New Palestinian film shuns stereotypes

[Jefferson23]

The common saying that one person’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist well describes how the world is often divided over the Palestinian resistance.

One of the continuous and often angry arguments between Palestinians and Israelis concerns the form of Palestinian resistance. Israelis showcase cherry-picked acts of Palestinian violence in which Israeli civilians are killed as proof that all Palestinian resistance efforts are criminal and terrorist.

Palestinians often respond, without much success, that armed resistance is an internationally guaranteed right, that reserve soldiers and armed civilian settlers who often vandalize Palestinian property are fair game in a population fighting to rid itself of an illegal occupation that has spanned decades. The argument goes on at regional and international venues, with audiences taking whatever side they are already predisposed to sympathize with.

But while the arguments go on on university campuses and among activists, popular culture has often painted Palestinians along stereotypical lines. To be fair, the stereotyping of Palestinians is not always negative. Palestinians are also often portrayed by their supporters in a heroic light. Watching Arab and pro-Palestinian portrayals of Palestinians, one gets the impression that Palestinians are supermen.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/palestinian-new-movie-avoid-heroism-arab-cinema.html#ixzz3Di5Hv78i

[oberliner]

1. Really sick stuff

Civilian settlers are "fair game" for "armed resistance".

Thankfully this guy does not speak for the majority of Palestinians.

Not surprisingly his article has links back to Electronic Intifada.

Anyone who believes that it is OK to commit violence against civilians is absolutely vile, regardless of their nationality (or degrees from Princeton).

[Jefferson23]

2. You're predisposed to remove the word armed...nice touch there, oberliner.

..that reserve soldiers and armed civilian settlers who often vandalize Palestinian property are fair game in a population fighting to rid itself of an illegal occupation that has spanned decades. The argument goes on at regional and international venues, with audiences taking whatever side they are already predisposed to sympathize with.

[Shaktimaan]

5. Right.

Exactly how does one identify a reserve soldier, btw? Considering that the laws of war are pretty clear about who is a legitimate target and who is not, this post clearly defends the targeting of civilians, going so far as to describe it as "right." Is that really something you agree with?

[Scootaloo]

7. Is it something you can criticize, is a better question

[DanTex]

10. On think that needs to be recognized is that the entire enterprise of settling in the occupied

territories is illegal.

I don't see how armed civilians that are voluntarily partaking in an illegal occupation would be protected by the Geneva convention. They are armed and they routinely commit acts of violence against the Palestinians.

As for reserve soldiers, I don't know how they would be treated. What does the Geneva convention say about reserve soldiers? And does the fact that they are taking part in an illegal occupation make a difference?

[Shaktimaan]

36. Question.

When you say reserve soldier, are you referring to a reservist who is on or off duty? What is the difference between an off duty reservist and a civilian? Conversely, there is no difference between an on duty reservist and a soldier; reservists ARE soldiers in such cases.

What makes you say the occupation is illegal?

[oberliner]

37. "What makes you say the occupation is illegal?"

Can you seriously be asking this question?

[Shaktimaan]

38. Sure.

Why do you consider that so unbelievable? What about the occupation is illegal exactly?

[oberliner]

39. Haven't we gone through all this enough times?

I'm just not sure what the point is of rehashing the same back and forth. I guess the poster is relatively new to the game, so there is that.

[Shaktimaan]

53. I don't believe so.

Am I mistaken?

[oberliner]

54. No idea what your motivation is here

Maybe I shouldn't make assumptions.

[oberliner]

28. The author uses the word civilian

That is important.

That you think these folks are "fair game" is disturbing.

[Jefferson23]

29. Armed, a word you leave out, intentionally. I have no interest in what you find disturbing

considering your selective word smears.

Palestinians often respond, without much success, that armed resistance is an internationally guaranteed right, that reserve soldiers and armed civilian settlers who often vandalize Palestinian property are fair game in a population fighting to rid itself of an illegal occupation that has spanned decades. The argument goes on at regional and international venues, with audiences taking whatever side they are already predisposed to sympathize with.

[oberliner]

30. I am very interested in your comments

I actually find you to be one of the most reasonable, intelligent, and respectful folks on this board - in spite of our disagreements.

In any case, I think you ought to reconsider your position with respect to supporting violence against civilians, be they armed or otherwise.

[Jefferson23]

31. My personal position is not stated and it was not the point as you well know.

The law is the law, they have their rights and your intentional misuse of what was printed
was intentional, period.

[oberliner]

32. Of course it was intentional

Not sure why you would suggest otherwise. Like when people post articles and snip to the part they want to highlight and leave off the parts they don't want as much attention paid to.

Not sure it is as simple as "the law is the law". With respect to "international law" it is quite the opposite. That is, the vast majority of international law is unenforced (and unenforceable). And many elements that are either not agreed to by specific countries or are not interpreted the same way across them.

[Jefferson23]

33. You intentionally removed the word armed. The word is essential to the act of defense should they

utilize that right. Your purpose can only be seen as one that was to misconstrue the intent
of self defense by eliminating the word..presuming that right is out of bounds and to suggest
the OP is advocating something more than self defense.

