A New Palestinian Uprising
 

I had a realization the other day; sort of like an epiphany. Many times I have been asked, "Well what can the Palestinians <b>do</b>?" And the answer came to me.

Suicide bombers are going to kill themselves anyway. That's a given. So let's remember that - there are people willing to die for their cause, which is supposedly Palestinian Freedom (TM).

Killing Israeli individuals (soldiers, civilians, whatever) is not going to make a difference. They cannot possibly kill them all, nor can they kill enough to drive out the Israelis. This is also a known fact. Do not consider the negativity of suicide bombing in the sense that it kills humans - just look at the tactical aspect of it. That is, there is none. It simply won't be effective.

Now, think of the negativity of it - it hardens Israeli resolve <b>and</b> it gives Israel an excuse to crack down on Palestinians. The Palestinians are dumping gas on Sharon's fire, if you will.

What they need to do is effectively demonstrate.

I take you to the Vietnamese Buddhist demonstrations of the 60's.

For those that are unaware, here's what happened to Thich Quang Duc, the most famous of the protestors.

He stepped out of his car, sat down in the street. He assumed the Lotus position and began meditating. One of his fellow monks doused him with gasoline and then stood back. Duc lit a match and was instantly covered in flames. He sat there and burned. If you have RATM's first album, you've seen the picture. Most other people have as well. It won the Pulitzer prize that year.

All of a sudden, the entire world was awakened to the plight of the Buddhists in Vietnam.

It's my contention that a similar tactic would work wonders for the Palestinians.

You take these people that are willing to die - suicide bombers - and train them to self immolate. Maybe they do it in groups of two. Maybe they take some cyanide beforehand so they don't have to suffer the pain of burning.

They walk into a crowded Jerusalem open market, sit down, become doused in gasoline - either by an accomplice or themselves - and then make a scene.

Why would this work?

Well, first of all, it eliminates the negative associations of their typical "resistance". Now they're not killing innocent people, only themselves.

It's just as effective, tactically, as suicide bombing, because neither one is getting rid of enough Israelis.

World opinion would be <b>strongly</b> in their favor. Everyone would be asking "What can be so bad that they would light themselves on fire?"

And everyone would know about it because it would be a huge spectacle.

At the rate of one or two a week, it's my belief that these protests would be frequent enough to keep conversation on the topic and would be effective enough to actually bring about some change. Who doesn't have sympathy for a people that are being treated <b>so</b> awful that they self immolate?

What do you think? Would this work?

Now... my theory as to why it will <b>never</b> happen.

Because the Palestinians that are really willing to die for the freedom are indoctrinated with hatred against Jews at an early age. They don't want freedom; they want to kill Jews. Self immolation doesn't hurt anyone else, so there's no point in it.

Respond to the first part before you respond to the last. I don't want Count Zero, tw, Xugumad and friends saying that it's not true that Palestinian extremists are bloodthirsty. They are. Get over it. Let's find a meaningful form of protest that might actually work.

That's almost as good as the US going over and colonizing the land, except it wouldn't incite hate against us.

Seriously, the only argument I can make against this is that the Palestinians might be unwilling to suffer any physical pain. I'm just assuming here, but I don't think you feel much pain if you blow yourself up.

Although, if it truly IS in the name of Allah, then they should be lining up.

:)

Burning to death is long, slow, and extremly painful. Even if you're doped up, there's plenty of time for someone to "save" you and take you to the hospital. Then you have 3rd degree burns all over your body, and you're in hell for the rest of your life.

Cyanide, juju. Cyanide. Or something else that causes death pretty instantaneously.

Re: A New Palestinian Uprising
 

The concept is fundamentally valid - could be quite effective. However it has two problems. The first is that international press does not have the freedom in Israel that it had in VietNam. Second, is that we have been there; seen that.

The concept would indeed be mesmorizing IF it was a new twist on an old, proven concept. BTW, the Buddist did not flinch or scream as he burned to death - making it that much more stunning as we watched it on TV network news. And that is the trick - to perform a new twist on a previously executed tactic - and have a press friendly enough to truly distribute the facts - including why the man's/women's life had been so destroyed as to commit suicide.

The Buddist monk was campaigning against a government that was an enemy of the people. However at the same time, a US president was putting full US support behind that government. Ironically, George Jr is the first US president to ever support the policies of Likud in direct opposition to Arab interests. He is the first US president to endorse the policies of any Likud government. Not even Reagan would permit a Likud government to use US supplied weapons against occupied territory residents or in Lebanon. More similarities between the two events if a Palestinian did the public burning gig.

However what happens after that? Does the UN respond with a peace force? That force is necessary and called for by many including the EU. Other G-8 members are either neutral or in favor of it. A majority on the Security Council have no objections. But America, that now loves Likud, would veto a peace force outright.

A public burning would be influential, but by itself, would not have signficicant consequences. It took reality - the Pentagon Papers - to expose lies about VietNam - to change public opinion. A simple human sacrifice, same as suicide bombings, really only remind us that there is a conflict over there - nothing more.

