You have to kick the donky out of your farm!!!

quote:

---

No, a careful analysis of his strengths, weaknesses, and ultimate capabilities. While I have provided evidence towards this end, you have done nothing but assert his value.

---

What evidence?

quote:

---

Once again, you should not confuse this with base slander that he is not intelligent, nor a capable leader (although I will note he is NOT a military leader). The question is what good will he do the Palestinians for getting them what they want.

---

And the answer is: take the war to America. It does not escape the Palestinians that they are being killed by American weapons supplied on credit.

quote:

---

All I am saying is that a critical analysis shows the current strategies and tactics are not working and some new ones are in order.

---

But I maintain that is clearly untrue: the two Intifadah's are themselves responses to the manifest failure of negotiation and outside intervention. If either of those strategies had any prospect of working, they would be pursued. But history demonstrates, as does this conflict, that unless and until you can deliver a credible threat, nobody else needs to negotiate weith you. The Israeli's have no motive to negotiate unless compelled to do so by losses.Saying that Palestinians do not have a human right to resist is what is selling them short.

quote:

---

However I do see that right now... strategically... they are better off with a cease fire and gaining allies in a move to negotiate their position, than taking any offensive maneuvers.

---

Are there any instances in which the Palestinians have benefitted from such an arrangement? Right now, the road map was supposed to be implemented in eschange for support on the Iraq war - and yet Israeli settlements are still being raised in the occupied territory, Jerusalem is being extended from a city to a municipal area, and the Palestinians still face being cordoned off into the least productive bit of land the Israelis can find. What have they got to lose?

quote:

---

Communism????

---

Of course. This sort of conflict is exactly the issues that communism was developed to resolve.

quote:

---

First liberation using Bin Laden... and then communism through???

---

I didn't say liberation through Bin Laden; I said, you can understand why he is a hero in their eyes. Please STOP over-extending my argument, Hiolmes, its a bad habit of yours.

quote:

---

If best is 2 to 1 casualties with nothing else to show but propaganda points, it is time to end the war.

---

How?

quote:

---

Your pessimism, even on their possible uses of violence, is startling, especially given your flights of fantasy as seen above.

---

The ANC and VC both sustained casualties in the order of 10 to 1 against their oppressors. Wars of national liberation are always asymmetric, and the body count always favours the side dominant prior to the conflict. Propaganda is a necessary focus under these circumstances, because the only thing that makes the war potentially winnable is morale. In fact, the efficacy of the suicide bomber is such that it is being adopted quite widely by those armies that cannot afford heavy metal; as we have already seen, it has spread to Iraq. 2 to 1 is actually a very good ratio, under the circumstances.Don't patronise me on matters of strategy. As I said earlier, from my perspective you are rather naive about the realities of national liberation struggles. They are not clean, and cannot be.

quote:

---

Says the guy writing to an EvC forum.

---

Well, even I have to make a living, and at work I can post. So, what did you do to save the world today, huh?

quote:

---

Who said lay down arms? Ceasefire is different than surrender.

---

Well, its the suicide bombing you object to, and yet that is their only meaningful weapon. So if you advocate an end to the suicide bombings, you are advocating an effective end to the resistance.

quote:

---

And your assessment of how they can use the media is less than stellar. I agree that there is currently a media bias toward Israel in the US. But that can be overcome. There is currently a media bias that is proBush, that has also been overcome.

---

We shall see.

quote:

---

By the way contra, I spend much time outside the US, and am right now outside the US. I have friends within that region in particular, and so all your ranting sounds like some dork who hasn't actually been outside the US, much less in that region.

---

I don't live in the US, but have travelled in several countries. I grew up in Africa, amid the debris of colonial struggles, and with my own acquaintances as combatants and casualties in those struggles. I don't consider you to be very well versed in the history of armed resistance.

quote:

---

Maybe I am wrong but it certainly sounds like it. The world is a much more diverse place than you make it out to be and MOST see through false heroes and extremist propaganda.

---

True - extremist propaganda like suicide bombing being so immoral as to be unsupportable. General Patton said the hardest thing about being a general is knowing that so many of the troops under your command will be killed. We all understand the consequences of war, but apparently when someone goes to fight with the certainty of dying, instead of an extraordinarily high probability of dying, we are outraged. It is Western hypocrisy through and through, a constructed double-think.You said above the war should be stopped - but how can they? They cannot control the course of the war by any means - all they can do is fight.And for the rich and comfortable of the world to turn up their noses at this heroism, and to say that their method of fighting is too ugly, having achieved their position of wealth on the back of much slaughter and a wave of blood, is unforgivable in my view. That is to condone murder, to condone oppression, and to blame the victims for their suffering.

quote:

---

Uh, yeah. Tell me something I don't know. That doesn't help your point or diminish mine in the least.

---

It does, I'm afraid: because it shows that the Palestinians already have nearly as many allies as there are to be had. That is not the problem - the problem is our simultaneous subsidy and support for Israeli terrorism. So it would be entirely pointless to give up their only effective warfighting technique as a means of suasion; those who are already against them will not be persuaded, because their stance is not based on the justice of their cause in the first place.This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-28-2004 11:26 AM

I have briefly detailed his successes and the nature of them.Now your turn. My position is that he has never (unless you count his term working with the CIA in Afghanistan) worked as a military leader and shown any ability to wage a real war. Propaganda war? Maybe. Actual War. No.This should be pretty easy to refute if you have any evidence. That would be the most foolish act the Palestinians could try. The US is a potential ally, and certainly they need to change its current commitment away from the Israelis (specifically Sharon).That'd be as wise as Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. Yes. They were doing well with Rabin (the Israeli extremists ended that). They were not doing as well with Barak, but good enough to stay at the table (Arafat made a big mistake and walked out... I still don't get that one, and even he admits it was a mistake).Maybe third time's the charm.You've yet to show how Palestinians waging the war as they currently are is likely to get them anything. It has demonstrably got them NOTHING. Pot calls china dishes black. Although I think it would be absurd, I never said that he couldn't be a hero in their eyes, all I said is they shouldn't take him on as a "benefactor" for their cause.Since you criticized my point and said what a wonderful commander he would be, it seems odd to think I wouldn't misunderstand what you were saying. I will patronize you as long as you talk like some veteran of countless guerilla wars, battle-hardened and still killing with the best of them... then turn around and make the most asinine statements regarding real war.I am sure there are many many many more qualified people than ME to talk about war, but you can't keep straight what tactical and strategic situations are similar.The Palestinians are NOT dealing with an occupying force trying to impose a government on lands in which they currently live, they are trying to TAKE BACK lands from someone else. That puts them in the offensive position with regard to the occupied territories.There is NO comparing that to the ANC or the VC.You know what, why don't you just advocate all Palestinians just get up right now and arm themselves with anything they have and walk over to take the land back by force? They have vastly superior numbers.My guess is you'd say that wouldn't be wise because the losses would be catastrophic for the value achieved. That is what I am saying with regard to the current fighting method. Says the COMMUNIST who derides me for not taking action and helping the Palestinians fight, because I am so in love with sitting on my expensive couch I wouldn't lift a finger to do anything risky.Hahahahahahaha.... just like a "true" communist... breathing fire to encourage OTHER people to kill themselves while you sit behind a desk because "ya gotta make a living."Ohhhhhh man, what a joke you are to me.Really, why aren't YOU trying to blow yourself up in Israel right now? Talking to me is so important? This just goes to show you have no clue as to how to evaluate a military situation. Suicide bombing is their only meaningful weapon?Have you even looked at other methods they have used for defensive maneuvers? You don't consider me well versed because I don't agree with you? Hey, how about coming up with one accurate assessment? If you can't differentiate between an offensive and defensive action, you've already failed a basic military assessment. I didn't say that. However if you are trying to gain allies to your cause because your enemy is killing civilians, it is generally unwise to be doing the same thing, especially when the action does NOTHING ELSE.I am actually not a critic of "suicide bombing" in the general sense. Suicide missions have been used throughout history on all sides, including our own. The question is what will it achieve.Impossibly, you could not see the difference between DDay, Hiroshima, and 9-11. It takes a real "genius" to miss what defines each from the other (legitimation being something separate but also defining).It is not surprising then to see you failing to see what is the difference between a useful suicide mission which achieves an objective that can be built upon, and one which has so little value it might as well have been commited by a singular psychotic. Surely it is constructed, constructed by you as a strawman for my position.I sided with Maher, when he noted that the 9-11 hijackers were not "cowards" and had more guts than the average modern western soldier sitting safely miles away from their target. Indeed, the guys that attacked the Cole were incredibly brave. I was always wondering why we wanted to portray people that were obviously brave and more important SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR MISSION as being cowards. What would that make us?My problems with all of those attacks had nothing to do with whether the people involved were brave, or the fact that they chose suicide missions. It was something much deeper and more intricate... and NOT hypocritical. And you DON'T want me patronizing your ability to strategize? Because the US currently protects Israel (and is its only real support) means that the Palestinians have nearly as many allies as there is to be had?Oh yeah, and that means no change in what has been getting them nowhere for the last so many decades?I have visions of you sitting behind miles of trenches urging the men at the front "once again into the breach!", then turning back to your tables sure everything must work, because the THEORY says so!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

