The concept of occupation and resistance

[TakeMe2Insanity]

In context of ww2, France felt they were under occupation and had a resistance.

Most Palestinians refer to Israel as the Occupation, so should they have a right to resist if they feel they are occupied? They have no army so any “war” with Israel is one sided.

The context is determined by the victors and subsequent history. France is seen as having a resistance because WWII was eventually won by the allies. Had the allies lost, the French resistance would have been called an enemy funded terrorist cell.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Also see the ANC and the Sandinistas. And the Viet Cong for that matter.

What happened on the 7th October though was dreadful. Targeting women, children and non-combatants should be something a freedom fighter doesn't do.

It’s interesting as I was watching “the ask project” on YouTube (public asks questions of either Palestinians or Israelis) and quite a few people were saying they’d been in scenarios where something was about to happen and people (women with kids etc) had been asked to go the other way etc.

They have the right to resist but not the right to target or kill civilians. Israel is also required not to suppress the resistance.

https://law4palestine.org/do-palestinians-have-the-right-to-resist-and-what-are-the-limits-short-article/

I think there is a clear moral distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters/resistance groups: terrorists kill innocent people indiscriminately; a resistance movement will target key military personnel or infrastructure. The French resistance did not pop over to Germany and murder children.

I'm not sure there's the clear blue water between them you'd like. The resistance targeted 'collaborators' including women suspected of sleeping with Germans. The ANC did some truly dreadful things. The distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists is typically about whose side you're on rather than their behaviour.

It is a good idea for resistance and freedom campaigns to have good PR. It's a known phenomenon that democracies require less good PR because they can argue mandate, whereas both dictators and resistance movements have to be more populist.

Killing women and children and non-combatants should be unacceptable for everyone. However, in mass violence all over the world it appears to be impossible for violent men not to treat women and children as objects.

The land was originally settled by Jews who were then conquered variously by the Romans, Byzantines, Mamluks and Ottomans.

who exactly are the native people and the occupiers?

Israel are illegal occupiers of Gaza and the West Bank. It doesn't matter that Jews originally settled there 1000s of years ago.

Add the IRA and it's closer to home. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Oddly ANYONE who attacks England is a terrorist.... be they Irish or ISIS or anyone else. Not aligning myself with anyone... but it's odd how many double standards we have. Hamas are not such a big deal...but one early 20's girl from London is a threat to the entire UK.

Yeah resistance is raping and murdering civillian women and babies. Go fuck yourselves anyone who thinks Israel should accept terrorism.

Acheulean people, or Homo-Erectus were there 1-2 million years ago.

The whole 'who was there first' argument is nonsense. Otherwise most of the population of the UK would have to be cut into parts and redistributed all over the world.

Why would you think that? Nobody on this thread has said that. Your post is unnecessarily aggressive.

You can see it like that. Or someone supporting Palestine can tell everyone to go fuck themselves because Israel is illegally detaining, and torturing children and bombing babies.

But everyone telling everyone to go fuck themselves won't actually bring about peace. Being able to talk about antecedents, reasons not excuses, and aiming for truth and reconciliation has the only chance.

Why jump in like this? Everyone is talking in a mature calm manner, Feel free to come back with a calm rational conversation.

The French resisistance behaved like norma citizens whose territory had just been invaded by a dictator. Hamas behaves like murdering terrorists, slitting the throats of babies etc. The France that was invaded had been an established democratic state. Gaza is nothing like that.

I’ll be sure and pass that message on to Canada’s First Nations people, native Americans, Aborigines etc.

Nelson Mandela thought Palestine was apartheid so maybe the ANC is a better analogy.

I’ll be sure and pass that message on to Canada’s First Nations people, native Americans, Aborigines etc.

I know we typically manage to talk to each other without PA digs @HermioneWeasley and I respect you so let's not start now.

Neither the Israelis nor Palestinians were the first peoples in that area. But they both have cultural and religious claims. Arguing about that doesn't solve anything because they both live there now. And both need to continue to live there, barring either of them being successful in wiping the other off the face of the earth. I'm assuming no one sane actually wants that. So arguing who was where first is irreverent.

Despite the original Nakaba taking place in 1948, I find it interesting people are willing to go back to 1967 boarders and that in their context seems to be a massive compromise.

Sorry but the French felt they were under occupation? Felt? We were occupied!!!! Both my parents grew upon under the occupation, one of my grandfather was arrested in the middle of the night and interned ( this happened in front of my mother and her siblings), my great uncle was sent to a labour camp and my father remembers Nazis coming to his farm and having to hide out of fear.

The French resistance had no PR as you put it. Attracting attention to them would have been disastrous. As a matter of fact, the general population didn't like the resistance movement because with it came danger. If a German soldier was killed by a reseau, the reprisals on the civilians were horrific.
During the liberation of France, collaborators were targeted by the resistants and civilians alike. Women who had fraternised with the enemy had their hair shaved in public. My grandmother spoke of it.

It’s not helpful to say one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. The moral distinction is clear. Yes there are times when terrorists become rehabilitated for pragmatic reasons, but we don’t have to call them freedom fighters. I think the ANC and IRA did appalling things and were certainly terrorists, but the barbarism and scale of the Oct 7th attacks was something else. Rape of women and murder of children - are there terrorists who did this who have been rehabilitated into mainstream politics?

It’s not helpful to say one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. The moral distinction is clear.

The moral distinction is only clear because a perspective has already been decided. For those that the writers of history (largely the "victors" in any conflict) have decided to call freedom fighters, their darker deeds are hidden or washed away whilst their more noble endeavours are pushed into centre stage. If it's decided that they must be seen as terrorists then the narrative around them is written as such and their more horrible actions given prominence

History is not objective truth. It never has been. It's a particular perspective on the truth chosen by those with the power to choose.

I’ve used the word felt deliberately, because if I wrote the French were occupied and the Palestinians are occupied it wouldn’t be open to discussion. A lot of people would immediately jump on a say the Palestinians aren’t under occupation. Anyway it isn’t about the French, it’s about the Palestinians.

So, if we go according to your post then the Israelis are murdering children, therefore they are terrorists. Not defending, but causing terror.
However, they claim they are defending by saying Hamas are hiding in every single school, hospital, refugee camp and home.