Yes, the palestianians are indeed the only bad guys in the middle east.

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2008/07/21/541381.html

(the article is in norwegian, but the video is the original one, just press the big play button)

How nice it is to see good, honest soldiers defending against the baby-eating terrorists!

In other news, handcuffing and blindfolding people and then shooting their legs is now a new interrogation method employed to protect your safety.

Sickening.

and for those who will undoubtedly question the authenticity of the video; it comes from an israeli source.

This was an isolated case, everybody knows that there are a few black sheep in every army but the Palestinians are all evil, every last one of them, especially the newborns! :sweatdrop:

Ok that was my defense attempt and now I want to know how long that soldier and everybody who participated are going to prison. :whip:

In English. Israeli source.

English. From Al Jaz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Sickening.

---

Pretty much sums up that vid.

:balloon2:

I saw this video this morning and whilst it is deeply disturbing, the likelihood is that the soldier will be facing due process.

Whereas if he had been a member of Hamas, he'd be celebrated and would have been using real ammunition, not a rubber bullet.

The IDF are no angels, and there are many, many incidents like this not captured on film from the occupation. It's sad that young men are brutalised to this extent by the ongoing occupation and the necessity of imposing draconian rules to maintain it.

But if the Palestinian terrorists stopped killing Israeli citizens with gay abandon and embraced a non-violent resistance to occupation, the moral outrage felt at such breaches might actually have some merit.

Poor baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

But if the Palestinian terrorists stopped killing Israeli citizens with gay abandon and embraced a non-violent resistance to occupation, the moral outrage felt at such breaches might actually have some merit.

---

Was this guy a terrorist? No? Then what does he have to do with the terrorists? His nationality? Are you responsible whenever some brit screws up?

Also, the investigation of this incident started after the video was known, even though there were high officers present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Was this guy a terrorist? No? Then what does he have to do with the terrorists? His nationality? Are you responsible whenever some brit screws up?

Also, the investigation of this incident started after the video was known, even though there were high officers present.

---

Banquo was comparing the two societies and the response the footage received in Israel versus the hypothetical reception a similar video would have received in Palestine. He also pointed out that the individual in question is facing disciplinary action, something unlikely in Fatah or Hamas.

That being said, the video is troubling and the behavior captured is clearly immoral and unethical, by any civilized standard.

But remind me one more time where the Israeli Constitution calls for the destruction of Palestine, or public leaders of Israel have called for the global massacre of Palestinians, whereever they may live.

***No Tribesman, I won't repost all those links I found for you the 3rd or 4th time ago this came up. Go dig through the archives and find them yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

That being said, the video is troubling and the behavior captured is clearly immoral and unethical, by any civilized standard.

---

Immoral and unethical? This is no less than torture, plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Immoral and unethical? This is no less than torture, plain and simple.

---

I'm sorry, if you feel and really, really naughty adds to my condemnation, then by all means, allow me to append my original statement. I don't think I know how you get much more condemning than immoral and unethical.... basically it's indefensible.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, chief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm sorry, if you feel and really, really naughty adds to my condemnation, then by all means, allow me to append my original statement. I don't think I know how you get much more condemning than immoral and unethical.... basically it's indefensible.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, chief.

---

No no, I wasn't arguing, I was only adding to it, my friend ~;)

Quote:

---

But remind me one more time where the Israeli Constitution calls for the destruction of Palestine

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:What constitution is that Don ?

Quote:

---

or public leaders of Israel have called for the global massacre of Palestinians, whereever they may live.

---

Good point Don public leaders have only called for getting rid of all non jews between the Nile and Euphrates which isn't nearly as bad as global is it:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Ortodox Jews are calling to clear historical Palestine area from all non jew people. This can be compared.

BTW this time we saw in on movie. How many times it happens silently.
If colonel is giving such an example what is doing rest?

just to comment on the title of this thread...there are no "good guys" in the middle east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I saw this video this morning and whilst it is deeply disturbing, the likelihood is that the soldier will be facing due process.

Whereas if he had been a member of Hamas, he'd be celebrated and would have been using real ammunition, not a rubber bullet.

The IDF are no angels, and there are many, many incidents like this not captured on film from the occupation. It's sad that young men are brutalised to this extent by the ongoing occupation and the necessity of imposing draconian rules to maintain it.

But if the Palestinian terrorists stopped killing Israeli citizens with gay abandon and embraced a non-violent resistance to occupation, the moral outrage felt at such breaches might actually have some merit.

---

Wow... well said. :yes:

Thats it? :laugh4:

From the initial post I actually expected several palestinians to be lined up and shot in the legs! I was sorely disappointed.

Quote:

---

According to Palestinian Ashraf Abu-Rahma’s testimony, he suffered a toe injury and was treated by a local military paramedic and was later on released by the soldiers.

---

:laugh4:

Much, much worse goes on among Western police forces, and it seems like the guy will be punished.

Lesson in life kids: If you get involved in a riot, you can expect to get hit with batons, tear gas, and rubber bullets. The people who've had jagged rocks thrown at them all day might be in the mood to take a little stress out... so get away from a riot as soon as possible.

I just thank god this guy didn't lose his toe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Lesson in life kids: If you get involved in a riot, you can expect to get hit with batons, tear gas, and rubber bullets.

---

Yes. That's certainly to be expected. What you can't expect though, is to get it after you've been detained for half an hour and you're handcuffed and blindfolded. That's the thing with this. The armed forces here wasn't shooting at a crowd going nuts, they were shooting an already subdued person. And that's called torture, or sadism. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to shoot this person or cause him any harm.*




*except if you get a boner from making other people suffer, of course

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Banquo was comparing the two societies and the response the footage received in Israel versus the hypothetical reception a similar video would have received in Palestine. He also pointed out that the individual in question is facing disciplinary action, something unlikely in Fatah or Hamas.

---

Tell me... Are you by these prejudices implying that Palestine is an inhuman host of barbarism and savagery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

But remind me one more time where the Israeli Constitution calls for the destruction of Palestine, or public leaders of Israel have called for the global massacre of Palestinians, whereever they may live.