______________________________________________________________________
And again, I think this is one of those times where you are missing a real chance for power. America would make a great ally. In fact, about the only ally with enough power to effect change in Israel (other than moderate Israelis themselves). You guys should be reaching out to the VAST moderate population of the US.
______________________________________________________________________Agreed,AMERICA would make a great ally and support for PEACE.It might provide us with weapons just as israel. and MODERATE population -like you- would advice us to buy our lost land back !!!!!!______________________________________________________________________
Who is "we"? You dare speak for all arabs, muslims, Palestinians? I am getting the picture of who you represent. You are simply an extremist.There are plenty of moderates and they are willing to let some land go, for real peace and prosperity. It sucks. It does mean you got screwed. But again, that happens to everyone. Move on. The land is not VITAL to your survival or growth.
______________________________________________________________________if there is something that USA teached me,is that NEVER go on with it in a discussion before putting an ACCORD for all expressions you may use.
they use the same word as you but for a different meaning .
you would incriminate TERRORISTS as they would , but you means -those killing people without any right to-. while they are meaning -you as palestinians,arabs,muslims fighting for your dignity-.you would encourage MODERATES,as they would, but you mean -those who defend them self and then forgives when they can- while they are meaning -those wicked,sordid people who agree to sell thier land with some money ( like some leaders of some countries)- .
You garantee safty of CIVILIANS ,as they would. you mean -those people who work ,study , plant (but not armed)-while they are meaning -those who are "civilian-dressed" does not matter if they are armed and waiting for the order to kill you-.At last I am an extremist( american dictionary)
______________________________________________________________________
Who is "we"? You dare speak for all arabs, muslims, Palestinians? I am getting the picture of who you represent. You are simply an extremist.
______________________________________________________________________Then "WE" is the most of palestinians,arabs,muslims.This message has been edited by dandon83, 07-29-2004 04:18 AM

I couldn't tell if this was a criticism of my position or not, but I'll assume it is.Other than the daily oppression at borders, and during incursions by Israel, the main dispute is about land (whether retaking it for Palestine, or at least letting people go back to their homes... even if it is considered Israel).I have pointed out that many people get a shaft in this life. I myself have lost much property and money to thieves and swindlers (and I am talking about life savings worth). The treachery and injustice of it all was so maddening. I was consumed with revenge and ways to get what was mine back.Unfortunately nothing worked, and often cost me a lot more than the property was worth and I still didn't have it back.Then I swallowed my pride (hell I am still swallowing and it hurts) and MOVED ON. It costs less to move on and regain what you lost by creating or buying something else.When I think about suicide bombers, and look at how little they gained for anyone, I have to ask myself how much more thay could have gotten for themselves and other Palestinians if they had simply stayed alive and CREATED something instead of destroying something of someone else's.In a short time one can start seeing results and feel a return of pride and wealth and in a very real way defeat the ambitions of those that robbed you.There are examples of this in history even on national scales. Not that I want to compare Palestinians with 1940's Germany or Japan morally, but the end physical position was the same. Absolute poverty with totally restructured borders, and many disenfranchised (for no real reason).Both nations were forced to give up violence and turned their energies to reconstruction and economic power. They are now vibrant and at times have threatened to overshadow their one time enemy (the US).It is a very real possibility that Palestinians, in shifting focus, could gain something other than lost land which would put them in a much better position. In addition, if they get good enough, they could buy back some of the land.Sometimes the best revenge is living well. In the first place I never said terrorist, and in the second place my definition of terrorist are neither of the above. You are right though, definitions of terms are usually good to have as one discusses them.When I ever get around to using the term terrorist, I'll make sure to define it for you. Otherwise, don't put words in my mouth. Here is a case where... it seems... my definition covers both of yours. I am not saying that everyone should be happy with money for their land, but there is always a time to assess if that is the best one can realistically get.Personally, I would never be willing to lose my family for a piece of land that is not absolutely VITAL for my survival. If it isn't VITAL, then the crime committed against me is mere theft and monetary compensation can at least ease the burden if not set things right. You can get new land, you CANNOT get a life back.I'm still uncertain how you rationalize your contradictory views. You play Israelis as money hoarding zealots, then refuse to see that money is a potential weapon or shield against them? Indeed you only see more violence as an answer when that has failed to get any property back.More of the same, when that same is failure, is foolishness.Look for new methods to make onesself POWERFUL, LIVING FREE, and PROSPEROUS. At this point I just cannot tell who "you" is. It isn't me and I am uncertain which side I's or P's you are condemning. I have heard both equivocate on this issue in the same way you laid out here.Civilians (to me) are persons not on active duty in a military or governmental (this could include police or intelligence agency) force. Outside of their vote, they are generally unable to affect policy decisions, and are not actively participating in any of those decisions.They can be armed or not, and be waiting for orders or not. I am uncertain how one can differentiate between the latter choices, which is why I am so offended by the Israeli practice of targeted assassinations... aren't you? And that's a shame. You don't have to be and I'd encourage you to think beyond your raw emotions, towards practical goals. I certainly understand the rage that Palestinians can be feeling. In fact I would say they many or most have suffered way worse than I ever have... and on a daily basis.But that does not change the fact that one (especially Palestinian leaders) is not best served giving into the rage. One has to look for longterm goals and critically examine what is the best method to achieve them.After two failed wars and a drawn out, and failed, guerrilla campaign it may be time to cut the losses. Can the land be worth THAT MUCH LOSS?Can one honor the dead as well as the living and yet to be born by moving on to victory in some other fashion?Can you give me one good reason why those patches of land in specific are VITAL to the physical existence and monetary success of Palestinians? If not, then why let one more person DIE to get them back?I am not asking this rhetorically (like I'm talking down to you). I really want an answer. You may be able to talk about most Palestinians, but it is a bit of hubris to say you speak for most arabs and muslims.There is no doubt most PEOPLE feel bad for the Palestinians and angry at the Israelis. But it is not true that MOST (even muslims) feel that getting the land back is your only or best option. Just? Yeah. Worth still more loss of life? Not certain on that one.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

My position is that he has never (unless you count his term working with the CIA in Afghanistan) worked as a military leader and shown any ability to wage a real war. Propaganda war? Maybe. Actual War. No.

---

Well, I am specifically talking about his period in Afghanisatn, and his work with the international mujahadeen. He aquired a reputation for both bravery and competence in Afghanistan, directing a large proportion of the efforts. The subsequent internionalist work afgfirmed his reputation as a competent organiser; these combatatants fought in Kosovo, for example.His popularity is not unfounded; he has been prpepared to fight himself, he has put himself in harmns way for others, he has built and managed international organs, and he has succesfully struck at the US more than once. Who else has his level of credibility?

quote:

---

That would be the most foolish act the Palestinians could try. The US is a potential ally, and certainly they need to change its current commitment away from the Israelis (specifically Sharon).

---

Ahuh. And France should have pandered to Japan becuase they were a "potential ally", despite being an actual ally of the Germans? Now that really is taking optimism too far. If you recognise that the US is currently committed to the support of Israel, then you should fully understand why the war should be carried to the US. As william Shirer wriote in 1973:

quote:

---

Until we go through it ourselves, until our people cower in the shelters of New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles and elsewhere while the buildings collapse overhead and burst into flames, and dead bodies hurtle about and, when it is over for the day or the night, emerge in the rubble to find some of their dear ones mangled, their homes gone, their hospitals, churches, schools demolished only after that gruesome experience will we realize what we are inflicting on the people of Indochina...

---

On the people of Indochina, and on the people of Palestine.[qupte] Yes. They were doing well with Rabin (the Israeli extremists ended that).[/quote]And what a surprise that was. I was so shocked, I stopped eating for days. Not.

quote:

---

Maybe third time's the charm.

---

And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

quote:

---

You've yet to show how Palestinians waging the war as they currently are is likely to get them anything. It has demonstrably got them NOTHING.

---

Well, I disagree in this sense: it has restored their pride, and to an extent, their humanity. But more importantly, they have demonstrated the counterpoint to the observation that those who sacrifice liberty in return for temporary safety are deserving of neither.

quote:

---

Although I think it would be absurd, I never said that he couldn't be a hero in their eyes, all I said is they shouldn't take him on as a "benefactor" for their cause.

---

Why should they not? He is willing, who else is?

quote:

---

Since you criticized my point and said what a wonderful commander he would be, it seems odd to think I wouldn't misunderstand what you were saying.

---

Nonsense; I never said anything at all about Bin Laden taking over Hamas or anything.

quote:

---

I will patronize you as long as you talk like some veteran of countless guerilla wars, battle-hardened and still killing with the best of them... then turn around and make the most asinine statements regarding real war.

---

Haha. I have never claimed to have been a combatant; but I certainly consider your argument about war to originate from naivite. It is you making assinine statements IMO. You appear to be wholly unfamiliar with the problems that charcterise national liberation struggles - a high proportion of which, in the modern context, have been well documented. And that is why your criticism has both the form and the relevance of Victorian moralism.

quote:

---

The Palestinians are NOT dealing with an occupying force trying to impose a government on lands in which they currently live, they are trying to TAKE BACK lands from someone else. That puts them in the offensive position with regard to the occupied territories.

---

That is ludicrous; you have admitted yourtself that the Israeli's steadily encroach on their land. Even if it were the case 30 years ago, it is definitely no longer the case. Indeed, if it were the case, then Bush's statement that existing Israeli expansions must be preserved as simple realism, would be wholly meaningless.The fact of the matter is that it is the Palestinians who are occupied; it is they who suffer incursions by armoured columns into their towns, where those armoured columns procede to wreak destruction on the CIVILIAN infrastructure. The Israeli's control the routes in and out, access to work, to water, to electricity. The Palestinians are in every sense the injured party in this conflict, and no amount of semantics serves to shift culpability to them.Indeed, it is exavctkly the use of this sort of misrepresentative language that I highlighted in the Glasgow University study of press coverage.

quote:

---

There is NO comparing that to the ANC or the VC.

---

And what goves you the authority to say that? The ANC certainly see every similarity, and have been Palestinian allies since the 70's. Who are YOU to tell the ANC that they are wrong?Just so you are clear on this matter, I provid quotes and links to ANC statements circa 2001:

quote:

---

The ANC recommits itself to ongoing solidarity with the Palestinian people and calls on the Israeli government to immediately and unconditionally end:

​

- its campaign of murder and terror against Palestinian activists and leaders;
- the use of live ammunition against civilians, and the deployment of military tactics and weapons of war against civilian communities; * detention without trial;
- its ongoing gross violations of human rights, and the various forms of collective punishment it imposes on the Palestinian people;
its illegal and provocative programme of settlement activities.

​

...

​

The struggle against apartheid was part of the international struggle against the ideas that found their most direct expression in the advent of Nazism and the holocaust. South Africans, having defeated apartheid, have a direct stake in the eradication of apartheid practices on a global scale, and in the plight of the Palestinian people in particular. Our task is to labour and struggle humanely to confront military occupation, discriminatory actions and gross violations of human rights. The world must work together to find the keys for a just and democratic settlement between Palestinians and Israelis.

---

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2001/at31.htm

quote:

---

You know what, why don't you just advocate all Palestinians just get up right now and arm themselves with anything they have and walk over to take the land back by force? They have vastly superior numbers.

---

Because I am not Gandhi, and I do not ask people to walk unarmed into the teeth of tanks, fighter-bombers, gunships and Hellfire missiles.

quote:

---

My guess is you'd say that wouldn't be wise because the losses would be catastrophic for the value achieved. That is what I am saying with regard to the current fighting method.

---

A single suicide bomb in Baghdad yesterday killed 70 and injured 30. Suicide bombing is by far the most effective warfightiong technique available, and they would be irresponsible if they did not employ it.

quote:

---

Really, why aren't YOU trying to blow yourself up in Israel right now? Talking to me is so important?

---

I have certainly done more than you, Holmes. I've never claimed a special moral worth - all I am defending is the right of human beings to self defence. Why does that require I go and die on their behalf?So let me ask you, who do you know who died in a terrorist bombing? I know 3. I can and do speak from a position of knowing what this war actually means.

quote:

---

You don't consider me well versed because I don't agree with you? Hey, how about coming up with one accurate assessment? If you can't differentiate between an offensive and defensive action, you've already failed a basic military assessment.

---

You're demonstrating your naivite again. Were the French Resistance carrying out a defensive or defensive operation?And while you're at it, when the Resistance planted bombs that killed French collaborators alongside Germans, did that also invalidate their cause and lose them allies?

quote:

---

I am actually not a critic of "suicide bombing" in the general sense. Suicide missions have been used throughout history on all sides, including our own. The question is what will it achieve.

---

This only demonstrates how contorted your argument is. You object to the technique not becuase it is inherently wrong, but becuase of its PR consequences. And yet, by acknowledging the technique is not INHERENTLY wrong, you are refuting the legitimacy of the position that this technique is unacceptable.

quote:

---

Impossibly, you could not see the difference between DDay, Hiroshima, and 9-11. It takes a real "genius" to miss what defines each from the other (legitimation being something separate but also defining).

---

Go on then, tell me, what is the difference? I see no difference, and the claim that there is a difference as gross hypocrisy. The west accepts its own killing of civilians, but pretends to be upset when someone else does it. As above, this is the charateristic moralism of the rich and comfortable.

quote:

---

It is not surprising then to see you failing to see what is the difference between a useful suicide mission which achieves an objective that can be built upon, and one which has so little value it might as well have been commited by a singular psychotic.

---

But it can be built upon: as with the ANC strategy, it presents a credible threat that forms the basis of negotiations. Your denial of this fact is in great part what indicates the naivite of your analysis; as I said, you appear unwilling to engage with the messy necessities that charecterise liberation struggles.

quote:

---

Oh yeah, and that means no change in what has been getting them nowhere for the last so many decades?

