It’s 2032. Russia occupies Ukraine. Moscow has fragmented Ukrainians geographically and legally. Some Ukrainians enjoy citizenship but face structural discrimination. Many lack citizenship and live without free movement under military law. Many others have been expelled and cannot return. Suddenly, over the space of a few days, Ukrainians begin murdering Russian civilians. What would we say?
Appalling article. Peter says he is seeking "not to excuse violence against civilians" but only after paragraphs and paragraphs of justifications, comparing Palestinian violence to the Ukrainian conflict as well as historical examples. Violence against innocent civilians is always wrong. It was wrong when the Irish did it, it was wrong when hypothetical Ukrainians do it, and it's wrong when Palestinians do it. In Peter's rush to defend the murder of Jews, he fails to address the fact that two of the murderers were in fact members of ISIS. I look forward to Peter's next article in which he shows a causation between ISIS's violence and the violence of the oppressive Israeli state. There seems to be no limit to the amount of victim blaming occurring here.
If Palestinians feel so hopeless and powerless that they are compelled to slaughter innocent people, perhaps instead they should get their government to finally make peace with Israel after all of these years. Abbas has failed to make peace with every single Israeli PM for the past several decades, maybe someone new could actually get something done? If Palestine truly "see no other way to answer the violence inflicted on them" (another disgusting defense of Jew murder), then that is a problem on Palestine's end, no one else's.
I do enjoy the references to international law, though, like the claim that Israel's occupation is against international or about "Palestinian efforts to hold Israel accountable under international law." You know what's against international law, Peter? Murdering civilians! Funny how you didn't mention that anywhere.
Peter says that "Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, like Russia’s invasions of Ukraine, still constitutes a clear violation of international law." He then shares a series of links that fail to back up his claim. The link to the UN, for example, directs to a news report about a ruling concerning Israel's settlements. Another is to a ruling about the West Bank security barrier.
Question: is Peter not very intelligent, or does he merely believe his audience is unable to tell the difference between a settlement and an occupation?
Human dignity is the cornerstone to any sustainable peace. A number of years ago, meeting with Colin Powell's former chief of staff (both at DOD and State) I asked him if he was familiar with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...he knew of it, but did not know it. I gave him a copy and asked if he thought it could be an effective tool. He said he saw one problem, it would be to inexpensive and Congress would never cut out the many jobs derived from the Military Industrial Complex. The more work I've done here in the US and around the world, the clearer it is, when people find their dignity they have an investment in their society doing well. When dignity is stripped from them, they have no reason to support that government or society. If we want peace in the Middle East, in Europe, and even in the USA (which teeters on the verge of greater violence) we should explore deploying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as foundational to survival. For almost 75 years it has been one of the world's best kept secrets. Now is the time to unleash it's powers.
There is simply no comparison between Israel Russia, Ukraine, Detroit etc. This is not a winning or let us say illuminating approach to Israel/Palestine.
The facts are that over time Palestinians have come to believe they were dispossessed (it's complicated) and that the only solution is repossession (more complicated). Quoting Abbas saying that he wants a Palestinian state without planes and guns and police with only batons is meaningless as it comes from a man who has not faced the ballot box and the reason is simply if he were he would lose to Hamas (which does say something about the Palestinian public). And we know Hamas certainly believe in violence and as you point out they might consider a truce. But who in Israel would consider a truce with Hamas just 10 miles away from Tel Aviv and literally just a fence away from Jerusalem?
There will be a solution to the Arab Israel problem, but it is not going to be a single state encompassing Palestinians and Israelis. It also is not going to be acceptable, and it has never been acceptable to the Palestinians to have the West bank as a state—they have made it clear since 1948, when they had complete control of the West Bank and Arafat rejected it even with the Arab section of the Old City in 2000. Every such solution has been rejected without exception.
I am looking forward to your interview with former PM Olmert. He came the closest until he was unseated by Netanyahu.
Once again the argument seems to me simple. How does the Old Testament or the holocaust justify the negation of 1300 years of history and the takeover of another peoples' land.
Appalling article. Peter says he is seeking "not to excuse violence against civilians" but only after paragraphs and paragraphs of justifications, comparing Palestinian violence to the Ukrainian conflict as well as historical examples. Violence against innocent civilians is always wrong. It was wrong when the Irish did it, it was wrong when hypothetical Ukrainians do it, and it's wrong when Palestinians do it. In Peter's rush to defend the murder of Jews, he fails to address the fact that two of the murderers were in fact members of ISIS. I look forward to Peter's next article in which he shows a causation between ISIS's violence and the violence of the oppressive Israeli state. There seems to be no limit to the amount of victim blaming occurring here.
If Palestinians feel so hopeless and powerless that they are compelled to slaughter innocent people, perhaps instead they should get their government to finally make peace with Israel after all of these years. Abbas has failed to make peace with every single Israeli PM for the past several decades, maybe someone new could actually get something done? If Palestine truly "see no other way to answer the violence inflicted on them" (another disgusting defense of Jew murder), then that is a problem on Palestine's end, no one else's.
I do enjoy the references to international law, though, like the claim that Israel's occupation is against international or about "Palestinian efforts to hold Israel accountable under international law." You know what's against international law, Peter? Murdering civilians! Funny how you didn't mention that anywhere.
Peter says that "Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, like Russia’s invasions of Ukraine, still constitutes a clear violation of international law." He then shares a series of links that fail to back up his claim. The link to the UN, for example, directs to a news report about a ruling concerning Israel's settlements. Another is to a ruling about the West Bank security barrier.
Question: is Peter not very intelligent, or does he merely believe his audience is unable to tell the difference between a settlement and an occupation?
Human dignity is the cornerstone to any sustainable peace. A number of years ago, meeting with Colin Powell's former chief of staff (both at DOD and State) I asked him if he was familiar with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...he knew of it, but did not know it. I gave him a copy and asked if he thought it could be an effective tool. He said he saw one problem, it would be to inexpensive and Congress would never cut out the many jobs derived from the Military Industrial Complex. The more work I've done here in the US and around the world, the clearer it is, when people find their dignity they have an investment in their society doing well. When dignity is stripped from them, they have no reason to support that government or society. If we want peace in the Middle East, in Europe, and even in the USA (which teeters on the verge of greater violence) we should explore deploying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as foundational to survival. For almost 75 years it has been one of the world's best kept secrets. Now is the time to unleash it's powers.
There is simply no comparison between Israel Russia, Ukraine, Detroit etc. This is not a winning or let us say illuminating approach to Israel/Palestine.
The facts are that over time Palestinians have come to believe they were dispossessed (it's complicated) and that the only solution is repossession (more complicated). Quoting Abbas saying that he wants a Palestinian state without planes and guns and police with only batons is meaningless as it comes from a man who has not faced the ballot box and the reason is simply if he were he would lose to Hamas (which does say something about the Palestinian public). And we know Hamas certainly believe in violence and as you point out they might consider a truce. But who in Israel would consider a truce with Hamas just 10 miles away from Tel Aviv and literally just a fence away from Jerusalem?
There will be a solution to the Arab Israel problem, but it is not going to be a single state encompassing Palestinians and Israelis. It also is not going to be acceptable, and it has never been acceptable to the Palestinians to have the West bank as a state—they have made it clear since 1948, when they had complete control of the West Bank and Arafat rejected it even with the Arab section of the Old City in 2000. Every such solution has been rejected without exception.
I am looking forward to your interview with former PM Olmert. He came the closest until he was unseated by Netanyahu.
Once again the argument seems to me simple. How does the Old Testament or the holocaust justify the negation of 1300 years of history and the takeover of another peoples' land.