***No Tribesman, I won't repost all those links I found for you the 3rd or 4th time ago this came up. Go dig through the archives and find them yourself.

---

It does not. It does not recognize Palestine as a state to begin with. By contrast, Fatah recognizes Israel’s right to exist (since 1993). The foolish Hamas does not.

As for public leaders of Israel and nasty comments...

Quote:

---

One of the most blatant examples of public incitement in the days before the attack on Jabal al-Mukkabir was a circular widely distributed and posted around Jerusalem and in West Bank settlements. Signed by a long list of rabbis, it called for acts of revenge on Palestinians in retribution for the Mercaz HaRav shooting: “Each and everyone is required to imagine what the enemy is plotting to do to us and match it measure for measure.”
Among the signatories was Rabbi Ya’acov Yosef, son of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the former Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel and spiritual leader of Shas, a party in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s coalition government.

---

Quote:

---

In the Knesset, former cabinet minister Effie Eitam accused the Arab legislators of “treason” for participating in the rally, adding, “We have to drive you out, as well as everyone else who took part” in the demonstration. Days later, Olmert’s former Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman repeated the ethnic cleansing threat in the Knesset, telling Arab members, “You are temporary here,” and “One day we will take care of you.”

---

Quote:

---

Rather, “in the late 1990s and onwards,” writes Amir Ben-Porat, a professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at Ben Gurion University, “‘Death to the Arabs’ became a common chant in almost every football [soccer] stadium in Israel.” Ben-Porat, who authored a study on the use of the chant, says that because of the importance of soccer in Israeli society and its high profile in the media, “This chant is heard far beyond the stadium.

---

Link




As for PanzerJaeger... :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The armed forces here wasn't shooting at a crowd going nuts, they were shooting an already subdued person. And that's called torture, or sadism. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to shoot this person or cause him any harm.

---

Thankfully, it appears the IDF agrees with you.

Quote:

---

Thankfully, it appears the IDF agrees with you.

---

Does it though ? the staff sergeant is apparently complaining that he is being screwed over by the army to protect its image and cover up for the officers .
It seems that he understands the armys wish to smooth over the bad publicity that the film created but not at the expense of him as he was only following orders .
It does raise the obvious question though doesn't it , why was this investigation blocked in the first place and only started again now that the film is out in the public domain .

Quote:

---

It does raise the obvious question though doesn't it , why was this investigation blocked in the first place and only started again now that the film is out in the public domain

---

Because the IDF realized that they would pay for this later, mentally and spiritually. (The Pope told me not to be a cynic, so...yea.)

Well, if the IDF didn't agree with the view that this was unnecessarily vicious they wouldn't be trying to cover it up. They at least recognize it as inappropriate. These sort of incidents show that with modern technology, cameras can be watching anywhere and anything they do (in public) can be used against them and adversely effect future operations; if that doesn't set them thinking about their standards, I don't know what will.

What sickens me isn't the video - it is the fact that this goes on every day WITHOUT the video cameras there to capture it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Does it though ? the staff sergeant is apparently complaining that he is being screwed over by the army to protect its image and cover up for the officers .
It seems that he understands the armys wish to smooth over the bad publicity that the film created but not at the expense of him as he was only following orders .
It does raise the obvious question though doesn't it , why was this investigation blocked in the first place and only started again now that the film is out in the public domain .

---

Are you prepared to assert (and support) that this is evidence of a larger, programatic effort by the IDF? That those in leadership among the IDF are tacitly authorizing/encouraging the use of violence in this manner in what amounts to a de facto (albeit never publicly acknowledged) policy?

If you're going to be surprised by an organization's knee-jerk action being to hush things up when stupid/outrageous incidents occur and protect it's image, you're going to walk around much surprised.

As an aside, bureaucratic organizations, particularly those forming part of a government, are prone to this cover-up approach. Sadly, it frequently (usually?) backfires. I've always wondered why the behavior seems to repeat, however. Is it because people in these organizations cannot accept the fact that everything is/will be photographed and disseminated (the new modern norm) or is it that the tactic is usually successful -- and the public remains blissfully unaware of much that would outrage it.

But if the Palestinian terrorists stopped killing Israeli citizens with gay abandon and embraced a non-violent resistance to occupation, the moral outrage felt at such breaches might actually have some merit.

So if your the same nationality as a terrorist torture is to be expected, tit for tat ?

Terrorist groups do these things and far worse, it is the reason for thier name terrorist, developed democracys do not do this kind of thing, hence the outrage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes. That's certainly to be expected. What you can't expect though, is to get it after you've been detained for half an hour and you're handcuffed and blindfolded. That's the thing with this. The armed forces here wasn't shooting at a crowd going nuts, they were shooting an already subdued person. And that's called torture, or sadism. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to shoot this person or cause him any harm.*

*except if you get a boner from making other people suffer, of course

---

That's why this soldier is most likely going to suffer far more punishment than a minor toe injury.

As for the point you're trying to make in this thread... the phrase "making a mountain out of a molehill" comes to mind. An IDF soldier stepped out of line and will be punished, along with his superiors when this is all over. When IDF soldiers are captured, tortured and killed - palestinians rejoice... kind of explains why this kind of thing (a virtual toe holocaust) could happen.


Again, though, the most important thing in this whole horrible, terrible, disgusting display of Israeli torture and brutality is that the guy's toe recovered!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

Tell me... Are you by these prejudices implying that Palestine is an inhuman host of barbarism and savagery?

---

No. And in fact, I don't remember saying anything of the sort. I don't think Palestinians are inhuman barbarians or savages, but I do think they are led by factions that resort to some pretty barbaric and savage acts from time to time.