---

No, it DID mean change - the initiation of the Intifadah's. You cannot keep asserting a wholly backward cause and effect relationship here.

quote:

---

I have visions of you sitting behind miles of trenches urging the men at the front "once again into the breach!", then turning back to your tables sure everything must work, because the THEORY says so!

---

Water off a ducks back, I'm afraid. From my perspective, your criticism remains stock Victorian moralism, and is just as hypocritical. If we back them, we must back them - not draw away in dainty distaste. And if it is your argument that Palestine should try to fight Israel in a conventional war, then the description above applies to you far more than to me.This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-29-2004 07:46 AM

I offer for reference the section of the ANC's submission to the Truth and Reconciliation commission regarding Umkhonto we'Sizwe's (MK)operations and "soft targets":4.3.1. 1985: The Kabwe Conference and controversies surrounding the issue of soft targets The questions of ANC policy towards soft targets and taking the struggle to white areas arise in the context of the unprecedented, mass-based confrontation with the apartheid state which was taking place at all levels of society within the country from the early 1980s onwards. Civics, community organisations, and trade unions were all engaged in intense struggles. MK operations increased sharply, most of them carried out by formal units based inside the country, many of which were supported and housed by underground political cells.The Kabwe conference was held in June 1985 to assess developments since the Morogoro conference of 1969. The day before it opened, Pretoria attacked several homes in Gaborone, Botswana, killing 12 people - two young female citizens of Botswana (who were blown to pieces), one Somalian, a six-year old child from Lesotho, and eight South Africans, five of whom were members of the ANC, but none of them members of MK. All those killed were unarmed.Conference reaffirmed ANC policy with regard to targets considered legitimate: SADF and SAP personnel and installations, selected economic installations and administrative infrastructure. But the risk of civilians being caught in the crossfire when such operations took place could no longer be allowed to prevent the urgently needed, all-round intensification of the armed struggle. The focus of armed operations had to shift towards striking directly at enemy personnel, and the struggle had to move out of the townships to the white areas. This was immediately seized on by the propaganda machinery of the apartheid regime, and falsely portrayed as a decision to begin indiscriminate killings of white civilians.OR Tambo expressed the mood of the Conference eloquently. It represented, he said,"...a turning point in the history of all the people of South Africa. Our Conference itself will be remembered by our people as a council-of-war that planned the seizure of power by these masses, the penultimate convention that gave the order for us to take our country through the terrible but cleansing fires of revolutionary war to a condition of peace, democracy and the fulfilment of our people who have already suffered far too much and far too long."At a press conference he noted that in the preceding nine to ten months many soft targets had been hit by the enemy - nearly 500 civilians had been killed. The distinction between hard and soft targets is going to disappear in an intensified confrontation, in an escalating conflict. (...) I am not saying that our Conference used the word soft targets. I am saying that Conference recognised that we are in it. It is happening every day, he said.By the end of 1985 an official pamphlet titled Take the Struggle to the White Areas! was distributed inside the country.Targets were identified as follows: the racist army, police, death squads, agents and stooges in our midst, and the call to take the war to the white areas is defined as follows:"Strengthening our workers organisations and engaging in united action in the factories, mines, farms and suburbs
Spreading the consumer boycott to all areas of the country
Organised and well-planned demonstrations in the white suburbs and central business districts.
Forming underground units and combat groups in our places of work and taking such actions as sabotage in the factories, mines, farms and suburbs, and disrupt the enemys oil, energy, transport, communications and other vital systems
Systematic attacks against the army and police and the so-called area defence units in the white areas.
Well-planned raids on the armouries and dumps of the army, police, farmers and so on to secure arms for our units."
The ANC leadership had called on all members and supporters of the ANC to intensify the struggle at all costs, to move towards creating a situation of ungovernability and peoples war.There were long and insecure lines of communication, command and control. Many of the established MK units had been allowed a degree of initiative in executing their operations, as long as these remained within policy guidelines.In contrast with a conventional military force, in which planning takes place at HQ level by experienced officers, in guerilla warfare most of the detailed planning takes place at the lowest level: each cadre has to be trusted to make principled and educated decisions with regard to choice of target, whilst keeping a close eye on developments and feelings among the people in his/her community - a responsibility which no soldier in a conventional force ever has to face. There was no hotline to higher structures to ask for guidance; communication could - and at times did - result in deaths, given the degree to which communication lines were monitored. Consequently, a great deal depended on the political maturity, general experience, and immediate situation in which each cadre operated.Maintaining discipline in guerilla and conventional armed forces is also fundamentally different. In the case of a guerilla force, discipline flows from a thorough understanding of the political objectives of the armed struggle - not from threats of court-martial or punishment.MK cadres conducted crash courses for eager volunteers inside the country. Some of these recruits had sketchy political understanding of the nature of the struggle in comparison with those cadres who had gone through the intensive political and military training offered in camps in exile. Some supporters drifted in and out of structures, were never thoroughly under the discipline of the ANC and MK, yet commanders on the ground sometimes found their contributions indispensable.Cadres made decisions in the context of pressures they encountered on a day-to-day basis, in which enemy atrocities against civilians were mounting. Increasing numbers of attacks took place in urban areas, and civilians were increasingly caught in the crossfire. Bona fide cadres and supporters who carried out attacks of this nature believed they were fulfilling the general direction to carry the struggle to the white areas in accordance with the political will of the leadership of the ANC.The period between 1985 and 1988 witnessed unprecedented violence, overwhelmingly directed at black civilians, as the regime fought to regain the strategic initiative it had lost.Increasingly in this period, attacks took place in urban areas, in which civilians were caught in the crossfire. Bona fide cadres and supporters who carried out attacks of this nature believed they were fulfilling the general direction to intensify the struggle and carry it into the white areas in accordance with the political will of the leadership of the ANC.This behaviour of the regime was a significant factor in provoking certain attacks which were in breach of policy. Anger on the ground was explosive: the atrocities committed by the apartheid regime demanded retaliation, and the careful response was at times met with angry contempt. In some cases, cadres responded to state brutality by hitting back in anger, as soon as possible - as in the case of the Amanzimtoti bomb, described in detail in our main submission. A comment by OR Tambo in response to this attack is worth repeating:

