Pro-Palestinian = Pro-Terrorism?

[NewsGuy]

Having seen many pro-Palestinian critics of Israel deny that they are necessarily pro-terrorism, I have consistently had my doubts.

On the one hand, one can argue that the Palestinians have a legitimate contention based on UN resolutions to conduct their own independent nation. On the other hand, the Palestinians have chosen nothing but violence and terrorism to achieve their objectives, and have rejected all political solutions. So much so, that it might be impossible to separate between the Palestinian cause and their terrorist (and failed) method of trying to bring about their goals.

What do you think? Is being pro-Palestinian synonymous with being pro-terrorism?

[Blueprint]

I do not believe it to be. Saying you support someones cause does not mean that you support the way that they go about attempting to achieve it.

[I am David]

Well Pro-Palestinians usually deny any support of terrorism, but then they always have some kind of exception or "but" clause where they say "But the Palestinians are occupied, and are so desperate that they have no choice but terror! They are freedom fighters!".

So in a sense they get the "nobility" of not supporting terror, but their argument still has the overall effect that terror is excused or "explained" in some way.

[danholo]

Well, the case might also be that the various Palestinian terror groups feed on the desperation of the normal population by giving a slight push into the direction of carrying out a terror attack. I believe if the desperation weren't so "high" most of the population wouldn't even support these terror groups. Of course a slight support for these groups would remain.


Other thing is, what drove so many to terror even though Oslo gave WB and Gaza Palestinians a degree of freedom they never had before? And a slight majority in polls shows that they want Israel destroyed.

[elreason4]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Having seen many pro-Palestinian critics of Israel deny that they are necessarily pro-terrorism, I have consistently had my doubts…On the one hand, one can argue that the Palestinians have a legitimate contention based on UN resolutions to conduct their own independent nation. On the other hand, the Palestinians have chosen nothing but violence and terrorism to achieve their objectives, and have rejected all political solutions. So much so, that it might be impossible to separate between the Palestinian cause and their terrorist (and failed) method of trying to bring about their goals. What do you think? Is being pro-Palestinian synonymous with being pro-terrorism?

Being pro-Palestinian may or may not be pro-terrorist, depending on how one defines pro-Palestinian. If pro-Palestinian is as the words suggest, support for the well being of the Palestinians, then being pro-Palestinian is not pro-terrorist. Such support is to recognize the infinite value of the each and every individual human life, inseparable from the support of freedom, peace and equality (of race, religion, speech, etc.).

However, there is a genuinely opposite and horrific definition prevalent throughout the Arab world and the antisemites worldwide, where the term pro-Palestinian is really a misleading code term meaning anti-Zionist. This demented use of the term pro-Palestinian’ really infers those who believe they must fight against the existence of Israel. Under this twisted definition, pro-Palestinian is clearly pro-terrorist.

Pro-terrorists are opposed to those life affirming ideals, and in reality pro-terrorists are anti-Palestinian. The Arab leaders and terrorist leaders over the years deceitfully argue that pro-Palestinian is synonymous with being anti-Israel. That the 'poor' Palestinians have been the victims of an evil Zionist plot, and that the Palestinians have the right to recover all that Israel supposedly stole from them. An honest appraisal of history reveals a much different story. If the Palestinian cause is simply the pursuit to create a new Arab state coexisting peacefully with the state of Israel, then there would never have been an Arab/Israeli war. Indeed, the 1948 UN partition plan was endorsed by Israel, and rejected by the Arab nations. Instead of respecting the right of Jews to live in Israel, the Arab world launched a massive assault to destroy Israel through war on the day of her birth. Indeed, it is only Israel that can demonstrate a true pro-Palestinian position. All the Arabs residing within Israel proper were, of course, granted full Israeli citizenship, with full legal equality that the Jews enjoy in the Middle East’s only free society. Today, more than 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, enjoying the kind of freedom utterly denied to all the other Arabs in the rest of the region. The 650,000 Palestinians who fled from the Arab war against Israel found them unwelcome throughout the Arab world (with the single exception of Jordan) as the Arab nations rejected granting their Arab Palestinian brethren any hope of naturalization-thus artificially inventing the Palestinian refugee problem. These Palestinians found themselves imprisoned within ‘refugee’ camps, in stark contrast to the 800,000 Jews from those same Arab countries that were welcomed and integrated into Israeli society as equals. Jew’s and Arab’s living free together in Israel.

Likewise, prior to 1967 there was no Palestinian movement to create another Arab country in the Middle East peacefully coexisting with Israel. The ’67 borders were territories reluctantly occupied by Israel to end the imminent national security threat posed by the massing of Arab armed forces (with the stated purpose to completely destroy Israel). The tyrannies rampant throughout the Arab world not only deny their own people any measure of freedom, but single out their Arab brethren from Palestinian for special oppression.

[danholo]

Though that was a good "essay", you can't blindly say that the treatment of Palestinians under Israeli rule was
"pro-Palestinian" from 1967-1994.

[NewsGuy]

These are some very good points from several people here.

The thing to remember is that in theory, being pro-Palestinian may not necessarily be the same as being pro-terrorism. But in practicality, in the vast majority of cases it is. Here's why:

Being pro-Palestinian typically entails being anti-Israel. This means that pro-Palestinians typically object to Israel's right to self-defense in the face of the ongoing Palestinian terrorism. They oppose setting up necessary checkpoints and mounting anti-terrorism military incursions. IMO, this makes most pro-Palestinians into defacto defenders of Palestinian terrorism.