I actually have a great deal of sympathy for Palestinians. Few people on the planet have a worse lot in life. Where you and I disagree (or where Beirut and I would disagree, if you prefer) is that I do not hold Israel to be the chief problem faced by the Palestinians. In my view and assessment of facts and policies over the past 60 years, I would say Palestinian leadership has been the greatest problem faced by the Palestinian people over the past 60 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As an aside, bureaucratic organizations, particularly those forming part of a government, are prone to this cover-up approach. Sadly, it frequently (usually?) backfires. I've always wondered why the behavior seems to repeat, however. Is it because people in these organizations cannot accept the fact that everything is/will be photographed and disseminated (the new modern norm) or is it that the tactic is usually successful -- and the public remains blissfully unaware of much that would outrage it.

---

Possibly...but I think that it's usually a matter of the persons involved having a bigger interest (their reputation, jobs, possiblity of jail) in covering it up than the larger organisation.

Quote:

---

Are you prepared to assert (and support) that this is evidence of a larger, programatic effort by the IDF? That those in leadership among the IDF are tacitly authorizing/encouraging the use of violence in this manner in what amounts to a de facto (albeit never publicly acknowledged) policy?

---

Going on their past history it wouldn't be much of a surprise .
How many times have they been caught doing nasty stuff and claimed it is an isolated incident by one person , then another isolated incident that really doesn't happen that much , then after they keep getting caught gone OK maybe its not that isolated but it isn't that bad , then fought all the way to the supreme court to be allowed to keep doing the stuff they said was bad .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I saw this video this morning and whilst it is deeply disturbing, the likelihood is that the soldier will be facing due process.

Whereas if he had been a member of Hamas, he'd be celebrated and would have been using real ammunition, not a rubber bullet.

The IDF are no angels, and there are many, many incidents like this not captured on film from the occupation. It's sad that young men are brutalised to this extent by the ongoing occupation and the necessity of imposing draconian rules to maintain it.

But if the Palestinian terrorists stopped killing Israeli citizens with gay abandon and embraced a non-violent resistance to occupation, the moral outrage felt at such breaches might actually have some merit.

---

My view--given the early history of Israel (Irgun, stern gang, deir yassin massacre etc) is that if the israelis were weak and the palastinians strong the situation would be reversed today, and you would now be calling the israelis terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Are you prepared to assert (and support) that this is evidence of a larger, programatic effort by the IDF? That those in leadership among the IDF are tacitly authorizing/encouraging the use of violence in this manner in what amounts to a de facto (albeit never publicly acknowledged) policy?

---

Well, seeing as a lieutenant colonel was holding the guys hand while he was shot, it's not a very big stretch.

Quote:

---

I saw this video this morning and whilst it is deeply disturbing, the likelihood is that the soldier will be facing due process.

Whereas if he had been a member of Hamas, he'd be celebrated

---

And thus lies the main difference, for me, the reaction. One can take whatever side you like in the Israeli-Palestinian debate. One can argue who is entitled to this or that, but you cannot defend the frenzied lovefest that took place in Lebanon for that child killer, Samir Kuntar, recently released last week. How people can condone and celebrate such a killer is beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

And thus lies the main difference, for me, the reaction. One can take whatever side you like in the Israeli-Palestinian debate. One can argue who is entitled to this or that, but you cannot defend the frenzied lovefest that took place in Lebanon for that child killer, Samir Kuntar, recently released last week. How people can condone and celebrate such a killer is beyond me.

---

But were they celebrating a child-killer, or were they celebrating getting one over Israel, the ones who bombed them a few years ago?

Rock Star Oh, I don't know, you decide. All this for the "hero" convicted of smashing a child's head to pieces.

Let me know when the Israelis roll out the red carpet for the soldier in the vid you provided, they'll get the same treatment.

Well Nasrallah was talking about getting one over Israel in that vid, so....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well Nasrallah was talking about getting one over Israel in that vid, so....

---

That's rather weak, and you know it. It's much like rejoicing Hitler for winning Eurovision Song Contest finals while the holocaust was still going on.

Yeah, and the rock star just happened to be in the neighborhood....for a ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well Nasrallah was talking about getting one over Israel in that vid, so....

---

So therefore their celebration of such a "hero" is justified? :inquisitive:

Perhaps you might want to articulate your point a bit more clearly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

So therefore their celebration of such a "hero" is justified? :inquisitive:

Perhaps you might want to articulate your point a bit more clearly...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

But were they celebrating a child-killer, or were they celebrating getting one over Israel

---

any clearer now?

You don't seem to be getting it, HoreTore.

Let me ask you point blank... If John Wayne Gacy happened to choose the local IRS agent's son as one of his victims, would my loathing of the IRS justify my treating Gacy as a hero?

And thus lies the main difference, for me, the reaction.

This has always been a contentous point for me as i think any peoples in the same shoes would act the same, they are the victims who keep getting hit in the face, your suprised they celebrate what they feel is a hit back.

If your going to keep people in poverty and slowly take over thier land and hog the essential resources, then kill them in precision revenge strikes at a ratio of 3.1 to how many of yours they killed, logic compassion go out the window, i don't now about you but if i was in those peoples situation i would have lost all compassion long ago

it looks pretty simple to me, Horetore is saying that the crowd was celebrating getting one over on israel, he didn't mention personal celebration once...

Edit: nice to see you hosakawa, haven't been back here for a while... (i think)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You don't seem to be getting it, HoreTore.

Let me ask you point blank... If John Wayne Gacy happened to choose the local IRS agent's son as one of his victims, would my loathing of the IRS justify my treating Gacy as a hero?

---

Of course not.

(and yes, I was referring to your bigger question, not your metaphor)

Now that we have successfully derailed this thread from Israelis shooting Palestinians to Lebanese celebrating Quntar, I might as well add my thoughts.

Perhaps, and I am going out on a limb here, this magic show was put on due to the upcoming parliamentary elections? The Hizbullah and Walid Jumblatt’s Druze have recently gone from open verbal Sectarian Warfare™ to mutual understanding (:clown:). And the Hizbullah are probably also trying to broaden their appeal in Lebanon by celebrating a non-Shia. It could also be a tiny political statement sticking it to Jumblatt. Nasrallah managed to free a famous Druze militant. Jumblatt did not. All Lebanese parties have to appear proponents for a united Lebanon in election times and put the mess earlier this year behind them.


