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
Well, let me write down in details which were the “very generous” offers Israel gave to Palestinians at Camp David...
Territory:
Palestinians could indeed get back 97% of West Bank, but only if Israel get areas which will lead to a division of the West Bank into three parts.
Palestinian could not have sovereignty on East Jerusalem, so it could not be their capital as you mentioned. Palestinian would only get pockets of East Jerusalem which would be surrounded entirely by the areas Israel will have gotten (in case of agreement) in the West Bank.
Water:
Israel wanted water resources in the West Bank (which normally should become Palestinians if Palestinian get these lands) to remain under the control of Israel. That means they could decide to do whatever they want with it... share it or not. A clear power control.
Palestinian refugees:
This discussion about Palestinians refugees and their right to return is a more difficult one and I think both parties could have find a common agreement if the other offers were not unreasonable. The problem being that most refugees want to get their properties back in Israel (the one they lost during the first Arab-Israel war). Frankly, although understandable, that seems quite an impossible thing to do and Israel government logically refused because of fear of demographic unbalanced with its actual Israeli citizens. Israel offered that a maximum of 100,000 refugees could be allowed to return to Israel (because of humanitarian or family reunion reasons). The 30 billion dollar reconstruction fund, an international fund with some participation form Israel, will have been mostly dedicated to compensate the properties lost by Palestinian refugees. Palestinians unfortunately refused, but I think they could have had a serious and reasonable discussion from both sides.
Security:
The most obnoxious demand from Israel was the one about security. Palestinian air space will have to be controlled by Israel. The border between West Bank and Jordan would also be under Israeli control. Israel wanted radars inside Palestinian territory. Israel also wanted the send troops in Palestinian territory in the event of an emergency (imagine if any country asked one of her neighbor to have that right…). Israel will also be in charge of supervising Palestinian control of border crossings. Israel will be permanently present on part of the Palestinian-Jordanian border. Israel also demanded that the Palestinian territory to be demilitarized (but not its paramilitary security forces). Palestinian could not make alliances without Israeli approval. Finally, and only this one makes sense, Palestinian should dismantle terrorist groups. To resume, Israel wanted to have full control about security over Palestinians.
So, which are the very generous offers again? That’s why I wrote earlier that until people do not open their eyes on the reality of the situation, solutions will never been found and peace will never been reached.
1360 xp
344 posts
97% of West Bank, a chunk of pre1967 Israel, 30 billion dollar reconstruction fund, connection to gaza, capital in east Jerusalem etc. Arafat presented no options, wouldn't close the door on future demands and launched two intifadas to extract more concessions.. All of this is on the records of the key negotiators which the Israelis and Americans publicly disclosed (not so the plo delegation). On the Lebanon / Gaza withdrawal the fact remains that Israel took a step towards peace through unilateral concessions. In the meantime Syrians continue to occupy half of Lebanon through its proxy Hezbollah.
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.
