Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Palestinian Right to Resist

Expand Messages
  • james tan
    for myself, i can t help seeing the palestinians suicide killing as an invitation (or incitement, or provocation) to war, by any standard, israel s or
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      for myself, i can't help seeing the palestinians' suicide killing as an
      invitation (or incitement, or provocation) to war, by any standard, israel's
      or international's. sharon could either give in totally to the palestinian's
      demand (and they actually want to have nothing less than the entire land of
      palestine and removing the entire state of israel in palestine) as a result
      of palestinian's suicide attacks, which is a kind of war, or to defend by
      fighting back, nothing short of a war. it is not a matter of western
      perspective as u charge chris, but a matter of self-defense. and it is not
      stupid to defend against a intruder by force if there is no other way for a
      intruder who refuses to negotiate peacefully. u may think this has become a
      dog's world, but then that is the situation we sometimes find ourselves in,
      and instead of asking why it should be this way, and moralise, and idealise,
      sharon simply thought of how he could deal with it. try reasoning with a mad
      dog why it shouldn't bite u and u may begin to realise that reason can be
      futile if the opposite party is not interested in compromise but insisting
      only on his pt of view. palestinian is not just resisting over israel's
      present temporary occupation in a certain small part of west bank, what they
      resist in the ENTIRE state of israel. nothing short of getting rid of israel
      will stop them from their provocative attacks via suicide bombing. if u
      think war is terror, how would u respond when someone took a knife and
      threaten ur life, those of ur wife and children? i am sure u would try to
      defend even if it means killing the intruder, terror or no terror. this is
      just the pragmatic thing to do.

      james.


      From: "heindrich m�ller" <albatros444@...>
      Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
      To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com, frovpt@...
      Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: The Palestinian Right to Resist
      Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:51:01 +0200


      "I would like to persuade you that war is not the best solution for the
      Palestinian people, but if they are determined to have war, so be it."

      How on earth can an otherwise intelligent man as you be so narrow-minded and
      one-sided when it comes to this issue (and political issues in general)?? Is
      it a serious statement that palestinians a a whole are 'determined' to have
      war? Not very philosophical.

      Try seing things in different perspectives for a change - try something
      different than the westernized/american/israel point of view. It is as
      though you once and for all has chosen your side - this renders you just as
      blind as a dedicated inner-circle sovjet communist. They meant well too, you
      know.

      I *don't* mean to provoke by this comment, I just can't help wondering...

      One wrong cannot justify another. Terror is war. War is terror.