As for celebrating a baby killer, Quntar has consistently denied ever killing a child, and with all the lies and propaganda in the Middle East from officials, why would fans doubt him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Let me know when the Israelis roll out the red carpet for the soldier in the vid you provided, they'll get the same treatment.

---

Who knows? Maybe they will elect him Prime Minister, like Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon.

HOSA!!

The great Hosakawa Tito is back. :2thumbsup:

https://img295.imageshack.us/img295/...coasterie0.gif

Quote:

---

The Hizbullah and Walid Jumblatt’s Druze have recently gone from open verbal Sectarian Warfare™ to mutual understanding

---

I thought that during the stupid western backed attempt to take on Hezballah Jumblatts militia melted away and the Druze leadership had passed on to another .

And the Hizbullah are probably also trying to broaden their appeal in Lebanon by celebrating a non-Shia

Thats what some expert on the BBC news said, what exactly is the make up of lebanon ?

christian, shia and sunni's ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Thats what some expert on the BBC news said, what exactly is the make up of lebanon ?

christian, shia and sunni's ?

---

Shia, Sunni, Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Druze, and a lot of other sects. They are not likely to attempt a census in Lebanon anytime soon.


Add to that communists, nationalists, etc.

maybe rather than a defeat for israel we should see this as a victory for a multicultural lebanon ;)

Are all these groups involved in terrorism against israel or is it limited to one or two of them ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Was this guy a terrorist? No? Then what does he have to do with the terrorists? His nationality? Are you responsible whenever some brit screws up?

Also, the investigation of this incident started after the video was known, even though there were high officers present.

---

As far as I am aware, the individual concerned was not a terrorist, but the point you picked upon was directed at the environment terrorism creates. Whether you like it or not, constant threat creates an environment of brutality wherein incidents like this become all too common. That constant threat is nurtured by the occupation, but created by the constantly violent response to that occupation directed at Israeli civilians.

When I was directing riot control in Northern Ireland, whilst we had very clear rules of engagement for the firing of baton rounds, it was not unusual for one or two to "go astray". As a fresh faced (aka naive newbie) officer at the beginning of my first tour, I was scrupulous in ensuring my troops followed the letter. After months of bricks, sniping, pipe bombs, little old ladies offering sandwiches full of ground glass, and sad to say, funerals of colleagues, I was somewhat less punctilious. The baton round of the day was a sturdy piece of plastic that had been designed to be fired into the ground so it ricocheted upwards into the rioter, persuading him to retire homeward. There were, I am ashamed to say, days when a direct shot to the groin area was considered more effective. None of my troop ever shot at the face, but there were those who did, and fatalities that resulted from that use of "plastic bullets".

That was a nasty, but not remotely comparable conflict. I note the above not to excuse, but to explain. Any of my soldiers who fired as the Israeli did would face a court martial and rightly so. But put young men into a constant state of menace where their friends and families are threatened and you get moments of madness. This applies to both sides of that conflict, which is why suicide bombers may be understood - but similarly not condoned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

My view--given the early history of Israel (Irgun, stern gang, deir yassin massacre etc) is that if the israelis were weak and the palastinians strong the situation would be reversed today, and you would now be calling the israelis terrorists.

---

I would in fact be calling many of the Israelis who founded their state terrorists. Unlike many, I do not consider the word perjorative, but descriptive. Several of my own relatives were terrorists. The tactic is not always one of weakness, nor is it always as efficacious as was seen in the establishment of Israel and the Republic of Ireland.

I have always advocated that the Palestinians (whose cause I am strongly in favour of) should reject terrorism on the utilitarian ground that it will not work in their current situation. Embracing non-violence - real martyrdom in the face of overwhelming force - would progress their cause far further and quicker. Perhaps some of their young men would die in the struggle - I doubt as many as currently and certainly fewer of the women and children - but the United States would blanch at supporting a regime that murdered peaceful protestors over any period of time. And I believe Israeli public opinion would also turn hugely in favour of the oppressed people rather than seek refuge in one-dimensional hard right politicians.

For sixty years violence and terror tactics have failed to achieve anything except the brutalisation of the youth of Israel and Palestine. Terror tactics finally worked against the British of the first half of the 20th century because they were a fundamentally decent people who really wanted to get out of the nasty business of ruling those who demanded independence. The Israelis however, have nowhere else to go, so they will fight back real nasty.

Time for a change; and that can only be by Palestinian hands because they have to prove they can co-exist peacefully with the sovereign state of Israel. Every last man-jack of them too, no room for madmen who prefer exploding themselves in restaurants to watching their children grow up happy and safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I have always advocated that the Palestinians (whose cause I am strongly in favour of) should reject terrorism on the utilitarian ground that it will not work in their current situation. Embracing non-violence - real martyrdom in the face of overwhelming force - would progress their cause far further and quicker. Perhaps some of their young men would die in the struggle - I doubt as many as currently and certainly fewer of the women and children - but the United States would blanch at supporting a regime that murdered peaceful protestors over any period of time. And I believe Israeli public opinion would also turn hugely in favour of the oppressed people rather than seek refuge in one-dimensional hard right politicians.

For sixty years violence and terror tactics have failed to achieve anything except the brutalisation of the youth of Israel and Palestine. Terror tactics finally worked against the British of the first half of the 20th century because they were a fundamentally decent people who really wanted to get out of the nasty business of ruling those who demanded independence. The Israelis however, have nowhere else to go, so they will fight back real nasty.

Time for a change; and that can only be by Palestinian hands because they have to prove they can co-exist peacefully with the sovereign state of Israel. Every last man-jack of them too, no room for madmen who prefer exploding themselves in restaurants to watching their children grow up happy and safe.

---

Good Lord yes!

I am probably as staunch a supporter of Israel as you will find. But I guarantee you, were the Palestinians to put forward a leader like Ghandi, as opposed to on like ol' Yasser, then pursue a course of non-violent protest and civil disobedience, but were still met with violence from the Israelis, my support for Israel would quickly disappear and be replaced by support for the Palestinians.