Since you have a disagreement with that legal right, then post a link that refutes that
right...as your summary of what constitutes self defense against armed reservists
and or settlers is pure conjecture on your part.

[Shaktimaan]

52. How does one prove a negative?

You're describing a "right" that I've never heard of before, outside of certain websites who state it's existence without ever referencing it's origin.

There's no reason to categorize violence against civilians, armed, reservist or otherwise, as "self-defense" unless the individual in question is actively attacking someone.

Before demanding one provide a link refuting this "legal right" can you actually provide a link which cites this right's existence?

That said, I don't believe that settlers openly carrying arms are considered civilians under Geneva. Unarmed reservists are obviously civilians under those rules though.

[Scootaloo]

3. So you believe every Zionist posting on this board is absolutly vile, including yourself?

Not a single one of you have expressed any disgust, outrage, or even disappointment in the actual killing, maiming, and abusing of civilians. In fact, most defend or even celebrate it. You've certainly not lifted a finger to take anyone to task for it Oberliner.

How curious. You are deeply offended at the theoretical application of violence to armed people committing acts of war in their invasion and pillage of another people's land, but you are supportive of - or at least utterly silent in regards to - the very real application of lethal and indiscriminate violence against civilians whose only offense is existing within the blast radius.

Well, that's not true, I guess. That's not their only offense. Their far more egregious wrong, and the reason why you are silently supportive of their killing and maiming, is that they are Arabs.

[Mosby]

4. Palestinian violence is hardly theoretical

[Scootaloo]

6. In this particular instance, it certainly is

but way to evade the point, Mosby.

[oberliner]

8. No, it certainly is not

Palestinian violence against civilian settlers is very real.

As is Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians.

Both ought to be condemned - neither encouraged.

[DanTex]

12. It's important to recognize that building settlements in the first place is illegal.

[oberliner]

24. Does that mean it's ok to advocate violence against said settlers?

I don't think it is.

[DanTex]

40. I would say no.

I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning and plausible arguments. What if the civilians are armed? Does that change things? I believe that international law requires that combatants be unarmed, although I'm not sure. After all, the settlers are voluntarily participating in a war crime. Could it be argued that they are "human shields" in some sense, in that they they have been moved into illegally stolen land which effectively renders that land more difficult to recapture.

[oberliner]

43. Where does the "illegally stolen land" begin and end for you?

Do you view only the settlements in the West Bank in that way or do you view all of Israel in that way?

If it's only the former, what is the source of that distinction?

[DanTex]

44. For the purpose of this discussion, I mean the settlements.

Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:18 AM - Edit history (2)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't feel it's necessary to re-litigate the legitimacy of the original Zionist movement and the 1947 UN resolution, etc. in order to establish the illegality of the settlements.

[Scootaloo]

14. But you, and the rest of the Ethnic Cleansing Squad, can only condemn one

while absolutely encouraging the other. Why is that?

[oberliner]

25. The Ethnic Cleansing Squad?

What the heck are you talking about?

[Scootaloo]

35. Th collective of posters here for whom Arab life is always forfeit

You, Mosby, Shira, Shaktimaan, a few others who happen to not be posting in this thread. Who can never, ever find any way or withal to condemn the slaying of civilians if they are Arabs, or even cheer it on. But who, as you do, clutch tightly at those pearls at an article talking about hypothetical violence against Jews.

Clearly only violence against one ethnic group earns your condemnation and concern. The rest? Passes below your radar, unless you feel the need to defend it.

[King_David]

41. What insulting rubbish,

You come back from a timeout and continue with personal attacks against fellow DUrs and even call out names.

What a disgusting post.

[Scootaloo]

46. Let's see you condemn the killing of civilians, David

You couldn't even criticize the incineration of a 12 year old child until a week and a half later and someone pointed out that you had refused to do so.

[King_David]

49. I'm not sure what your talking about

But just because you fancy yourself as a morality police or barometer doesn't make you one , especially with your history of posting , your "views" are clear and most time more right wing than left on a Democratic Party supporting website .

I'm not sure who you think you are or of your views but they aren't .Far from.

[Shaktimaan]

45. Try and grasp this concept.

While I realize it might be easier or more comforting for you to believe that everyone who disagrees with your understanding of this conflict is simply a racist; I have disconcerting news for you. That's not it.

I feel uniquely informed on this subject, since we are discussing my own views. I'm certainly a lot more informed than you are wrt this topic, at any rate. (You don't know anything about my beliefs.) There's not much you can offer as an argument here. I actually know what I believe, whereas you absolutely do not.

Which means you have a choice to make here. Since your original premise (I'm a racist), has been refuted, it stands to reason that some other reason must exist to account for why I disagree with you. Now, you can either make an attempt to understand this reason, (though it would require a lot of work that I doubt you're prepared to do.) or you can fall back into your comfort zone of tossing out insults (which you now know to be meaningless and untrue.)

