Here we go again...

[Woolen Horde]

So Hamas blows up a bus in Jerusalem and kills over 20 people, including a ton of kids, and openly claims responsibility for it.

When Israel takes out a Hamas leader in retaliation, Hamas declares that the cease fire is now broken.

Does anyone else see any logical problems with Hamas' argument?

[Brad Grenz]

Since when does logic have anything to do with it? The ceasfefire was a joke because the terrorists still carried out attacks and the Israelis were obliged to respond which lead to even greater attacks from the terrorists. Pretty meaningless for a ceasefire. The biggest joke was pretending the ceasefire was still on for the last few weeks, both sides seemed to think retaliations were exempt.

[marxeil]

Just before Israel declared independence, the National military organization (Etzel) which was the second largest jewish resistance group then, sent a munition ship from Europe to Israel. This was during a short cease fire period. The sending of this ship was opposed to an aggreament which was signed by the Etzel and newly founded IDF (Israeli Defence Forces). According to the aggreament, Etzel members would enlist to the IDF, and Etzel will cease all military action.
There is a lot more to this story, but the bottom line is, when the ship arrived at Israel, there was a gun fight, some of the weapons were unloaded and taken by the IDF and the ship escaped with the rest headed to Tel Aviv.

At Tel Aviv four cannons were waiting and the ship was sunk, the remaning weapons lost, and the crew arrested.

Since then, there is only one military force in Israel.

I guess you can all make your own comparison to the situation now.

[marxeil]

Edited double post.

[Linoleum]

I guess you can all make your own comparison to the situation now.

No, I'm afraid I can't. I have no idea how the Altalena affair (http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac20.htm) as an element of the chronology of the formation of the state of Israel (http://www.bgu.ac.il/moreshet/tikshuv/crucial/chron.htm) figures into current headline news in Jerusalem. If you were trying to argue that the Irgun, Etzel et al factions were terrorist organizations along the lines of the PLO and Hamas in contrast to the IDF then I could see a point. Your post seems to communicate the opposite feelings, however, which leaves me to scratch my head and wonder where on earth you are coming from.

[voltaic]

So Hamas blows up a bus in Jerusalem and kills over 20 people, including a ton of kids, and openly claims responsibility for it.

When Israel takes out a Hamas leader in retaliation, Hamas declares that the cease fire is now broken.

Does anyone else see any logical problems with Hamas' argument?
But... but... but it's all Israel's fault! They are to blame for all deaths in the region! Especially the children! :roll:

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

So Hamas blows up a bus in Jerusalem and kills over 20 people, including a ton of kids, and openly claims responsibility for it.

When Israel takes out a Hamas leader in retaliation, Hamas declares that the cease fire is now broken.

Does anyone else see any logical problems with Hamas' argument?

Well, not any logical problems; the cease-fire is quite clearly broken. Other problems with the sequence are pretty obvious, though.


...
I guess you can all make your own comparison to the situation now.
Comparisons are easy. However, if you are suggesting that the PA should control the Palestinian extremists, you're overestimating the PA, and dramatically underestimating the extremists.

[Dirt]

Nuke 'em all.

Worked in Japan.

[Gav]

So Hamas blows up a bus in Jerusalem and kills over 20 people, including a ton of kids, and openly claims responsibility for it.

When Israel takes out a Hamas leader in retaliation, Hamas declares that the cease fire is now broken.

Does anyone else see any logical problems with Hamas' argument?

Well, not any logical problems; the cease-fire is quite clearly broken. Other problems with the sequence are pretty obvious, though.

Do people just not get this? Hamas blows up a bus, but the cease-fire's not broken yet. ISrael, however, breaks the cease-fire by retaliating(!).

I'd have thought nobody could miss this irony, but the "Boston Globe" reported it straight, too. Then I thought I must be missing something in reading it, and the next day the BBC anchor talks about how Israel broke the cease fire by responding to the blowing up of the bus.

Even if you think that Israel shouldn't have killed the Hamas guy, I don't understand how you can argue that the cease-fire was broken when Israel killed him. (And if you want to argue that the bus being blown up was in reponse for an earlier Israeli killing of two Hamas guys, then you've still got a problem arguing that the cease-fire was only broken AFTER the bus bombing).



...
I guess you can all make your own comparison to the situation now.
Comparisons are easy. However, if you are suggesting that the PA should control the Palestinian extremists, you're overestimating the PA, and dramatically underestimating the extremists.
If you think the PA cannot control Hamas et al, why should Israel negotiate with them at all? Or maybe you think Israel shouldn't, I dunno. There's plenty of folks in Israel who'd agree with you, but I didn't peg you for such a right-winger.

It's pretty clear that the PA does need to have some sort of Alta Lena-type showdown at some point, if they want to be a legitimate government. I can't think of a stable state where the government isn't in control of the military. Btw, IIRC, nobody thought Ben Gurion had the power to destroy the Irgun, either.

Gav

[marxeil]

Do you think that the hebrew leadership before the forming of the Israeli state state had more athourity then the PA? Why?
The only difference is that Ben Gurion (Our Arafat / Abu Mazzen if you please) knew that in order to form a state, the jewish population must have one leadership and one army. People who can't speak in one voice, despite inner disagrements will accomplish nothing. If you can't keep any agreemnet, because anybody can blow it up, then how will anybody make any agreement with you?

Does the PA have the power to do same as Ben Gurion did? Maybe they do, and maybe they don't. The point is that while Hamas, Gduday Al Aktza, and every other group can do as they please, there will be no solution.

I guess that at this point somebody want to say: "Ha, but what about the israeli settlers. They do as they please without any regard to the law and whatever". I'll tell you this. Basically, the settlers have allways operated with governmet approval. But if settelments are to be evaquated according to an agreement, they will be. The last time this happaned was after the peace ageement with Egypt. The whole of Hevel Yamit was evaquated by the army since the the people who lived did not agree to leave. It was quite violent, but the agreement was kept. Guess who was responsible for the evaquation. That's right - Ariel Sharon.

[Daniel Morris]

Idar Thorvaldsen's musings are fast reaching the point of reprehensibility.

But even wackier than Idar's "other problems with the sequence" is the following tidbit from the Palestinian Authority, via CNN:



Palestinians put crackdown on terror 'on hold'

Referring to those plans, according to an aide to Palestinian Authority security chief Mohammed Dahlan, the missile strike came shortly before Palestinian police intended to launch raids on Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Elias Zananiri, Dahlan's spokesman, said Palestinian security forces had been given new rules of engagement, which would have allowed them to arrest militants and confiscate weapons. He said the new measures would have stripped Hamas and Islamic Jihad of their military wings.


When did Joe Isuzu become head of Palestinian security forces?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

...Even if you think that Israel shouldn't have killed the Hamas guy, I don't understand how you can argue that the cease-fire was broken when Israel killed him...



Idar Thorvaldsen's musings are fast reaching the point of reprehensibility...


Well, this is what I get for not paying attention, and being unintentionally vague.

But, I mean, give me some credit here. I might be European and all (http://www.captaineuro.com/), but there's no good reason for just immediately assuming the worst, and calling me reprehensible and stuff. At least ask for a clarification first or something; looking back, I see that what I wrote makes no sense at all.

As in, why, no; I don't believe it's all Israel's fault, and yes, it is quite clear, even to me, that Hamas broke the cease-fire first.

Also, apologies for causing the misunderstanding.

[bmulligan]

the missile strike came shortly before Palestinian police intended to launch raids on Hamas and Islamic Jihad.



Yeah, sure. If you believe that then call me, I've got a little place in the Everglades for sale.

Strip them of their military wings........that's funny.

[TimElhajj]

Morris, weren't you the one who boldly proclaimed that Hamas was in their death throws? Not feeling so optomistic this week, are we?

[bmulligan]

Hamas is always close to extinction, their members are dying every day. If they don't blow themselves up, then Israel will get them. That is, unless the PA gets there first !

[Daniel Morris]

"Death throes" refer to the violent, spastic reactions of an organism as it expires. This is indeed what you are seeing from Hamas -- an effort to undue peace by any means.

Because peace, as you must know, Tim, is incompatible with the stated aims of Hamas. In fact, a lasting peace, almost by definition, brings about the end of Hamas as a political organization. They've no interest in peace. Indeed, they've a vested interest in endless strife and conflict.

There is a simple gravitational relationship between peace processes and Hamas attacks -- the history of this conflict (going back to Oslo and beyond) is a perfect correlation between breakthroughs in the peace process and renewed terrorist outrages by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The mass majority of Palestinians are ready for an end to the conflict, a compromise with Israel, and the fruits of a stable peace. Abu Mazen and the Road Map have brought visible, substantive progress in the Palestinian territories -- autonomy over key neighborhoods; the opening of major commuter thoroughfares into Israel -- most of which will now be yanked away due to Hamas' outburst.

The structure works like this:

A) Tangible, encouraging improvements result from Abu Mazen's work toward fulfilling the Road Map.

B) Tangible, painful setbacks result from Hamas mayhem.

You wargame the rest, Tim -- and tell me what you see.

[bmulligan]

The mass majority of Palestinians are ready for an end to the conflict, a compromise with Israel, and the fruits of a stable peace.

If this is true, then why does there seem to be an endless supply of Palestinian youth lining up to be martyrs?

[Mark Asher]

The mass majority of Palestinians are ready for an end to the conflict, a compromise with Israel, and the fruits of a stable peace.

If this is true, then why does there seem to be an endless supply of Palestinian youth lining up to be martyrs?

It doesn't take a majority of a population to foment terrorism.

Has a government ever successfully stamped out terrorism? It seems rather that terrorists lose interest or the cause they rally behind loses appeal and that's what results in fewer terrorist acts. The British had armored vehicles patrolling the streets in Northern Ireland and couldn't put an end to the IRA.

[Machfive]

The mass majority of Palestinians are ready for an end to the conflict, a compromise with Israel, and the fruits of a stable peace.

If this is true, then why does there seem to be an endless supply of Palestinian youth lining up to be martyrs?

Endless supply? You're talking about 2 or so suicide bombings a week with a population of tens of thousands. That's a negligible number.

Not only that, but their environment is the perfect breeding ground for the sentiments that lead one to being susceptible for brainwashing by a terrorist organization.

Frankly, I'm amazed they don't have enough "ammo" for a suicide bombing every day.

[Toddy]

There is a simple gravitational relationship between peace processes and Hamas attacks -- the history of this conflict (going back to Oslo and beyond) is a perfect correlation between breakthroughs in the peace process and renewed terrorist outrages by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

It's interesting how you conveniently leave out the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. He was killed by an ultra-orthodox Jew. Rabin lives and chances are none of this insanity would have even got going.

That killing really started the current round of violence, since it completely altered the makeup of the Israeli government. Within months, we went from moving forward with the peace plan to the Israelis stalling on almost every front to the take it or leave it ultimatum at Wye River to the start of the second intifada to suicide bombings and missile strikes. Oy vey.

And if you really want to buy into the tit for tat thing, let's take it back to the settlements. Oh, they were established because the Arabs were going to attack in 1967? Okay, let's take it back to 1956 and the Suez crisis when Israel invaded the Sinai. Oh, that was in retaliation for a potential shipping blockade on behalf of Egypt? Okay, let's take it back to the -- and so on.

For fuck's sake, does every argument have to revolve around who did what to whom first? The situation is what it is. Both sides have to accept responsibility for atrocities. The Israelis have to evacuate the West Bank and Gaza like they did the Sinai. The Palestinians have to become a democratic state. They also have to be given some room to go through growing pains, as awful as they might be, because right now the Palestinians don't have enough infrastructure left to take on the militants. Period.

All this childish crap about stuff like a "gravitational relationship" (what the hell does that even mean, Dan?) results in nothing but eye for an eye vengeance.

[Rywill]

I think the point many people are making, Brett, is that they agree with your sentiment--both sides need to take responsibility and stop the violence. But it often seems to be the Palestinian side (if you include organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad on their "side") that doesn't do this. For example, when a cease-fire is declared, that means both sides stop shooting, even if the other side shot you last and you'd really like to take a shot just to "even the score" or whatever. You're both agreeing to, in a sense, let bygones be bygones and try to work forward from where you are now. Blowing up a bus doesn't do that.

[Gav]

Even though I mostly agree with Brett's sentiments in his latest post, I just want to get nit-picky about some facts...


First, that should be orthodox, not ultra-orthodox, not that it really matters.

More importantly, though, if Rabin hadn't killed, he would've lost the next election. His popularity had been dropping like a stone, partly because of two buses being bombed, along with smaller stuff. (I was in Israel during that time, and I remember it pretty vividly).

When he died, though, there was a groundswell in favor of his policies, out of a feeling that we couldn't have this one loony dictating Israeli policy, and so Shimon Peres came into power with a good amount of support. Peres is more of a peacenik than Rabin was, and maybe that was his undoing, but there's no way to claim that there was a direct line from Rabin's death to abandoning Oslo, considering that Peres came in between.

[quote]
For fuck's sake, does every argument have to revolve around who did what to whom first? The situation is what it is. Both sides have to accept responsibility for atrocities. The Israelis have to evacuate the West Bank and Gaza like they did the Sinai. The Palestinians have to become a democratic state.

This is the part I agree with. (Did you know that Begin wanted to give Gaza back as part of the Camp David accord? Sadat wouldn't take it)



They also have to be given some room to go through growing pains, as awful as they might be, because right now the Palestinians don't have enough infrastructure left to take on the militants. Period.

This is a sticking point, though. Put yourself in the Prime Minister's shoes. How are you going to sell the Israeli people on the idea that they should put up with Hamas's attacks because they're just growing pains? Is that even a responsible thing for a Prime Minister to do?

If the PA can't take on the militants, why should Israel negotiate with them? If the Israel gives the Palestinians a state, and then some Palestinians blow up a bus, could Israel consider that an act of war? What if it were 6 buses? What if the PA can't arrest the attackers? At what point could an Israeli government respond to protect its citizens? And would the Palestinian state be entitled to consider such a response an act of war?

These are all really tough questions, even if you believe (as I do, btw) that Israel should pull out of Palestinian territory as soon as possible.

Gav

[Jason McCullough]

Does anyone think the Palestinian PM could really stop Hamas if he wanted?

[Rywill]

What, in your mind, follows from the conclusion that he can't?

[Jason McCullough]

That the entire thing is a sham? I mean, I can't really pick a side to sympathize with; both appear to be composed of morons, at this point. But at least the palestinians have a friggin' excuse; it's like bladerunner on their side of the fence. Getting all angry at the Palestinian PM - who probably honestly does want peace, just has no real way to bring it about without getting killed - is wierd.

My entirely-uninformed suggestion is that Isreal should just pretend they're dealing with an angry mob with no leadership, and let them sort it out. Dismantle the settlements, pull back across the west bank or whatever the hell it is, and then declare "hey, you've got a state, bye now."

Then, they have two choices as endpoints to move between:

1) Let all the people who want cross the border to work.
2) Don't let anyone cross the border to work.

Dunno. Can't get any fucking worse.....

[Brian Koontz]

Because peace, as you must know, Tim, is incompatible with the stated aims of Hamas. In fact, a lasting peace, almost by definition, brings about the end of Hamas as a political organization. They've no interest in peace. Indeed, they've a vested interest in endless strife and conflict.

The fatal flaw to that premise is that an organization does not exist to perpetuate its existence... that is only a means to an end. Hamas's end to their current identity is the destruction of Israel as a state. They'd have no problems with a "lasting peace" under those conditions.

[MikeJ]

The fatal flaw to that premise is that an organization does not exist to perpetuate its existence...

Well, that's usually true at the beginning...

[Gav]

Peace wouldn't mean the end of Hamas. Hamas has lots of activities outside of terrorism--they run hospitals and schools, for one thing.

This is critical to understanding their popularity among Palestinians--Hamas does more for them than their legitimate government does. AFAIK, most Palestinians don't agree with Hamas's ideology on a whole bunch of fronts (in particular, Hamas is a religiously fundamentalist organization, and most Palestinians are secular), but they like the good works that Hamas does.

Gav

[Jason McCullough]

Hmm, Hamas as the Palestinian version of the mob.

[Toddy]

I think the point many people are making, Brett, is that they agree with your sentiment--both sides need to take responsibility and stop the violence. But it often seems to be the Palestinian side (if you include organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad on their "side") that doesn't do this. For example, when a cease-fire is declared, that means both sides stop shooting, even if the other side shot you last and you'd really like to take a shot just to "even the score" or whatever. You're both agreeing to, in a sense, let bygones be bygones and try to work forward from where you are now. Blowing up a bus doesn't do that.

I don't want to get into the he-said, she-said crap, but the Israelis never actually agreed to a ceasefire. Hamas and friends agreed to it with Abu Mazen. And the Israelis continued to act against the Palestinians during the so-called ceasefire, with a couple of assassinations. Or not act, as the case may be. The radical groups did bring down the level of violence, but they didn't see Israel taking steps like dismantling settlements, releasing prisoners, and so on. Not that I'm saying this gave some lunatic just cause to blow up a bus, but the Palestinians aren't fully to blame. The Israelis haven't been following the road map either. The situation has gotten so insane, though, that a lot of people (note: on both sides) feel that they have to respond to even the smallest provocations with insane levels of violence.

[Toddy]

First, that should be orthodox, not ultra-orthodox, not that it really matters.

I had a feeling you'd correct me there. ;-) I was wondering about that when I posted, but didn't see any ready way online to check. Anyhow, I know you're not arguing the point, but does the distinction matter to anyone outside of Israel?


When he died, though, there was a groundswell in favor of his policies, out of a feeling that we couldn't have this one loony dictating Israeli policy, and so Shimon Peres came into power with a good amount of support. Peres is more of a peacenik than Rabin was, and maybe that was his undoing, but there's no way to claim that there was a direct line from Rabin's death to abandoning Oslo, considering that Peres came in between.

Direct line? Sure. No argument there. But it did start a domino effect, and no matter how uneasy Israeli society had become about Rabin's policies, there's no guarantee about how an election would have gone. You know how oddly the Israelis can vote. Most polls go against the traditional policies of Likud, yet Likud is running the show anyways. I think Rabin might have been victorious for the same sort of logic, operating in reverse. At any rate, we'll never know now. We can agree, I'm sure, that Rabin's death was a huge blow to the peace process.


This is the part I agree with. (Did you know that Begin wanted to give Gaza back as part of the Camp David accord? Sadat wouldn't take it)

Yeah, I did. Nobody's wanted to deal with the Palestinians on the Arab side of the fence for decades. What happened in Jordan set a pretty strong example. Sadat made a good call there. If he'd accepted some sort of control over Gaza, he or Mubarak probably would have wound up with a situation like what happened in Lebanon, since the PLO would have set up in Gaza City instead of Beirut.


This is a sticking point, though. Put yourself in the Prime Minister's shoes. How are you going to sell the Israeli people on the idea that they should put up with Hamas's attacks because they're just growing pains? Is that even a responsible thing for a Prime Minister to do?

Perhaps because the Israelis are partly responsible for the attacks? This is part of Israel accepting responsibility for the situation on the ground, and not just claiming victimhood all the time. I know what Hamas and these other loony groups are doing is murderous and insane, but the guys with the tanks, nukes, and kick-ass air force can't claim to be the wounded party all the time. Especially when the death count since the start of the second intifada is running two-to-one, Palestinians over Israelis.


If the PA can't take on the militants, why should Israel negotiate with them? If the Israel gives the Palestinians a state, and then some Palestinians blow up a bus, could Israel consider that an act of war? What if it were 6 buses? What if the PA can't arrest the attackers? At what point could an Israeli government respond to protect its citizens? And would the Palestinian state be entitled to consider such a response an act of war?

Again, same deal. It's part of accepting responsibility for actions in the past and working towards a better future. Particularly in this situation, since Sharon chose to completely dismantle the PA when the violence really ramped up. That didn't solve anything, and it's left the PA unable to do what Israel is demanding in regard to militants. It's pretty ridiculous that the Israelis are constantly complaining about the Palestinians not acting against militants in areas under Israeli occupation, where the PA police departments were blown up by the IDF.

I'm not saying it's going to be easy, nor am I saying that I'd be feeling the same way if I were riding buses in Haifa on a daily basis, or had relatives who were there. But from a strictly logical perspective, this has to happen if there's ever going to be any peace. This is another reason why a settlement has to be enforced from the outside. People there have no perspective. It's all eye for an eye.

[Gav]

First, that should be orthodox, not ultra-orthodox, not that it really matters.

I had a feeling you'd correct me there. ;-) I was wondering about that when I posted, but didn't see any ready way online to check. Anyhow, I know you're not arguing the point, but does the distinction matter to anyone outside of Israel?

Well, it matters to me, and I don't live in Israel, now :-). The distinction between Orthodox and Ultra is, of course, important to many Jews. It also occasionally affects the peace process in odd ways, b/c some groups of ultra-O are more likely to support peace settlements than the plain O.

Other than that, though, it probably doesn't matter to anyone but a cultural anthropologist.



Direct line? Sure. No argument there. But it did start a domino effect, and no matter how uneasy Israeli society had become about Rabin's policies, there's no guarantee about how an election would have gone.

Well, Peres tried to continue Rabin's policies, and he lost the election, so it's possible to guess that that might have happened. OTOH, Peres has never connected with the electorate the way that Rabin has, so maybe Rabin could've pulled it off, but it just seems unlikely to me.


You know how oddly the Israelis can vote. Most polls go against the traditional policies of Likud, yet Likud is running the show anyways.

Actually, the elections are usually called pretty closely ahead of time, with only a couple of exceptions that I can remember. The reason Likud is running the show is that there's no credible alternative.