And I suspect I would not be the only one...

Palestinian cry when Isreails do something to them, but it's ok other way around? :dizzy2::juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Are you prepared to assert (and support) that this is evidence of a larger, programatic effort by the IDF? That those in leadership among the IDF are tacitly authorizing/encouraging the use of violence in this manner in what amounts to a de facto (albeit never publicly acknowledged) policy?

---

Is this sarcasm?

I'd like to add that the only, one and single reason Isreal exists at all, is the U.S.A so perhaps the Palestinians should just wait till that bird is done and dead?
Or perhaps the U.S could soilve the major rallying point of Islamists everywhere and and tell Israel to shove it?
I mean, I am really interested as to why you people support that country. But then again you do support fascists.

Tell Israel to shove it where?
Where should they go? Should they commit mass suicide, migrate to the south pole or invade some other country that is not palestine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Tell Israel to shove it where?
Where should they go? Should they commit mass suicide, migrate to the south pole or invade some other country that is not palestine?

---

The only true solution to the middle east problem is that the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live together in the same country. A two-state solution won't solve the problem, both sides will always want more land from the other one. They have to learn how to live together. Or one side has to be exterminated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

...then pursue a course of non-violent protest and civil disobedience, but were still met with violence from the Israelis, my support for Israel would quickly disappear and be replaced by support for the Palestinians.

---

Okay, this has been mentioned enough times now.

Believe it or not people, but just because you never read about them doesn’t mean they don't occur. These peaceful protests, be they hunger strikes, human chains along the separation barrier, or rallies, are far more common than the violent uprising you see on TV. But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.

Quote:

---

But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.

---

What you mean like that peaceful protest about the destruction of their farmland last year where a tank commander thought it would be a great idea to fire a shell into them because a wall was obstructing his view ?
Its a wonderful thing about peaceful protests isn't it , it only takes one dickhead on either side to make it a violent incident

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

Okay, this has been mentioned enough times now.

Believe it or not people, but just because you never read about them doesn’t mean they don't occur. These peaceful protests, be they hunger strikes, human chains along the separation barrier, or rallies, are far more common than the violent uprising you see on TV. But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.

---

Indeed they do happen, and get responses as you describe.

But the violence takes the lion's share of coverage because violence always does - and because of an utter failure of leadership. Palestinian leaders fail to condemn the violent responses unequivocally, which would allow them to both highlight peaceful protest and facilitate its use. The men of violence have to be shunned for peace to work.

When Gandhi's resistance led to violent responses from the British authorities, and thence to a violent reaction back, he condemned that reaction utterly, withdrew the non-co-operation campaign and took to a fast that nearly killed him to show his utter disgust at his countrymen's indiscipline. He even said that the violence showed him that maybe Indians were not ready to be given independence.

There are few Gandhis about, but the principles are the same. Palestinians will never achieve their aim of an independent homeland by force of arms. They are completely outclassed militarily, have few friends (indeed most countries who offer "support" do so entirely for their own ends) and unrealistic goals. They are as screwed as any people in history.

They need leaders that recognise this, and who can focus the undoubted courage and perseverance of the Palestinian people towards a non-violent solution that will have the unanswerable force of moral certitude. They do not face callous dictatorships but a democracy, backed by a democracy, that would be very vulnerable to such moral pressure.

A Gandhi in Jerusalem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

A Gandhi in Jerusalem.

---

Defeatist article which glosses over the fact that throughout that time of "failed non-violent protest", Palestinian terrorism was always threatening Israel's people and existence.

Non-violence is a hard road, and yes, may well be ignored. But as the Mahatma noted, the purpose of a civil resister is to provoke a response.

And if non-violence has not gotten anywhere, the violence most certainly hasn't - and won't. Non-violence cannot be effective whilst violence runs alongside. Unless someone can tell me just how constant terrorism against civilians will bring Israel to its knees I will continue to advocate peaceful protest as the only way forward.

We already have a brutalised generation on both sides. How many more will it take for the penny to drop?

I think that extremists on both sides, Israeli and Palestinians will always block the only way forward to peace: two viable states coexisting next to each other. I don't blame the Palestinians, and I don't blame the Israelis. I think the majority of people on both sides would settle for such a solution. But it will never happen. Ever. Too many hard-liners on both sides that would rather die than compromise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Is this sarcasm?

I'd like to add that the only, one and single reason Isreal exists at all, is the U.S.A so perhaps the Palestinians should just wait till that bird is done and dead?
Or perhaps the U.S could soilve the major rallying point of Islamists everywhere and and tell Israel to shove it?
I mean, I am really interested as to why you people support that country. But then again you do support fascists.

---

Well, well. The Magyar responds with a gauntlet. Fair enough.

No, my response to Tribes' was not sarcasm, but a statement rendered in the form of a question -- admittedly a leading question -- which ample evidence indicates is a format with which Tribes' is comfortable. He certainly didn't demur from making a response -- though his response stopped short of a supported argument that it was IDF policy while hinting that he thought they were leaning that way. I was reminding him that the more likely "answer" would be found in the realm of mistake or poor thinking by those involved and not in a programmatic policy.

Banquo's excellent post above, the one referencing his own experiences and frustrations, is quite telling and explored the reasons "why" this instance happened in a far better and more moving way than I could have done. Banquo's assessment (and his prescription of a Ghandian effort as more likely to generate success for the Palestinian Arabs) match closely with my own thinking. Under prolonged stress and pressure, it is far too easy for those enforcing a policy to "take things into their own hands" just a bit. It shouldn't happen, and should never be condoned, but it does occur. I think Banquo's proferred explanation fits the facts and situation nicely.

We are no more likely to tell Israel to "shove it" than we are likely to say the same thing to England or Australia. While the USA was one of the prime movers in the formation of Israel, and certainly has provided more funding for its continuance than anyone else, we are not solely responsible for its creation -- it was a UN mandate. You might want to spare a little of your spleen for the old USSR -- after all they could have scotched the whole thing with a simple "Nyet" if they'd bothered to attend the meeting.