      >From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
      >Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
      >To: "faris osman" <frovpt@...>
      >CC: "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com>
      >Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: The Palestinian Right to Resist
      >Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:08:19 -0700
      >
      >Faris:
      >
      >Your effort to evade the constraints of the Oslo Accord is unpersuasive.
      >Your frequent use of words like "colonization" and "crumbs" is mere
      >sloganeering and claptrap. The fact of the matter is that Arafat signed
      >the agreement on behalf of the Palestinian people. At the time, he was
      >free not to sign it--he was not a captive. No, you cannot lawfully reject
      >agreement that you have freely entered into. If you repudiate such an
      >agreement, you are in the wrong. I believe that your reference to the
      >Anti-Ballistic Missile Agreement is not on point. Correct me if I am
      >mistaken, but that agreement had a mechanism for withdrawal. I'm not
      aware
      >of such a provision in the Oslo Accords. Besides, America's current
      >efforts at missile defense would not be effective against a Russian
      attack.
      > Moreover, Bush announced that the U.S. would be withdrawing from the ABM
      >Treaty and discussed it with the Russians. To my knowledge, Arafat has
      >never announced that he was that he was withdrawing from the Oslo Accord.
      >He seems to want to have his cake and eat it too.
      >
      >I don't think that Israel has openly reneged on the Oslo Accord, the
      >Palestinians did. I would like to persuade you that war is not the best
      >solution for the Palestinian people, but if they are determined to have
      >war, so be it. I think in the long run they will only hurt themselves,
      but
      >I could be wrong. If the Palestinians are determined to fight, I only
      hope
      >that they do so in a more "moral" fashion than has heretofore been the
      >case. I can only hope that we are both in agreement that whatever the
      >solution, both Palestinians and Israelis will some day live in peace and
      >justice for all, as Chairman Arafat said below, "rejecting violence and
      >terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively
      >in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."
      >
      >
      >Regards,
      >Chris
      >
      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: faris osman
      >Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 11:52 PM
      >To: cbobo@...
      >Cc: Sayf Uddeen Fariis @ Terence Kenneth John Nunis; James Tan
      >Subject: Fw: The Palestinian Right to Resist
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >Dear Chris
      >
      >Firstly, the right to resist the occupation / attack / colonization is the
      >inherent right of any people. I doubt that given the choice, no community
      >would ever give up this right. Oslo is merely a surrender of Palestinian
      >claim to Palestine where the Palestinians are made to accept 1. the
      >colonization of their homeland and 2. only the remaining crumbs for
      >themselves.
      >
      >As with the Noam Chomskly interview which I sent you, Oslo was damaging to
      >Palestinian rights.
      >
      >Arafat might have signed it but certainly out of desperation. Many
      >Palestinians obviously disagreed with this and they should. I doubt
      whether
      >the vast majority of the Palestinians knew what he was signing away. Would
      >they have agreed to live in a Bantustan ? Do they know what the "peace"
      >accord actually meant ? Oslo was a sham and I think that the Palestinians
      >have the moral right to reject it now in order to protect their rights and
      >interests (in the same way that the American government pulls out of
      >international treaties because in retrospect they do not serve American
      >interests ).
      >
      >In anycase, do not expect the Palestinians to abide by the Oslo accords
      >when Israel has openly reneged on it.
      >
      >Again, Chris - are the rights of a living, existing community with ancient
      >roots inferior to the claims of a community which can only claimed
      >historical and religious links ?
      >
      >
      >Regards
      >
      >
      >Faris
      >
      >
      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: Christopher Bobo
      >To: faris osman
      >Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 2:23 PM
      >Subject: The Palestinian Right to Resist
      >
      >
      >You have repeatedly said that the Palestinians have to right to resist by
      >force, but he Palestinians relinquished that right at Oslo.
      >
      >
      > ISRAEL-PLO RECOGNITION
      >
      >
      >
      > 1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:
      >
      >
      > September 9,
      >1993
      >
      >
      > Mr. Prime Minister,
      >
      > The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in
      >the
      > history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like
      >to
      > confirm the following PLO commitments:
      >
      > The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in
      >peace
      > and security.
      >
      > The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and
      >338.
      >
      > The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and
      to
      >a
      > peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and
      >declares
      > that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will
      >be
      > resolved through negotiations.
      >
      > The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of
      >Principles
      > constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of
      >peaceful
      > coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger
      >peace
      > and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism
      >and
      > other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all
      >PLO
      > elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance,
      >prevent
      > violations and discipline violators
      >
      > In view of the pormise of a new era and the signing of the
      >Declaration
      > of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security
      >Council
      > Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of
      >the
      > Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and
      >the
      > provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the
      >commitments
      > of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid.
      >Consequently,
      > the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council
      >for
      > formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the
      >Palestinian
      > Covenant.
      >
      >
      > Sincerely,
      >
      > Yasser Arafat
      > Chairman
      > The Palestine Liberation Organization
      >
      >
      >
      > Yitzhak Rabin
      > Prime Minister of Israel
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > 2. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO NORWEGIAN FOREIGN MINISTER:
      >
      >
      > September 9,
      >1993
      >
      >
      > Dear Minister Holst,
      >
      > I would like top confirm to you that, upon the signing of
      >the
      > Declaration of Principles, the PLO encourages and calls upon
      >the
      > Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in
      >the
      > steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence
      >and
      > terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and
      >participating
      > actively in shaping reconstruction, economic develoment and
      >cooperation.
      >
      >
      > Sincerely,
      >
      > Yasser Arafat
      > Chairman
      > The Palestine Liberation Organization




      _________________________________________________________________
      Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com









      _________________________________________________________________
      Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
    • james tan
      From: Christopher Bobo Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com To: faris osman CC: Sayf Fariis
      Message 2 of 3 , May 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
        Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
        To: "faris osman" <frovpt@...>
        CC: "Sayf Fariis" <terence_nunis@...>, "Tan James"
        <tyjfk@...>, "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: The Palestinian Right to Resist
        Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:54:54 -0700

        Hello Faris:

        I think you should read some existentialism. You invariably describe
        Palestinians as if they had no freedom of choice and no free will.
        According to you, Arafat had no choice but to sign the Oslo Accords, the
        Palestinians have no choice but to wage war, and that they are forced to
        employ suicide bombings. What's more, they cannot be expected to be bound by
        their treaties and promises, no matter how solemnly they express them. You
        describe the Palestinians as if they are hapless victims, with no free will,
        no moral agency and no responsibility for their actions. This way of
        viewing the world is utterly alien to any Western conception of human
        beings. I have never before encountered such a complete abdication of moral
        responsibility. I believe that people have free will, that they make their
        own moral choices and that they are responsible for what they do. If you
        repudiate the basic foundations for any morality, then truly it is pointless
        to engage in a moral discussion with you.

        Similarly, if you utterly refuse to compromise, which is the essence of
        politics, then there is no point to engage in political discussion with you.
        Politics is, after all, the art of compromise.

        You seemed determined to live in a perfect world where there are no
        compromises, where you are little more than a puppet and where you have no
        responsibility for your actions. I don't think that this is such a world,
        but if that is the world you live in, I really have no power to argue
        against it. Still, it seems to me that you are headed for ruin with such
        beliefs but I am only one imperfect and limited person and you could be
        completely right and it is I who is utterly deluded about reality.

        Still, I wish you well and thank you for this debate. It has been truly
        informative for me, although it has not given me much hope for a peaceful
        and constructive future.

        Respectfully,
        Chris

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: faris osman
        Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:44 AM
        To: Christopher Bobo
        Cc: Sayf Uddeen Fariis @ Terence Kenneth John Nunis; James Tan; Wisdom Forum
        Subject: Re: The Palestinian Right to Resist

        Dear Chris

        Please understand that whatever "peace" agreements signed between Arafat and
        the Israelis entail one thing - the acceptance of the Palestinians to the
        occupation of their homeland. Other unfairness have been made aware to you
        in the article I sent you earlier.

        Arafat was free not to sign it but the fact that he did was indication of
        his frustration. The Palestinian right to continue liberating their homeland
        is not a thing to be compromised. In anycase it is a mark of bias to
        castigate the Palestinians for refusing to give up their homeland.

        You argued that the Palestinians have chosen war - nay, that war was forced
        unto them. They did not "purchase" another people's lands, committed
        atrocities like massacres to force mass fleeings and then continue to
        oppress the remants of that people in order to subdue their will to fight.

        You take offense to my usage of the word "colonization" yet you have argued
        little in way of proving that the creation of Israel is not. Jews purchased
        lands you argued. Jewish biblical claims, you said. It is recognised
        internationally, you argued again. Yet what you have failed to prove is how
        these "facts" could justify the uprooting of a community with one thousand
        years of roots in order to uphold the rights of a community with only
        historical claims.

        My final words are these - if Israel wants to exist in other people's land,
        then it has no right to complain about terrorism be it suicide bombings or
        whatever.