Couldn't get to this earlier...my bad for not noticing what you wrote in your original post. :)

Anyway, I was just doing some research on cyanide...it basically suffocates you. Now that's just weak ass shit...they'll fall asleep before they can set themselves on fire. :)

Rho uses a topical lidocaine solution to put on her skin before she has to get blood drawn. Now that COULD be an idea. And it comes in a spray form...you just hose yourself down with lidocaine...I would think by the time it becomes painful, you're near death anyway.

Dave and I were conversing on IM about this thread when I came up with another idea...crucifixion.

As I understand Islam, Jesus is considered one of the holier folk (although not the head nigga in charge as he is in Christianity). So, why not pay homage to Jesus while partaking in a somewhat painful procedure that will not only give you a somewhat easy death (suffocation), but also draw sympathy from Christians around the world ? :)

ummm. if pictures of children being killed by soldiers, families torn apart by soldiers, homes being bulldozed by soldiers, haven't had an effect on the American consciousness, why would any of these creative suicides have any. My understanding of the bombers is that they are taking lives for ruining theirs. Plus you have to look at the cultural differences: Buddism says that this is just one stage on a path. For Islam though suicide is itself a sin, but if you are killing enemies of Allah in the act it is no longer suicide and therefore that person can still get into heaven. More of a spiritual loophole there than anything else as far as I can tell.

Perhaps because the suicides were no longer taking the lives of 3 year olds?

As I've stated before, the suicide bombers legitimize the Israeli military campaign in the eyes of many. People say "yeah, it's real shitty that someone's house got bulldozed, but it's even shittier that a baby got blown up on a bus."

It would very certainly have an effect, especially on Israelis. Israelis would never have elected Sharon in the first place, except that the reaction of Palestinians to softer (or in tw's terms, "non-extremist") prime ministers was increased terrorism.

The reaction of Israelis to such protests would be to demand that a state be created for Palestinians.

Such a demonstration would show that the Palestinians had truly given up the "killing the infidels" half of their fight, but remain just as desperate and hopeless as before.

It won't happen. Amongst other things, it would require the Pals to have a very different type of religious extremism. We know you get to heaven if you're snuffing in the name of jihad... how can it be jihad if you don't kill unbelievers?

*Bring!* Incorrect. You're out, thankyou for playing.

Wow dude. I bet you got an A in debate class. Your refutation of Tony's post was simply staggering.

Burden of evidence lies with the prosecutor eh?
http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/eve...8000/78730.stm
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/r...letter0409.htm
take a look @ http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/oslo.html
look at that map. Is that a valible place to live?

Now you owe me five minutes back for looking through your silly links. Do you deny that the timeline goes:

- Arafat rejects Barak offering at Camp David
- Arafat returns and declares intifada
- Sharon elected

Not to mention the one that resizes the browser window to fullscreen. (Maggie resets her preferences to prevent such rudeness in the future.)

Bnig! Your wrogn! Tanksfor playign!

Duh Tnoy, teh timeline is liek thsi:

- Barak makes evil gesture to repres Palestinionas
- Arafat teh omniscient adn Al-vege-mitey rejects it in all its evilnes
- Sharona vists a holy plase for Jews adn strats teh war.

Seriously though, can we get back on topic? Anyone have any logically sound reasons why the method outlined in the first post wouldn't work? Something more than "you're wrong!" maybe?

Maggie I’m using Moz 1.1a - didn't do it to me, I disabled it from doing that earlier so i never noticed it, apologies.

a: Fuck you dham. That’s never what I said and you know it, ironic you should preach offtopic. Your 'method' would probably attract some worldwide attention, and be completely ignored by the US and Israel.

To argue to that softer Israeli governments have caused a rise in terrorism is in reality, bullshit. Reoccurrences of violence have been due to a complete halt of progress on the Israeli side, the mentality is and was the same, just enough to pacify them, never enough to actually solve the problem - that would involve making real concessions..

I don't deny it at all, ill just expand a couple of your tad-too-brief points.
An offer no one is never quite sure what it was - because he refused to so much as put it on paper, doesn't that just reek of reliability and trustworthiness.
Months later after Sharon visits an extremely contentious holy site for both Muslims and Jews that has been hotly contested, including extensive Israeli excavation all around it which found precisely nothing. Knowing full well that such a visit would create huge amounts of tension. Oh and I don't think he declared it either.

How myopic. Sharon got elected because he created the Intafada. Any statement contrary to that fact is an outright lie. The latest PBS (was it Frontline) documentary on Middle East negotiations specifically states that Sharon started the intafada. They also stated that fact explicitly. When honest people were the Israeli leaders, there was virtually no Palestinian attacks.

Last night's BBC interviewed a mother whose daughter was a victim of a Palestinian suicide bomb. She blames Sharon directly. She is the Israeli that would be disturbed by a burning Palestinians. Likud would simply laugh and call it a barbecue. She says, explicitly, her daughter would we alive today if not for Sharon. She also says there is no future in Israel because of Sharon and therefore seeks to emigrate from Israel.