The bond with Israel was forged on a number of levels. Guilt over the Holocaust was one component -- we had turned away Jews who went back to die and according to some might have bettered our time in defeating Germany instead of going after Italy. Another was America's love for the underdog, which role fit Israel admirably in 1948. Then, as the Cold War deepened, Israel became our proxy in the Middle East as the Arab nations turned toward the Soviets for material. As you should be aware, the manner and "rules" by which we conducted the Cold War dictated a lot of US policy -- and led us to support a number of tyrannical regimes, provided they were anti-Soviet. Into this, you can also add the depradations of Islamic terrorists in the 1970s, early 1980s, and then again beginning in the 1990s (The terrorist efforts of Jewish separatists in Palestine in the 1940s did not get much play in the USA, so they carry no stigma of terrorism in this country). The Embargo of 1973 and the Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980 were also episodes that were designed to humiliate and/or make us throw up our hands in frustration over the cost of supporting Israel. Each and every time the backlash has enhanced Israel's position. Howevermuch we may find some of Israel's policies and actions galling, we admire their determination. We'll argue with them, try to convince them to change their behavior sometimes, but all in all we are committed to that alliance.

The one and ONLY way I can see the Arab world de-coupling this alliance, or more likely shifting it to a format where ALL of the US efforts would be to push Israel towards a negotiated resolution, is the strategy outlined by Banquo above. Once the Palestinians are nothing but martyrs -- no acts of vengeance ONLY non-violent defiance -- then the cell phone camera will win what no number of Kalishnikov's can hope to achieve.

I'd suggest that the Palestinians change tactics soon. Waiting for the American Eagle to be "done and dead" is likely to be a bit of a wait. We may not be the Colossus our imaginations sometimes believe, but we're not staggering along in our death throes by a long chalk. Underneath all of our celebrophilia silliness and consumerist hedonism is a bit of steel. Too many in the past have missed that part -- to their regret. And, if you and yours seek to take us off our perch, you are welcome to try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Waiting for the American Eagle to be "done and dead" is likely to be a bit of a wait. We may not be the Colossus our imaginations sometimes believe, but we're not staggering along in our death throes by a long chalk. Underneath all of our celebrophilia silliness and consumerist hedonism is a bit of steel. Too many in the past have missed that part -- to their regret. And, if you and yours seek to take us off our perch, you are welcome to try.

---

Perfection lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Well, well. The Magyar responds with a gauntlet. Fair enough.

No, my response to Tribes' was not sarcasm, but a statement rendered in the form of a question -- admittedly a leading question -- which ample evidence indicates is a format with which Tribes' is comfortable. He certainly didn't demur from making a response -- though his response stopped short of a supported argument that it was IDF policy while hinting that he thought they were leaning that way. I was reminding him that the more likely "answer" would be found in the realm of mistake or poor thinking by those involved and not in a programmatic policy.

Banquo's excellent post above, the one referencing his own experiences and frustrations, is quite telling and explored the reasons "why" this instance happened in a far better and more moving way than I could have done. Banquo's assessment (and his prescription of a Ghandian effort as more likely to generate success for the Palestinian Arabs) match closely with my own thinking. Under prolonged stress and pressure, it is far too easy for those enforcing a policy to "take things into their own hands" just a bit. It shouldn't happen, and should never be condoned, but it does occur. I think Banquo's proferred explanation fits the facts and situation nicely.

We are no more likely to tell Israel to "shove it" than we are likely to say the same thing to England or Australia. While the USA was one of the prime movers in the formation of Israel, and certainly has provided more funding for its continuance than anyone else, we are not solely responsible for its creation -- it was a UN mandate. You might want to spare a little of your spleen for the old USSR -- after all they could have scotched the whole thing with a simple "Nyet" if they'd bothered to attend the meeting.

The bond with Israel was forged on a number of levels. Guilt over the Holocaust was one component -- we had turned away Jews who went back to die and according to some might have bettered our time in defeating Germany instead of going after Italy. Another was America's love for the underdog, which role fit Israel admirably in 1948. Then, as the Cold War deepened, Israel became our proxy in the Middle East as the Arab nations turned toward the Soviets for material. As you should be aware, the manner and "rules" by which we conducted the Cold War dictated a lot of US policy -- and led us to support a number of tyrannical regimes, provided they were anti-Soviet. Into this, you can also add the depradations of Islamic terrorists in the 1970s, early 1980s, and then again beginning in the 1990s (The terrorist efforts of Jewish separatists in Palestine in the 1940s did not get much play in the USA, so they carry no stigma of terrorism in this country). The Embargo of 1973 and the Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980 were also episodes that were designed to humiliate and/or make us throw up our hands in frustration over the cost of supporting Israel. Each and every time the backlash has enhanced Israel's position. Howevermuch we may find some of Israel's policies and actions galling, we admire their determination. We'll argue with them, try to convince them to change their behavior sometimes, but all in all we are committed to that alliance.

The one and ONLY way I can see the Arab world de-coupling this alliance, or more likely shifting it to a format where ALL of the US efforts would be to push Israel towards a negotiated resolution, is the strategy outlined by Banquo above. Once the Palestinians are nothing but martyrs -- no acts of vengeance ONLY non-violent defiance -- then the cell phone camera will win what no number of Kalishnikov's can hope to achieve.

I'd suggest that the Palestinians change tactics soon. Waiting for the American Eagle to be "done and dead" is likely to be a bit of a wait. We may not be the Colossus our imaginations sometimes believe, but we're not staggering along in our death throes by a long chalk. Underneath all of our celebrophilia silliness and consumerist hedonism is a bit of steel. Too many in the past have missed that part -- to their regret. And, if you and yours seek to take us off our perch, you are welcome to try.