It's the mark of a small mind that seeks to ridicule all dissenting views by way of ad hominem, (your sole tactic thus far.) It would be interesting to see if you're able to view things from any perspective but your own. I doubt we'll even get to see you try, but I'm not really the type to cast aspersions against folks I don't even know. Who know... Maybe you'll surprise everyone.

[Scootaloo]

47. I don't know anything about your beliefs?

Really?

'Cause you've expressed them exactly 5,159 times where I can go back and look at them. And you sort of have a bad track record about lying your ass off anyway. Remember, ethnic cleansing is equal to affirmative action, because affirmative action disadvantages whites the same way the nakba disadvantaged Arabs?

Oh yeah. Nothing racist about that at all.

No, you're not simply a racist, Shaktimaan. I could name off a few posters here who are simply racists. No, you're something... else. I'm not even sure there's a word for what you are, at least in English.

Look up "ad hominem." It has an actual meaning.

[Shaktimaan]

51. That's right. You don't.

'Cause you've expressed them exactly 5,159 times where I can go back and look at them.

That's true. But the views I've expressed and your "creative" interpretation of them usually have little to nothing in common.

And you sort of have a bad track record about lying your ass off anyway.

Interesting criticism coming from someone who uses misrepresentation as his primary tactic.

Remember, ethnic cleansing is equal to affirmative action, because affirmative action disadvantages whites the same way the nakba disadvantaged Arabs?

I remember you accusing me of saying something like that. Well, the first part at least. That second part is a new twist.

Of course, I understand your need to replace my actual statements with your own, imaginary ones. It's probably much easier to argue a point when you're writing both sides. No one else here spends more time telling other posters what they think, as opposed to describing their own views.

Oh yeah. Nothing racist about that at all.

Well, of course there wasn't anything racist about my actual, original comment. Which is why you needed to make up a fake one here. Accurately quoting me wouldn't offer much support for your description of me as some kind of super-racist, would it?

Btw, an ad hominem is a logical fallacy which avoids discussing an argument on its merits in favor of disparaging its author. Aka: the post of yours I responded to.

[shira]

11. Gotta call bullshit here. Where were YOU guys when Israel agreed to at least.....

.....6-7 ceasefires in Gaza this summer? I don't believe there were ANY hostile critics of Israel calling for Hamas to accept ANY of those ceasefires. In fact, YOU guys were cheering on Hamas to keep the "resistance" going in order to force Israel into certain concessions. From what I could tell, EVERY Zionist here supported each and every ceasefire. You guys wanted more war and bloodshed.

How am I wrong?

And as it turned out, Hamas finally agreed to a ceasefire they could've had BEFORE 2000 Palestinians were killed.

How'd that support for more Hamas resistance work out for Team Palestine?

[Scootaloo]

13. I rest my case n/t

[Jefferson23]

15. Exactly.The bullshit lies in this thread amount to trolling, I suspect there will be much more

to come along these lines before the human rights groups are done with their reports.

In the mean time, more words will be conveniently overlooked from the OP's text.

[shira]

18. Remember that time when Team Palestine here called for Hamas....

.....to stop firing rockets and accept any one of many ceasefire proposals they rejected during the war?

No?

Me neither.

[Jefferson23]

23. My post was not in reference to only your post in this thread. The OP is not about

cease fires. If I need accurate information, I don't rely on you, Bibi nor the IDF.

There have been enough credible news agency reports for information.

[shira]

16. I rest mine. You're the pot calling the kettle.... n/t

[Scootaloo]

17. Tell me Shira. Does Hamas control Israel?

[shira]

19. Israel agreed to at least 6 ceasefires while Hamas rejected all of them.

Never once did your Team Palestine ever voice your condemnation of Hamas choosing to continue with the war. The team cheered on the fascists from Gaza, hoping that those rockets would convince Israel to capitulate to Hamas demands. Team Palestine felt >2000 lives were well worth Israel caving into Hamas demands. How'd that work out for Team Palestine?

[Scootaloo]

20. Does Hamas control Israel, Shira?

[shira]

22. In a way. Had they stopped, there wouldn't have been > 2000 deaths. n/t

[Scootaloo]

34. Thanks for the candid answer. n/t

[oberliner]

27. Disgusting and ignorant post

Everything you've written here is false.

[King_David]

42. Yes it really is a disgusting post. nt

[Scootaloo]

48. On opposites day, perhaps

[oberliner]

55. Don't know what that is

Honestly, not quite sure where you are coming from sometimes.

[DanTex]

9. Wouldn't armed resistance against armed civilian settlers be "self-defense"?

What do you think people should do when other people with guns show up on their land and steal it?

[oberliner]

26. No it wouldn't

The scenario you described is not actually happening.

Settlers have been attacked driving in their cars (sometimes with small children in tow) or out on a hike.

[hack89]

21. Armed resistance is not an internationally guaranteed right

At least not by the Geneva conventions.

[shira]

50. What do u expect from Team Palestine other than support for terror attacks....

....against civilians who are no threat to those "resisting"?