[andak01]

So that would make Bush and Blair pro-terrorist because they support a state of Palestine?

Concepts such as you are stating are only used to silence opposition. Take your moderate opponents and characterize them as extremists and you can dismiss them. This kind of cr~p is gaining a lot of currency in the U.S. China recently scored a coup against Tibet by having the pro-liberation forces declared a terrorist group by the U.S. At the head of this 'terrorist' group stands the Dalai Lama.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by andak01
So that would make Bush and Blair pro-terrorist because they support a state of Palestine?


No, that would make them politicians. You know, make everyone unhappy to kee things balanced. Politics.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by andak01
So that would make Bush and Blair pro-terrorist because they support a state of Palestine?

No, I wouldn't consider Bush to be pro-terrorism. On the contrary -- the U.S. has spent considerable resources on stopping some of the scourge of Muslim terrorism. But it is also true that Bush's refusal to deal with Palestinian terrorism in same way he deals with al Qaeda, has made many citizens of the world doubt America's resolve in its war against terrorism.

After Bush declared "You're either with us or with the terrorists," and then let countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria, and even the Palestinian Authority off the hook for the past 2 years, it's natural to question how serious Bush is about stopping Arab terrorism.

And moving forward, it remains to be seen what Bush and Blair will force Israel to accept regarding the proposed Palestinian state. If they demand that the Palestinian state be terrorism-free before being formed, and also held accountable for any upsurge in terrorism, then I would say that these leaders would not condone terrorism.

But if Bush forces Israel to make painful concessions to the Palestinians before a prolonged period of complete end to terrorism, then I would say that they would be lending their hand to pro-terrorism forces.

As for Blair, despite his wise backing of the U.S. war on Iraq, he has never been a particularly strong supporter of Israel's right to self-defense against Palestinian terrorism. The UK is a country with a very large and dangerous Muslim population, which demands that the British government support Arab terrorism. Blair and his hypocritical Foreign minister have certainly stood on the side of the Father of Modern Terrorism, Yasser Arafat, on many occasions.



At the head of this 'terrorist' group stands the Dalai Lama.

Are you seriously making a comparison between the Dalai Lama and bloodthirsty mass-murderers like Yasser Arafat and Sheik Yassin?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Is being pro-Palestinian synonymous with being pro-terrorism?
Is being pro-Muslim being anti-American in the Arab world>
Is being pro-Arab being anti-Israel?
Is the absence of light darkness?
Is this a rhetorical question? :)

[Miriam]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
No, I wouldn't consider Bush to be pro-terrorism. On the contrary -- the U.S. has spent considerable resources on stopping some of the scourge of Muslim terrorism. But it is also true that Bush's refusal to deal with Palestinian terrorism in same way he deals with al Qaeda, has made many citizens of the world doubt America's resolve in its war against terrorism.

After Bush declared "You're either with us or with the terrorists," and then let countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria, and even the Palestinian Authority off the hook for the past 2 years, it's natural to question how serious Bush is about stopping Arab terrorism.

And moving forward, it remains to be seen what Bush and Blair will force Israel to accept regarding the proposed Palestinian state. If they demand that the Palestinian state be terrorism-free before being formed, and also held accountable for any upsurge in terrorism, then I would say that these leaders would not condone terrorism.

But if Bush forces Israel to make painful concessions to the Palestinians before a prolonged period of complete end to terrorism, then I would say that they would be lending their hand to pro-terrorism forces.

As for Blair, despite his wise backing of the U.S. war on Iraq, he has never been a particularly strong supporter of Israel's right to self-defense against Palestinian terrorism. The UK is a country with a very large and dangerous Muslim population, which demands that the British government support Arab terrorism. Blair and his hypocritical Foreign minister have certainly stood on the side of the Father of Modern Terrorism, Yasser Arafat, on many occasions.

Thank you for raising the issue. Truth be said, the US policies on Palestinian issues remind me - especially since 9/11 - of cycles of antibiotics treatments permanently being broken off in the middle, with all the consequences for the patient that can be expected :mad:

As for Britain, Muslims are hardly the only anti-Israel force there, probably not even the main one. (I think you have seen quite a number of regular British posters on this forum :rolleyes: )

[Moskal']

I don't think that being pro-palestinian means being pro terrorist.
I thik that what is called being pro-palestinian is pro terrorist.
I think it would be most pro-palestinian to expel or imprisson "Palestinian Authority", kill every terrorist and bring this poor, suffering people out of the dark age.

[Isiah 2:4]

The UK is a country with a very large and dangerous Muslim population, which demands that the British government support Arab terrorism.

Okay. I believe that is out of order. I could just as easily say that America has a large and dangerous Jewish population, which demands that the American government support Israeli violence. see...?

But im not like that. What i would say is that yes, Britain has a large Muslim population, but what does that matter? There are more muslims in the US than in Britain...are you assuming that they have no political influence?

Dangerous? The only danger in Britain is extremism. On the left and the right, religious or secular. Just like most other places. I agree that the government should do more to apprehend fundaMentalists and either dport them or jail them. I dont care if its Islamic or Nazi. Just kick em out.

[Mediocrates]

The only danger in Britain is indifference and blindness. Oh it's happening over in those slums....who gives a , can I have another Chardonnay?

[Am Yisrael]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
[B]The only danger in Britain is indifference and blindness.

The other danger is racism.