---

Oh dear...
I do not see the U.S a a bumbling giant trying to do good, your nation is nothing of the sort and you know it. The U.S is a tyrant to the weak. You picked apart Latin America and left it to the desires of your state educated fascist pigs. You also support a fascist regime in the Middle East, that is what it is really. The underdog? Idrael has not been the underdog for a long time, it has held the whip hand over the Palestinians for decades and it has used this to kill and terrorise innocents with your silent approval.
You admire their determination? What aspect? The rabid determination to ethnically cleanse the Holy Land? or to allow their soldiers to shoot old ladies on their way to hospitals? Or their determination to allow women to die while giving birth at an Israeli check point to a hostpital? Which aspect is it?

I suggest that the U.S.A changes its tactics in the Holy Land because a toss load of good they have done so far.

Maybe you should switch off the flame of liberty, we all know its fake, it probably says Made In China somehwere...

Seriously, Bopa, how do you really feel? :laugh4:

I'm curious, do you believe in a 2-state solution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

The U.S is a tyrant to the weak.

---

This annoys the crap out of me and I am not even american, if you have to chose between what they are and what they could be what would it be? They have that choice but are what they are, nothing but humanitarian respect to america. What is it that they are doing so wrong I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I think that extremists on both sides, Israeli and Palestinians will always block the only way forward to peace: two viable states coexisting next to each other. I don't blame the Palestinians, and I don't blame the Israelis. I think the majority of people on both sides would settle for such a solution. But it will never happen. Ever. Too many hard-liners on both sides that would rather die than compromise.

---

In my heart I fear that you are right, but I would like to pretend that you are not. I hope the hard-liners are deposed some day, rejected, and ignored.

Terrorism, or rather assymetrical warfare and intentional targeting of civilians, is a natural evolution in response to a technologically superior enemy. It is utter ignorance to claim moral superiority in military strategy. While detesting the killing of civilian Israelis by Palestinian militants, I understand that this military strategy is entirely due to their inability to counter Israeli superiority.

Organized violence is an instrument of policy. Be it a gang killing in a turf war, a military invasion, genocide, terrorist use of WMDs, etc. The method we as an organization of individuals choose to employ to exert our will is not something in of itself to decry. It is the intent of the policy that drives the violence that requires analysis and argument.

This annoys the crap out of me and I am not even american, if you have to chose between what they are and what they could be what would it be?

What they could be is a shining example to the rest of the world, they make all previous superpowers look evil by comparison but is that really saying much ?

Having huge amounts of power isn't an excuse for doing wrong, if anything its almost worse...

is the strategy outlined by Banquo above. Once the Palestinians are nothing but martyrs -- no acts of vengeance ONLY non-violent defiance -- then the cell phone camera will win what no number of Kalishnikov's can hope to achieve.

This would be a great tactic, unfortunatly it would never work, it would be the equivalent of america taking up non-violent defiance in reaction to 9/11, sure the odd peaceful hippy would think its a good idea but 99% of people just want blood and vengance.

I do not see why Israel could not practice not violent defiance, as an actual developed functioning state they have the means to pull this off, the loosley affailiated organisations running palestine could not, this is probably why i seem to come down on israel they are the only ones who i can see ending the conflict, i think its simply impossible as the situation stands for palestine to manage it....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

[B]

I do not see why Israel could not practice not violent defiance, as an actual developed functioning state they have the means to pull this off, the loosley affailiated organisations running palestine could not, this is probably why i seem to come down on israel they are the only ones who i can see ending the conflict, i think its simply impossible as the situation stands for palestine to manage it....

---

therein lies a huge problem as far as i am concerned... Palestine needs to unite as one and only the will they see have any way forward...:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

What they could be is a shining example to the rest of the world, they make all previous superpowers look evil by comparison but is that really saying much ?

---

Clear case of the question being the answer I would say. Of course that is saying much. They really don't deserve the treatment they get from the incestiously self-preserving european intellectual elite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atheotes

therein lies a huge problem as far as i am concerned... Palestine needs to unite as one and only the will they see have any way forward...:juggle2:

---

Well... Did not the "West" unite to drive Palestine apart? I recall it did. Immediately after the Hamas majority victory in the 2006 legislative election.

Clear case of the question being the answer I would say. Of course that is saying much. They really don't deserve the treatment they get from the incestiously self-preserving european intellectual elite.

I don't think i stated what i meant clearly, what i was saying was.... just because they are better than what came before it doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise, going by your statement america could go crazy and aslong as they were a little better behaved than previous superpower noone has any right to criticise, having the ability to do alot of harm if they want doesn't excuse them from the harm they do....

Otherwise we should all thank the soviet union, sure they did alot of bad things but they could have done so much worse, hell stalin was practically a pacifist...

Well... Did not the "West" unite to drive Palestine apart? I recall it did. Immediately after the Hamas majority victory in the 2006 legislative election.

I find it ironic how after years of seeing fatah as the enemy they've suddenly realised that fatah are a better option to deal with than Hamas, i can almost see this pattern repeating itself somewhere down the line, we'll be kicking ourselves for not dealing with the much more reasonable Hamas when the next even crazier bunch of guys come along...

Quote:

---

The underdog? Israel has not been the underdog for a long time, it has held the whip hand over the Palestinians for decades and it has used this to kill and terrorize innocents with your silent approval.

---

Only rarely has a single nation the size of Israel faced three or four foes on two+ fronts, and succeeded. Not only in 1948, in the wars that followed, as Israel outmaneuvered Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraqi forces. The Israeli forces have consistently defeated armed forces twice their size. It's spectacular.

Israel has responded in kind to Palestinian threats over the years. You complain about a pregnant Palestinian woman dying at a check-point? I think if you compare the death rates of Palestinian women from before Israel and after, you would notice a drop in those deaths. With Israel came medicines and assistance that the Palestinians never had before.

Ghandian resistance is the only way to end the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I'm probably echoing previously expressed sentiments, but that's why the West supported Tibet over Chinese "law and order" because the Tibet people aren't RPG-ing Hong Kong, Singapore, or Beijing. That's why we supported the monks over the Burmese "Law and Order" of violence and repression.

Only rarely has a single nation the size of Israel faced three or four foes on two+ fronts, and succeeded. Not only in 1948, in the wars that followed, as Israel outmaneuvered Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraqi forces. The Israeli forces have consistently defeated armed forces twice their size. It's spectacular.