        Regards


        Faris








        _________________________________________________________________
        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
      • james tan
        it is quite a risky and totally unpragmatic thing to leave the safety of your own country (or home, for that matter) at the mercy of ur potential enemy s
        Message 3 of 3 , May 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          it is quite a risky and totally unpragmatic thing to leave the safety of
          your own country (or home, for that matter) at the mercy of ur potential
          enemy's reasonableness and whims. such kinds of things just simply cannot be
          taken for granted. it is better to be tough than sorry, and as a head of a
          country, i guess sharon owes it to his electorates. it is useless for
          heinrich to argue that not all palestinians wants war; the fact of the
          matter is that many militants groups which are responsible for terrorist
          acts are hugely popular in palestine, and arafat himself as chairman of plo
          ostensibly fail to stop the terrorism. the palestinians have to LEARN that
          terrorism as a means to get what they want (and if they want nothing less
          than the total removal of israel, then they are asking for the impossible)
          will not be reinforced by israel not doing anything about it. the fact that
          israel retaliate IN RESPONSE TO palestinian's suicide attacks in no cause
          for the palestinians to complain of israel's cruelty. the sooner the
          palestinian realise and accept the reality that israel is there to stay,
          that compromise is the only way to have dignity back to their lives, the
          better it will be for all. it is a very tragic thing for a palestinian youth
          as young as 17 or 18 having to decide to blow himself up for a futile cause,
          tragic for himself and his parents. is life so cheap and disposable? arafat
          as a leader should really spare a thought for these palestinian youths and
          his electorates, and not just his own skin. he can't go on denying the
          reality (i am not sure the fact that he is a muslim reinforce the illusion
          that his allah will deliver him a miracle one day and thus he will
          'perservere') and wishing for the impossible. anyway, for heindrich, it is
          not an option for sharon not to do anything in response to palestinian's
          continuous suicide's attacks on israeli civilians. if u have better
          idea/options how sharon should react, maybe u can share here. it is
          infinitely easier and convenient to condemn than to come up with a feasible
          solution.

          james.

          From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
          Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
          To: "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: The Palestinian Right to Resist
          Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 10:50:42 -0700

          James,

          I think you are quite right. Theory and ideas have lost their power here in
          this situation. It is purely a matter of practice and pragmatics. Talk,
          debate, and discourse have reached their limits and actions must be taken.
          I suppose that is one reason that human societies have generals and soldiers
          in addition to politicians and diplomats.

          Chris

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: james tan
          Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:55 PM
          To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: The Palestinian Right to Resist


          for myself, i can't help seeing the palestinians' suicide killing as an
          invitation (or incitement, or provocation) to war, by any standard, israel's
          or international's. sharon could either give in totally to the palestinian's
          demand (and they actually want to have nothing less than the entire land of
          palestine and removing the entire state of israel in palestine) as a result
          of palestinian's suicide attacks, which is a kind of war, or to defend by
          fighting back, nothing short of a war. it is not a matter of western
          perspective as u charge chris, but a matter of self-defense. and it is not
          stupid to defend against a intruder by force if there is no other way for a
          intruder who refuses to negotiate peacefully. u may think this has become a
          dog's world, but then that is the situation we sometimes find ourselves in,
          and instead of asking why it should be this way, and moralise, and idealise,
          sharon simply thought of how he could deal with it. try reasoning with a mad
          dog why it shouldn't bite u and u may begin to realise that reason can be
          futile if the opposite party is not interested in compromise but insisting
          only on his pt of view. palestinian is not just resisting over israel's
          present temporary occupation in a certain small part of west bank, what they
          resist in the ENTIRE state of israel. nothing short of getting rid of israel
          will stop them from their provocative attacks via suicide bombing. if u
          think war is terror, how would u respond when someone took a knife and
          threaten ur life, those of ur wife and children? i am sure u would try to
          defend even if it means killing the intruder, terror or no terror. this is
          just the pragmatic thing to do.

          james.


          From: "heindrich m�ller" <albatros444@...>
          Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
          To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com, frovpt@...
          Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: The Palestinian Right to Resist
          Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:51:01 +0200


          "I would like to persuade you that war is not the best solution for the
          Palestinian people, but if they are determined to have war, so be it."

          How on earth can an otherwise intelligent man as you be so narrow-minded and
          one-sided when it comes to this issue (and political issues in general)?? Is
          it a serious statement that palestinians a a whole are 'determined' to have
          war? Not very philosophical.