​

"Massacres have been perpetrated against civilians: Mamelodi, a massacre. Uitenhage, a massacre. Botswana, a massacre. Queenstown, a massacre...certainly, we are beginning to see South Africans of all races (burying) their loved ones who have died in the South African situation. The whole of South Africa is beginning to bleed...If I had been approached by an ANC unit and asked whether they should go and plant a bomb at a supermarket I would have said, Of course not . But when our units are faced with what is happening all around them, it is understandable that some of the should say, Well, I may have to face being disciplined, but I am going to do this." A factor which should not be underestimated is that the banning by the regime of all ANC literature and jamming of broadcasts from Radio Freedom made it extremely difficult for senior ANC leadership to get through to cadres and activists on the ground to ensure a proper understanding of policy. Every effort was made to block and distort the ANCs message, or anything which could be remotely construed as supportive of the message of the liberation movement. An extraordinary range of items were banned; possession of ANC publications such as a pamphlet or a copy of Mayibuye or Sechaba could result in a lengthy jail sentence.Given the circumstances at the time, it is remarkable that so few armed attacks took place in which there was a high rate of civilian casualties. MK acted with great restraint; we certainly had the capacity to kill many thousands of civilians - it would have been easy to do this - but the ANC leadership never took this route, even under extreme provocation. The humanity of this approach has never been acknowledged - nor reciprocated - by the apartheid regime, which always saw black civilians in general (and all those who opposed the regime) as forming an integral part of enemy forces, whether they were armed or not.Operational and technical difficulties leading to unintended consequencesWhen unexpected difficulties arose, cadres had to think on their feet: and sometimes they made the wrong decisions. At times, given the refusal of the regime to treat MK members as prisoners of war, the situations they faced were desperate to the extent that it is highly unlikely that there would be a peaceful outcome, no matter what they decided - the Silverton bank siege and the Goch Street incident are cases in point.Gathering reliable information and tactical intelligence was often exceptionally difficult. At times attacks which appear to be aimed at civilian targets were nothing of the sort - the cadre may have had information to the effect that an SADF or SAP g roup would be present at a particular railway station or hotel or restaurant a particular time, but due to a range of difficulties - ranging from faulty intelligence to devices which malfunction and accidentally go off at the wrong time - an explosion occurs, apparently senselessly, in a civilian area. It is also possible that some of these incidents occurred through deliberate disinformation, in which infiltrators into MK units set up attacks of this nature.At other times, an attack would take place in support of campaigns or other struggles taking place within the community - such as strike action, mass retrenchments, a rent or bus boycott. An explosion at an office block, factory or chain store makes sense in this context, although the timing of the blast could go wrong for a range of reasons and result in unintended civilian casualties.In some cases, cadres were entirely correct with regard to the political reasoning behind their choice of target but placed a bomb at an inappropriate time which resulted in unnecessary civilian casualties. In addition, they did not have sufficient capacity to convey the intentions of their actions, or were blocked from doing so by censorship.At times insufficient training could have resulted in situations in which cadres were not able to ensure that explosions took place at the intended time, or accidents occured. Technical failures also occurred, resulting in unintended civilian casualties.False flag operationsThe regime did not only block ANC communications of all kinds. It saw the active dissemination of disinformation as a critically important aspect of its programme of counter-revolutionary warfare, in which much emphasis was laid on psychological and strategic communication operations. A central concern of successive apartheid regimes has always been to alienate the people from MK and the ANC. No effort was spared to discredit and demonise MK - and certain attacks on civilian targets portrayed as the work of MK were carried out by the regime, such as the KwaMakutha massacre. In this regard the regime was drawing on the experience of other wars against liberation movements, including the tactics adopted by the security forces in the Zimbabwean war of liberation, such as pseudo operations in which they would attack civilians whilst masquerading as guerrillas. The tactics developed in Namibia in attempts to counter-mobilise the civilian population against Swapo were also harnessed (see our main submission, pp 35 - 36.)In the mid- to late 1980s, the situation was further complicated by the stepping up of false flag operations as the regime intensified its efforts to discredit the ANC internationally, and alienate growing popular support on the ground. Various examples of work of this nature - such as the Khotso House bomb and the murder of Griffiths Mxenge were cited in our main submission, and there is little doubt that several other operations of this nature will come to light as the work of the Commission proceeds.In some cases agents infiltrated structures and consistently attempted to influence people towards un-planned or ill-considered violence, in order to discredit the ANC, create divisions in communities, and disrupt structures.There have been indications that some of those who have applied for amnesty have information on the extent to which false flag operations were carried out in the 1980s and 1990s. We call on the TRC to ensure that all available information on covert projects, including what the NP has called disinformation projects approved during this period is obtained, in particular strategic communications projects, which were controlled by a sub-committee of the State Security Council. Considerable detail in this regard was presented in our first submission, pp. 34 - 40.Paul Erasmus, a member of the SAP security branch tasked with stratkom (strategic communications) work, has stated that a number of the limpet mines that exploded in central Johannesburg in the late 1980s, for which the ANC was blamed, were planted by the security police in order to discredit the ANC. Joe Mamasela has made similar claims regarding blasts in certain Wimpy Bars. We trust that the TRC will ensure that the truth in this regard is exposed.Response of the leadershipIn late 1987, all members of MK HQ were called in by OR Tambo, who expressed his concern at the number of unnecessary civilian casualties which had occurred in certain attacks, particularly those involving the use of anti-tank landmines. He tasked MK HQ with ensuring that all cadres fully understood ANC policy with regard to legitimate targets. Failure to comply with these orders would be considered violations of policy and action would be taken against offenders.In response, MK HQ sent senior commanders to the forward areas to meet with MK structures there, and convey the concerns of the national leadership. When possible these senior commanders also met with units. In cases where meetings could not be held with units, command structures in the forward areas were told to contact all command structures of their units, whether they may have been involved in attacks of this nature or not, and ensure that all cadres were entirely clear on ANC policy regarding legitimate targets.Chris Hani, Aboobaker Ismail and Keith Mokoape visited structures in Maputo; Ronnie Kasrils visited structures in Swaziland and other areas. Lambert Moloi, Chris Hani and Julius Maliba (Manchecker) met with Zimbabwe structures, and Chris Hani, Aboobaker Ismail, and Lambert Moloi visited Botswana structures.In most cases cadres responsible for these actions had not deliberately set out to flout ANC policy, but had believed they were acting in accordance with the wishes of the leadership, or had acted in anger. This was particularly the case with younger, more recent recruits. Conveying the instructions of the leadership in this unequivocal manner through the most senior officials of MK HQ was sufficient action, as the overwhelming majority of MK cadres were disciplined soldiers and activists.In August 1988 the NEC issued a statement specifically on the conduct of armed struggle in the country:"The NEC further re-affirmed the centrality of the armed struggle in the national democratic revolution and the need to further escalate armed actions and transform our offensive into a generalised peoples war. (...,) However, the NEC also expressed concern at the recent spate of attacks on civilian targets. Some of these attacks have been carried out by cadres of the peoples army, Umkhonto we Sizwe, inspired by anger at the regimes campaign of terror against the oppressed and democratic forces, both within and outside South Africa. In certain instances operational circumstances resulted in unintended casualties."
"Yet it has come to our notice that agents of the Pretoria regime have been detailed to carry out a number of bomb attacks deliberately to sow confusion among the people of South Africa and the international community, and to discredit the African National Congress."http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/misc/trc2b.html#MKThis message has been edited by contracycle, 07-29-2004 07:59 AM