Im not so sure about the 1948 war but didn't Israel have a lot better technology than thier rivals in 1967, as spectacular as it is it also doesn't change the fact that these days its the palestinians rocks and homemade bombs vs israels f-16s and nuclear weapons

I think if you compare the death rates of Palestinian women from before Israel and after, you would notice a drop in those deaths. With Israel came medicines and assistance that the Palestinians never had before.

Doesn't the international community give aid to palestine ? (including israel though i guess) so i highly doubt thier contribution to aid for palestine dwarfs the numbers of palestinians they've killed.

Ghandian resistance is the only way to end the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I'm probably echoing previously expressed sentiments, but that's why the West supported Tibet over Chinese "law and order" because the Tibet people aren't RPG-ing Hong Kong, Singapore, or Beijing. That's why we supported the monks over the Burmese "Law and Order" of violence and repression.

A load of good it did those 'provinces' as well, why does everyone expect the palestinians to start up some Ghandian style resistance, the ones who are much better equipped to pull it off are the israelis, how much longer would the palestinians keep blowing themselves up after israel stopped the bombs, dismantled the checkpoints and shared the resources. No palestinian would go and blow themself up because Hamas charter calls for the destruction of israel, give them normal lives and they'll be happy to live them, there be a transitional period where people too far gone would exact thier revenge but that would be over soon enough....

Quote:

---

Ghandian resistance is the only way to end the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I'm probably echoing previously expressed sentiments, but that's why the West supported Tibet over Chinese "law and order"

---

Ah yes the peaceful protesters

Quote:

---

First of all, I must make it clear that the Tibetan (rioters) has been non-violent throughout (the incident). From Tibetans' perspective, violence means harming life. From the video recordings you can see that the Tibetans rioters were beating Han Chinese, but only beating took place. After the beating the Han Chinese were free to flee. Therefore [there were] only beating, no life was harmed. Those who were killed were all results of accidents. From recordings shown by the Chinese Communist government, we can clearly see that when Tibetan [rioters] were beating on their doors, the Han Chinese all went into hiding upstairs. When the Tibetan [rioters] set fire to the buildings, the Han Chinese remained in hiding instead of escaping, the result is that these Han Chinese were all accidentally burnt to death.

---

Don't the Tibetan government in exile put it very nicely

Awesome explanation, I wish all riots were as peaceful as that with just a few people being burned accidentally. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

A load of good it did those 'provinces' as well, why does everyone expect the palestinians to start up some Ghandian style resistance, the ones who are much better equipped to pull it off are the israelis, how much longer would the palestinians keep blowing themselves up after israel stopped the bombs, dismantled the checkpoints and shared the resources. No palestinian would go and blow themself up because Hamas charter calls for the destruction of israel, give them normal lives and they'll be happy to live them, there be a transitional period where people too far gone would exact thier revenge but that would be over soon enough....

---

Hah, the Israeli government would have to be nuts to do that, it would be pure manslaughter. No doubt the terrorists could shoot a thousands of civilians showing no resistance what so ever before they started pondering whether they were doing the right thing or not. No terrorist want to share the resources.

Hah, the Israeli government would have to be nuts to do that, it would be pure manslaughter. No doubt the terrorists could shoot a thousands of civilians showing no resistance what so ever before they started pondering whether they were doing the right thing or not.

I must have missed the bit were they stuck thier hands up in the air and lined up to be shot, its a non-violent resistance but if some terrorist came in shooting and i would allow room in my non-violent defiance to shoot back in that case, so if you agree that palestinians won't blow themselves up if thiers no reason and israel's main problem would be gunmen that would be a huge improvment, you could just have regular solidiers (and police?) posted around israel and im sure the vast majority of them would outmatch a palestinian terrorist in a gunfight, sure the would be losses, probably at a far lower rate than today, and just as you'll struggle to find terrorists willing to blow themself up over an enemy that doesn't attack them i highly doubt that you would find too many recruits for suicidal shooting sprees after israel starts its non violent defiance

No terrorist want to share the resources.

Well neither does israel by the seems of things, but as it is now and would be if israel was carrying out non-violent defiance, the terrorists wouldn't really have a choice about having all the resources, just because israel isn't carrying out precision strikes and checkpoints doesn't all of a sudden mean the palestinians are the bigger power.

A bold, brilliant plan our Banquo's Ghost has laid out.

For argument's sake, let's posit that a Paletinian Gandhi did emerge, eschewing violence, and doing a 'salt walk' to the sea.

What conditions and policy attitudes would have to prevail in Israel for El Gandhi to be successful? What conditions were extant in Britain and among Brit Colonials in India to allow Gandhi's success, rather than a brute crushing of his disobedience?

And then, what can the rest of us (the world) do or stop doing, to foster the development of those conditions?

Or, are we begging the strategy too much, since in India, the goal was to persuade Britain to leave, whereas, we're not trying to make Israel 'leave', but co-exist?

I, the eternal optimist, can but hope that some way toward resolution can be found that doesn't involve mass brutalization & death.

Maybe i am a pessimist or just a realist, either way even if the palestinian ghandi did emerge he would be a threat to all the leaders in the middle east (or israel and the ones who keep thier populations in check by focusing them on thier enemy)

If not killed by hamas or fatah as a threat to thier power, or maybe killed because he is seen as weak limp wristed leftie whose not willing to stand up for his country like countless martyrs (that is as in the imaginary words of some hamas or fatah spokesman)

Killed by israel either through accident, precision strike gone wrong, israeli soldier's bullet, or on purpose by the israeli leadership as they are a threat to thier continued leadership, or because if succsessful he would be a threat to thier domination of resources in the area (what good reason would israel have to hog resources against a peaceful palestine ? and what good reason to extend thier holdings in the area ?)

Even if he manages to avoid the 2 local powers there are plenty of leader in the middle east who would have thier position more threatened if there wasn't the enemy of israel to direct the peoples attention at

To be honest i really don't see a palestinian ghandi type figure being able to do anything to solves the conflict.