          Try seing things in different perspectives for a change - try something
          different than the westernized/american/israel point of view. It is as
          though you once and for all has chosen your side - this renders you just as
          blind as a dedicated inner-circle sovjet communist. They meant well too, you
          know.

          I *don't* mean to provoke by this comment, I just can't help wondering...

          One wrong cannot justify another. Terror is war. War is terror.



          >From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
          >Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
          >To: "faris osman" <frovpt@...>
          >CC: "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com>
          >Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: The Palestinian Right to Resist
          >Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:08:19 -0700
          >
          >Faris:
          >
          >Your effort to evade the constraints of the Oslo Accord is unpersuasive.
          >Your frequent use of words like "colonization" and "crumbs" is mere
          >sloganeering and claptrap. The fact of the matter is that Arafat signed
          >the agreement on behalf of the Palestinian people. At the time, he was
          >free not to sign it--he was not a captive. No, you cannot lawfully reject
          >agreement that you have freely entered into. If you repudiate such an
          >agreement, you are in the wrong. I believe that your reference to the
          >Anti-Ballistic Missile Agreement is not on point. Correct me if I am
          >mistaken, but that agreement had a mechanism for withdrawal. I'm not
          aware
          >of such a provision in the Oslo Accords. Besides, America's current
          >efforts at missile defense would not be effective against a Russian
          attack.
          > Moreover, Bush announced that the U.S. would be withdrawing from the ABM
          >Treaty and discussed it with the Russians. To my knowledge, Arafat has
          >never announced that he was that he was withdrawing from the Oslo Accord.
          >He seems to want to have his cake and eat it too.
          >
          >I don't think that Israel has openly reneged on the Oslo Accord, the
          >Palestinians did. I would like to persuade you that war is not the best
          >solution for the Palestinian people, but if they are determined to have
          >war, so be it. I think in the long run they will only hurt themselves,
          but
          >I could be wrong. If the Palestinians are determined to fight, I only
          hope
          >that they do so in a more "moral" fashion than has heretofore been the
          >case. I can only hope that we are both in agreement that whatever the
          >solution, both Palestinians and Israelis will some day live in peace and
          >justice for all, as Chairman Arafat said below, "rejecting violence and
          >terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively
          >in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."
          >
          >
          >Regards,
          >Chris
          >
          >----- Original Message -----
          >From: faris osman
          >Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 11:52 PM
          >To: cbobo@...
          >Cc: Sayf Uddeen Fariis @ Terence Kenneth John Nunis; James Tan
          >Subject: Fw: The Palestinian Right to Resist
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Dear Chris
          >
          >Firstly, the right to resist the occupation / attack / colonization is the
          >inherent right of any people. I doubt that given the choice, no community
          >would ever give up this right. Oslo is merely a surrender of Palestinian
          >claim to Palestine where the Palestinians are made to accept 1. the
          >colonization of their homeland and 2. only the remaining crumbs for
          >themselves.
          >
          >As with the Noam Chomskly interview which I sent you, Oslo was damaging to
          >Palestinian rights.
          >
          >Arafat might have signed it but certainly out of desperation. Many
          >Palestinians obviously disagreed with this and they should. I doubt
          whether
          >the vast majority of the Palestinians knew what he was signing away. Would
          >they have agreed to live in a Bantustan ? Do they know what the "peace"
          >accord actually meant ? Oslo was a sham and I think that the Palestinians
          >have the moral right to reject it now in order to protect their rights and
          >interests (in the same way that the American government pulls out of
          >international treaties because in retrospect they do not serve American
          >interests ).
          >
          >In anycase, do not expect the Palestinians to abide by the Oslo accords
          >when Israel has openly reneged on it.
          >
          >Again, Chris - are the rights of a living, existing community with ancient
          >roots inferior to the claims of a community which can only claimed
          >historical and religious links ?
          >
          >
          >Regards
          >
          >
          >Faris
          >








          _________________________________________________________________
          Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.