Of course you are because that is ALL you can talk about. There is no question he is a capable leader and a great organizer (which is what you went on to explain and I have already agreed with), but the question is of what?What the Palestinians need, even if they wish to get all their lands back, is NOT his leadership skills. And that is WITHOUT going into what they'd have to pay for his help. What a bizarre comaparison. Will that help you go back and answer the middle point which you so carefully avoided? The first attempt was botched by the Israelis, the second was botched by the Palestinians (Arafat in specific). They are both culpable for having ended peace negotiations. I don't know what twisted calculus you used to come up with that statement, but I will remind you that you are now SHIFTING THE GOALPOSTS!!!Your point was they needed their land back, not simply restoring pride and humanity. If that were the case you do not think they can regain such things if they give up the current lands lost? Why? Counterpoint? Explain. Any port in the storm huh? Dandon, I hope you are getting a good eyeful of your "friend" here. He not only admits that what you say is based on falsehoods, but goes on to say that you should take on BinLaden... not because he is truly tasked for the job, but because he us willing. Oh yeah, and the REAL solution to your problems is COMMUNISM. I never said you said that either. But you were criticizing my critique that the Palestinians should not join up with him in order to further their cause. These are different matters than retaking land. I am for armed resistance when this occurs, although I do see advantages (if there are enough Ghandhi types) to do nothing except DOCUMENT what Israelis are capable of. That could sway US opinion.And I did not say Israelis were steadily encroaching. I refuse to play into your slippery-slope. They are not going to steadily take the rest of the land. See this is the difference between a political and military assessment. Without question the political and social issues we are dealing with ARE THE SAME. The problem is the MILITARY ISSUES. They are NOT THE SAME.A defensive war is one where you are the indigenous population and are stuggling against a force (perhaps even overwhelming force) occupying the land you yourself are living on.An offensive war is one where you must go and remove others from their land (even if it USED TO BE yours) and so become a de facto occupying power.It is the latter situation that Palestinians find themselves in with respect to the occupied territories and settlements. The current strategy and tactics have about zero hope of succeeding in such a venture.Oh by the way, did you read your own quote from the ANC? They also put boundaries on the scope of how the conflict should be settled. I guess that either makes them Victorians, or they have made the same practical assessment even if their political assessment is one of solidarity.Whoops! That was not the scenario I outlined. I said they should be armed. The difference between my scenario and yours is that you perfer them to march in slowly one at a time. No... bombing is. Suicide bombing has not been shown to be useful beyond pure propaganda purposes, when used as a consistent tactic. Suicide is generally stated only useful in case specific situations where one must achieve a military objective where the defense is so fortified that it would be impossible to reach that objective otherwise.I would also add that if you think the bombings in Iraq are having a desirable effect, then you probably have no friends in Iraq (and by that I mean Iraqi friends).There are many factions vying for control right now, and the general populace is getting pissed off. Especially with the jackasses which ally themselves with Al-Queda and pretend that blowing up Iraqis is in the Iraqis best interest.You are out of touch with reality. I'm sure you have really gotten those hands dirty once. Maybe even chipped a nail while trying to type really hard. You lambasted me for not leaving the comfort of my home to go fight for their cause. That boomeranged on you. That's why.Again Dandon, I hope you are reading this guy's posts and seeing what a great friend you have in a person encouraging you to go die... for HIS cause. Thankfully none that I am aware of, though the possibility is very real every day. Now what? What does that have to do with a tactical assessment? Well it seems that you figured it out yourself. Now maybe you can figure out if the Palestinians are engaged in an offensive or offensive operation in trying to take back their land.Oh and all war cause civilian casualties. That is one of the aspects of war which must be assessed before taking that drastic step. Of course within that war there is also a distinction between striking solely civilian targets and military targets that might include civilians. Well that wasn't my position so what do I care if I refuted it. The only confusion here is your own. You keep picturing me as one thing and sticking with it, despite my words to the contrary. Are you willowtree or something? If you prove me wrong that proves your a pervert?Give me a break. There are definite differences between the three...DDay: Not a political statement. It was launched against military targets (even if civilians ended up getting hit in the battle) and for a military purpose of gaining a beachhead and then a solid new front against other military positions. It was followed up with more military maneauvers to retake territory and eventually (militarily) defeat enemy forces.Hiroshima: Partly Political, partly military. This was launched against primarily civilian targets, but included militarily valuable targets as well. It's design was to force those in command to realize their continued fighting was pointless. We had military access to their mainland with a devastating weapon. One can certainly begin criticisms with the targeting of primarily civilian populations and whether it served any utility given the current political situation in Japan. But there are credible arguments on the other side... not that it ever makes it all right, but one can understand the reason it was carried out within the fog of war. While the Japanese did not surrender US military forces were using the advantages the bombing gave them to further decimate uncoordinated forces.9-11: Totally Political. Although there was a chance that it would take down much of our financial dealings for a while, and if the attack in Washington was successful, perhaps legislative dealings, there was NO ability much less intent to follow up with a series of attacks based on the initial successes made during 9-11. They could not use it to move to new targets in some better fashion. And the targets were intentionally civilian in nature (with the exception of the Pentagon) for great shock value, They had done so earlier in the WTC bombings, and were at it again.Now can you see the difference?It doesn't even matter what the underlying reasons were, the point was the strategic and tactical assessment. I will note that (with 9-11) the Taliban was not so happy when this occured as it put them in an awful political and military position. And the result was overthrow. Clap clap clap. Bravo! It doesn't create a threat or they'd already be negotiating. Did you see us negotiating with ANYONE?There is always the chance of losing it all, as Japan did with that same reasoning. I'm not. You can't keep insisting that times haven't changed. Hahahahahahahahahha. Yeah, and you go learn more about actual strategy and tactics and layoff political propagandizing.No one wins their wars by the will of God, or the righteousness of their cause. Everyon wins because of really good strategy. Check into it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is long and I don't have time to deal with this today (well maybe much later today). I promise I will get something back to you tomorrow.I will point out though that in yoru previous ANC quote they did have limits for the Palestinian efforts.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

If you think Al-Jazeera is as trustworthy as FOX or CNN, perhaps this is the source of all your skewed views of Israel.

---

It has been demonstrated many times that Fox News is not to be trusted at all. They are a tool of the right wing in this country.They flat out lie.Here's a long list of articles documenting the blatant bias and lies of Fox News by the nonpartisan media watchdog group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporing.:Page not found - FAIR

Thanks for posting the ANC quotes. So far every time you post evidence, it ends up supporting my position.In this latest post one can see that the ANC and MK were trying to limit there activities to avoid civilian casualties. Although they shifted to allow for greater amounts of civilian casualties in an operation, they did not shift to specifically target civilians.The operations which resulted in ONLY civilian deaths were explained as having come from many sources, but were always a deviation from ANC and MK policy. They were errors.So the ANC and MK identified the strategic disadvantage of inflicting purely civilian casualties to their cause and tried to suppress it as they could, and distance themselves from abberations.Once again, thank you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

[quote] So the ANC and MK identified the strategic disadvantage of inflicting purely civilian casualties to their cause and tried to suppress it as they could, and distance themselves from abberations.Exactl;y so. You will note, however, that iussue of international opinion played no part whatsoever in this analysis. Kil;ling civilians is not bad becuase its bad PR; its just bad from their perspective.But note the pragmatism in these documents. They recognise and own up to the fact that popular rage will lead to attacks on civilians that MK would rather not have happened. They recognise the fact that their command and control systems are partial and unreliable. They frecognises the fact that even if they were to run a perfectly clean operation, unrealistic as that might be, agent provoceteurs could easily still produce the perception that they did not.In short, engaging with international opinion as the primary plank of a liberation strategy is NOT what the ANC and MK did. Furthermore, the ANC and MK are, of course, both Marxist-informed organisations formally committed to atheism and internationalism; thus the philosophical premises of their activity are quite different to those of Hamas and Al Aqsa. But the ANc does not and did not presume to dictate to these organs what their operational strategy should be (eevn if there are discussions and differences of opinion). In addition, the physical operating environemnt was very different, occurring over a much broader area and with much more porous borders.

quote:

---

Thanks for posting the ANC quotes. So far every time you post evidence, it ends up supporting my position.

---

Nonsense, I have totally blown your position out of the water. In the first case, the ANC does recognise the messiness and emotionalism of the liberation struggle and does not hold Palestinians as culpoable for these normal reactions, as you do. Nor does the ANC turns up its nose in pious disdain and proclaim some moral purity which the Palestinians have failed to achieve. Nor do they consider engaging with international opinion as a dominant aspect of overall strategy (while it is indeed a very significant aspect).The ANC most certainly do NOT agree with you that Hamas or Al Aqsa operations in any way delegitimise the Palestinian cause, and these operations do not justify the withdrawal of support from Palestinians or criticism of these organs. Because the Palestinians are comrades in arms, facing the same problem that the ANC faced, and the ANC are not concerned with twee puritanism, but with liberty.

quote:

---

Of course you are because that is ALL you can talk about.

---

Indeed. How illogical of me to discuss a mans military career when discussing his military competencies!

quote:

---

What a bizarre comaparison.

---

WHY is it a bizarre comparison? (occupied France)

quote:

---

Will that help you go back and answer the middle point which you so carefully avoided? The first attempt was botched by the Israelis, the second was botched by the Palestinians (Arafat in specific). They are both culpable for having ended peace negotiations.

---

Becuae I wanted to reserach the Barak issue, which I remember differently. But if you acknwledge that both sides have ended negotiations, then surely the culpability must lie on those who are IN OCCUPATION and thus who possess the unilateral power to end the conflict.

quote:

---

I don't know what twisted calculus you used to come up with that statement, but I will remind you that you are now SHIFTING THE GOALPOSTS!!!