Sharon is the only reason for the intafada. Palestinians are responding as they must to outright Likud terrorism - including the wholesale occupation of the West Bank in direct violation of International law and worldwide condemnation. But then what do mass murders care about a few inconvenient laws when there are dog Palestinians to slaughter. And so the UN conference on racism now labled Israel as a racist nation.

You see tw, you have this problem about telling the difference between fact and opinion. Airing an opinion on PBS (was it Frontline?) does not make it fact.

One Israeli woman who dislikes Sharon does not make it a fact. Why do you think they interviewed her? Because her disliking Sharon makes for a good story. Did they also publish a poll stating what percentage of <I>other</I> suicide-bombing Israeli victims (or families) blame Sharon? No? Then that one case means absolutely nothing.

You can always find one person who believes just about anything. If PBS (was it Frontline?) decided that's the story they wanted to put across, then they could have easily gone out and found someone who would back up that story.

So, Sharon got elected because he created the Intafada, you say. This is a fact, you say. Please provide some evidence to your fact. I'm not talking about a story on PBS (was it Frontline?). Perhaps an independent exit poll on Israeli voters as to why they elected Sharon.

Again, that's Bill Clinton's take on it and I will bow to his greater understanding of the situation.

Bringing up the UN conference on racism is really weird tw. In many cases the UN is like two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner, due to the one-nation one-vote nature of the general assembly. It allows it to take potshots at Israel and this particular pot shot was the most blatant. To even bring it up is to drop any pretense of trying to find the truth.

If for no other reason than Palestinians and Israelis are the same race. This is confirmed by genetic scientists. But even if that weren't true, to look at all the nations of the world and say that Israel is the racist one is truly bizarre. What about Iraq? What about Zimbabwe? The political expedience of leveling potshots only at specific nations ought to at least engage your suspicion of the UN. Why doesn't it?

All the world's nations gathered in S Africa on a conference on racism. They did not say Zimbabwe was not racist. They did not say Iraq was not racist. Why do you include irrelevant and ficticious details? They said Israel IS a racist nation. The vote was quite one sided with only Israel and the US in disagreement. Israel has earned the title of a racist nation because of Likud.

Racism is not about genetics. If it were, then explain why so many white men are genetically closer to black men than to other whites. Racism is about hate of those emotinally regarded as different. But then you knew that when you posted irrelevant references to Zimbabwe to confuse the fact that the UN conference on racism decreed Israel as a racist nation. Would not have happened when Rabin was Prime Minister. But Israel is now led by some of the worlds' most racist people - Likud - same people who also advocated the assassination of Rabin.

Racists who lie so often that they will not even admit their ultimate objective - confiscation of the occupied territories in direct violation of international law and will. Ah, but again we return to reality. That is what Likud wants - to steal land. Keep stealing land, tresspass on sacred territory, steal from the dog Palestinians without any due process, and violence is inevitiable. Then get the naive (George Jr) to express the entire conflict only in terms of suicide bombers. No other US president was ever so foolish as to endorese the policies of Likud.

Israeli violence is directly traceable to land theives without judicial protection for victims. But then in a nation dominated by racist Likud, why should dogs have any legal protection. That would only make it more difficult to steal the land. Israel meets the world's definition of a racist nation as defined by the world conference on racism.

It is bizzare to ignore a world's most racist political party - Likud. Racism is endemic in Likud meaning that massacres are also acceptable to that party's faithful. Israel has changed. Israel is now a racist nation.

Now go to details of the Wye River conference as explained in that PBS documentary with interviews from those who were there. Palestinians arrived expecting, based upon a previous meeting, for Israelis to bring a detailed map of how the West Bank was to be arranged. But something happened with extremists on Baraks team. Who was on that team to make sure peace would not happen? Sharon. And so instead of bringing a detailed map as promised, Israelis instead sketched maps on blank sheets of paper.

Palestinians were furious - and rightly so. The conference broke down in blunt exchanges of foul words. Obviously. Again the Israelis would not agree to specifics so that, like in the Oslo agreements, the Israelis could change the agreement over time.

Arafat was very specific. He was ready to settle all details right there and then. But Israel again reneged and refused to sign off on details. Arafat knows from experience. If those details are not stated specifically - not written in detail, then Likud will later take away what was promised in Wye. It was Israel's failure to commit to details that caused the Palestinians to back off.

There were other silly gestures such as Israeli luggage packed and waiting in hallways - like children threatening to run away from home. That too was discussed in the PBS documentary. Curiously those who were able to have the most productive disucssions were security people for both sides. But Wye broke down when Palestinians expected a detailed settlement and Israel refused to agree to those details. Undertoad does not dispute this fact as he did not dispute it previously. Arafat required and was ready to settle details right there and then.

Ironically, in Taba Egypt, during Barak's last days, Israel and Palestinian negoitators, without Sharon present, did discuss and agree on details. Amazing how peace negotiations can be productive when Likud is not present. But then Sharon's actions having always been about racism, massacres, and zionism in its worst form. Therefore Israel under Sharon is now labeled a racist nation.

If it was such a real move for peace on the ISreali side, if they were so serious about it, i they meant what they *said* why wern't they willing to put it on paper. Would you accept a verbal contract with someone who has a history of breaking wirtten ones?