acivilian.

 

[Shusha]

Barghouti has said 1967 lines, but I wonder if it's hard and fast, is he a negotiated AND will Israel work with him as they would not with Abbas?

It seems to me that "1967 lines" is just a common shorthand for the approximate eventual starting place for negotiations.

 

[Coyote]

Barghouti has said 1967 lines, but I wonder if it's hard and fast, is he a negotiated AND will Israel work with him as they would not with Abbas?

It seems to me that "1967 lines" is just a common shorthand for the approximate eventual starting place for negotiations.

That is kind of how I see it also.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Settlers are part and parcel of colonialism. A colonial project/occupation cannot exist without them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

I fail to understand how a 3 yr child can be anything but acivilian.

Good point, but if US troops took their families to Iraq, who would be responsible for their safety?

 

[ogibillm]

Mandella was not a peaceful man. He invented the "burning necklace". Mandella was a terrorist. If you truly want to look for peaceful then look at Sadat.

Of course he was killed by islamic terrorists for his work.

lies

 

[Shusha]

Settlers are part and parcel of colonialism. A colonial project/occupation cannot exist without them.

So, be clear here, you ARE saying that it is morally permissible to target and murder civilians. And are trying to justify it by saying that these particular civilians don't count as civilians. Because -- colonialism makes a three-year-old child fair game.

Vile. A vile thought.

Also, very likely hypocritical:

So, it would be permissible for First Nations peoples to target and murder American and Canadians of European descent, then? Presumably, yourself and your family. Certainly, mine.

It would be permissible for black South Africans to murder white immigrants?

It would be permissible for Europeans to target and murder Arab Muslims?

It would be permissible for those with Mayan and Aztec ancestry to target and murder Spanish-speaking and Spanish-culture citizens?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Settlers are part and parcel of colonialism. A colonial project/occupation cannot exist without them.

So, be clear here, you ARE saying that it is morally permissible to target and murder civilians. And are trying to justify it by saying that these particular civilians don't count as civilians. Because -- colonialism makes a three-year-old child fair game.

Vile. A vile thought.

Also, very likely hypocritical:

So, it would be permissible for First Nations peoples to target and murder American and Canadians of European descent, then? Presumably, yourself and your family. Certainly, mine.

It would be permissible for black South Africans to murder white immigrants?

It would be permissible for Europeans to target and murder Arab Muslims?

It would be permissible for those with Mayan and Aztec ancestry to target and murder Spanish-speaking and Spanish-culture citizens?

The responsibility is that of the aggressor not the victim.

 

[Shusha]

The responsibility is that of the aggressor not the victim.

Unbelievable. So, in your opinion, in any country which has been colonized - the "victim" (the indigenous peoples) have the right to target and murder three year old children.

You are scary.