---

I have not shifted the goalpost; I already pointed out to you that when it is a realistic expectation that you will suffer casualties of 10 to 1, morale is a primary warfighting concern. Demonstrating to themselves their own capacity to strike back supports this greatly.

quote:

---

Counterpoint? Explain.

---

Becuase suicide bombers, and all these fighters, give up their livbes so that their compatriots may hopefully be free. They have declined your advice to live in servitude as pets.[quopte] Any port in the storm huh? Dandon, I hope you are getting a good eyeful of your "friend" here. He not only admits that what you say is based on falsehoods, but goes on to say that you should take on BinLaden... not because he is truly tasked for the job, but because he us willing. Oh yeah, and the REAL solution to your problems is COMMUNISM.[/quote]So what else is new? This dialogue already exists between organs like the ANC and the PLO, frex. My own (communist of course) organisation was founded by a Palestinian precisely because the theistically framed organs were not in his opinion the best mechanism available. Is it a surprise to you that Palestine exbhibits such a multitude of views and experiences of the liberation struggle? Of course it is, because you presume that they have selected their course unitelligently.

quote:

---

These are different matters than retaking land. I am for armed resistance when this occurs, although I do see advantages (if there are enough Ghandhi types) to do nothing except DOCUMENT what Israelis are capable of. That could sway US opinion.

---

They have been documented since the 60's - why has it not swayed US opinion? Why should swaying UIS opinion be a particular concern?In fact the US supports Israel BECUASE it keeps the area unstable, and thus prevents a consolidation of OPEC power. The US's geopolitical strategy is what prevents it backing the Palestinians.

quote:

---

And I did not say Israelis were steadily encroaching. I refuse to play into your slippery-slope. They are not going to steadily take the rest of the land.

---

Why do you think that, contrary to all available evidence?

quote:

---

Israel expands West Bank settlements

​

Aerial photos reveal extent of land grab, say peace groups

​

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Tuesday July 27, 2004
The Guardian

​

Months after Ariel Sharon announced his dramatic plan to pull Jewish settlers out of Gaza, portraying it as a sacrifice for peace, the government is grabbing more land for West Bank settlements.
Israeli peace groups and Palestinian officials say thousands of homes are under construction in the main settlements, in addition to an expansion of Jewish outposts that are illegal under Israeli law. Mr Sharon has promised the US he will dismantle the outposts, which are usually clusters of containers or trailer homes serviced by government-built roads, but has failed to do so.

​

One Israeli group, Settlement Watch, says in the three months to May, West Bank settlements expanded by 26 hectares (65 acres).The government has approved construction of thousands more homes in the three main settlement blocs on the West Bank, encouraged by an apparent endorsement by George Bush for their eventual annexation.

​

In a letter to Mr Sharon, Mr Bush praised the Gaza pullout and agreed that "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centres", it was unrealistic to expect a full return to the 1967 borders.

---

quote:

---

American officials have been appointed to agree limits to settlement expansion in order, Washington says, to preserve land for a future Palestinian state. Mr Sharon is pressing the US to allow building to continue in areas already under construction, to cater for the "natural growth" in families.

​

But Settlement Watch says aerial photographs reveal that in some settlements, construction has begun on the outer limits of the municipal boundaries, often some distance from the settlement. It believes the government will claim the right to build on the intervening territory or use the outposts to link settlements.

​

The pictures show new houses, roads and other infrastructure around about 12 of the 90 or more outposts, sometimes linking them to established colonies.

---

Israel expands West Bank settlements | Palestinian territories | The Guardian

quote:

---

See this is the difference between a political and military assessment. Without question the political and social issues we are dealing with ARE THE SAME. The problem is the MILITARY ISSUES. They are NOT THE SAME.

---

Not according to every practitioner/writer on the liberation struggles, without exception to my knowledge. They universally hammer home the necessaity of a combined strategy. Military successes are valueless if you cannot capitalise politically on those gains. Political successes are useless of the other side can suppress them militarily. Both military and political goals must coincide.

quote:

---

A defensive war is one where you are the indigenous population and are stuggling against a force (perhaps even overwhelming force) occupying the land you yourself are living on.

​

An offensive war is one where you must go and remove others from their land (even if it USED TO BE yours) and so become a de facto occupying power.

---

The best defense is a good offence, I'm afraid. It is not so cut and dried as you would like to suggest. Waiting for your opponent to concentrate their forces, achieve local superiority (easy for the Israeli's anyway) and letting them choose the moment of conflict would be grievously irresponsible. A sound strategy seeks to keep the enemy off balance, and retain the initiative. Again, you presume to lecture me on strategy from what appears to be a position of ignorance.

quote:

---

It is the latter situation that Palestinians find themselves in with respect to the occupied territories and settlements. The current strategy and tactics have about zero hope of succeeding in such a venture.

---

That seems of little relevance to me - the ability of Palestinians to get an occassional ewarhead into Israel is utterly insignificant in the face of Israel capaicty to occupy any section of Palestinian at will, to bulldoze houses on top their residents, to cotnrol checkpoints, destrpy Palestinian goods, control water and electricity and food supplies.

quote:

---

Oh by the way, did you read your own quote from the ANC? They also put boundaries on the scope of how the conflict should be settled. I guess that either makes them Victorians, or they have made the same practical assessment even if their political assessment is one of solidarity.

---

They certaibnly made a practical asessement, they also certainly did NOT make the same assesment you make. The premises of their decision share no similarity with yours, and the aims they hoped to achieve by this restriction are also nothing like your aims for that restriction. This is clear from the fact that they DO come down to a different policy to yours: they support the Palestinians DESPITE disaproving of some of their tactics.

quote:

---

No... bombing is. Suicide bombing has not been shown to be useful beyond pure propaganda purposes, when used as a consistent tactic. Suicide is generally stated only useful in case specific situations where one must achieve a military objective where the defense is so fortified that it would be impossible to reach that objective otherwise.

---

which is exacyly the situation that confronts the Palestinians; they face extraordinary difficulty getting a warhead into Israel at all, let alone getting to a particular pre-selected target. Suicide bombing is undoubtedly the primary effective warfighting method available to them, and they would be grossly irreposponsible and uncaring of human life if they did not employ it.

quote:

---

I would also add that if you think the bombings in Iraq are having a desirable effect, then you probably have no friends in Iraq (and by that I mean Iraqi friends).

---

I did not think that the American invasion of Iraq was a DESIRABLE effect, but my approval or otherwise has nothing to do with my recognition of their power and efficacy. But its also certainly the case that, from the perspective of the agitators, suicide bombing is indeed proving very desirable; its highly likely that their strategy is identical to that of the ANC, which is to make the region ungovernable. The ANC strategy worked, after all.

quote:

---

You lambasted me for not leaving the comfort of my home to go fight for their cause. That boomeranged on you. That's why.

---

I did no such thing; I lambasted you for being ignorant of the liberation struggle. There is plenty of documentation about the comploexities of wras of national liberation, but you have not referenced a single one of those, but instead the Western-approved Gandhi model.

quote:

---

Thankfully none that I am aware of, though the possibility is very real every day. Now what? What does that have to do with a tactical assessment?

---

Little, except to demonstrate that these problems jhave been a concern for me for many years, and I have investigated them, and I am indeed in a position to say that you do not show any sign of having done similarly yourself.[qupte] Well it seems that you figured it out yourself. Now maybe you can figure out if the Palestinians are engaged in an offensive or offensive operation in trying to take back their land.[/quote]Yes - the distinction between them is merely opportunistic. I note you have failed to answer the question - if you claim the Palestinians are wrong to fight in their previous-now-Israeli-occupied territories, then were the French resistance not equally immoral and mistaken when fighting in the now-German-occupied territories?

quote:

---

Oh and all war cause civilian casualties. That is one of the aspects of war which must be assessed before taking that drastic step. Of course within that war there is also a distinction between striking solely civilian targets and military targets that might include civilians.

---

Is there? So how do you explain the firebombing of Dresden and Berlin and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

quote:

---

DDay: Not a political statement. It was launched against military targets (even if civilians ended up getting hit in the battle) and for a military purpose of gaining a beachhead and then a solid new front against other military positions. It was followed up with more military maneauvers to retake territory and eventually (militarily) defeat enemy forces.

---

Please follow along; thats a totally artifial construction. As you are well aware, I raised D-Day as relevant to the tiopic of asking your troops to die. Everybody klnew on D-Day that the casualties were goping to be tremendous - EVERYBODY knew that. What is the moral difference between the decision of the D-Day commanders to order the attack, and thus those deaths, and suicide bombing?OIn the A-bombings:

quote:

---

But there are credible arguments on the other side... not that it ever makes it all right, but one can understand the reason it was carried out within the fog of war. While the Japanese did not surrender US military forces were using the advantages the bombing gave them to further decimate uncoordinated forces.

---

And why do you not allow the same freedom to Palestine? My argument is exactly that one can understand why Palestinian suicide bombing happens, under the cisrtumstances. If you advance the same apology for the A-bombings, I suggest you are being hypocrticial to deny it to the Palestinians.

quote:

---

Now can you see the difference?

---

No - the difference you present is wholly spurious and illogical.[qupte] It doesn't create a threat or they'd already be negotiating. Did you see us negotiating with ANYONE?[/quote]No. As I said, the US has yet to be suitably deterred. Probably only razing a US city to the ground will achieve that. I am quite confident many people are trying to figure out how to make that happen. 9/11 was more properly a propaganda vicotry, demonstrating that it was possible for the oppressed to strike at the oppresser. [quote] There is always the chance of losing it all, as Japan did with that same reasoning.[/quorte]Absolutely true. And so if you and I criticise their methoids, and wish they would use another, it is up to us to present that to them, not to simply turn our backs on them.

quote:

---

I'm not. You can't keep insisting that times haven't changed.

---

Umm, can you cite any improvement in the Palestinian position since the UN resolutions demanding that Israel withdraw from the West Bank? Is it not the case that for thirty years, the world has turned a blind eye to the flouting of this resolution by Israel? And is it not also true that such resolutions were used as the cassus belli in Iraq? The international community has had thirty years to demonstrate it presents a plausible strategic alternative to resistance, and has universally failed.

quote:

---

No one wins their wars by the will of God, or the righteousness of their cause. Everyon wins because of really good strategy. Check into it.

---

Thats exactly why "stop fighting and hope the Israeli's don't kill you" is stupid advice.

From the statementn of the Palesitnian Solidarity Committee of South Africa:

quote:

---

We, South Africans who have lived through apartheid cannot be silent as another entire people are treated as non-human beings; people without rights or human dignity and facing daily humiliation. We cannot permit a ruthless state to use military jets, helicopter gun-ships and tanks on civilians. We cannot accept state assassinations of activists, the torture of political prisoners, the murder of children and collective punishment.

​

We, South Africans who lived for decades under rulers with a colonial mentality see Israeli occupation as a strange survival of colonialism in the 21st century. Only in Israel do we hear of ‘settlements’ and ‘settlers’. Only in Israel do soldiers and armed civilian groups take over hilltops, demolish homes, uproot trees and destroy crops, shell schools, churches and mosques, plunder water reserves, and block access to an indigenous population’s freedom of movement and right to earn a living. These human rights violations were unacceptable in apartheid South Africa and are an affront to us in apartheid Israel.

​

We South Africans faced apartheid and exploitation, bullets and prison, not with bouquets of flowers, but with resistance. We are proud of this, our history. This is the history of all oppressed people. Why should it be different for Palestinians? Born in squalid refugee camps, living in poverty and believing the world community does not care, more and more young Palestinians see empty futures, aborted hopes and feel unbearable frustrations. The great African-American poet, Langston Hughes, asked: "What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sunor does it explode?" The shocking suicide bombings answers this rhetorical question. Apartheid Israel has created a situation in which people feel they have nothing to lose. This dangerous situation could be reversed, if the Israeli state and the one country that funds and supports it unconditionally - the US - as well as the world community, act in a moral and just manner.

---

After reading your last three replies I have decided not to answer them directly. This is because they continually repeat errors and so my own response would end up sounding like a broken record.You still appear to have no clue what I am saying, or what my actual position is. In addition, you still prove your own inabilities as a strategist by NOT UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE between a MILITARY ASSESSMENT and a Political ASSESSMENT. I just have to laugh everytime you confuse the two.Anyway, before going any further, I want to try and make my position as clear to you as possible, so I can stop reading your strawmen responses...1) In critiquing Dandon's post, and current Palestinian strategies, in NO WAY did I say it was not understandable WHY such things were happening. Not only did I say this to Dandon, but I spent a huge time fighting with Percy on a thread dedicated to whether Palestinians were being foolish. I defended them and said it is understandable. Your ANC quote painted a fantastic portrait of how these things can be generated, and it does have a bearing on the Palestinian situation...That said, there are a number of organizations (Hamas is one) which have extremist agendas BEYOND simple liberation and use such techniques deliberately and not in a purely reactionary way. I think it is disengenuous to not admit that there are some entities co-opting the pain of the Palestinians for their own agendas.2) None of this reduces the cause of the Palestinians. I have not said that it has. However, such acts (and groups promoting them) do reduce their moral position. Cause and moral position are two separate things. The latter is a tool and a source of pride/morale, while the first is an estimate which does not rely on how that cause is pursued.3) I have no understanding what argument you are making regarding leaders who use suicide missions as compared to missions that cause lots of fatalities. It does not seem to be against anything I have actually said. Especially when I broke down DDay vs Hiroshima vs 9-11, your answers seemed cryptic at best. All I gave was an analysis of what their purpose was, how they were carried out, and how they were followed up on. This did not say anything about amounts of deaths or use of suicides.Please try to understand this. Even your ANC quotes created the same analytical position that I used, so I don't see what the problem is.4) I never said that Palestinians should give up. I said they should look into changing strategies and tactics. War is fluid and times have changed. And in just about any situation, attacking purely civilian targets is poor strategy.About the only thing with which you seem to have dealt with properly, although I still diagree with you, is whether Israel is expandingin such a way as to threaten all Palestinian lands.I have already said that there are extremists who would love to expand to all Palestinian territories... just as there are extremists that would like all jews dead. And unfortunately extremists have a heavy hand in the Israeli gov't.I am aware that settlers (with the help of Sharon and Bush) are trying to press out the extent of their current boundaries, so your quote came as no surprise (actually I think I read it already). But it is a slippery slope to build from that to all Palestinian lands will be taken. Even some Israeli extremists (Sharon is one) do not want this. There is no way they can possibly do this and NOT lose their majority status in Israel.Well there is one way. They can take the land and start up concentration camps for Palestinians. It is beyond my belief that they could try this. much less get away with it. Indeed if they tried I would end up fighting as it would be the exact same thing as WW2.Right now that simply isn't the case. There are greedy people, yes, but I don't see your slippery slope ever happening.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I can't see anything wrong with holmes' position on this.The situation is awful and too many are suffering (on both sides). There are bad, bad actors on both sides as well.At some point someone has to sit down across a table from someone else who the first person thinks is a murderer (and they may well be) and shake their hand. If, somehow, those of good will on both sides can get together and have some power to influence the situation then maybe it can stop.However, I'm not at all optimistic.