-
His claim is that these are such outrageous positions that we should consider all the content of the website to be dubious. My point is that actually they’re pretty standard points of view, and that if you had enough passing familiarity with Israel / Palestine you would recognise them as pretty standard points of view even if you disagreed with them.
But apparently “enough passing familiarity with Israel / Palestine” is too much to expect in the Israel / Palestine thread.
At the same time, however, PA-Israel security coordination remains hugely unpopular among ordinary Palestinians of all political stripes, who see it as a form of collaboration with the occupation and, for some, outright “treason,”
The above quote from the raging communists at foreignpolicy.com: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/06/palestinian-authority-israel-west-bank-security-cooperation-suspended-mahmoud-abbas/
There’s plenty more on this available if you actually bother to seek out Palestinian voices for a change.
The last opinion polling on the Oslo Accords that I saw had opposition to the accords outweighing support by a margin of roughly 5%. Admittedly those were from 2013, so maybe the Palestinian people have really warmed to the Accords over the last decade but given everything that has happened I sort of doubt it tbh, especially as the trend for support up to 2013 was on a downward trajectory.
These aren’t controversial viewpoints and making out that they are “iffy” is pretty funny.
You are reading a single comment by @Eejit and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Eejit
That's not the only point made though is it? It also says most in Palestine disagree with the Oslo accords, and regard the PLO "as subcontractors for Israel". These seem like much more contentious claims to me, and I don't think it's ridiculous to ask if they are backed up at all. But rather than engaging with it you're suggesting that asking the question should make someone "embarrassed by their ignorance". And yet you're the one you used the phrases "corrupt and ineffectual" - which isn't what the section said in the first place.