Most Israelis see Palestinians as inherently, fundamentally, uncontingently hostile, wishing only to “throw us into the sea.’’ Similarly, Palestinians see Israel as unshakably determined to expel them from their land.
Based on this, they further claim:-
We found that the violence on each side is not arbitrary. Instead, a few days after Palestinians kill Israelis, Israel retaliates by killing Palestinians, and in the few days after Israel kills Palestinians, the number of rockets fired into Israel increases. Thus, both Palestinians and Israelis are more likely to attack after they themselves have been attacked.
From that, they continue:
These findings refute the common view that because the conflict results from the immutably hostile character of the foe, there is nothing either side can do to stop it. Our data suggest that the conflict is not the inevitable result of the fundamentally violent character of either Israelis or Palestinians. Instead, the violence of each side is at least in part contingent on the behavior of the other side.
And then it is another step for them to conclude:
Even Israelis who lament the occupation of Palestinian lands often argue that it is necessary for Israeli security, a view that is reinforced by the Israeli perception of Palestinian violence as inevitable. But our finding that Palestinian violence arises in response to Israel’s behavior suggests instead that ending the occupation of Palestinian land is not a painful concession that Israel should make in exchange for something else, but a step that is in Israel’s own narrow self interest.
The authors are Nancy Kanwisher, professor of neuroscience at MIT and Anat Biletzki, professor of philosophy at Tel Aviv University and Quinnipiac University. Biletzki is a far-out leftist post-Zionist activist. She supported Azmi Bishara, suspected spy and Arab nationalist. Israel Academic Monitor provides a lot of background (start here).
Nancy pinch-hits for Hamas.
But who needs that?
Simple knowledge of Jewish history will inform you that even Jabotinsky backed off from transfer, at least until 1939,
I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true. Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations – polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme , the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.
but it didn't help: the Arabs defined their anti-Zionist struggle as inherently violent.
Let's not forget the PLO Covenant:
Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.
Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.
in addition to all we know of pre-state terror as well as the Jewish method - buying land.
Again, academic mobilized ideological anti-Israel political garbage masquerading as science.
- - -
Check here
and here
and here.
- - -
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment