Source: Composite image by G_marius.
We debate if the high-profile Jerusalem synagogue massacre by PFLP militants may be a sign of the re-emergence of leftist armed organizations worldwide.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist group, has claimed responsibility for the Synagogue attack in Jerusalem on 18 November 2014. The group was established as a response to Israel’s 1967 occupation of West Bank by Israel and is described as a terrorist organization by the US, Canada and the European Union. During the 1970s, PFLP was associated with many international Marxist militant groups such as the Japanese Red Army, and Germany’s Baader Meinhof organization. These left-wing armed groups were very active in the 1970s and 1980s but faded away with the decline of the PFLP and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to be feed by confrontational discourses. Do you think this attack on the Jewish community can be considered part of a new trend in revolutionary movements, or is it another example of attack motivated by ethnic or religious hatred?
If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.
New to netivist?
Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
You are viewing a filtered list of comments. Click the button above to view all comments.
1651 xp
475 posts
I don't think facts are in agreement with your statement that Palestinian leaders walked away from extremely generous offers. Nobody with a minimum of common sense will have accepted them. Otherwise, Israel had no legitimacy to stay in South Lebanon in the first place. For the withdrew of Gaza, it is still a controversial decision. Finally, what is the "cost of peace" to you?
1360 xp
344 posts
1360 xp
344 posts
I am not implying you were providing an apologist argument but rather than these are commonly used to excuse hamas, hizbullah et al from the same standards we hold israel accountable to. On the point about willigness to negotiate, twice in the last two decades have the palestinian leadership walked away from extremely generous offers, essentially because they couldn't - wouldn't agree to any concessions or the right to coexist. Israel unilaterally withdrew from South Lebanon and the gaza strip. I don't for a second believe that most palestinians don't yearn for a peaceful , more prosperous future. However, I don't think that their leadership (or their backers in other countries) share this aspiration or are willing to pay the "cost of peace".
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