I think Rabin might have been victorious for the same sort of logic, operating in reverse. At any rate, we'll never know now. We can agree, I'm sure, that Rabin's death was a huge blow to the peace process.

I believed at the time that it was. However, Barak offered the Palestinians more than Rabin ever would have (I'm not getting into the debate over whether Barak's deal was a good deal, here, just comparing him to Rabin), and there was no deal. So I'm not sure Rabin could've had better luck.


Perhaps because the Israelis are partly responsible for the attacks? This is part of Israel accepting responsibility for the situation on the ground, and not just claiming victimhood all the time. I know what Hamas and these other loony groups are doing is murderous and insane, but the guys with the tanks, nukes, and kick-ass air force can't claim to be the wounded party all the time. Especially when the death count since the start of the second intifada is running two-to-one, Palestinians over Israelis.

Let's accept for the moment that this is true, that Israel should accept responsibilty, etc. The PM still has to somehow sell people on the idea, or it'll never go anywhere. Rabin actually tried the "it's just growing pains" tack, and it never really resonated. (Now, granted, he was dealing with Arafat, and claiming Arafat was doing his best has always been a tricky proposition--maybe it'd work better with Abu Mazen in charge)




If the PA can't take on the militants, why should Israel negotiate with them? If the Israel gives the Palestinians a state, and then some Palestinians blow up a bus, could Israel consider that an act of war? What if it were 6 buses? What if the PA can't arrest the attackers? At what point could an Israeli government respond to protect its citizens? And would the Palestinian state be entitled to consider such a response an act of war?

Again, same deal. It's part of accepting responsibility for actions in the past and working towards a better future. Particularly in this situation, since Sharon chose to completely dismantle the PA when the violence really ramped up. That didn't solve anything, and it's left the PA unable to do what Israel is demanding in regard to militants. It's pretty ridiculous that the Israelis are constantly complaining about the Palestinians not acting against militants in areas under Israeli occupation, where the PA police departments were blown up by the IDF.

But that doesn't answer the question. No Israeli government is going to adopt a pacifist position if they see that terrorists are operating with impunity in Gaza. Maybe they should, maybe it's their fault the situation is the way it is, but they still won't. So you've got to offer a more credible solution than "just live with it."

Gav

[Daniel Morris]

I believed at the time that it was. However, Barak offered the Palestinians more than Rabin ever would have (I'm not getting into the debate over whether Barak's deal was a good deal, here, just comparing him to Rabin), and there was no deal.

Very true. Barak's offer included concessions inconceivable to Rabin.


Actually, the elections are usually called pretty closely ahead of time, with only a couple of exceptions that I can remember. The reason Likud is running the show is that there's no credible alternative.

Sound familiar?


No Israeli government is going to adopt a pacifist position if they see that terrorists are operating with impunity

Even Shimon Peres, a dove among doves, finally acknowledged that Israel had "no partner for peace." Abu Mazen is now that partner -- but until Hamas is reined in by the PA, there will be no peace to discuss.

[Toddy]

Actually, the elections are usually called pretty closely ahead of time, with only a couple of exceptions that I can remember. The reason Likud is running the show is that there's no credible alternative.

Er, I wasn't referring to polling numbers, but opinions. As in "65% of Israelis favor abandoning the West Bank settlements," yet they're still going to vote for Likud, which has traditionally supported the settlements. Sorry, I wasn't clearer there. That's what I meant by that reverse logic reference. Polls always pretty much nail the election winners.


I believed at the time that it was. However, Barak offered the Palestinians more than Rabin ever would have (I'm not getting into the debate over whether Barak's deal was a good deal, here, just comparing him to Rabin), and there was no deal. So I'm not sure Rabin could've had better luck.

I don't buy that. And besides, by the time Barak and Arafat were meeting with Clinton, the situation had already gotten very, very tense. Settlement construction under Barak was way up, the PA was constantly complaining that the Israelis had stopped moving forward with the timetable of the Oslo agreements (which is pretty hard to refute -- they were standing still), and so on. With Rabin, progress would likely have continued through this period. Or so I think, anyways. There's no way to ever know.


But that doesn't answer the question. No Israeli government is going to adopt a pacifist position if they see that terrorists are operating with impunity in Gaza. Maybe they should, maybe it's their fault the situation is the way it is, but they still won't. So you've got to offer a more credible solution than "just live with it."

Well, what's the alternative? Terrorizing the people in Gaza with nightly missile attacks that kill both militants and civilians? Doing that might stop an imminent suicide attack, but it ensure that dozens if not hundreds of Palestinians will be volunteering to launch attacks down the road. If Israel wants to eventually see peace, it better be willing to stomach some atrocities now.

If you've got a more credible longterm solution to the problem, I'd love to hear it. And I don't think the Israeli people are in full favor of what's going on, since most opinion polls I've seen indicate a majority in favor of getting rid of the settlements altogether. I don't think it'd be a hard sell to the people of Israel, since they're living with regular attacks even with Sharon's idiotic hardline stance. His government's going to go down in Israeli history as one of the country's worst. Look at the death toll of the past few years. Look at the shattered economy. His policies obviously aren't working, so maybe it's time to put the missiles away for a little while.

[Daniel Morris]

If Israel wants to eventually see peace, it better be willing to stomach some atrocities now.

Easy to suggest from the greater Toronto area.


If you've got a more credible longterm solution to the problem, I'd love to hear it.

At the risk of proposing the glaringly obvious, how about the Road Map? Its only glaring weakness seems to be that Hamas is intent on sabotaging it via nightmare violence. A crackdown on the terror network would buy Palestine its peace, its state, and its dignity. But comments like those of Dahlan's make it clear that the PA isn't interested in that.


--

P.S. I love how people use the spectre of Hamas atrocities as their line of reasoning for why the Road Map cannot succeed. As if to suggest, without irony, "This proposal is not reasonable, since some people are going to want to blow themselves and Israeli civilians to pieces in defiance of any settlement." Sounds to me like you've just pointed out a problem with Palestinians --- not with the Road Map.

[Gav]

But that doesn't answer the question. No Israeli government is going to adopt a pacifist position if they see that terrorists are operating with impunity in Gaza. Maybe they should, maybe it's their fault the situation is the way it is, but they still won't. So you've got to offer a more credible solution than "just live with it."

Well, what's the alternative? Terrorizing the people in Gaza with nightly missile attacks that kill both militants and civilians? Doing that might stop an imminent suicide attack, but it ensure that dozens if not hundreds of Palestinians will be volunteering to launch attacks down the road. If Israel wants to eventually see peace, it better be willing to stomach some atrocities now.

Israel was willing to stomach the atrocities during Rabin's time. There were two huge bus bombings, along with a bunch of minor stuff, and the Rabin government basically argued, as you have here, that you have to expect growing pains. He had support for that position at first, but it eroded pretty quickly when Israelis saw that the growing pains weren't leading to actual growth.

I think it'd be a doubly hard sell now, because of that experience. You'd need a major regime change among the Palestinians to begin with.


If you've got a more credible longterm solution to the problem, I'd love to hear it. And I don't think the Israeli people are in full favor of what's going on, since most opinion polls I've seen indicate a majority in favor of getting rid of the settlements altogether. I don't think it'd be a hard sell to the people of Israel, since they're living with regular attacks even with Sharon's idiotic hardline stance.

Getting rid of settlements would probably be a pretty easy sell. But that's a separate issue from "living with atrocities". If you think that pulling out of the settlements would end terror attacks, then you haven't paid attention to what happened in Lebanon.

Since you ask for a solution, I've got to admit I don't have one. If I had to propose something, though, it'd be along the lines of Israel pulling out most of the settlements, and the PA getting rid of Arafat and receiving some money for jumpstarting some sort of industry. (Getting rid of Arafat is a pre-requisite for this, because the last time it was tried all the money (millions of dollars, IIRC) disappeared. Arafat has adamantly refused to allow transparent accounting for any money coming into the PA). Ideally, some of that money would come from Israel, although Israel's so strapped for cash right now that that'd be unlikely.


His government's going to go down in Israeli history as one of the country's worst. Look at the death toll of the past few years. Look at the shattered economy. His policies obviously aren't working, so maybe it's time to put the missiles away for a little while.
It's true that his policies aren't working. Neither did Rabin's, Peres's, or Barak's. The one constant through all those governments is Arafat--maybe a fair amount of blame rests with him, dontcha think?

I've said before that I'm not in the business of defending Sharon--if I still lived in Israel, I wouldn't have voted for him. But it's important to realize why he's won two elections pretty handily, if you're going to have any hope of presenting a credible alternative. Most Israelis (like most Palestinians, I suspect) would like an end to the violence--so why is Sharon still in power?

Gav

[Toddy]

Easy to suggest from the greater Toronto area.

That's greater Ottawa area, smart guy. We've got cows here. But aside from that minor point of geography, how are your suggestions any more credible than mine? Unless PCG's relocated to Ramallah and not told anybody, I don't imagine that you're any closer to this stuff than I am. Though, at the risk of being a major league smartass, I've at least been to the region, as has Gav. Drop me a postcard if you ever get to Jersusalem, Dan! ;-)

[TimElhajj]

Drop me a postcard if you ever get to Jersusalem, Dan!

Heh, that's your cue to storm out of the thread all wounded Dan!

[Daniel Morris]

I find supreme irony in your repeated condemnations of every discomfort endured by Iraqis during the stabilization of their country, coupled with the simultaneous desire to see Israelis "accept some atrocities".

[ydejin]

I find supreme irony in your repeated condemnations of every discomfort endured by Iraqis during the stabilization of their country, coupled with the simultaneous desire to see Israelis "accept some atrocities".

The situations are clearly very different.

Iraq is being occupied by an outside force. While that force is (hopefully) benevolent, the Iraqi people did not choose to have the US occupy them. In contrast, the Israelis chose to move to their current location--almost all the people of Israel are relatively recent immigrants (there were only 85,000 Jews in Palestine in 1914)--most of the immigrants should have realized (and probably did realize) that they were moving into a situation which might be "difficult".

The Israelis have at least some control of their situation. If they chose to remove their settlements that would stop most (although unfortunately probably not all) of the attacks. The Iraqi people are largely helpless.

The Israelis are in a position of overwhelming military superiority. The Iraqi people are almost completely powerless.


Realistically both the Iraqis and Israelis are going to have to accept some attrocities for some time. Our objective is to make those attrocities as few and far between as possible.

[Toddy]

I find supreme irony in your repeated condemnations of every discomfort endured by Iraqis during the stabilization of their country, coupled with the simultaneous desire to see Israelis "accept some atrocities".

"Supreme" irony, huh? Is that the biggie size you get for an extra 50 cents?

And "repeated condemnations"? When have I ever posted about my concern for Iraqi discomfort? In all honesty, I'm more pissed off about the US kids getting blown up there on a daily basis thanks to the idiotic foreign policy of the Bush government.

You're the one who's accepting atrocities. You've posted repeatedly how the suicide attacks in Israel are the last wimpy gasps of Hamas, and should be seen as such. You've posted repeatedly how the invasion of Iraq was and is a good thing, even as 20-year-olds are getting shot in the back of the head on a daily basis and mosques are being blown up. If you want to talk about "supreme irony," take a look at your own posting record.

[Daniel Morris]

Why don't we let Madeleine Albright accept some atrocities?

From her essay in the current Foreign Affairs:


The creation of a democratic Iraq, to be achieved with the assistance of a modest number of American troops for a relatively short period of time, would send an instructive message to undemocratic Arab regimes and provide a helpful model for a potential new Palestinian state...Saddam's fall would also provide a useful lesson to would-be WMD proliferators, both in faraway North Korea and in nearby Iran.

Whatever one might think of the likelihood that this vision will be realized, it certainly qualifies as sweeping and well intentioned. Those who suspect the war in Iraq was a grab for oil are mistaken; it was a grab for a better future. It deserves time now to play itself out. No one expected every element to fall into place smoothly. Critics such as myself may carp about bumps in the road and setbacks, but the problems will matter little if momentum does build toward a truly democratic and stable Iraq, an end to anti-Israeli terrorism, a halt to Iran's nuclear ambitions, and movement toward accountable government within the Arab world.

[Mark Asher]

....the problems will matter little if momentum does build toward a truly democratic and stable Iraq, an end to anti-Israeli terrorism, a halt to Iran's nuclear ambitions, and movement toward accountable government within the Arab world.

Too bad the Bush administration seems have no idea how to achieve any of these goals. The plan seems to have been to go into Iraq with guns smoking and...well, that's all they were able to come up with.

[Gav]

The Israelis have at least some control of their situation. If they chose to remove their settlements that would stop most (although unfortunately probably not all) of the attacks.

Because, of course, Israel was never attacked before it created the settlements.

Gav

[ydejin]

The Israelis have at least some control of their situation. If they chose to remove their settlements that would stop most (although unfortunately probably not all) of the attacks.

Because, of course, Israel was never attacked before it created the settlements.

Gav

That's why I said "unfortunately probably not all". Come on Gav, we both know that the settlements are a huge obstacle to peace. Even ignoring the statement they make about Israel permanently taking the land, they're also responsible for checkpoints throughout Palestine. For example, how does it make any sense at all to force the 100,000 Palestinians in Hebron to have to put up with major Israeli military presence to protect the 500 Israeli relgious zealots who want to live there. The more the Israeli military has to interfere with the day-to-day living of the Palestinians the more resentment there will be. That's ignoring the random shootings of Palestinians by Israelis settlers which never quite seems to make the front pages.

No, unfortunately nothing, and I mean nothing is likely to stop some killings of Israelis, even if Israel permanently withdraws and gives the Palestinians everything they want. At this point, there is so much bad blood between the two sides, I think it will be many generations before the two groups can live side by side without problems. That's one of the reasons why I don't think that wall is such a bad idea assuming it follows the green line. One argument against it is that the two economies should be intertwined, but if what that means is that the Palestinians provide cheap labor for Israel, I think that's just going to make problems worse. Even if it hurts the Palestinian econnomy in the short term, in the long term, they'll be better of not being interdependent with the Israeli's (at least from a day laborer standpoint).

Look at this point, I don't think Israel has a partner for peace. It might have had one with Mazen, had they supported him. But it's also possible that even had they withdrawn from some real settlements it still wouldn't have been enough to give Mazen the power he needs to do anything real. As it stands he's just plain too weak especially since he has almost nothing to show for cooperating with the Israelis. Granted, his cooperation hasn't been too impressive, but the Israelis are dealing from a position of strength, they have to make the first move toward peace. The Palestinian moderates are just too weak to do much of anything unless they have something real to show for working with Israel.

You've talked about how the Palestinian's practically voted Sharon into office with the infitada. Well that goes both ways. Israel's actions for some time have led to greater support for Hamas and other radical groups.

Edit: I'm not that up on Palestinian/Israeli history pre-settlement. But my understanding is that the two groups largely got along okay, even while Israel technically controlled the West Bank. Almost all the problems involving terror attacks on Israel occurred after Israel started large settlement building. Does this not match your understanding Gav?

[ydejin]

Okay Gav, here you go, this is from Encyclopedia Britannica's article on the West Bank. Here (http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=78625) is a link for any paying subscribers. This is what Encyclopedia Britannica wrote:


During the first decade of Israeli occupation, there was comparatively little civil resistance to Israeli authorities and very little support among Arab residents of terrorist activity. This has been attributed to such factors as the relatively light hand of the Israeli administration and its introduction of increased electrification and improved housing and health care to the area—as well as to the difficulty of opposing the Israeli army and the lack of affinity between the West Bank's Palestinian (i.e., Arab) population and neighbouring Arabs, particularly those of Jordan's East Bank.

This period of truce began to wane during the late 1970s and early '80s as Israel began a more aggressive course of establishing settlements both as part of Israel's defense perimeter and as extensions of its agricultural economy.

So let's take another look at your comment: "Because, of course, Israel was never attacked before it created the settlements". Well according to EB, there was little resistance to Israel and very little support for terrorism for a decade following Israel taking over the West Bank. So yes, while your comment was (I presume) meant to be sarcastic, in fact it was true. Reading this article we can clearly see that Israel's settlement policy must shoulder much of the blame for the terrorist attacks that followed. No settlements = a decade of peace, even while Palestine was occupied.

[Daniel Morris]

I enjoy the Encyclopedia Britannica's euphemism "civil resistance," which places bus bombings in roughly the same ballpark as the Selma march.

The issue is not civil resistance -- the issue is mass murder directed against civilians. If Palestinians would end this horrendous tactic, we could talk about dismantling settlements, since repeated polls demonstrate that most Israelis would gladly bulldoze the settlements in exchange for peace. As it is, the Palestinians keep poisoning the well.

Again, the idiotic neoconservative Madeleine Albright:


The Palestinians, meanwhile, must reject terror -- not because the United States or other outsiders want them to, but because terror, far more than Israel, is the enemy of the Palestinian people. It is destructive not only of the Palestinian economy and Palestinian territorial hopes, but of the people's very soul...As long as murderers are hailed as martyrs, there can be no real peace, nor any Palestinian state worthy of the name.

[ydejin]

I enjoy the Encyclopedia Britannica's euphemism "civil resistance," which places bus bombings in roughly the same ballpark as the Selma march.

Yes and I love it how if you're an Israeli and you plant a bomb (http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm) in the King David Hotel that kills 91 people like Menachem Begin did, they call you a Freedom Fighter and make you Prime Minister. And what if you assasinate a UN Peace Negotiator (http://www.jsource.org/jsource/History/folke.html) like Yitzhak Shamir's group assasinated Count Bernadotte? Same deal, that makes you a Freedom Fighter and makes you eligible to become Prime Minister.

I seem to recall last time I brought these incidents to your attention you accused (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=91387&highlight=#91387) everyone who didn't agree with you of sounding like Hamas and you completely ignored the fact that both pro and anti-Israeli sources admit that both these incidents happened. And of course both Begin and Shamir did indeed become Prime Ministers of Israel.

There's plenty of blood on both sides.

So what about the actual content of the Encyclopedia Britannica article? I think the fact that the Palestinians did not resort to violence for a decade after their occupation began is very significant. The current violence is not about "driving the Israelis into the sea" as some have claimed. At least it didn't start out that way, otherwise the Israelis and Palestinians wouldn't have been able to spend a decade at peace. Whether peaceful living is something that can happen again after the events of the last 20+ years is unfortunately debatable at best.


since repeated polls demonstrate that most Israelis would gladly bulldoze the settlements in exchange for peace.

It doesn't matter what the polls show. What matters is what the government is able to do. As I've previously pointed out, Israeli politics unfortunately gives extremist groups excessive control over the government. Israel talks peace and continues to build settlements. The number of settlers doubled after Israel signed the Oslo agreement. The number doubled in large part because the Israeli government provided major economic incentives for people to move into the occupied territories. Similarly the extremist Palestinian groups hold veto power, because all they need to do to put a stop to things is set off a bomb. I don't believe the Palestinian moderates are strong enough to take on the radicals unless Israel and the US does something drastic.

[JeffL]

....the problems will matter little if momentum does build toward a truly democratic and stable Iraq, an end to anti-Israeli terrorism, a halt to Iran's nuclear ambitions, and movement toward accountable government within the Arab world.

Too bad the Bush administration seems have no idea how to achieve any of these goals. The plan seems to have been to go into Iraq with guns smoking and...well, that's all they were able to come up with.

To be fair, and this isn't meant as a defense of the current admin, but I don't think anyone has any actionable, beyond political rhetoric, idea of how to achieve these goals. If there is someone who knows the specific and detailed actions needed to accomplish each of those goals, I'll vote for them for President of the World.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Too bad the Bush administration seems have no idea how to achieve any of these goals. The plan seems to have been to go into Iraq with guns smoking and...well, that's all they were able to come up with.

To be fair, and this isn't meant as a defense of the current admin, but I don't think anyone has any actionable, beyond political rhetoric, idea of how to achieve these goals. If there is someone who knows the specific and detailed actions needed to accomplish each of those goals, I'll vote for them for President of the World.

Several commentators have noted that the current administrations, both in the US and in Iraq, seem to lack the knowledge and understanding about Iraq that would be necessary to handle situation properly. You can't just make some grand plan; you need people on the ground and at home who know what they're doing, and who can deal with the situation as it develops. That's what I'd recommend, anyway: put competent people in charge. It's a very difficult situation, of course, so there's no guarantee it would work, but at least it'd help.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

I enjoy the Encyclopedia Britannica's euphemism "civil resistance," which places bus bombings in roughly the same ballpark as the Selma march.
No, it doesn't:


During the first decade of Israeli occupation, there was comparatively little civil resistance to Israeli authorities and very little support among Arab residents of terrorist activity.
The second part of the sentence (italicized) is quite clearly meant to make a distinction.



The issue is not civil resistance -- the issue is mass murder directed against civilians. If Palestinians would end this horrendous tactic, we could talk about dismantling settlements...

The Palestinians that can end this (the perpetrators) won't, and the Palestinians that want to end it (the PA, the moderates) can't. The moderates need concessions, lots of them, and they won't get them from Sharon. It's easy to say "the PA must crack down on terror", but the simple fact is, they cannot currently do so and emerge victorious. They don't have the credibility, support or infrastructure.

[Gav]

Okay Gav, here you go, this is from Encyclopedia Britannica's article on the West Bank. Here (http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=78625) is a link for any paying subscribers. This is what Encyclopedia Britannica wrote:


During the first decade of Israeli occupation, there was comparatively little civil resistance to Israeli authorities and very little support among Arab residents of terrorist activity.

So let's take another look at your comment: "Because, of course, Israel was never attacked before it created the settlements". Well according to EB, there was little resistance to Israel and very little support for terrorism for a decade following Israel taking over the West Bank. So yes, while your comment was (I presume) meant to be sarcastic, in fact it was true. Reading this article we can clearly see that Israel's settlement policy must shoulder much of the blame for the terrorist attacks that followed. No settlements = a decade of peace, even while Palestine was occupied.

I'm not sure what the EB's definition of "comparatively little" is. I do remember reading a historical atlas of Israel, that essentially covered, year by year since I can't remember when (190x, I think) attacks on both sides, and I remember that there were a lot. Just for example, because it springs to mind, there's the Hebron massacre.

Arguably, support for terrorism within the PA is pretty low now. That just doesn't mean a whole lot.


Yes and I love it how if you're an Israeli and you plant a bomb in the King David Hotel that kills 91 people like Menachem Begin did, they call you a Freedom Fighter and make you Prime Minister.
And if you're Yasser Arafat you get the Nobel Peace Prize. So what?

Gav

[ydejin]

Yes and I love it how if you're an Israeli and you plant a bomb in the King David Hotel that kills 91 people like Menachem Begin did, they call you a Freedom Fighter and make you Prime Minister.
And if you're Yasser Arafat you get the Nobel Peace Prize. So what?

The point is most of America believes that the Israelis are the forces of goodness and niceness and that the Arabs are evil, vile terrorists. That appears to be the view Daniel was esposing in the post I responded to. That view is pure bunk. There is lots of blood on both sides. The Israelis may have a more pleasing countenance now, but that's in part because they hold all the cards in the conflict now. At core many of the Likud leadership have been just as bad as Hamas. The fact is before they were in power the Israeli "Freedom Fighters" used almost the exact same tactics as the Palestinians are using now.

The Israelis are not the good guys and neither are the Palestinians. The good guys are the moderates on both sides and the human rights groups like B'Tselem who are trying to bring peace and justice in a very difficult situation.

This black and white "Israel=good Palestinians=bad" view most of America holds is a complete fiction and is dangerous and counter-productive.

[JeffL]

The Israelis are not the good guys and neither are the Palestinians. The good guys are the moderates on both sides and the human rights groups like B'Tselem who are trying to bring peace and justice in a very difficult situation.

This black and white "Israel=good Palestinians=bad" view most of America holds is a complete fiction and is dangerous and counter-productive.

You're certainly correct that both sides have a lot to answer for. However, what most Americans see today - and most aren't real interested in what happened 30 years ago, that's just the way it is - today they see the Palestinians intentionally killing civilians, men, women, children, babies. They see the Palestinians knowingly seeking out large groups that they know include small children and mothers and intentionally blowing them into pieces. It is very hard to tell someone "well, the Israelis did a bunch of bad stuff a while back, so the people doing this aren't really the bad guys." Yeah, the Israelis have killed some civilians in their retalitory strikes, but most see a big difference between accidentally killing a child when striking at the Hamas leadership and intentionally seeking out and blowing up as many kids as you can find.

You will never convince most Americans (and a lot of other nationalities) who see this that they need to go back and understand the history. They should (although it is damned hard to find written accounts that aren't significantly biased one way or the other.) But even if they did, they will never think of the people who are going out of their way to proactively find and kill civilians as anything but "bad."

[Rywill]

What Jeff said. Maybe the Palestinians think they're taking just retribution, fighting fire with fire for what happened to them 30 or 40 years ago. Whether they were or weren't terrorized decades ago is kind of irrelevant, though. At this point, they are not being terrorized, nor are they striking back in retaliation for recent terrorism. They're simply terrorists, and the Israelis, by and large, are not. To most Americans, that's all that matters. Even if the Palestinians have the moral high ground in terms of settlement (i.e., that a peaceful accord should involve more concessions from Israel than the Palestinians), there is simply never any excuse for terrorism against civilians. Not ever.

It's this distinction that causes a lot of the disagreement between folks on this issue, as nearly as I can tell. Some people, including most Americans, think that "no terrorism" is a moral imperative. Other people think that terrorism is an unfortunate, but understandable (and on some level justifiable) reaction by people who are oppressed.

[Daniel Morris]

It is very hard to tell someone "well, the Israelis did a bunch of bad stuff a while back, so the people doing this aren't really the bad guys."

This is exactly what ydejin proposes, in language eerily similar to Timothy McVeigh's justification of "dirty for dirty."


But even if they did, they will never think of the people who are going out of their way to proactively find and kill civilians as anything but "bad."

This is true, and commendable, but almost beside the point entirely. As several people on this board scramble to draw moral equivalencies between Israel and Hamas, they ignore a fundamental distinction that stretches even beyond terrorism. Israel is a liberal democracy with a government accountable to the wishes and best interests of its people. Hamas/PA are not only unaccountable, but actively operating against the best interests of Palestinians.

I have to laugh at one of the posts above, in which ydejin equates the "veto power" of a democratically-reached Israeli election result with the "veto power" of Hamas bombings.

[ydejin]

It is very hard to tell someone "well, the Israelis did a bunch of bad stuff a while back, so the people doing this aren't really the bad guys."

This is exactly what ydejin proposes, in language eerily similar to Timothy McVeigh's justification of "dirty for dirty."

Excuse me Daniel, but did you fail your reading comprehension exams? Where exactly did I say that Hamas weren't bad guys. Let's read my statement again shall we:


The Israelis are not the good guys and neither are the Palestinians. The good guys are the moderates on both sides and the human rights groups like B'Tselem who are trying to bring peace and justice in a very difficult situation.

Maybe making up statements about what your opposition says is a good debating technique, but it shows very low integrity and a general lack of honor.

[Toddy]

What Jeff said. Maybe the Palestinians think they're taking just retribution, fighting fire with fire for what happened to them 30 or 40 years ago. Whether they were or weren't terrorized decades ago is kind of irrelevant, though. At this point, they are not being terrorized, nor are they striking back in retaliation for recent terrorism. They're simply terrorists, and the Israelis, by and large, are not.

Tell that to the parents of the eight-year-old girl killed today by Israeli tank fire. Actually, tell that to the parents of dozens of kids killed by the Israelis over the past two years. Were all of these incidents purely "accidents"? Tell that to the millions of people trapped in their homes by Israeli checkpoints designed to protect a few thousand religious nuts. Tell that to the millions of people who were expelled from their homes, shorn of their livelihoods and ancestral lands, and continue to live in refugee camps without even the offer of compensation from the Israeli government.

That's terrorism. It might not play well with the American media, which these days only takes note to T&A and things that go boom, but that's terrorism, every bit as much as a suicide bomber on a bus. If the American people don't get that, then this conflict will only continue, widen, and more directly target the US.

[Rywill]

Are they all accidents? No, I'm sure some are not. The soldiers responsible, just like any American soldiers responsible for war crimes or acts of terror against the Iraqis, should be punished. But those are far and away the exception on the American side and, as nearly as I can tell, on the Israeli side--but far and away the norm on the Hamas/Islamic Jihad/al Qaeda side.

If you and the people like you can't see the difference between someone being accidentally killed in war or forcibly kept under curfew, and someone deliberately blowing up a bus full of civilians, then you're right--the conflict can only continue. Your threats that the terrorists will strike Americans is not likely to change any of their minds (at least, I hope it isn't). Sad to say it, but we've already been hit by terrorists a few times, and all it does is make us, like the Israelis, despise the terrorists and try to take them out.

[Toddy]

Israel is a liberal democracy with a government accountable to the wishes and best interests of its people. Hamas/PA are not only unaccountable, but actively operating against the best interests of Palestinians.

I have to laugh at one of the posts above, in which ydejin equates the "veto power" of a democratically-reached Israeli election result with the "veto power" of Hamas bombings.

Yeah, but there are democracies and then there are "democracies." Israel may elect its government, but it is set up as a racially defined state. It's not a democracy as it is a Jewish democracy, and that sets in place a certain point-of-view that makes its version of democracy function in quite a different fashion that it does here or anywhere in the secular West. There's no real distinction between church and state, for instance. Religious groups practically drive the government, in a way that's far, far more overt than the Republican religious right that people in the US get so hand-wringy about all the time. And, of course, there is also the question of the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, the way that Arabs in Israel are treated as second-class citizens, and so forth.

Read this article from the Israeli Democracy Institute, Dan, before you start posting about Israel's glowing democratic values:

http://www.idi.org.il/english/article.php?id=29773543ee323b0d72ccc5763e07d294

It really amazes me how so many Americans defend Israel as this great democracy in an island of Arab totalitarianism, when in reality the country espouses a form of government that Americans would abhor if they experienced it personally.

[TimElhajj]

However, what most Americans see today - and most aren't real interested in what happened 30 years ago, that's just the way it is - today they see the Palestinians intentionally killing civilians, men, women, children, babies. They see the Palestinians knowingly seeking out large groups that they know include small children and mothers and intentionally blowing them into pieces.

Gah. This is only scary because you seem to really belive it. How you can write about what the American people think, and completely ignore how the American media poses the issue is beyond me. Did you read about the American girl who was run over by the Isreali bulldozer not long ago? But I guess as far as your concerned that was just an accident. What a bunch of bunk! I expect this sort of narrow thinking from Rywill and Morris, but I have come to expect a little more from you, Lackey. :)

[Rywill]

But see, that incident was covered in American media. I read about it on CNN. I read about questionable Israeli assassinations, invasions of entire neighborhoods, all that stuff. I agree that there are some incidents where Israeli soldiers go over the line and do something terrible, even something that I would call "terrorism." Some non-military Israeli radicals do the same sort of thing. But I will never understand people who point to the isolated incidents of Israeli terrorism and then try to claim that Israel and Hamas / IJ / al Qaeda are morally equivalent. They're not. It's like the difference between American police and the Crips--one is a group of folks generally committed to upholding peace and order through force, with a few rogue folks who go over the line; the other is an organization dedicated to criminality and destruction of innocents. (I know Hamas, at least, does humanitarian things as well, so it's not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.)

[Gav]

Yeah, but there are democracies and then there are "democracies." Israel may elect its government...

Last I heard, that's the definition of a democracy.


It's not a democracy as it is a Jewish democracy, and that sets in place a certain point-of-view that makes its version of democracy function in quite a different fashion that it does here or anywhere in the secular West. There's no real distinction between church and state, for instance.

Many countries in the "secular West" have a state religion. In fact, I was just reading in the newspaper the other day about how the religious ministry in Denmark(!) had to step in and dismiss a priest at a church for not sufficiently toing the religious line.


Religious groups practically drive the government, in a way that's far, far more overt than the Republican religious right that people in the US get so hand-wringy about all the time.

There are also 2 overtly anti-religious parties in Israel, not to mention Labor, which is not very pro-religion. Which major politicians in the US would dare to say that religion is bunk?



Read this article from the Israeli Democracy Institute, Dan, before you start posting about Israel's glowing democratic values:

http://www.idi.org.il/english/article.php?id=29773543ee323b0d72ccc5763e07d294

The article talks about a decline, sure, but read what they actually say. 77% of Israelis support a democracy--where else in the Middle East are you going to find numbers like that? Also, " Despite the decline in trust in public institutions, the Israeli public trust in its institutions is relatively higher than that in other democracies."



It really amazes me how so many Americans defend Israel as this great democracy in an island of Arab totalitarianism, when in reality the country espouses a form of government that Americans would abhor if they experienced it personally.

That's just crap. Israeli democracy has a lot of problems, just like every democracy does. It also has virtues that the US would do well to emulate (for instance, you don't have the never-ending election cycle in Israel; lobbyists weild less power in Israel; news coverage tends to be more substantive; and so on) My brother-in-law marvels that a country where the electoral college can elect a candidate who got fewer votes can consider itself a great democracy. A judge in Israel would never dare to act like Roy Moore. Chacon a son gout.

I'm not familiar enough with Canadian politics, but I'm sure there's plenty of grist in the political mill there, too.

Gav

[bmulligan]

Here we go again. Just saw a CNN story that Israel checked off 2 more names on the Hamas hot list today. Weren't they just told not to drive anywhere?

CNN also reported that Israelis killed a 9 year old palestinian girl while exchanging gunfire with a palestinian millitant group. I wonder if she was voluntarily shielding the palestinian snipers, or if an Israeli went up to her and shot her in cold blood ? In any case, I wondering if they did a ballistics test before reporting she was killed by Israeli gunfire.

[Rywill]

I'm sure you didn't read that on CNN. Everyone knows that the American media has been subjugated to the great Zionist conspiracy and only reports things that a pro-Israel. Where do you think Americans get the insane idea that Hamas is mostly a bunch of terrorists?

[TimElhajj]

It's like the difference between American police and the Crips--one is a group of folks generally committed to upholding peace and order through force, with a few rogue folks who go over the line; the other is an organization dedicated to criminality and destruction of innocents.

Christ, good analogy except that the Crips weren't uprooted from their ancestral lands by the LAPD. But I hear ya. I get your point. Hell, if you just want an easy to understand analogy, why not just say all the Arabs are evil like Saten and be done with it.

[TimElhajj]

I'm sure you didn't read that on CNN. Everyone knows that the American media has been subjugated to the great Zionist conspiracy and only reports things that a pro-Israel. Where do you think Americans get the insane idea that Hamas is mostly a bunch of terrorists?

I suppose it makes it easier for Americans to understand if one party is clearly the bad guy. If you can just blame it all on those crazy Arabs, it makes the Israeli atrocities more palatable. This is the kind of wrong headed thinking that keeps the conflict hot.

[bmulligan]

This is the kind of wrong headed thinking that keeps the conflict hot.

Is it? I thought the killing of innocent civillians in random bus and mall suicide bombings was keeping the situation 'hot'. Mixed with a missle attack on a specific terrorist group leader every other day or so.

[Daniel Morris]

I suppose it makes it easier for Americans to understand if one party is clearly the bad guy.

What makes it easier for Americans to understand is when one party is massacring civilians every time momentum builds toward a peace process of any kind.

[Brian Koontz]

It's like the difference between American police and the Crips--one is a group of folks generally committed to upholding peace and order through force, with a few rogue folks who go over the line; the other is an organization dedicated to criminality and destruction of innocents.

Well...

The American police have an established power base. The public supports them. They have billions of dollars flowing into them annually. Their whole point is to bring down crime.

The Crips have a very limited power base. The public for the most part opposes them. They have millions but nowhere near billions of dollars flowing into them annually. Their whole point is money and survival... they don't have time for things like "helping crime" beyond their own interests.

Of course the police do things orderly... they ARE the order. There is no need for them to be unpeaceful or unorderly. Their whole point is to keep the peace... AKA keeping themselves and their laws in power.

If The Crips were powerful they would also be peaceful and orderly. If The Crips were COMFORTABLE (relatively speaking) as the police are then they would be peaceful and orderly. Perhaps they would even send "police" out to enforce the Crips laws...

Guerilla tactics, terrorist tactics, snipings, etc. are necessary tactics for people who are opposing a large force. You can't take on a large force with an army in straight combat because you'll be decimated. So you snipe from the sidelines, use creative tactics, and attack civilians.

Terrorists are nothing more than people who have not yet attained power. After attaining power they call themselves governments and wield armies in full public view. The Crip Army...

To help you with this, consider that the humans in The Matrix are Terrorists and the Machines are the Order. Who are the peaceful, orderly ones?

The Machines: Damn those humans and their Terrorist tactics! Who do they think they are!

Morality has nothing to do with whether or not you are in power.

[Toddy]

Many countries in the "secular West" have a state religion. In fact, I was just reading in the newspaper the other day about how the religious ministry in Denmark(!) had to step in and dismiss a priest at a church for not sufficiently toing the religious line.

Wow. Denmark is practically identical to Israel! Now, please point me to a news site detailed the apartheid system that the Danes have set up, the wall being built around Copenhagen, and the regular killing of children by the Danish Defense Force.


There are also 2 overtly anti-religious parties in Israel, not to mention Labor, which is not very pro-religion. Which major politicians in the US would dare to say that religion is bunk?

Pure and utter bullshit. Not one of these so-called anti-religious parties has the guts to stand up to the religious fanatics in Israel. Shinui trumpeted its refusal to placate the religious parties and wound up sitting in a Likud-run government anyway, right alongside Sharon's Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox pals. Tommy Lapid had a chance to break Likud, force another election. But his so-called secular convictions didn't last long when Sharon begged him to come on board. Lapid is a hypcrite and a scumbag.


The article talks about a decline, sure, but read what they actually say. 77% of Israelis support a democracy--where else in the Middle East are you going to find numbers like that? Also, " Despite the decline in trust in public institutions, the Israeli public trust in its institutions is relatively higher than that in other democracies."

Here comes the "Arabs aren't good enough for democracy" argument again. Why do you think that Arabs don't want democracies? Give them a chance to form modern societies and maybe they will. Do you really think that Arabs enjoy the dictatorships that they've been living under? And who cares about Israeli trust in public institutions. The article also says that Israelis value strong leadership more than open democratic debate -- is that also a good thing?


That's just crap. Israeli democracy has a lot of problems, just like every democracy does. It also has virtues that the US would do well to emulate (for instance, you don't have the never-ending election cycle in Israel; lobbyists weild less power in Israel; news coverage tends to be more substantive; and so on) My brother-in-law marvels that a country where the electoral college can elect a candidate who got fewer votes can consider itself a great democracy. A judge in Israel would never dare to act like Roy Moore. Chacon a son gout.

Bwahahahahahaha. Sorry. But are you out of your mind? Israel is on a never-ending election cycle that's much, much, much more destructive than anything in the US. How many governments have been formed in the past five years alone? I'm not going to check, but it has to be at least half-a-dozen. That's crazy. The system is inherently unstable, with something like 30 parties competing in every election, and around what? a dozen being elected to seats? Minority governments are hashed together
by threats and compromise, and never seem to last more than a year or so before someone gets pissed off and forces a vote of no-confidence or simply leaves the ruling coalition.

As for the Israeli judiciary, how the hell do laws like the recent one excluding Palestinians from Israeli citizenship by marrying an Israeli get passed? Why isn't there some sort of legal barrier to laws like this even being passed? Who the hell cares about some guy and his Ten Commandments fetish? Moore is nothing compared to the zealots in control of the Israeli political and legal systems. I'll give you the media one, though. I don't have loads of experience, but from what I've seen, the Israeli media is pretty balanced.


I'm not familiar enough with Canadian politics, but I'm sure there's plenty of grist in the political mill there, too.

Of course there is. But there isn't a "democracy" on the planet that routinely flouts international law and tramples on the rights of a minority racial group as much as Israel. I'd rather be a member of Falun Gong in Beijing than an Arab in Ramallah.

[TimElhajj]

What makes it easier for Americans to understand is when one party is massacring civilians every time momentum builds toward a peace process of any kind.

Brilliant Dan. That's the way to a lasting peace.

[Toddy]

But see, that incident was covered in American media. I read about it on CNN. I read about questionable Israeli assassinations, invasions of entire neighborhoods, all that stuff. I agree that there are some incidents where Israeli soldiers go over the line and do something terrible, even something that I would call "terrorism." Some non-military Israeli radicals do the same sort of thing. But I will never understand people who point to the isolated incidents of Israeli terrorism and then try to claim that Israel and Hamas / IJ / al Qaeda are morally equivalent.

But they're NOT isolated incidents. I'm not talking about the individual killings or the house demolitions or even Baruch Goldstein. I'm talking about the daily humiliation. The need to line up for six hours to travel two miles. The stranglehold on income that makes everyone a pauper. The inability of people to visit doctors for emergency service when needed and the IDF's refusal to let ambulances travel freely (which are fired upon as a matter of course, and many paramedics have been killed in the past two years). The Israeli seizure of the best land and water. Constant harassment from settlers, who routinely destroy Arab crops because they've got an army right there to back them up. And so on. That's the reality on the ground.

That's what people in Europe and Canada are seeing on the news on a regular basis. That's precisely what CNN, FoxNews, and the like aren't showing Americans, so there's no context for the violence on both sides. Again, it's not the sort of thing that the American media is interested in, especially when Britney's giving Madonna some tongue on MTV. But it's out there, it's real, and if you really value the word so much, it's state-sponsored terrorism that takes many more lives than suicide bombings.

[Toddy]

I'm sure you didn't read that on CNN. Everyone knows that the American media has been subjugated to the great Zionist conspiracy and only reports things that a pro-Israel. Where do you think Americans get the insane idea that Hamas is mostly a bunch of terrorists?

Not that I'm excusing Hamas, but it isn't mostly terrorists. The group has a huge civilian infrastructure that maintains schools, runs charities, and a lot of other public services across the Arab Middle East. I still think the organization should be rooted out and utterly destroyed, though saying that Hamas consists of nothing but bomb-wielding lunatics is a gross American oversimplification that doesn't get us closer to solving the problem the group presents. Though the stereotype does at least tell Americans who don't know where Omaha is on a map, let alone the West Bank, who them bad guys are in this never-ending movie from the Middle East.

[TimElhajj]

Where do you think Americans get the insane idea that Hamas is mostly a bunch of terrorists?

Not that I'm excusing Hamas, but it isn't mostly terrorists. The group has a huge civilian infrastructure that maintains schools, runs charities, and a lot of other public services across the Arab Middle East. I still think the organization should be rooted out and utterly destroyed, though saying that Hamas consists of nothing but bomb-wielding lunatics is a gross American oversimplification that doesn't get us closer to solving the problem the group presents. Though the stereotype does at least tell Americans who don't know where Omaha is on a map, let alone the West Bank, who them bad guys are in this never-ending movie from the Middle East.

That sad part is that Rywill is attempting to be ironic. I'll wager he hasn't a clue about Hamas except what he knows from American media sources.

[quatoria]

But see, that incident was covered in American media. I read about it on CNN. I read about questionable Israeli assassinations, invasions of entire neighborhoods, all that stuff. I agree that there are some incidents where Israeli soldiers go over the line and do something terrible, even something that I would call "terrorism." Some non-military Israeli radicals do the same sort of thing. But I will never understand people who point to the isolated incidents of Israeli terrorism and then try to claim that Israel and Hamas / IJ / al Qaeda are morally equivalent.

But they're NOT isolated incidents. I'm not talking about the individual killings or the house demolitions or even Baruch Goldstein. I'm talking about the daily humiliation. The need to line up for six hours to travel two miles. The stranglehold on income that makes everyone a pauper. The inability of people to visit doctors for emergency service when needed and the IDF's refusal to let ambulances travel freely (which are fired upon as a matter of course, and many paramedics have been killed in the past two years). The Israeli seizure of the best land and water. Constant harassment from settlers, who routinely destroy Arab crops because they've got an army right there to back them up. And so on. That's the reality on the ground.

That's what people in Europe and Canada are seeing on the news on a regular basis. That's precisely what CNN, FoxNews, and the like aren't showing Americans, so there's no context for the violence on both sides. Again, it's not the sort of thing that the American media is interested in, especially when Britney's giving Madonna some tongue on MTV. But it's out there, it's real, and if you really value the word so much, it's state-sponsored terrorism that takes many more lives than suicide bombings.

Even the mainstream media reports that since the beginning of the intifada, the loss of life has been something on the scale of 10 to 1, with the Palestinians on the losing side. I doubt that factors in the kind of repression and destruction that Brett is talking about, either.

[JeffL]

However, what most Americans see today - and most aren't real interested in what happened 30 years ago, that's just the way it is - today they see the Palestinians intentionally killing civilians, men, women, children, babies. They see the Palestinians knowingly seeking out large groups that they know include small children and mothers and intentionally blowing them into pieces.

Gah. This is only scary because you seem to really belive it. How you can write about what the American people think, and completely ignore how the American media poses the issue is beyond me. Did you read about the American girl who was run over by the Isreali bulldozer not long ago? But I guess as far as your concerned that was just an accident. What a bunch of bunk! I expect this sort of narrow thinking from Rywill and Morris, but I have come to expect a little more from you, Lackey. :)

Tim, sorry to dissapoint you. ;) But I was just stating why the American people believe the way they do. What is shown on every news channel here are the people picking up the pieces of pregnant women, carrying the dead babies, etc. from bus attacks and mall attacks. And then some Hamas announcement proudly taking credit for it. The incidents where an Israeli kills a civilian is presented over here as either an isolated incident or (usually) and accident. It will take a LOT to convince Americans that people who do this deserve any consideration. I think people here would handle it a lot better if the attacks were on political leaders and soldiers, but there's something about intentionally tearing women and children to pieces that will never reach "Justifiable" on the scales in America. If you want Americans to feel that the actions of the Israelis and the Palestinian terrorists (and I'm ONLY talking about those who are doing the bombings) you'd have to have intentional attacks of dozens of children, with the goal being that someone obviously went out of their way to find them and kill them, and then someone in Israel going on TV and bragging about doing it. THEN you would have people questioning their beliefs.

I do understand what's going on over there, I'm a history buff, and I get my news from a variety of sources, such as shortwave (i.e., I get to hear news with all different types of bias. ;) ) I understand the frustration of the Palestinians in being occupied by someone far more powerful (something the Jewish people should be able to identify with.) I also know the other things Hamas does. And the history of the land called Palestine and the people living there is far from simple. And I don't have a frikken clue what would be required for peace. While I believe that the majority of Palestinians would just like to have a normal life, I do believe that even if that was given to them (which I do believe should be done - not only that, but Israel should do a phase inversion and give them autonamy (sp) and then provide them help in building a modern infrastructure) there are people who would continue to bomb buses in Israel because they cannot tolerate an Israel.

That said - I'm not convinced the people blowing up schoolbuses etc. have any high-minded goal of making things better for the Palestinians in mind. They certainly are timed to destroy any peace discussions. Nor do I think there is any justification of any kind for this action.

Brett is right on one count - the American media, no matter what their specific biases, has no interest in spending the time to present any kind of in depth presentation of the overall situation. It's not flashy or feel-good enough, and it's not as black and white as they like to present things.

[Ben Sones]

If The Crips were powerful they would also be peaceful and orderly.

I think you'll find that history supports this hypothesis not at all.

[TimElhajj]

Brett is right on one count - the American media, no matter what their specific biases, has no interest in spending the time to present any kind of in depth presentation of the overall situation. It's not flashy or feel-good enough, and it's not as black and white as they like to present things.

The sad part is that without media coverage America is not going to comprehend the situation. It's not about Hamas being turned into good guys. It's simply understanding that Israel isn't innocent in this war.

[JeffL]

Brett is right on one count - the American media, no matter what their specific biases, has no interest in spending the time to present any kind of in depth presentation of the overall situation. It's not flashy or feel-good enough, and it's not as black and white as they like to present things.

The sad part is that without media coverage America is not going to comprehend the situation. It's not about Hamas being turned into good guys. It's simply understanding that Israel isn't innocent in this war.

You're right Tim. But I do think that even with a full accounting of what is going on, the American mentality is such that the school-bus bombings would probably still stand out as a level above everything else on the "bad" scale. The fact is that those bombings do absolutely nothing that I can perceive to help the cause of the Palestinians. They make much of the Muslim world happy (which is why they get monetary support from such sources) as they serve as "safe" surrogate attacks on Israel.

[Gav]

Before I start in on this, I just want to mention that I read a really good article in the NYT Sunday magazine about Us support for Israel, and would highly recommend that anyone check it out. (I'm sure it's on-line as well). FWIW, the author of the article also feels that the US needs to reconsider its unconditional support of Israel, so I'm not recommending the article just b/c it agrees with me 100%.


Many countries in the "secular West" have a state religion. In fact, I was just reading in the newspaper the other day about how the religious ministry in Denmark(!) had to step in and dismiss a priest at a church for not sufficiently toing the religious line.

Wow. Denmark is practically identical to Israel! Now, please point me to a news site detailed the apartheid system that the Danes have set up, the wall being built around Copenhagen, and the regular killing of children by the Danish Defense Force.

I'm just pointing out that if you want to make the equation that "institutionalized religious system" = "no democracy", you have to lump in countries like Denmark. The whole point is that Denmark isn't like Israel.




There are also 2 overtly anti-religious parties in Israel, not to mention Labor, which is not very pro-religion. Which major politicians in the US would dare to say that religion is bunk?

Pure and utter bullshit. Not one of these so-called anti-religious parties has the guts to stand up to the religious fanatics in Israel.

Meretz has stood up to them many times. FWIW. You've got to remember that Shas alone is huge. In a democracy, (demos=people, kratia=power) a group with a huge constituency deserves to have a lot of power. (Personally, I hate Shas and would gladly see them dissolved, so this is not an endorsement of them).



Shinui trumpeted its refusal to placate the religious parties and wound up sitting in a Likud-run government anyway, right alongside Sharon's Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox pals. Tommy Lapid had a chance to break Likud, force another election. But his so-called secular convictions didn't last long when Sharon begged him to come on board. Lapid is a hypcrite and a scumbag.

I don't like Lapid myself, but coalitions do make strange bedfellows. By coming on board, he may have blunted some of the proposals my religious groups (because Shinui could break the gov't, he has inordinate power, just like the small religious groups have).




The article talks about a decline, sure, but read what they actually say. 77% of Israelis support a democracy--where else in the Middle East are you going to find numbers like that?

Here comes the "Arabs aren't good enough for democracy" argument again. Why do you think that Arabs don't want democracies? Give them a chance to form modern societies and maybe they will.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. The point is that they don't have democracies, and in the two cases that I can think of where they could have (Iran and the PA) they decided not to. Israel, by contrast, has a relatively healthy democracy.


Bwahahahahahaha. Sorry. But are you out of your mind? Israel is on a never-ending election cycle that's much, much, much more destructive than anything in the US. How many governments have been formed in the past five years alone? I'm not going to check, but it has to be at least half-a-dozen.

That's not what I meant by a never-ending election cycle. What I mean is that in the US, representatives are campaigning for the next election the day the previous one ends. Bush has been campaigning for an election that's over a year away. That just doesn't happen in Israel.

The last 5 years have been chaotic, mostly because no-one seems to be able to handle the Palestinians, leading to revolving-door governments, but before that it was much more like a normal Western democracy.



That's crazy. The system is inherently unstable, with something like 30 parties competing in every election, and around what? a dozen being elected to seats? Minority governments are hashed together
by threats and compromise, and never seem to last more than a year or so before someone gets pissed off and forces a vote of no-confidence or simply leaves the ruling coalition.

I said that Israeli democracy has its flaws, and that's definitely the biggie. But to say that the worst fault of a democracy is that it has too many political parties is not exactly a scathing indictment, or comparable to living in a theocracy.


As for the Israeli judiciary, how the hell do laws like the recent one excluding Palestinians from Israeli citizenship by marrying an Israeli get passed?

In Israel, the judiciary doesn't pass laws. Maybe it does in Canada, but that's not usually a good thing. In Israel, the judiciary does overturn such laws, and has in the past.

But it's a good question how such laws get passed. Maybe it's because a bunch of kids of such unions have recently used their ID cards to commit acts of terror? As much as I dislike the law (and I do), it's worth remembering that the Knesset could've passed such a law at any time in its history--it did so now for a very specific reason.



Why isn't there some sort of legal barrier to laws like this even being passed?

I just don't even understand this. How can you have a legal barrier to laws being passed? What does that even mean? You can have a legal barrier to their enforcement, if a court overturns the law (as has happened in Israel many times--the current court is often called an activist court), but who's going to stop parliament from passing a law in the first place?


Of course there is. But there isn't a "democracy" on the planet that routinely flouts international law and tramples on the rights of a minority racial group as much as Israel. I'd rather be a member of Falun Gong in Beijing than an Arab in Ramallah.
There also isn't a democracy the world that has been attacked by overwhelmingly larger numbers twice (as you see, I'm not including the '67 war, although I should by rights) in the last 50 years, and that endures the kind of crap that Israel endures on a regular basis. I'd rather be an Arab in Haifa than a member of Falun Gong in Beijing, and more relevantly, I'd rather be an Arab in Haifa than an Arab in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al.

Gav

[Rywill]

As usual, Tim, we're just going around and around in circles here. I think that anyone who intentionally blows up a bus full of civilians is evil. You think there's more to it than that. Let's just agree to disagree.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Why isn't there some sort of legal barrier to laws like this even being passed?

I just don't even understand this. How can you have a legal barrier to laws being passed? What does that even mean?
A constitution, I'd guess. Or, more specifically, a constitution that prohibits laws like that being passed.

[Daniel Morris]

1.
The fact is that those bombings do absolutely nothing that I can perceive to help the cause of the Palestinians.

The bombings are not intended to help the cause of the Palestinians. They are intended to derail the peace process.

2.

Brett Todd's apartheid monologue reminded me of something worthwhile that I read recently. This is from Clinton's Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 1997-2000, Ronald Asmus, in a paper entitled "Engaging Failing States" presented as Senior Adjunct Fellow to the Council on Foreign Relations:


In specific cases where regional or ethnic factions of a failing state appear interested in working out a full-blown separation, or where partition appears to be the only answer to irreconcilable differences, outside actors may have a crucial role to play in orchestrating a legitimate, negotiated, and supervised separation...The international system should respect consensual separation, as it did in the former Czechoslovakia and with the 1993 Eritrean split from Ethiopia.

I would submit that the above paragraph provides the real framework from which to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps we should view the whole of the region (Israel and the occupied territories) as one "failed state" in need of "a legitimate, negotiated, and supervised separation".

Sharon has commented, with audible bitterness, that the Green Line Wall will essentially be the de facto border of a new Palestinian state. Or would such a separation merely be a titanic victory for "Israeli terrorism"?

[Toddy]

The problem with that view, Dan, is that the Israelis won't allow it. The Palestinians have been begging for outside assistance from the US and UN for years, and the Israelis refuse to let anyone interfere with what they consider a purely internal matter.

Oh, and here's more on that incredible Israeli democracy from today's Toronto Star. A report has just been released by an official Israeli inquiry into the start of the second intifada three years ago, and the results aren't pretty. It found strong evidence of, among other things, that "the government treatment of the Arab sector was characterized by prejudice and neglect," most notably in the allocation of money for schools, housing, and job creation. Apartheid, anyone? Also, it strongly censured Barak, has barred former police minister Shlomo Ben-Ami from ever holding his post again, and had harsh words for the use of police snipers to disperse crowds (gosh, those rubber bullets must be really expensive or something).

http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2F3254C5

[TimElhajj]

I think that anyone who intentionally blows up a bus full of civilians is evil.

I completely agree with this. But so what?

How helpful is it to take a complicated issue like the current strife in the ME, assign blame to one party, and then clap our hands as if it's a job well done. It's easy to just shrug your shoulders and dump all the blame on the Palestinians. I believe we all have to work for more than a superfical understanding, particularly because it's so difficult to get past the horror of terrorist attacks.

[bmulligan]

The incidents where an Israeli kills a civilian is presented over here as either an isolated incident or (usually) and accident. You don't watch enough news channels. Any time an Israeli kills a Palestinian civillian, it gets reported just as often and as in depth as any suicide bombings. In fact, the US media is more than happy to run Palestinian footage of burned, bloody women and children from an Israeli attack. Case in point was the report from day before yesterday when it was reported by CNN that a Palestinian girl was killed by Iraeli troops during an exchane of gunfire. Implying that she was an innocent bystander, and very well may have been, but automatically assuming she was shot by Israelis and not palestinians shows they can be biased both ways for shock effect, if nothing else.

And FWIW, Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/israel.palestine/) has done at least 3 in depth documentaries on the Palestinian situation including a well rounded overview on the history of the region from israel's inception. IMO they were as unbiased as I have seen and presented facts, figures, and balanced opinions and testimonials from political leaders and ordinary citizens from both sides.


I think that anyone who intentionally blows up a bus full of civilians is evil.
yeah, but it doesn't reflect the entire Palestinian population. Just like you can't equate the 'army of god' abortion assassins with all fundamentalist christians in america. It's convenient, and I know I'm guilty of doing the same often, but then I'm just a passionate kind of guy..............

[Gav]

This has turned into nonsense, so this will be my last post on this thread; when there's some new and exciting news out of Israel, I'm sure someone will post another message, and I probably will be too weak-willed to resist jumping in again, though.





Why isn't there some sort of legal barrier to laws like this even being passed?

I just don't even understand this. How can you have a legal barrier to laws being passed? What does that even mean?
A constitution, I'd guess. Or, more specifically, a constitution that prohibits laws like that being passed.

In the US (the only constitutional republic I'm really familiar with), it doesn't work this way. Laws are passed, and if someone thinks they're unconstitutional, he takes it to a judge, who can declare said law unconstitutional, in which case it's revoked. This is more-or-less what happens in Israel, which has a set of laws called the basic laws that supersede other laws.

I don't see how a constitution can, in itself, prevent a law from being passed--who in the legislature has the power to interpret the constitution? Is everyone in the legislature a judge?

In any case, Israel doesn't have a constitution. Neither does Britain--is Britain not a democracy?


The problem with that view, Dan, is that the Israelis won't allow it. The Palestinians have been begging for outside assistance from the US and UN for years, and the Israelis refuse to let anyone interfere with what they consider a purely internal matter.

And the UN is pretty much to blame for this. When that noted bastion of human rights, Syria, gets to sit on the security council, but Israel is routinely censured, why should Israel trust the UN? When demonstrations against Israel in France have many people turning up with anti-Jewish placards (as I read in a NYT article in July), why should Israel trust the French? When Arafat is given the Nobel Peace Prize, but Sharon is called a terrorist, why should Israel trust the Europeans? When the UN pillories Israel for its presence in Lebanon, but can't be bothered to deal with Hizbollah incursions into Israel, which should Israel trust the UN?



A report has just been released by an official Israeli inquiry into the start of the second intifada three years ago, and the results aren't pretty.
Of course, Israel's treatment of Arabs is bad--I've admitted it before. If we're lucky, the comission's advice will be followed (possible, since, as the article notes, their recommendations "carry much weight.").

It would also really help the Arabs if they'd vote. They have 10 members of the Knesset, even with severely depressed turnouts. For anyone who doesn't know, Israel's representational system is based purely on percentages, not location. (In practical terms, I mean that there isn't a limit of x MPs from Haifa, y from Tel Aviv, and so on.) So it'd actually be relatively easy for the Arab parties to increase their importance in the Knesset, probably to the point of depriving Sharon of a coalition.

Gav
Gav

[bmulligan]

And the UN is pretty much to blame for this. When that noted bastion of human rights, Syria, gets to sit on the security council, but Israel is routinely censured, why should Israel trust the UN?

How dare you question the moral authority of the UN. Don't you know that only they can lend legitimacy to any unilateral action?

[Brian Koontz]

If The Crips were powerful they would also be peaceful and orderly.

I think you'll find that history supports this hypothesis not at all.

How so? Every government that exists overthrew or conquered a government that previously existed. They are aggressive and warlike before and during the overthrow and peaceful afterwards (to the extent that they can be and maintain their power). Kind of simple, really.

The Crips maintain a power structure that opposes the laws of the overarching governmental system. The Crips cannot become powerful (powerful in relation to the US government) without either the destruction or modification of that government.

[Rywill]

I think that anyone who intentionally blows up a bus full of civilians is evil.

I completely agree with this. But so what?
Well, assuming you'll acknowledge that the Israelis aren't going around targeting large crowds of civilians for summary execution, then the "so what" is the logical conclusion that Hamas is more evil than Israel. Nobody is saying Israel is blameless or hasn't done bad things to Palestine. The point is that nothing Israel has done can justify the Palestinian terrorists' reaction to Israel. I jumped into this conversation to make only that point: that even granting that Israel keeps people under curfew, stakes a claim to the good land, makes people wait in long lines, preemptively searches homes and neighborhoods, etc., all of which are bad thigns, none of them is as bad--not even close to as bad--as targeting civilians for destruction. None of them justifies or excuses terrorism. Israel, in my view, clearly has the moral high ground, despite the bad things they have done.

You say "Well, it's not helpful to try and assign blame." But I disagree. I think it's not helpful to pretend that the terrorists and Israel are morally equal, and therefore Israel should have to accept terrorism as just deserts for what they have done. That's an awful, morally bankrupt position, as far as I'm concerned. And my assumption is that the vast majority of people understand that, and therefore that's never going to be a working way to peace.

But like I said, I know you disagree. You think the whole thing is too complicated to understand, especially for Americans, and that since Israel is partly to blame for the problems in the region, we should just say "Well, it's everybody's fault" and move on from there. But I don't agree with you. I think it's morally wrong, and I think it won't work as a practical matter because people will reject it.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

This has turned into nonsense, so this will be my last post on this thread; when there's some new and exciting news out of Israel, I'm sure someone will post another message, and I probably will be too weak-willed to resist jumping in again, though.





Why isn't there some sort of legal barrier to laws like this even being passed?

I just don't even understand this. How can you have a legal barrier to laws being passed? What does that even mean?
A constitution, I'd guess. Or, more specifically, a constitution that prohibits laws like that being passed.
...
I don't see how a constitution can, in itself, prevent a law from being passed--who in the legislature has the power to interpret the constitution? Is everyone in the legislature a judge?

In any case, Israel doesn't have a constitution. Neither does Britain--is Britain not a democracy?

The judiciary could prevent the law from passing based on the constitution, for instance. Or you can take the longer, American-style path, where the end result will be the same.

I didn't (and never would) suggest that the lack of a constitution prohibits a state from being a democracy, nor that Israel isn't democratic. I was merely responding to your (rhetorical?) question.



And the UN is pretty much to blame for this. When that noted bastion of human rights, Syria, gets to sit on the security council, but Israel is routinely censured, why should Israel trust the UN?...

A democracy is held to vastly different standards than a dictatorship. Also, the UN needs to be inclusive etc.

As for the peace prize, it is often (as in the case of Arafat) given for specific acts, rather than as a lifetime achievement award. I don't think not giving him the prize, but awarding it only to Rabin and Peres, would have helped the peace process very much.

[JeffL]

As for the peace prize, it is often (as in the case of Arafat) given for specific acts, rather than as a lifetime achievement award.

Regardless of everything else in this thread - giving Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize was the first wake-up call for me on the politicized nature of that prize. I'm old enough to remember the vast number of innocent people killed around the world in Arafat led and sanctioned terrorist attacks. Giving him what was supposed to be reserved for those people who have done the most to promote peace in this world was both outrageous and sad.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Regardless of everything else in this thread - giving Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize was the first wake-up call for me on the politicized nature of that prize. I'm old enough to remember the vast number of innocent people killed around the world in Arafat led and sanctioned terrorist attacks. Giving him what was supposed to be reserved for those people who have done the most to promote peace in this world was both outrageous and sad.

You can call the Peace Prize many things, but I would hardly call it politicized, and I canot see any basis for calling it that, of all things. The prize in '94 was given to the laureates "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East". This was at a time when the Oslo process was going fairly well, or seemed to, at least. The prize is given for acts performed in within the last year, and doesn't cover a person's entire life history. The Oslo accords couldn't have been (and weren't) implemented by Peres and Rabin alone, but required effort from Arafat as well. Regardless of the results of the process, one should honour the efforts made by both sides at that time.

Anyway, this all happened on good old "Sir" Francis Seiersted (conservative)'s watch, so I might as well link to his speech. (http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1994/presentation-speech.html)

[Jason McCullough]

Of course it's politicized; politics isn't something divorced from the award. Giving it to MLK was pretty political, and rightly so.

[JeffL]

Sorry - perhaps it is just an emotive response on my side that I can't get past. Putting the same medal that was given to MLK (and others of his ilk) to a man who had and has spent much of his life setting up attacks in which innocent men, women and children are butchered is an obscenity to me. To simply ignore that behavior and say "well, yeah, he's been responsible for the slaughter of innocent people across the world for years, but we'll forget that because he may be doing good this one year" cheapens the value of that medal to me.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

...Putting the same medal that was given to MLK (and others of his ilk) to a man who had and has spent much of his life setting up attacks in which innocent men, women and children are butchered is an obscenity to me. To simply ignore that behavior and say "well, yeah, he's been responsible for the slaughter of innocent people across the world for years, but we'll forget that because he may be doing good this one year" cheapens the value of that medal to me.

More than a few questionable (to some, at least) characters have received the award (Kissinger springs to mind). Anyway, with Arafat, either he also got the prize, or there would be no prize for the Middle East peace process. The same holds for the other peace process that got the award; neither Begin nor Sadat were exactly saints.


Of course it's politicized; politics isn't something divorced from the award. Giving it to MLK was pretty political, and rightly so.
Not being apolitical isn't the same as being politicized. In fact, the prize may just suffer from being too little politicized; even though the committee is filled with experienced politicians.
I suppose I (and Norwegians in general) don't have the same view of the prize or the committee as most peope in the world, since I know a bit about the people on the committee making the decisions.

[TimElhajj]

Well, assuming you'll acknowledge that the Israelis aren't going around targeting large crowds of civilians for summary execution, then the "so what" is the logical conclusion that Hamas is more evil than Israel.

I suppose this is helpful point if we're going to line everyone in the world up according to their potential for evil; otherwise, it's utterly pointless and futile. Of course the terrorists are evil. Who is defending the terrorists? When you are done up there come on down and lets talk about the problems in Palestine and Israel.


You say "Well, it's not helpful to try and assign blame." But I disagree. I think it's not helpful to pretend that the terrorists and Israel are morally equal, and therefore Israel should have to accept terrorism as just deserts for what they have done. That's an awful, morally bankrupt position, as far as I'm concerned.

I am not equating terrorists and Israelis. Terrorists come in all nationalities. You, however, seem to be equating all Palestinians with terrorists. I suspect you know that's not true, but nevertheless it seems to be your entire argument: Palestinians should be subjected by Israelis because of terrorist attacks. This is quite telling. This is the attitude most Americans seem to have.


And my assumption is that the vast majority of people understand that, and therefore that's never going to be a working way to peace.

People understand what the media report. You're the perfect example. An otherwise seemingly sane professional talking about how the subjugation of an entire race is really the moral high ground. WTF?


But like I said, I know you disagree. You think the whole thing is too complicated to understand, especially for Americans

That's hardly what I'm saying. I'm an American and I have an excellent understanding of the situation. I believe people are just too lazy or disinterested to think it through for themselves.

[Jason McCullough]

They might as well have done away with the award after giving it to Kissinger; seriously, what could be worse? A posthumous one for Pol Pot?

Giving it to MLK was 100% political in a way that's difficult to imagine today, now that everyone's made nice on Jim Crow. Arafat is in about the same league of politicization.

[asspennies]

I am not equating terrorists and Israelis. Terrorists come in all nationalities. You, however, seem to be equating all Palestinians with terrorists. I suspect you know that's not true, but nevertheless it seems to be your entire argument: Palestinians should be subjected by Israelis because of terrorist attacks. This is quite telling. This is the attitude most Americans seem to have.

Were the Palestinians to not name their schools after suicide bombers, then maybe I'd agree with you. Would they not celebrate and pass out candies with every successful attack on civilians, you might have a point. Were the entire Palestinian society not celebrate (or be forced, at fear of death, into celebrating) the acts of Hamas and the other terrorist groups, would that the population didn't practice mob rule and kill suspected "traitors" without trial in public executions, would that anyone who speaks out against the violence not be silenced or threatened with severe harm if not silent, then perhaps, your arguments might be valid.

[Rywill]

Who is defending the terrorists?
You are, when you say "Israel should make concessions to Palestine despite the continuing terrorist attacks." I mean, Israel has said "We'll engage in any of various plans for peace that both sides have agreed on, as long as the terrorist attacks stop." But the attacks don't stop. Somehow, though, you think the blame lies with Israel, or equally with Israel and Palestine. I don't see how you can think that, unless it's because you think the terrorist attacks shouldn't "count" for anything, or unless you think the terrorist attacks are justified by something Israel has done. I don't think either of those things is true, so you and I disagree. Unless there's some other reason you think Israel should just suck up terrorist attacks, which I'd be interested to hear.



I am not equating terrorists and Israelis. Terrorists come in all nationalities. You, however, seem to be equating all Palestinians with terrorists. I suspect you know that's not true, but nevertheless it seems to be your entire argument: Palestinians should be subjected by Israelis because of terrorist attacks. This is quite telling. This is the attitude most Americans seem to have.
Nice try, but incorrect. I've already said that there are Israeli terrorists as well, and that many Palestinians are not terrorists. But there's an intractable problem here, which you seem to be avoiding: either Israel must accept terrorist attacks from Palestine, or Israel must defend itself. Maybe you think Israel shouldn't defend itself, in which case we just fundamentally disagree: I think any democratic government has the right to defend its citizens from physical violence. If you do think Israel should be able to defend itself, I'd like to know how you think that should be done without interfering in the lives of non-terrorist Palestinians. I don't think it can be done. The restrictions placed on the Palestinians have been, from time to time, severe (although I would hardly call it "subjugation"). There are some instances where I think Israel has gone over the line. But by and large, I think Israel is reacting reasonably to a very difficult situation. I also think that the Palestinians, if they wanted to, could do a lot more to stop the Palestinian terrorists. They don't, presumably because they see this as a holy war and feel that anything goes when fighting the Israelis, or because they feel there's nothing they can do, or they just don't care. I disagree with the Palestinians (and you) on all of those points.

What is your idea or plan for peace in the middle east?


That's hardly what I'm saying. I'm an American and I have an excellent understanding of the situation. I believe people are just too lazy or disinterested to think it through for themselves.
Well, congratulations on apparently being the only American who has the curiosity and drive to think about international events. I'm not sure how the informed and raging debates on, for example, this messageboard (to say nothing of other boards, news shows, etc.) fit in with your "my opponents are all lazy and disinterested" hypothesis, but I'm sure you have it figured out somehow. I guess in the depths of my apathy, I'll just brand you a terrorist and call it a day.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

You are, when you say "Israel should make concessions to Palestine despite the continuing terrorist attacks." I mean, Israel has said "We'll engage in any of various plans for peace that both sides have agreed on, as long as the terrorist attacks stop." But the attacks don't stop. Somehow, though, you think the blame lies with Israel, or equally with Israel and Palestine. I don't see how you can think that, unless it's because you think the terrorist attacks shouldn't "count" for anything, or unless you think the terrorist attacks are justified by something Israel has done...

Sometimes I think people are incapable of understanding the term "conflict" and the relative complexitites that go along with such a situation. Because this is a conflict, all sides are interested in achieving their objectives, and they'll all do some pretty bad stuff in order to get there.



...But there's an intractable problem here, which you seem to be avoiding: either Israel must accept terrorist attacks from Palestine, or Israel must defend itself. Maybe you think Israel shouldn't defend itself, in which case we just fundamentally disagree: I think any democratic government has the right to defend its citizens from physical violence. If you do think Israel should be able to defend itself, I'd like to know how you think that should be done without interfering in the lives of non-terrorist Palestinians. I don't think it can be done. The restrictions placed on the Palestinians have been, from time to time, severe (although I would hardly call it "subjugation"). There are some instances where I think Israel has gone over the line. But by and large, I think Israel is reacting reasonably to a very difficult situation. ...
The major suicide bombings started relatively recently; after the Oslo process collapsed. The Palestinians have been under Israeli occupation since '67, and the Israelis have been building settlements on Palestinian land for the last 20. Were these measures also necessary to protect the Israelis from Palestinian terrorism? How is a 40 year long occupation, with no plans to give the occupied either freedom or citizenship, not subjugation?

This isn't about who started, it's about realising that Israel isn't exactly all about giving the Palestinians everything, and that they have motives that go beyond unconditional peace.

[Rywill]

Again, nobody (well, not me) is saying that Israel hasn't done anything bad in the past, or that Israel's motives are all pure, or that Israel is always doing the right thing. None of that is the point. I agree with you that Israel has done bad things and that the situation as it stands is untenable, and that both Israel and Palestine need to give things up and might need a mediator to lean on them to give appropriate concessions. The problem is in resolving the situation. It seems pretty clear to me that the best way to go about it is: an international mediator (whether the UN, the US, whatever) negotiates a peace plan that both sides can agree to; both sides agree to cease the attacks while the plan is implemented; and then you go with the plan, with a mediator standing by to resolve disputes and make sure both sides live up to the agreement. Should a just plan include Israel giving the Palestinians a state, dismantling most of the settlements, and allowing Palestine to provide its own internal security? Of course it should. And I think that would happen, given the chance. I don't know, and you know why I don't know? Because every time such an agreement is negotiated and the parties start moving towards peace, Palestinian terrorists bomb a bus or a shopping mall or a group of people leaving Temple and the whole situation goes straight to Hell.

In other words, I agree Israel (and Palestine) have done bad things in the past. I agree that both of them need to make concessions now. The place we part company is that you and Tim, as nearly as I can tell, think that it's okay if Israel is making concessions but the Palestinians are continuing to bomb Israeli civilians, or something like that. I honestly don't know, since all you guys ever say is "Well, don't call the terrorists evil, it's more complicated than that" and "If you didn't get all your news from biased American or international news organizations, you'd understand the Palestinian terrorist situation better."

What I've been saying in this thread is "The terrorists are evil, they are not justified by anything that has happened to Palestine in the past, and Israel is being reasonable in retaliating for terrorist attacks and in regulating the Palestinian population to try and prevent terrorist attacks." If you would like to tell me which of those four points you disagree with and why, I'm happy to discuss it. If you just want to keep saying "Well, but this is a conflict," as if that somehow explains the whole thing, I'm not interested. If you just want to keep saying "Well, you don't understand the whole situation because you're too lazy to learn about it," I'm not particularly interested in that either. Especially since I asked folks what facts there are outside my knowledge that explain or justify the terrorism, and what I get back is stuff like "Hey, the Israelis are putting the Palestinians under curfew and making them wait in long lines at checkpoints." "Yeah, but does that justify blowing up a bus full of civilians?" "You don't understand--these lines are really long." Okay.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

...Because every time such an agreement is negotiated and the parties start moving towards peace, Palestinian terrorists bomb a bus or a shopping mall or a group of people leaving Temple and the whole situation goes straight to Hell.
Or a hard-line Israeli is elected, and decides to be provocative, or someone calls together an ill-conceived summit, etc.


...The place we part company is that you and Tim, as nearly as I can tell, think that it's okay if Israel is making concessions but the Palestinians are continuing to bomb Israeli civilians, or something like that. I honestly don't know, since all you guys ever say is "Well, don't call the terrorists evil, it's more complicated than that"...
You can call the terrorists evil all you want, and I'll agree with you, but the situation has more elements than terrorists.



What I've been saying in this thread is "The terrorists are evil, they are not justified by anything that has happened to Palestine in the past, and Israel is being reasonable in retaliating for terrorist attacks and in regulating the Palestinian population to try and prevent terrorist attacks." If you would like to tell me which of those four points you disagree with and why, I'm happy to discuss it. ..."Well, the Israelis are putting the Palestinians under curfew and making them wait in long lines at checkpoints." "Yeah, but does that justify blowing up a bus full of civilians?" "You don't understand--these lines are really long." Okay.
Quite. Well, let me tell you what I've heard. Some days ago, I went to listen to Norwegian National Broadcasting's Middle East correspondent, Lars Sigurd Sunnanå, talk about the conflict. He had some remarks about the relative suffering of both sides. He put it thus: that if you take a scale, and you put the suffering of the Israelis, with the suicide bombings and the fear of suicide bombings, on one of the scales, and the suffering of the Palestinians on the other, the Palestinian scale would be at the very bottom, and the Israeli would be as high as it could go. You could add twenty or thirty suicide bombings to the Israeli side, he said, and the scales wouldn't even move.

I don't think you comprehend the situation of the Palestinians. As mr. Sunnanå out it, they've lost both space and time through the occupation. The space is their land, of course, and that they might be given back eventually. The time, however, is lost forever. The entire Palestinian society is crippled by the closures. You can't go anywhere without it taking you half the day for a trip that would normally be fifteen minutes to an hour. Unemployment is probably over 50 % everywhere now. People can't go to work, they can't visit their family and friends in other cities. Students can't go to their universities, the sick and pregnant regularily can't get to hospitals, ambulances are not allowed to pass, and are regularily shot at. You might get shot, for looking threatening, for walking, for running, for throwing stones. Over twice as many Palestinians as Israelis have been killed, and that's with the Palestinian terrorists trying as hard as they can to kill as many Israelis as possible, while the IDF ostensibly does everything it can to spare civilian lives.

That is, of course, unless you've lived in a refugee camp your whole life, or since the camp was established many decades ago.

The Israeli soldiers manning the checkpoints don't have a very good reputation either, to put it mildly. I remember mr. Sunnanå saying on another occasion that when you listen to Shimon Peres saying that the IDF never opens fire unless absolutely necessary, and later that day you see an Israeli soldier casually shooting a Palestinian driver because he didn't stop quickly enough, you quickly start to feel you're not being told everything.

All the while the settlers go where they want on their "Israelis only" highways, protected by the army. Occasionally they'll shoot at you, or perhaps vandalize your orchard. The settlers aren't getting fewer, either, as the settlements have been expanded and new ones have been built during the peace process, on confiscated Palestinian land, of course. Since the settlements are usually built on hills, Palestinians tend to notice, and they don't exactly gain confidence in the peace process from it.

So, I guess you can call that "regulating the civilian population". You can also call it "stifling a society's hope for peace and in it's future, and destroying its trust in its leadership."

Palestinians today don't see much of a future for themselves. They feel abandoned by the Arabs, the world community, the UN, the US, and increasingly by their own leaders, since they're actually cooperating with the Israelis while all this is going on, and not getting much to show for it. The peace offer currently on the table won't go through, of course. Sharon envisions three isolated areas on the West Bank under Palestinian control, plus Gaza. The PA can't accept something like that and expect to have any popular support. Sunnanå predicted there'd be peace in 10-15 years, when the Arabs will outnumber the Jewish population between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, and the world will have to do something. Because really, it's the Israelis that need the Palestinian state: they need a place to put their demographic problem.

[Lizard_King]

You can call the Peace Prize many things, but I would hardly call it politicized, and I canot see any basis for calling it that, of all things. The prize in '94 was given to the laureates "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East".
Ok. I'll call it a fraud. A meaningless gesture designed to punctuate the political views of the committee in charge. It's about as universal as your views on the morality of suicide bombing.
Also, I'll give some examples I am well acquainted with, just for fun. Oscar Arias, a prime example of "no one else returned our calls". Rigoberta Menchu, an out-and-out fraud, gets to keep hers because she apparently represents good intentions even though her struggle was a pack of lies. Finally, I seriously doubt you will find a way to convince me that Jimmy Carter's reward this year was anything but the committee's way of expressing their dislike for George W. Bush.



This was at a time when the Oslo process was going fairly well, or seemed to, at least. The prize is given for acts performed in within the last year, and doesn't cover a person's entire life history.
At some point, there should be reasonable boundaries. That was the dilemma peace prize committees used to wrestle with: finding someone who was good for peace in the balance, not just someone who made good copy that year.


The Oslo accords couldn't have been (and weren't) implemented by Peres and Rabin alone, but required effort from Arafat as well. Regardless of the results of the process, one should honour the efforts made by both sides at that time.

I don't know. There is something to be said for it, but I still find the "it's the thought that counts" perception of what merits a peace award to be a fairly worthless one. Especially when it comes at a time where it appears to endorsed half assed attempts at peace, as anything involving a complete slimeball like Arafat will be. Mind you, I am not full of love for the Israeli leadership, but there is a difference.


Anyway, this all happened on good old "Sir" Francis Seiersted (conservative)'s watch, so I might as well link to his speech. (http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1994/presentation-speech.html)I suppose it needs no clarification that a Norwegian conservative probably has little in common with an American one. :)

[TimElhajj]

Rywill,

You can call the terrorists evil. That is apparently your one big point. Although I conceded it my first response to you, for some reason you feel the need to continue the fight.

Also, good luck with your Isreali/Palestinaine score card. If you can be bothered to follow the conflict a little closer, you'll notice that both sides are guilty of breaking the cease fires. This is just like the "they started it first" argument. The problem with both these old chestnuts is that you can find always find an earlier precedent.

I like the solution for peace you describe. What would you think if the moderator's first order of buisness was assigning blame and then award the moral high ground? Honestly I find your ability to gloss over the Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians pretty reprehensible.

I say terrorists should be tried, like any other criminals. Or perhaps there is some other more effective strategy we can come up with. I don't know. What I do know, though, is this: the ongoing subjugation of the Palestinians is not a reasonable response to terrorism. Moreover, it doesn't seem to be actually working so well to protect the Israelis.

You are deluded about your news sources. It's so plain just reading your responses. One the one hand, you're willing to admit you know about the (evil?) Israeli terrorists, yet you still believe the Israelis are acting reasonably and want to award them the moral high ground. How many terrorist attacks does it take before you relegate an entire race?

You can have the last word on this. I am sure you'll want to drive home the point that terrorists are evil.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

You can call the Peace Prize many things, but I would hardly call it politicized, and I canot see any basis for calling it that, of all things. The prize in '94 was given to the laureates "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East".
Ok. I'll call it a fraud. A meaningless gesture designed to punctuate the political views of the committee in charge.
That's probably closer to the mark, yes.


It's about as universal as your views on the morality of suicide bombing.
Look, don't imply that I condone suicide bombing without some pretty good quotes to back it up with, OK? Becuse I've never condoned suicide bombings in any way; in fact, I take it for granted that people understand that they're atrocities. Anyway, if such an implication was your intention, you're wrong; and I find such a debating tactic cheap, worthless and embarrassing to be confronted with.


I suppose it needs no clarification that a Norwegian conservative probably has little in common with an American one. :)
Having a conservative government at the moment, words cannot express my gratitude for that simple fact. ;)

[Lizard_King]

It's about as universal as your views on the morality of suicide bombing.
Look, don't imply that I condone suicide bombing without some pretty good quotes to back it up with, OK? Becuse I've never condoned suicide bombings in any way; in fact, I take it for granted that people understand that they're atrocities. Anyway, if such an implication was your intention, you're wrong; and I find such a debating tactic cheap, worthless and embarrassing to be confronted with.
It wasn't, and I'm sorry it came out that way since I was just trying for brevity. I should have said your views on the morality of the UN's position on suicide bombing (ie, presumably not that it is a good thing, but that those who perpetrate it must be dealt with on the same playing field as the Israelis. But it was less snappy, and thus avoided, and that makes me the asshole. My apologies.



Having a conservative government at the moment, words cannot express my gratitude for that simple fact. ;)
Indeed. I really, really grew to like Norway in the few weeks I was there, and I wouldn't want anyone to change you guys much.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

It wasn't, and I'm sorry it came out that way since I was just trying for brevity... But it was less snappy, and thus avoided, and that makes me the asshole. My apologies.
Or, I could have asked you what you meant, instead of making accusations.. it's just that I've become so acustomed to that "tactic" being used. Sorry about that.


Indeed. I really, really grew to like Norway in the few weeks I was there, and I wouldn't want anyone to change you guys much.
Nut much, eh? ;) Well, glad you had a good time here.

[Lizard_King]

It wasn't, and I'm sorry it came out that way since I was just trying for brevity... But it was less snappy, and thus avoided, and that makes me the asshole. My apologies.
Or, I could have asked you what you meant, instead of making accusations.. it's just that I've become so acustomed to that "tactic" being used. Sorry about that.

It was a fair call on your end. I would have thought the same.



Nut much, eh? ;) Well, glad you had a good time here.
Well, I just wish y'all would learn to speak AMERICAN, so it wouldn't be so damned hard to hit on your women :twisted:

Now if you'll excuse me, I believe I have some wars to start, or else people will be disappointed.

[Daniel Morris]

Congratulations, Yasser.

Israel will soon move to expel Arafat (http://www.msnbc.com/news/801833.asp?0cv=CB10), prompting Arafat to declare victory today over the forces of reform in Palestinian politics.

From MSNBC:


Arafat vowed to resist any Israeli attempts to remove him and the new Palestinian prime minister abandoned plans to form a new government.

Arafat emerged flashing a V-for-victory sign and told the crowd, “Abu Ammar is staying here,” referring to himself by his nom de guerre.

“We are on sacred land, and we will protect our holy Christian and Muslim places,” he said, using a bullhorn. “We send a message to the detainees, and to the prisoners: Together, all the way to Jerusalem.”

He then led the crowd in a chant, waving his finger in rhythm: “To Jerusalem, to Jerusalem, to Jerusalem.”

Arafat’s choice for prime minister, Ahmed Qureia, said he was dropping his efforts to form a new Palestinian government in light of the “crazy decision,” which he said would destroy “stability and peace in the region.”

Call it Fatah. Call it Hamas. Call the hydra by the name of any of its heads. Arafat has succeeded once again in derailing the peace process and undoing the latest effort to reform the Palestinian Authority. I hope the Palestinians enjoy the the fruits of their leader's avarice.

The editorial in today's Jerusalem Post is openly calling for Arafat's assassination. The Jerusalem Post.

It's war now. Arafat bought the ticket, now all of Palestine gets to take the ride.

[Kalle]

The Jerusalem Post is a right-wing rag of a paper. Give them another year and they'll be openly calling for forced deportation of all Palestinians to Jordan at the rate the peace process is proceeding.

The gamers/gamers username/password works there, if anyone wants to take a look at their fine articles

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1063171448488

[quatoria]

Israel would seem to have no choice now but invasion and occupation. Christ, what a fucking nightmare. Arafat won't back down, but by the same token, I'm not sure I can imagine a scenario in which his forced removal doesn't result in an even more hardline replacement - unless a replacement is installed by Israel. Ugh. What a hideous situation they're now in.

[quatoria]

Here's the rest of that Jerusalem Post comment on Arafat -


Under the headline "Enough," the Jerusalem Post editorialized today: "We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasir Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative."

Charming. 'but not letting that damage stop us'.

[Gav]

Worrying about what the Jerusalem Post says is a bit like worrying about "The New York Post," except even less worth worrying about (Sorry int'l readers, but I don't have other equivalents to hand--think tabloid journalism, though).

FWIW, the "New York Times"-wannabe in Israel is "Ha'aretz" (which has a web-site in English), next on the scale would be "Ma'ariv" and "Yediot", but I don't know if they're available in English, then the "J. Post".

(And, if anyone cares, I think expelling Arafat would be one of the dumber things this administration has done (if they end up doing it), and killing him would be infinitely stupider)

Gavin

[quatoria]

Something else interesting - the NYT had an article on his speech today, but they made no mention of "Together, all the way to Jerusalem.”

Seems like an odd omission, if he did, indeed, say it.

[Lizard_King]

Worrying about what the Jerusalem Post says is a bit like worrying about "The New York Post," except even less worth worrying about (Sorry int'l readers, but I don't have other equivalents to hand--think tabloid journalism, though).

The Guardian. Any newspaper that has a swimsuit/boobies section (not that there's anything wrong with that).

The Jerusalem Post is, however, one of the few sources that provides translated version of virtually every damn thing Arab leaders are saying, all over the middle east. Not in a flattering light, of course, but some of them just speak for themselves. And a useful counterbalance to Al Jazeera's English version pink fuzzy bunnies vs its Arabic splatterfest.

[Toddy]

There was a great column in the Guardian this past week about how idiotic it is for Israel to try and dictate the leaders of the opposition. It compared how Israel has been futilely trying to kill terrorists and political leaders with how the British negotiated with the IRA leadership. Even during IRA bombing campaigns, even when one of the head honchos traveled without bodyguards and lived in a house within sniper range of a British military base. Most telling section:

"Sharon fails to see that he is no longer fighting isolated cells. Through its clinics, universities and mosques, Hamas has enmeshed itself into the hearts and minds of up to 30% of the Palestinian population. Hamas and the political aspirations it represents will not be destroyed by killing Sheikh Yassin. In Ulster, the British army could have killed the entire IRA leadership in one afternoon. IRA leader Martin McGuinness lived openly for 30 years in the Bogside district of Derry, his house within sniper range of the main RUC barracks. McGuinness drove an ordinary car and eschewed bodyguards. The IRA army council, on which McGuinness served, twice tried to decapitate the British cabinet, at Brighton in 1984 and in Downing Street in 1991. But assassinating McGuinness would not have destroyed violent Irish republicanism or weakened the Provisional IRA.

"Instead, Britain's secret state sought to foster a relationship with McGuinness. He was the conduit for the initial peace proposals from MI6's Michael Oatley that eventually flowered into the 1998 Good Friday agreement. These secret McGuinness-Oatley discussions went on even as the IRA's London bombs went off."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1038892,00.html

[Daniel Morris]

Unfortunately, there is no Palestinian McGuinness.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Unfortunately, there is no Palestinian McGuinness.

Well, there's no Israeli British government either, able to tolerate murderous bombings without retaliating against the leaders of the perpetrators. In any case, the situations in Northern Ireland and the Middle East might be somewhat similar, but the differences are greater.

There has been a lot of contact between Palestinian top officials and Israeli top officials, however. Rumour has it there still is, just not with the Israelis in power at the moment. The PA leadership (yes, even Arafat) has demonstrated a remarkable willingness to negotiate, which has often, as in the case of Abu Mazen, hurt their standing with the Palestinian people, when those negotiations bore no fruit.

[Daniel Morris]

The PA leadership (yes, even Arafat) has demonstrated a remarkable willingness to negotiate, which has often, as in the case of Abu Mazen, hurt their standing with the Palestinian people, when those negotiations bore no fruit.


Comedy gold.


I think you mean to say that Arafat has shown a remarkable willingness to negotiate only to decline the deal eventually arrived at, or to "accept" the deal and then unleash Hamas/Fatah to undo it.

[Daniel Morris]

Or were you just trying out some satire?

[TimElhajj]

Dan, you're slaying me here. You've obviously got your finger on the pulse of the situation, what with your quips about how Hamas is in its death throes and all.

[JeffL]

Been away from here for a while...

Brett, do you really think there is an analagous situation with Hamas and the IRA? I followed the IRA situation very closely (close friends live in Northern Ireland) and I always had the feeling that they had some people who were truly willing to negotiate in good faith. What I see on the part of Hamas is that every time there is an attempted peace negotiation, they step up their campaign of terrorism.

And seriously - when has Arafat shown anything like a sincere willingness to negotiate in recent times?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

And seriously - when has Arafat shown anything like a sincere willingness to negotiate in recent times?

From Camp David (not a good idea, for him) to recent negotiations (the ceasefire). Of course, the Israelis won't talk with him directly, so his willingness doesn't really enter into it, these days.



I think you mean to say that Arafat has shown a remarkable willingness to negotiate only to decline the deal eventually arrived at, or to "accept" the deal and then unleash Hamas/Fatah to undo it.

FFS.

http://www.bitterlemons.org/docs/moratinos.html

The Palestinians weren't willing to accept the deal at Camp David. When you compare it to Taba, you can't really blame them. I can't really understand why you suppose the results of a negotiation can't be rejected.

As for Arafat, his ability to unleash Hamas is rather limited; political rivals and all. It's unlikely that the recent round of negotiations would have been possible had he actively opposed them.

Arafat aside, you can't deny that the PA leadership is willing to quite far in negotiations, considering their current situation.

[Lizard_King]

Arafat aside, you can't deny that the PA leadership is willing to quite far in negotiations, considering their current situation.

Um. "Arafat aside"? Doesn't that make the whole line of speculation pointless?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Um. "Arafat aside"? Doesn't that make the whole line of speculation pointless?

We disagree about Arafat's willingness to negotiate, but perhaps not about the willingness of the rest of the Fatah leadership. Putting aside an issue where we disagree to try to find agreement on an other etc.

To reformulate: "Not taking into account Arafat, about whom we disagree, you cannot deny that..."

That was maybe not entirely clear, but that's what I meant, at least.

[Lizard_King]

We disagree about Arafat's willingness to negotiate, but perhaps not about the willingness of the rest of the Fatah leadership. Putting aside an issue where we disagree to try to find agreement on an other etc.

To reformulate: "Not taking into account Arafat, about whom we disagree, you cannot deny that..."

That was maybe not entirely clear, but that's what I meant, at least.
We probably disagree about the rest of Fatah as well, at least the parts that matter. I see a bunch of gangsters with a vested interest in continued strife; human misery is no problem for people that prioritize power first. But I am pretty sure we're not going to get very far on that, so I'm willing to leave it at that. :) [/url]

[DennyA]

We probably disagree about the rest of Fatah as well, at least the parts that matter. I see a bunch of gangsters with a vested interest in continued strife; human misery is no problem for people that prioritize power first. But I am pretty sure we're not going to get very far on that, so I'm willing to leave it at that.
Interestingly, I had no idea which side you were talking about here -- or did you intend it to address both?

[Lizard_King]

Interestingly, I had no idea which side you were talking about here -- or did you intend it to address both?

Interestingly, that would only work if my response had not had one of those handy topic sentence things.

We probably disagree about the rest of Fatah as well, at least the parts that matter.
Leave me out of your fun with proportions.

[TimElhajj]

human misery is no problem for people that prioritize power first.

It's hard to imagine a people with lesss power than the Palestinians.

[Daniel Morris]

I see a bunch of gangsters with a vested interest in continued strife; human misery is no problem for people that prioritize power first.

As good a summation of Arafat/Fatah as has ever been put forward.

[Rywill]

It's hard to imagine a people with lesss power than the Palestinians.
I knew it! Tim Elhajj is Cobra Commander.

[TimElhajj]

It's hard to imagine a people with lesss power than the Palestinians.
I knew it! Tim Elhajj is Cobra Commander.

Just messing with the lizard. :)

[Midnight Son]

There will never be peace in the Middle East. Pessimistic? Nah, realist.

[bmulligan]

Well, according to some palestinian millitants, there will never be peace as long as there are jews there. They want the land to themselves so they can start fighting each other for it like all of their arab neighbors.

[Midnight Son]

Well, according to some palestinian millitants, there will never be peace as long as there are jews there. They want the land to themselves so they can start fighting each other for it like all of their arab neighbors.

Exactly. If/when they are able to destroy the Jews, they will just fight amongst themselves. Once the oil is gone we won't give a damn either.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

I see a bunch of gangsters with a vested interest in continued strife; human misery is no problem for people that prioritize power first.

As good a summation of Arafat/Fatah as has ever been put forward.

So you don't think they'd like to be the bosses of their own state instead of an enclave under Israeli control?

[Gav]

I see a bunch of gangsters with a vested interest in continued strife; human misery is no problem for people that prioritize power first.

As good a summation of Arafat/Fatah as has ever been put forward.

So you don't think they'd like to be the bosses of their own state instead of an enclave under Israeli control?

In all seriousness, I think some do and some don't. I think Arafat is a thug who knows he'd be in trouble if people ever held him responsible for actually running a state. I could reprise his sordid history, but there's no real point; you probably already know it, and you can agree or disagree.

I think there are a bunch of members of Fatah who really want to see some sort of peace, and, for that matter, I think most members of the Palestinian council would at least like to see an end to strife.

But, for better or for worse Arafat is the guy in charge, and he'll continue to be in charge even if Israel is stupid enough to deport him.

Gav

[Daniel Morris]

So you don't think they'd like to be the bosses of their own state instead of an enclave under Israeli control?

A) The short answer is no. Arafat appreciates that a real peace settlement means the end of his autocratic control over Palestine's fate. More specifically, the reform of Palestinian institutions that must prefigure a peace settlement runs contrary to Arafat's current autocratic control over those institutions. (Well, shit -- he IS the institutions.)


B) The long answer is yes, of course, but now we need to define who "they" are. "They" are Palestinians as a people, but "they" do not include their current leaders. If the poll recently conducted by a Palestinian researcher in the occupied territories (a poll denounced violently by Hamas) is correct and two-thirds of Palestinians support a peace settlement with Israel with no "right of return", then Arafat must know he is drawing his last gasps as a figure on the world stage.


C) Have you seen the million-dollar smiles on Arafat's face in any photo taken of him in recent days? He has never looked happier.

[ydejin]

In all seriousness, I think some do and some don't. I think Arafat is a thug who knows he'd be in trouble if people ever held him responsible for actually running a state. I could reprise his sordid history, but there's no real point; you probably already know it, and you can agree or disagree.

Hey Gav, I think in a sense Arafat did get a chance to run his own state immediately after the Oslo accords were signed. As I recall he did quite badly and his rule was marked by large amounts of corruption. From what I've seen, Arafat isn't focused on peace or what's right for the Palestinians, what he cares about is staying in charge.

It's quite sad. He had a chance to really be the founder of a nation -- a George Washington. Instead of thinking about his place in history, he's totally focused on his own personal power in the here and now. He seems to have no real sense or understanding of the institutions needed for governance and instead he has the scratch my back and I'll scratch yours mentality of a clan chieftan.

What's your take on Marwan Barghouti? I've seen him bandied about on quite a number of occasions as one of the few with the prestige and popularity needed to take on Arafat.

[Dirt]

Nuke 'em all.

[ydejin]

Well, according to some palestinian millitants, there will never be peace as long as there are jews there. They want the land to themselves so they can start fighting each other for it like all of their arab neighbors.

That's not only true on the Palestinian side. As I and others have previously pointed out, the Greater Israel movement (which has included previous members of Sharon's own cabinet) wants the complete removal of all Palestinians from Palestine. In fact the Likud party was formed in part by people who believed in retaining all of Palestine for the Jews. Here (www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-091703plot_lat,1,961460.story?coll=la-home-leftrail) is an example of how far they are willing to go.


Three Israelis who plotted to blow up a trailer packed with explosives outside a Palestinian girls school were convicted today of attempted murder in a case that shed some light on the shadowy world of suspected Jewish militants.

The three men were arrested in April 2002 after two of them parked the trailer outside the East Jerusalem campus at night and fled when a police patrol showed up. Inside the trailer officers found a bomb rigged to go off several hours later, when hundreds of girls would have been assembled in the schoolyard before the morning bell.

Fortunately the attack was stopped (as noted in the full article more by chance than by any active policing on the part of Israel) and the perpetrators are being charged. That's more than Arafat is willing (or perhaps able) to do. Nevertheless, Bmulligan, your repeated insistence that it is the Arabs alone who advocated the removal of their opponents is simply one-sided and does not match the facts. There are Palestinians that want Israel removed and there are Israelis that want Palestinians removed. And indeed there are radicals actively involved in government on both sides.

I would be most pleased to have the radical "push-Israel-to-the-Sea" Palestinians lose power but in the same respect, I would also like to see the Greater Israel / Pro-Settlement group marginalized. Unfortunately I don't see either of these happening. In some sense they form a symbiotic relationship. The radical Palestians setoff bombs and push Israelis into the hands of Likud and other members of the Israeli right. Likud (and others) expand the settlements and performs security crackdowns which pushes Palestinians into the hands of Hamas.

[Lizard_King]

Fortunately the attack was stopped (as noted in the full article more by chance than by any active policing on the part of Israel) and the perpetrators are being charged. That's more than Arafat is willing (or perhaps able) to do. Nevertheless, Bmulligan, your repeated insistence that it is the Arabs alone who advocated the removal of their opponents is simply one-sided and does not match the facts. There are Palestinians that want Israel removed and there are Israelis that want Palestinians removed. And indeed there are radicals actively involved in government on both sides.
It never hurts to bring a bit of perspective to the general populations of both sides. One question, though: do you seriously think any Palestinian security force would have done the same as the Israeli police in a comparable situation? I mean, as I understand it, Hamas is practically a government agency in and of itself, and I seriously wonder whether any of the other leaders in the area would cross them.

[Daniel Morris]

That's not only true on the Palestinian side. As I and others have previously pointed out, the Greater Israel movement...

Deliberate obtuseness. You cannot seriously hope to draw equivalency between the repeated, routine horrors of Hamas/PIJ/Fatah and "militant Israel," which more closely resembles a redneck Aryan Nations gang than anything the Palestinians have going.

You scramble to present imaginary balanced scales, and look increasingly desperate in the attempt. No halfway-reasonable person will accept the ludicrous insinuation that Israel poses anything like the existential menace to Palestinian society that Hamas/PIJ/Fatah poses to Israel.

[bmulligan]

Nevertheless, Bmulligan, your repeated insistence that it is the Arabs alone who advocated the removal of their opponents is simply one-sided and does not match the facts.
Pardon me, but you assume any insistance that the situation is a result of only arab action. I know perfectly well that their are Israelite fanatics like the Likud who are more than willing to take one for the motherland or perhaps even murder a fellow Jew who would dare make concessions.

It doesn't negate the 'fact' presented in my statement. Only a convinient resting point for you to pin an 'arab hater' button on my lapel. Thanks for your bit of equal time, though. I could have easily just have said the fanatical jews won't rest until all of the Jew haters are dead and burried. The wacky Hebrews however, are off-shoots of the mainstream and not an integral part of the Israeli culture and infrastructure as appealing as it is to liken them to Hamas.

[bmulligan]

darn you Morris, you beat me to the same point!

[TimElhajj]

No halfway-reasonable person will accept the ludicrous insinuation that Israel poses anything like the existential menace to Palestinian society that Hamas/PIJ/Fatah poses to Israel.

The death tolls for Palestinians measured against Israelis indicate a much different story.

[Lizard_King]

The death tolls for Palestinians measured against Israelis indicate a much different story.

The manner in which they died is at least as important as the raw number.

[TimElhajj]

The death tolls for Palestinians measured against Israelis indicate a much different story.

The manner in which they died is at least as important as the raw number.

They're killing twice as many, but they're killing them in a much more noble fashion. Please, you'll have to do better than that.

[Rywill]

Why does he have to do better than that? What if on a certain day, a Palestinian suicide bomber kills 10 Israeli civilians, and in response Israeli soldiers attack the Hamas base from which the bomber came, killing 21 Palestinian terrorists while losing one soldier of their own?

On the one hand, you could say "Jesus Christ, 11 Israeli dead versus 22 Palestinian dead, those Israelis are complete and utter bastards." But I think most people--most assuredly including me--would say "Huh, Palestinians kill 10 Israeli civilians through terrorism, Israeli soldiers retaliate and kill 20 Palestinian militants. Seems like the Palestinians are the only bastards here."

In that scenario, are you saying the Palestinians would automatically hold the moral high ground because more of them were killed, regardless of how?

[TimElhajj]

What if on a certain day, a Palestinian suicide bomber kills 10 Israeli civilians, and in response Israeli soldiers attack the Hamas base from which the bomber came, killing 21 Palestinian terrorists while losing one soldier of their own?

Only in your fantasy world where all the evil terrorists are Arabic and all the Israeli terrorists must immediately be granted the moral high ground. If only all the Arabic casualties really were terrorists!

In the real world the terrorists are tucked into the rest of the population. In the real world the occasional 1 ton bomb dropped on an apartment building to guarantee a terrorist casualty does not earn the Israelis the moral high ground. There are many innocent Palestinians dying, my friend.

As for your question, I wouldn't award anyone the moral high ground. After 40+ brutal years, I honestly don't see how any reasonable person can. But if you're trying to measure which side poses the biggest threat to the other's society, I would say that the death toll is a huge factor that can't be ignored.

[Anders Hallin]

The death tolls for Palestinians measured against Israelis indicate a much different story.
The manner in which they died is at least as important as the raw number.
Yeah, I mean, who's occupying who here? It's rather obvious who is in the right.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Don't have time for a long reply, but statistics are always nice:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Al_Aqsa_Fatalities.asp


2,144 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories, of whom 396 were minors under the age of 18.

At least 123 of the Palestinians killed were extrajudicially executed by Israel. In the course of these assasinations 84 additional Palestinians were killed.

[In the territories] 192 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians, 29 of them were minors under the age of 18.

[Inside Israel]355 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians, residents of the Occupied Territories. 70 of them were minors under the age of 18.


One of the problems with the Palestinian casualty statistics is that it's hard to verify how many were combatants killed in clashes with the IDF etc. The number is probably quite high.

[Rywill]

Only in your fantasy world where all the evil terrorists are Arabic and all the Israeli terrorists must immediately be granted the moral high ground. If only all the Arabic casualties really were terrorists!
I'm not saying that, have never said that, and in fact have continuously denied that, although you keep throwing it up as a strawman argument because it's easier to reply to than the acutal discussion. So how about this: every time you say I think all Palestinians are terrorists and all Israelis are good, I'll just say that I heard you were a member of the KKK. Fair?

My example above was simply to illustrate to you that the manner in which people are killed is important, despite your assertion to the contrary. You were making the point that all that matters in the conflict is "how many on each side were killed." I strongly disagree. How (or why) they were killed is just as important as the fact that they were killed. IMO, at least. The illustration was not supposed to be a claim of fact (the "What if" at the beginning is a good clue, for future reference). It's a one-sided hypothetical that serves to show you the error of the point you made previously.



As for your question, I wouldn't award anyone the moral high ground.
Which just brings us full-circle again. I'm not sure why I even jumped back into this thread. If you would read the example above and say that if that happened, both sides would be morally equal, you and I just have no basis for discussion, so I'll let it drop. Have the last word if you like.


But if you're trying to measure which side poses the biggest threat to the other's society, I would say that the death toll is a huge factor that can't be ignored.
That's a fair point, but I think it ignores the overarching issue that Israel would be willing to live peacefully beside the Palestinians, but the Palestinians (as a whole) are not willing to live peacefully beside the Israelis. So in a sense, Israel is a bigger threat because, if motivated, Israel could wipe out Palestine much more easily than Palestine could wipe out Israel (I imagine that second one is flat-out impossible). But in another sense, Palestine is the bigger threat because the Palestinians have the power to stop Israel from attacking (by stopping their own attacks), whereas Israel seems to have no power to stop Palestinian attacks.

[TimElhajj]

That's a fair point, but I think it ignores the overarching issue that Israel would be willing to live peacefully beside the Palestinians, but the Palestinians (as a whole) are not willing to live peacefully beside the Israelis.

Here you go again. Your simplistic assessments of the situation constantly slay me, Ryan. They always seem to amount to the Arabs are guilty/evil and the Israelis are innocent/good.

And there is a difference between you making something up slanderous about me and me reading your posts. I am not interested in your hypotheticals. I am certinally not interested in awarding the moral high ground to anyone, much less the Palestinains. My point is that this kind of reasoning doesn't help the situation. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.

[Bub, Andrew]

the evil terrorists are Arabic and all the Israeli terrorists

The Israelis aren't "terrorists". They're the Oppressive Government.

[TimElhajj]

the evil terrorists are Arabic and all the Israeli terrorists

The Israelis aren't "terrorists". They're the Oppressive Government.

A number of Isreali leaders enjoy a long tradition of terrorism. This information is easily available for you to read.

[Rywill]

I am not interested in your hypotheticals.
Well, that's an easy way to avoid losing an argument, I guess. "Oh, you made a point? Well, I'm not interested in it, so I'll just make up a point for you and reply to that instead."

[TimElhajj]

Well, that's an easy way to avoid losing an argument, I guess. "Oh, you made a point? Well, I'm not interested in it, so I'll just make up a point for you and reply to that instead."

Nonsense. You're just trying to change the question. Why? Apparently so you can invite me to award the moral high ground again, although I've repeatedly told you I'm not interested in doing any such thing.

You're not going to flip the game, Ryan. You're just not that good. Besides, I thought you said I got the last word?

[Rywill]

Well, that's an easy way to avoid losing an argument, I guess. "Oh, you made a point? Well, I'm not interested in it, so I'll just make up a point for you and reply to that instead."

Nonsense. You're just trying to change the question.
Am I? To what? I don't even understand what that means. Maybe it's meaningless. Someone back there said that Palestine is more threatening than Israel. You said Israel is more threatening because they've killed more people. I'm just saying that a mere comparison of body counts is not the be-all, end-all of "who is more threatening." But I guess my view gets into that pesky morality again, which you are not interested in, which is why we disagree and have always disagreed. But just because I look at the conflict as an issue that has moral aspects, while you look at it as something morally neutral (in the sense that you're not willing to address the morality of either side, except to point out that some Israelis are terrorists), doesn't mean that I'm "changing the question," any more than you are. I'm not sure who appointed you Designator of the Question for this thread, but I didn't get to vote.


Why?
You made it up, so why don't you tell me?


You're not going to flip the game, Ryan. You're just not that good.
Man, you are such a badass. Talk to me dirty, Tim! Although you're right, you are just running histrionic circles around me in this thread. Especially with that "You're just changing the question" thing. Who could have anticipated that move? You're like the Walter Payton of debate.


Besides, I thought you said I got the last word?
Whoops--yellow card for me. You might want to PM Tom about it and see if he'll ban me. Or call your mother or something.

[TimElhajj]

Oh, boy! We've graduated from simplistic explanations of the conflict to weepy platitudes. Of course the conflict has moral aspects. Name a single conflict that has no moral aspect. I am just blown away that you're so ready to award the moral high ground, clap the dust off your hands and be done with it.

Ryan: Now that we've settled that pesky Middle East situation, assigned blame and awarded the moral high ground, lets just move on to bigger and better moral aspects of the world, shall we?



Besides, I thought you said I got the last word?

Whoops--yellow card for me. You might want to PM Tom about it and see if he'll ban me. Or call your mother or something.

LOL, we can discuss this for weeks if you like. You were the one who said you didn't want to disucss it anymore. Although now that you've already covered simplistic explanations and weepy platitudes, you don't have much fall back room.

[bmulligan]

In the real world the terrorists are tucked into the rest of the population.

unlike the shoppers at the malls and restauraunts who are not tucked into the population


But if you're trying to measure which side poses the biggest threat to the other's society, I would say that the death toll is a huge factor that can't be ignored.

mmmmm......minding your own business on a warm summers day waiting for a bus BOOM! Or choosing to live next door to a known Hamas leader, or ride in a car with him, or let him hold your baby and blow kisses. These people may be 'tucked' into the population, but I'm sure many of those 'innocents' choose to associate and be near him knowing full well they are a target of the Israeli army. Granted there are many innocents killed collaterally, and Israel should be more dilligent in their eradication instead of the sloppiness currently displayed if they want to 'claim' moral high ground.



Although now that you've already covered simplistic explanations and weepy platitudes, you don't have much fall back room.

I don't see your argument being any more cogent. Unless you include Hallin's theory that the occupiers are always wrong and the oppressed are 'in the right'. That makes perfect sense.

[Jason McCullough]

Guilt by assocation, eh? So if you're related to a drug dealer it's no big deal if they kill you?

[Daniel Morris]

You'll have to do better than that. One favorite tactic of Hamas leaders is to squirrel away in a guest room in a lackey's house. If you want to welcome that guy into your home, that's your choice. But don't complain about "guilt by association" when your house gets rocketed -- particularly not if your houseguest was busily plotting bus bombings.

[TimElhajj]

In the real world the terrorists are tucked into the rest of the population.

unlike the shoppers at the malls and restauraunts who are not tucked into the population

Those people are the popluation. I suppose this is meant to imply that I'm somehow siding with the terrorists or advocating suicide bombs. How typical. No argument to make on its own merits so you rely on cheap tricks.

[jeffd]

Guilt by assocation, eh? So if you're related to a drug dealer it's no big deal if they kill you?

A better analogy would be hanging out at your buddy's house and being surprised when you get arrested in the raid - despite the fact that you knew he was a wanted drug dealer.

JD

[TimElhajj]

You'll have to do better than that. One favorite tactic of Hamas leaders is to squirrel away in a guest room in a lackey's house. If you want to welcome that guy into your home, that's your choice. But don't complain about "guilt by association" when your house gets rocketed -- particularly not if your houseguest was busily plotting bus bombings.

So all the Palestinian civilians have it coming, but all the Israeli civilians are innocent victims. You think that's an excuse a reasonable, rational, man would use?

[jeffd]

Also if it's necessary to have some sort of moral comparison between the attacks launched by both sides I'd suggest examining whether or not there's any difference in the collateral damage death of a civilian caught in the crossfire in an attack on a military target vs. the death of a civilian due to an attack targeted against civilians.

JD

[Bub, Andrew]

I look at it this way. The innocents who get killed when a Hamas leader is targeted can best be described as "collateral damage". That's a bad thing, but those people weren't the target. The Terrorist was the target.

Hamas targets innocent people. The civilians are the target.

Even though I think the collateral damage excuse is a poor one, and that it's terrible when Palestinians die, I have no problem figuring out which is worse or more repugnant to me.

[Daniel Morris]

Furthermore, many of you obtusely ignore the fact that Hamas benefits from and cheers each civilian Palestinian death, and works hard to ensure that Palestinian civilians die in each Israeli strike.

Israel does not indiscriminately target civilians -- that's Hamas you're thinking about. But Hamas is quite content to see Palestinians chewed up alongside their operatives -- in fact, content isn't a strong enough word. A better word might be "gleeful" -- since civilian carnage, whether it be Israeli or Palestinian, is Hamas' only currency.

[TimElhajj]

I look at it this way. The innocents who get killed when a Hamas leader is targeted can best be described as "collateral damage". That's a bad thing, but those people weren't the target. The Terrorist was the target.


Israel does not indiscriminately target civilians -- that's Hamas you're thinking about.

There was the one ton bomb the IAF dropped on the Palestinian apartment building. There was the American girl run over by the bulldozer. That's just off the top of my head. I know it's hard for you to fathom because all the bad guys are not wearing black cowboy hats, but try to think it through.

[bmulligan]

since civilian carnage, whether it be Israeli or Palestinian, is Hamas' only currency.

excellent point, something Elhajj will most certainly say is irrational, thoughtless and an overt form of trickery by those who are incapable of thinking the problem through and don't agree with him.

Hamas, and their brethren, islamic jihad, intifada, etc., make an effort to surround themselves with innocents. Just like the groups of 'freedom fighters' who launch attacks agains Israeli footsoldiers and retreat behind women and children, that's just off the top of my head. And many may involve themselves willingly because they believe their cause is morally superior or being around someone like that makes them feel closer to god. Heck, so many of them want to die for their cause anyway, so why feel bad for them? They're going to heaven, aren't they? 72 virgins and what not, their own mansion in maryrdom history, maybe even a plaque from allah himself. Morris is more right than you could fathom, they profit from world opinion and people like you when more of them die, they get rewarded in the afterlife for being good enough to have killed some worthless oppressive jews.

[TimElhajj]

Also if it's necessary to have some sort of moral comparison between the attacks launched by both sides I'd suggest examining whether or not there's any difference in the collateral damage death of a civilian caught in the crossfire in an attack on a military target vs. the death of a civilian due to an attack targeted against civilians.

JD

Interesting point, JD.

I think we can all pretty much agree that targeting civilians is despicable, cowardly act of the worst sort. Now the real meat of this problem is determining how to measure the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

I imagine some of this collateral damage is going to be inescapable. The army is trying to accomplish some reasonable goal and comes under fire and in the confusion of responding innocent people are killed. To me, it doesn't seem quite fair to equate that to terrorism.

But what about sending the air force to bomb an apartment building? What about firing rockets into a crowded street? These are decisions made prior to deployment. This is not targeting civilians? It's even worse than that. It's like holding the Palestinian population hostage because terrorists are attacking Israelis. That's deplorable. Who is going to stand up for the Palestinians? It is not okay to say, well, they should not have their high schools named after Arafat, so they deserve to be blown to little bits. That's just wrong headed thinking.

Also, on the larger point about moral culpability, there is something to be said about leaders who put service people in these types of intolerable situations. Look at the US troops in and around Tirkit(sp?). Those guys are so nervous that when a car backfires, it elicits a 360 degree arc of indiscriminate return fire. What a mess! I do not hold the troops entirely responsible. They are trying to stay alive. They have been put in an impossible situation. The morally culpable party is the person who sent them to the war in the first place.

[bmulligan]

You mean Saddam Hussein of course, since he could have averted the invasion at any time by allowing COMPLETE AND UNFETTERED ACCESS to any and all suspected weapon sites in Iraq ?

[TimElhajj]

excellent point, something Elhajj will most certainly say is irrational, thoughtless and an overt form of trickery by those who are incapable of thinking the problem through and don't agree with him.

Hamas, and their brethren, islamic jihad, intifada, etc., make an effort to surround themselves with innocents. Just like the groups of 'freedom fighters' who launch attacks agains Israeli footsoldiers and retreat behind women and children, that's just off the top of my head. And many may involve themselves willingly because they believe their cause is morally superior or being around someone like that makes them feel closer to god. Heck, so many of them want to die for their cause anyway, so why feel bad for them? They're going to heaven, aren't they? 72 virgins and what not, their own mansion in maryrdom history, maybe even a plaque from allah himself. Morris is more right than you could fathom, they profit from world opinion and people like you when more of them die, they get rewarded in the afterlife for being good enough to have killed some worthless oppressive jews.

Jeff Lackey, Ryan Williams(?), Andrew Bub: Let this post stand as a warning for you to rethink your position on blindly supporting Israel no matter what the situation. This way lies madness!

[bmulligan]

Look, I don't support Israel at all costs, but I understand the method of their madness. Most of which only serves to incense(no pun intended) more palestinian youth to get in line for free virgin coochie in the afterworld. Seems to me they could target Terrorist leaders and other strategic targets more accurately and with more finesse, like a mickey in their food, or a midnight kidnapping, or a sniper shot, not a gun blazing firework display that encapsulates the surrounding flora and fauna.

Accusing some of us to be blind zionist followers only make you look like a palestinian terrorist advocate.

[TimElhajj]

You won't find a single post where I advocate terrorism. Besides, my warning was referring to your blatant and unbridled racism.

[Bub, Andrew]

Jeff Lackey, Ryan Williams(?), Andrew Bub: Let this post stand as a warning for you to rethink your position on blindly supporting Israel no matter what the situation. This way lies madness!

WTF Tim? Where in my post did I blindly support Israel? I simply said that I find suicide bombing more repugnant than Israel's policy of assassination.

Did your "warning" include me as well? That's a pretty big brush you've got there. Look, I'm a little over half Irish and I sympathized with the IRA... but I deplored them for their fucking evil tactics.

[ydejin]

Let this post stand as a warning for you to rethink your position on blindly supporting Israel no matter what the situation. This way lies madness!

I'm definitely with Tim on this one. I've tried to maintain a fairly balanced view. Supporting Israel military presence in Palestine, for example, but not settlements. Supporting providing Israel with US monetary and military assistance if the settlements are removed. I try to have some understanding of how Israelis might feel about the situation they are placed in.

Frankly I see virtually no attempt by bmulligan to see the other side's viewpoint and to have an understanding of what it would be like to be occupied by an outside force for over 30 years or to have ancesteral lands taken by an outside force whether legally or not. Gav, I think does have some understanding of this, and frankly it strengthens his posts and his credibility. Seeing both sides' viewpoints is a requirement for any real solution to this conflict.

America remains completely biased in favor of Israel. With virtually no attempt by most of America at having any real understanding of what is going on in Palestine or the roots of the conflict. Instead they revert to a simplistic viewpoint that Israel is good and that the Palestinians are terrorist. Such a simplistic viewpoint does not serve the interests of peace or justice, and I believe in the long run is detrimental to Israel and America's best interests.

[bmulligan]

my warning was referring to your blatant and unbridled racism.

Bravo, the race card. Bet you had to think long and hard about that one. Oh gosh, you must be right, I must be a racist because I side with Israel.

Do you even listen to yourself?


With virtually no attempt by most of America at having any real understanding of what is going on in Palestine or the roots of the conflict. Instead they revert to a simplistic viewpoint that Israel is good and that the Palestinians are terrorist.

That's just pure and utter bullshit. Yeah, your fair and balanced so you must be right too. It is possible to make a value judgement after seeing both sides of a situation. God forbid anuyone should take a side or pass judgement because doing so will bring the judgement and wrath of the QT3 hypocrites who claim to be neutral and non-judgemental, but aren't.

No one here thinks the situation is simple, nor takes a simplistic viewpoint, and certainly not based on blatant racism and blind emotion. And unless you are a palestinian immigrant, I fail to see how you have a better grasp on the situation than anyone else here. So you should keep your personal attacks and opinions about those that disagree with you to yourself and reserve judgement for the situation at hand.

[Anders Hallin]

Furthermore, many of you obtusely ignore the fact that Hamas benefits from and cheers each civilian Palestinian death, and works hard to ensure that Palestinian civilians die in each Israeli strike.
You sure have an ability to make it sound like we side with HAMAS, of all people.

[Gav]

Seems to me they could target Terrorist leaders and other strategic targets more accurately and with more finesse, like a mickey in their food, or a midnight kidnapping, or a sniper shot, not a gun blazing firework display that encapsulates the surrounding flora and fauna.


And if we all lived in a Tom Clancy novel, I'm sure that's what would happen. But we don't.

Israel does try the subtle way sometimes, and sometimes it works (like with Yihyeh Aiyash, who they killed with an exploding cellphone), and sometimes it goes badly wrong (like the time they tried to get some Hamas guy with a poisoned umbrella (!), and got such horrible publicity out of it (because the agents were caught in Swiss territory, IIRC) that they had to release Sheik Yassin from jail. And the Hamas guy survived to boot).

Personally, I think some of Israel's attacks that involve civilians are indefensible, so I'm not going to try, but when you assert that Israel could go in and pick these guys off one by one you just show that you've been watching too many movies.

Gav

[TimElhajj]

WTF Tim? Where in my post did I blindly support Israel? I simply said that I find suicide bombing more repugnant than Israel's policy of assassination.

Exactly. I invite you to explore the nuance of your position:


I think we can all pretty much agree that targeting civilians is despicable, cowardly act of the worst sort. Now the real meat of this problem is determining how to measure the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

I imagine some of this collateral damage is going to be inescapable. The army is trying to accomplish some reasonable goal and comes under fire and in the confusion of responding innocent people are killed. To me, it doesn't seem quite fair to equate that to terrorism.

But what about sending the air force to bomb an apartment building? What about firing rockets into a crowded street? These are decisions made prior to deployment. This is not targeting civilians? It's even worse than that. It's like holding the Palestinian population hostage because terrorists are attacking Israelis. That's deplorable. Who is going to stand up for the Palestinians? It is not okay to say, well, they should not have their high schools named after Arafat, so they deserve to be blown to little bits. That's just wrong headed thinking.

[Jason McCullough]

Guilt by assocation, eh? So if you're related to a drug dealer it's no big deal if they kill you?

A better analogy would be hanging out at your buddy's house and being surprised when you get arrested in the raid - despite the fact that you knew he was a wanted drug dealer.

JD

I can see arrested, but blown up? And as Tim points out, a lot of the time it's random strangers.

[Bub, Andrew]

WTF Tim? Where in my post did I blindly support Israel? I simply said that I find suicide bombing more repugnant than Israel's policy of assassination.

Exactly. I invite you to explore the nuance of your position:


I think we can all pretty much agree that targeting civilians is despicable, cowardly act of the worst sort. Now the real meat of this problem is determining how to measure the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

I imagine some of this collateral damage is going to be inescapable. The army is trying to accomplish some reasonable goal and comes under fire and in the confusion of responding innocent people are killed. To me, it doesn't seem quite fair to equate that to terrorism.

But what about sending the air force to bomb an apartment building? What about firing rockets into a crowded street? These are decisions made prior to deployment. This is not targeting civilians? It's even worse than that. It's like holding the Palestinian population hostage because terrorists are attacking Israelis. That's deplorable. Who is going to stand up for the Palestinians? It is not okay to say, well, they should not have their high schools named after Arafat, so they deserve to be blown to little bits. That's just wrong headed thinking.

Yes, and I noted that in my original post when I said that the Israeli process was repugnant. Why does my saying that suicide bombing is more repugnant automatically mean I'm on Israeli's side? I think Ed Gein was more repugnant than Dahmer. Note: This doesn't mean I like Dahmer.

You want my position? If Palestine wants to "win" they need to adopt the tactics of Martin Luther King and Ghandi. Not the tactics that blow up babies during Passover. If Israel wants to "win" it needs to do what Britain did during the 90's in Ireland. Keep the peace process on track no matter what atrocities the terrorists commit.

The purpose of HAMAS is to derail the process and exact revenge. The purpose of the Israeli military seems to be to also derail the process and exact revenge.

[Daniel Morris]

America remains completely biased in favor of Israel.

A ludicrous assertion, more worthy of a Hamas propagandist than any educated person. US foreign policy, under every president since Carter, has been to support ceasefire and bilateral concessions. Current US policy endorses Palestinian statehood -- and sooner rather than later -- once Palestinian institutions have been reformed.

Aye, the rub! The US does NOT support statehood for Arafat's terror gang -- and if that makes the US "biased in favor of Israel," then you are a loon. The reform of Palestinian institutions means a democratic polity invested in peace -- exactly the kind of Palestine that Arafat will never allow to come about.

The US was prepared to go to the mat for Abbas. (It still is, for that matter.) But the Palestinians must work within the structure of the roadmap.


You want my position? If Palestine wants to "win" they need to adopt the tactics of Martin Luther King and Ghandi.

They don't need to go nearly that far -- all they need to do is stop blowing up buses during ceasefires.

[ydejin]

America remains completely biased in favor of Israel.

A ludicrous assertion, more worthy of a Hamas propagandist than any educated person. US foreign policy, under every president since Carter, has been to support ceasefire and bilateral concessions. Current US policy endorses Palestinian statehood -- and sooner rather than later -- once Palestinian institutions have been reformed.

My assertion is so ludicrous that in fact 47% of Israelis (www.afr.com/world/2003/06/05/FFXUXZR7IGD.html) agree with me!


The polling in Israel showed that 47 per cent of Israelis believed the US was too pro-Israel, while 38 per cent said US policy was fair, and 11 per cent thought it too pro-Palestinian

The fact that the US remains the one nation that consistently vetoes UN Security Council resolutions that everyone else on the council supports (I'm talking the 14-1 resolutions, not the muddier ones like the recent one which Britain, Germany, and Bulgaria abstained on) shows exactly how far off center the US is. Is it somehow the case that the US and Israel are the only nations that have any sense of truth and fairness? Or is it that the US is so pro-Israeli that it cannot even agree to fair and just criticism of Israeli policy?

So what is it. Is the entire world just completely anti-Semitic -- we're not talking about just the Arab nations, or just the 3rd world, we're talking about everyone except for the US. Or is it that perhaps, just perhaps, the US is in fact bias and is reluctant to agree to criticism of Israel even when it's justified. Is there another nation other than the US and Israel that believes that the settlements aren't completely wrong and completely illegal?

Look at the wording of your statement. You say my assertion is "ludicrous". The fact that a Pew Research Poll taken in Israel supports my statement shows exactly how deeply biased you are. Even a statement which is supported by the majority of Israelis seems "ludicrous" to you. You can't even allow the slightest possibility that something that doesn't support Israel might be true. Even the Israelis can see this better than you.

[TimElhajj]

Yes, and I noted that in my original post when I said that the Israeli process was repugnant. Why does my saying that suicide bombing is more repugnant automatically mean I'm on Israeli's side? I think Ed Gein was more repugnant than Dahmer. Note: This doesn't mean I like Dahmer.

You never directly said the Israeli assassination process was repugnant. I’m not trying to be nit picky, but I think it's important to point out that fact. You also used collateral damage as a euphemism to describe the deaths of the innocent Palestinians. You said it was regrettable that they died, which it is. To continue with your serial killer analogy, if you were to make excuses for Dahmer or use euphemisms to describe his victims, we would all be shocked and appalled because it would seem as if you were in support of a serial killer. The question is this: why would you think you could make the post you did and not be perceived as being supportive of Israel? I think the real battle here in the US is attitudes. For us the front lines are newspapers, televised news broadcasts, and perhaps even message boards like these.


The purpose of HAMAS is to derail the process and exact revenge. The purpose of the Israeli military seems to be to also derail the process and exact revenge.

Actually Hamas does more than just exact revenge. By now you've heard of the social functions they offer to Palestinian society. Of course this doesn't justify their terrorist operations, which are bloodthirsty and insane. What would be interesting, though, is if Hamas could be marginalized by a wealthy first world country like the US offering those very same social functions.

[TimElhajj]

Look at the wording of your statement. You say my assertion is "ludicrous". The fact that a Pew Research Poll taken in Israel supports my statement shows exactly how deeply biased you are. Even a statement which is supported by the majority of Israelis seems "ludicrous" to you. You can't even allow the slightest possibility that something that doesn't support Israel might be true. Even the Israelis can see this better than you.

Exactly. Well said, yedjin.

Who was it on this board who wanted to describe the death of the American girl who was run over by an Israeli bulldozer as an accident? I hear stuff like that and I just can't believe it. It's just incredible how far people are willing to stretch their imaginations to escape this truth and believe what they've always believed.

[Bub, Andrew]

The question is this: why would you think you could make the post you did and not be perceived as being supportive of Israel?


Because I wrote all of this (emphasis added):



The Israelis aren't "terrorists". They're the Oppressive Government.

Even though I think the collateral damage excuse is a poor one, and that it's terrible when Palestinians die, I have no problem figuring out which is worse or more repugnant to me.

I simply said that I find suicide bombing more repugnant than Israel's policy of assassination.


You're putting Israel's actions on equal footing with Suicide bombings. I disagree with that. They aren't equal. But I agree both are bad. Now, after re-reading all that, why did you accuse me of "blindly siding with Israel"?

[TimElhajj]

You're putting Israel's actions on equal footing with Suicide bombings. I disagree with that.

You mean sending the air force to bomb an apartment building? What about firing rockets into a crowded street? These are not on equal footing with suicide bombs? This is not targeting civilians? It's even worse than that. It's like holding the Palestinian population hostage because terrorists are attacking Israelis. That's deplorable.


Now, after re-reading all that, why did you accuse me of "blindly siding with Israel"?

1) Why did you snip out the parts where you lump all the innocent Palestinian civilians dead under collateral damage. Would you feel comfortable calling the Israeli casualties collateral damage?

2) You also avoid discussions of planned Israeli attacks on Palestinians civilians, like dropping the 1 ton bomb on the apartment building or firing missiles into crowded streets.

3) You insist that when Palestinian civilians are targeted by Israeli bombs it's somehow more palatable to you than when suicide bombers attack.

That's blindly siding with Israel, Andrew.

[Rywill]

Presumably, then, if Israel rocketed a market full of Palestinian civilians, with no terrorist target, just intending to kill a bunch of Palestinians in retaliation for something, that would be no worse than what they're already doing? If they bombed an apartment building that had nobody inside but civilians just to throw their weight around, it would be no worse?

Also, I notice your "I won't talk about who is more or less moral" position seems to just vanish whenever you are talking about the immorality of Israel. And you accuse me of being a closet racist.

[TimElhajj]

Also, I notice your "I won't talk about who is more or less moral" position seems to just vanish whenever you are talking about the immorality of Israel. And you accuse me of being a closet racist.

Sorry, but I don't award the moral high ground. That's your shtick, Ryan.

I am eager to discuss what I think is immoral, though: attacking civilians. Be it in a NYC skyscraper, a Palestinian ghetto, or an Israeli boulevard.

When did I accuse you of being racist, closet or otherwise? If I did, I apologize. I think you are misinformed and willing to let the media think for you, but that's not racist.

[Anders Hallin]

Presumably, then, if Israel rocketed a market full of Palestinian civilians, with no terrorist target, just intending to kill a bunch of Palestinians in retaliation for something, that would be no worse than what they're already doing? If they bombed an apartment building that had nobody inside but civilians just to throw their weight around, it would be no worse?
Well, it depends on how much you value honesty ;)

[Ben]

Tim, do you realize you're entirely insane? Jesus, collateral damage caused by firing rockets at a terrorist leader in a marketplace is worse than targetting and then blowing up civilians? That's simply impossible.

Oh, but Hamas does such good in the community. I forgot. The Israeli government runs a whole ton of schools and hospitals, you know.

Look at your little list! I'm still boggling from 1). Either you don't know what collateral damage means, you are the above-mentioned entirely insane, or you support terrorists. Also, from an argumentative standpoint, 1 and 2 are the same point, Tim. Sloppy.

The only real question I have for you is whether it's anti-semitism or fanatical extreme leftism that is your motivation for these batshit crazy views.

[TimElhajj]

Ben,

The first point is asking Andrew why he chose not to include part of his post in his refutation that he blindly sides with Israel.

The second point is asking Andrew why he doesn't want to discuss the civilian deaths in Israeli strikes that are planed and offer a high degree of chance that Palestinian civilian casualties are going to occur.

I don't suppose you had the chance to actually read the post I made earlier about collateral damage. Too bad. I would be interested to hear your views on it.

If you need any more help with reading the board, please don't be afraid to ask. :)

[Rywill]

Would you feel comfortable calling the Israeli casualties collateral damage?
The Israeli civilian casualties aren't collateral, Tim. That's the whole point of what we're saying.



You insist that when Palestinian civilians are targeted by Israeli bombs it's somehow more palatable to you than when suicide bombers attack.
You ignored me when I asked this last time, but what makes you think Israel is targeting civilians? They're targeting terrorists. Civilians are there because that's where the terrorists hide--among civilians. Israel must choose between killing the terrorist and some civilians, or not killing the terrorist (because that's the choice the terrorist forces on them, deliberately). They choose to kill the terrorist and the civilians. You may think that the responsibility for those civilian deaths rests with Israel (and I agree, although I see there as being more justification than for the ones laid at the feet of Palestinians), and you may think that Israel is making an immoral choice. But how can you think Israel is targeting civlians? If they could get the terrorist without killing Palestinian civilians, I think they would. You don't?


Sorry, but I don't award the moral high ground. That's your shtick, Ryan. I am eager to discuss what I think is immoral, though: attacking civilians. Be it in a NYC skyscraper, a Palestinian ghetto, or an Israeli boulevard.
So you'll discuss how immoral it is to target civilians, but you just refuse to make any sort of value judgment as to who is doing it. Why? You've said before that you don't think it's "helpful" to determine which side is more to blame. I don't understand that myself--I mean, we're all just discussing what we think of the mideast conflict here. It's not like Tim Elhajj coming out against Palestine is going to derail the mideast peace process. But if Dan starts a thread saying "Man, those Palestinian terrorists blew up a bunch of Israelis and threw off the peace process again," what's the point of you jumping into the thread to say "I don't think we should be thinking about who does what." Every time someone expresses an opinion about who is more at fault (actually, only when they say Palestine is more at fault), you come rushing in here wagging your finger telling people that it's not our place to cast blame. Unlike you, though, some of us work under ethical systems where we do think it's important to determine blame. Who is most to blame for the failure of the road map? I think that's a relevant question.


When did I accuse you of being racist, closet or otherwise? If I did, I apologize. I think you are misinformed and willing to let the media think for you, but that's not racist.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but you called bmulligan a racist and said that my views (along with a couple of other people's) lead inexorably to his.

[jeffd]

Tim,

The term "Collateral Damage" can't be appropriately applied to the majority of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinian attacks.

JD

[Bub, Andrew]

Tim you simply don't understand what the term "collateral damage" or the word "terrorist" means.


3) You insist that when Palestinian civilians are targeted by Israeli bombs it's somehow more palatable to you than when suicide bombers attack.

That's blindly siding with Israel, Andrew.

Nope, not at all.

[XPav]

http://www.igre.co.yu/slike/cdomoti/collateral%20damage.jpg

[jeffd]

I think the problem (or at least my impression of it) is that Tim only judges each sides actions by the relative tragedy inflicted upon the other and not the motives/objectives of each side.

From this perspective, the Palestinians and Israelis are equally reprehensible because they kill civilians and civilian death is a tragedy.

I (and others) take into account the motives, tactics, and objectives. While not denying that a single Palestinian civilian killed is a tragedy, when I do the mental calculus and come up with who is more reprehensible I factor in the fact that Palestinian civilians die as a side effect of Israel making legitimate military strikes; iow they're caught in the crossfire. They aren't being deliberately targeted and murdered.

When Israeli civilians die, it's because they were deliberately targeted by Palestinian terrorists. To me that makes the Palestinian terrorist leader who launched the terrorist bombing far more reprhensible than the Israeli general who was trying to kill the Palestinian terrorist leader.

That said, I'd suggest that arguing with Tim is probably a fruitless endeavor.

JD

[Jason McCullough]

Then again, it's not like the Palestinians can create an army. What are they supposed to do?

[Daniel Morris]

Then again, it's not like the Palestinians can create an army. What are they supposed to do?

Palestine had an army in 1948, when it invaded Israel on the second day of both nations' existence. In a tragicomic sense, Palestine has simply never sued for the peace that normally accompanies the end of a war between armies.

To answer your question more usefully -- they are supposed to make peace and move on with the business of Palestine.


That said, I'd suggest that arguing with Tim is probably a fruitless endeavor.

While it goes without saying that arguing with Tim is a fruitless endeavor, I'm still hoping to one day have him acknowledge me as someone who has "thought this through."

[Rywill]

That said, I'd suggest that arguing with Tim is probably a fruitless endeavor.
What?? Next you'll be telling me Brian Koontz is a bit of a loon.

[jeffd]

Then again, it's not like the Palestinians can create an army. What are they supposed to do?

Inadvertently you hit the nail on the head here.

The Palestinians don't have a real army to speak of. They never will, even after they achieve statehood. That being the case, why doesn't Arafat accept the generous deals he's been offered? Why does he insist on trying to fight the IDF (a modern nuclear army) with rocks, homemade bombs, and old mortars?

One thing I hate about discussions like these is the use of the terms "Israelis" and "Palestinians." It makes the conflict way over-simplified. The answer to my question is of course that the faction of the Palestinian people that Arafat draws most of his support from (the exiles living in the refugee camps) won't accept any solution short of driving Israel into the sea. Even if he wanted to Arafat can't accept a deal that would create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

JD

[Daniel Morris]

"Palestinians" are ready for a peaceful solution.

The poll that got a *Palestinian* researcher onto Hamas' death list: http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/pal030715.html

[Jason McCullough]

Well, what I was trying to imply, Daniel, is that you can't very well fight a rebellion against occupation with a standing army. At this point, the "Palestinian's" only options are to either give in or kill civilians.

It's not as if killing civilians to get an occupier out is something only the terrible Muslims invented. I mostly agree with Jeff, though.

As to "why they don't take the offers," at a macro level, I guess they don't think they're good enough (this bypasses the "who represents them" thing, though).

[ydejin]

Then again, it's not like the Palestinians can create an army. What are they supposed to do?

Inadvertently you hit the nail on the head here.

The Palestinians don't have a real army to speak of. They never will, even after they achieve statehood. That being the case, why doesn't Arafat accept the generous deals he's been offered? Why does he insist on trying to fight the IDF (a modern nuclear army) with rocks, homemade bombs, and old mortars?

The Palestinians have yet to receive a just deal. Until the Israelis agree for the complete removal of all settlements, justice will not be served. As I previously pointed out, virtually every nation in the world, with the exception of the United States and Israel believes that the settlements are completely illegal and should be removed. Even the United States believes that they are an obstacle to peace, but that the final state of the settlements should be determined in a final peace settlement.

As far as the right of return, which is the other major issue, I think the Palestinians are just going to have to let that one go. But the settlements must be removed. Arafat and others know that the US and Israel stand alone on the settlement issue. Moreover, as has been pointed out in previous discussions, even the best deal offered to the Palestinians included settlements running throughout their territory. Here's the map:

http://www.kharrubi.com/MidEast/Maps/maps_barak_december.jpg

As I previously wrote:


Keep in mind when you're looking at the map that generally the settlements are built on the best land. That includes on strategic heights and in places to control water supplies. (Before you go ballistic on the strategic heights part, keep in mind that I am personally fine with Israel maintaining a large military presence in Palestine as long as it feels it needs to, I only have a problem with it putting settlers on Palestinian land. If those were Israeli military outposts on strategic heights, instead of settlements I would have no problem with them.)

So look at the map again. Keep in mind that every civilized nation except the US believes that the settlements are completely illegal and should be removed. Note how they cut across Palestine. Taking these things into account, it's not actually that suprising that Arafat didn't take the deal.

Personally I wish Afafat had taken the deal. But as I wrote previously: I wish the Palestinians' had accepted Barak's proposal for 95% of the West Bank. But honestly, would America be willing to settle for peace for 95% of our land -- particularly if the remaining 5% of the land was the choicest and most strategic land? If we were occupied by a foreign power, would we be willing to sue for peace for all of America, except giving the occupier the right to keep Manhattan, Long Island, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Chesapeake, and the Mississippi Delta? I think not. I think we would continue to fight on against long odds until we had all our land back.

The Palestinians haven't received a "generous" offer. Nor have they received an offer that all of the world except the US and Israel believes is fair and just.

[TimElhajj]

Would you feel comfortable calling the Israeli casualties collateral damage?
The Israeli civilian casualties aren't collateral, Tim. That's the whole point of what we're saying.

Nice quote job.


You ignored me when I asked this last time, but what makes you think Israel is targeting civilians? They're targeting terrorists. Civilians are there because that's where the terrorists hide--among civilians.

I understand that it is difficult to target terrorists without also killing civilians. I am just not willing to cede that it is acceptable.


Israel must choose between killing the terrorist and some civilians, or not killing the terrorist (because that's the choice the terrorist forces on them, deliberately).

I think it is more like a choice about the quantity of terrorists being killed. What if the president of the US decided in the war on terror it was okay to kill innocent Americans. I'm not talking about situations that develop and leave hard decisions, like perhaps shooting down a jet liner that's been hijacked. I'm talking about making a conscious decision that X number of dead terrorist is worth more than X number of civilian lives. I'm talking about blowing up an apartment building because there's some good intel on terrorist living in the vicinity. I think I stated this pretty clearly in my earlier post, but you are clearly are too busy looking for quotes to twist to acknowledge it.


But how can you think Israel is targeting civilians? If they could get the terrorist without killing Palestinian civilians, I think they would. You don't?

Is this another of those goofy hypothetical that have no basis in reality? Here I can play that game: Do you think the people responsible for giving the green light on the terrorist attacks, knowing there would be civilian deaths, would have been willing to give the green light if there were Israeli civilians lives at stake?


Sorry, but I don't award the moral high ground. That's your shtick, Ryan. I am eager to discuss what I think is immoral, though: attacking civilians. Be it in a NYC skyscraper, a Palestinian ghetto, or an Israeli boulevard.
So you'll discuss how immoral it is to target civilians, but you just refuse to make any sort of value judgment as to who is doing it.[/quote]

When I say it's reprehensible to kill civilians, I have made a value judgment. It's just apparently not a judgment you would agree with if there is a terrorist being targeted.


You've said before that you don't think it's "helpful" to determine which side is more to blame.

Nice. I said I am appalled you would award anyone the moral high ground in this conflict. I stand by that statement.


It's not like Tim Elhajj coming out against Palestine is going to derail the mideast peace process. But if Dan starts a thread saying "Man, those Palestinian terrorists blew up a bunch of Israelis and threw off the peace process again," what's the point of you jumping into the thread to say "I don't think we should be thinking about who does what."

Another goofy hypothetical? I am willing to debate specific posts with you, but if you just want to make up stuff, you're on your own. It is true that I don't agree with much that Dan has to say. After that, you lost me.


Every time someone expresses an opinion about who is more at fault (actually, only when they say Palestine is more at fault), you come rushing in here wagging your finger telling people that it's not our place to cast blame.

Ok, rich. Actually I don't know of anyone who has ever said the Israelis are more at fault. I pretty sure I have not because I am not trying to play the blame game. I do stand up for the Palestinians because they are powerless and I believe it's the right thing to do.

[TimElhajj]

Tim,

The term "Collateral Damage" can't be appropriately applied to the majority of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinian attacks.

JD

You mean terrorist attacks. If you want to discuss the the morality of collateral damage, I have already posted my thoughts. I await your reply.

OTOH, if you just want to play games with quotes, have at it.

[TimElhajj]

Tim you simply don't understand what the term "collateral damage" or the word "terrorist" means.

So if you don't like my opinion, I must not be very intelligent. That's adult.

[TimElhajj]

While it goes without saying that arguing with Tim is a fruitless endeavor, I'm still hoping to one day have him acknowledge me as someone who has "thought this through."

I don't think I've ever said you haven't given this a lot of thought, Dan. I just don't happen to agree with you on much.

That and you're pretty fun to wind up.

[Bub, Andrew]

Tim you simply don't understand what the term "collateral damage" or the word "terrorist" means.

So if you don't like my opinion, I must not be very intelligent. That's adult.

What?

[Rywill]

Would you feel comfortable calling the Israeli casualties collateral damage?
The Israeli civilian casualties aren't collateral, Tim. That's the whole point of what we're saying.

Nice quote job.
Is that supposed to be some snarky innuendo that I misquoted you? Because I quoted the whole sentence exactly. If it makes you feel better, here's the whole paragraph:


Why did you snip out the parts where you lump all the innocent Palestinian civilians dead under collateral damage. Would you feel comfortable calling the Israeli casualties collateral damage?
The only fair reading of this comment is that the Israeli civilian casualties are just as collateral as the Palestinian ones, which is manifestly untrue. Seeing you post sarcastic or incomprehensible replies to everyone who called you out on this ridiculous assertion makes me think that you didn't intend to make this point, though. I am guessing you don't know what "collateral" means. It means (in this context) "not an intended victim." Thus, none (or extremely few) of the Israeli civilian deaths are collateral--they were intended.


What if the president of the US decided in the war on terror it was okay to kill innocent Americans.
He does. He has. Several hundred have died. If you mean "civilians" rather than just "innocent," it's true that the president hasn't made such a decision I can think of, unless you count things like not negotiating for hostages. We're not in the same position as the Israelis. If we were suffering weekly terrorist attacks, I think the president would probably loosen the rules of engagement and people would probably support it, overall, assuming a reasonable balance was struck. Your implication--that Americans would never accept the death of an innocent American to combat terror, the way they accept innocent Palestinian deaths--is completely wrong IMO, although I guess we don't know for sure. I'm pretty confident, though.



]But how can you think Israel is targeting civilians? If they could get the terrorist without killing Palestinian civilians, I think they would. You don't?

Is this another of those goofy hypothetical that have no basis in reality? Here I can play that game: Do you think the people responsible for giving the green light on the terrorist attacks, knowing there would be civilian deaths, would have been willing to give the green light if there were Israeli civilians lives at stake?
Way to not answer any substantive questions in the whole post, but I won't do you the same discourtesy. This is the same question (albeit in a different setting) as the one you asked previously, so my answer is the same: yeah, I think they would. I think they would pause more--IOW, that they weigh Israeli lives more heavily than Palestinian ones--and you may think that's immoral. I think it's a closer call, only because the Palestinians have limited self-government.



So you'll discuss how immoral it is to target civilians, but you just refuse to make any sort of value judgment as to who is doing it.

When I say it's reprehensible to kill civilians, I have made a value judgment. It's just apparently not a judgment you would agree with if there is a terrorist being targeted.
Another 100% dodge. Will you admit that you are willing to judge that killing civilians is immoral but unwilling to examine which group does that more often and more deliberately? In other words, that you are willfully blinding yourself to any determination of which groups have conducted themselves more civilly?


Nice. I said I am appalled you would award anyone the moral high ground in this conflict. I stand by that statement.
I guess you can ignore my previous request, since you just made the admission I was looking for. And really, we all knew that anyway; it's just yet another restatement of our fundamental disagreement on how morality works and whether it should be applied to this situation.



But if Dan starts a thread saying "Man, those Palestinian terrorists blew up a bunch of Israelis and threw off the peace process again," what's the point of you jumping into the thread to say "I don't think we should be thinking about who does what."

Another goofy hypothetical? I am willing to debate specific posts with you, but if you just want to make up stuff, you're on your own. It is true that I don't agree with much that Dan has to say. After that, you lost me.
My bad, Woolen started this thread, not Dan. Sorry to have confused you so badly.

I do stand up for the Palestinians because they are powerless and I believe it's the right thing to do.
Well thank God for you, standing up for the little guy. Here's something I learned as a defense attorney: you can stand up for the powerless little guy and still know that what he did is wrong or even reprehensible. You can fight for someone's right to fair treatment without having to pretend that they haven't done anything wrong, or burying your head in the sand and saying "I refuse to know who has done more wrong here."

Edited to fix quote tags.

[TimElhajj]

What?

I don't think your answer was very mature. If there's something specific you don't understand, I'm happy to explain it to you.

[TimElhajj]

Why did you snip out the parts where you lump all the innocent Palestinian civilians dead under collateral damage. Would you feel comfortable calling the Israeli casualties collateral damage?

The only fair reading of this comment is that the Israeli civilian casualties are just as collateral as the Palestinian ones, which is manifestly untrue. Seeing you post sarcastic or incomprehensible replies to everyone who called you out on this ridiculous assertion makes me think that you didn't intend to make this point, though. I am guessing you don't know what "collateral" means. It means (in this context) "not an intended victim." Thus, none (or extremely few) of the Israeli civilian deaths are collateral--they were intended.

You could read it the way you describe, or you could read it in context of the discussion I was having with Andrew. If you do the later, then it's an honest question about how the words he chooses to describe Palestinian civilian casualties. Collateral damage is, as you said, not an intended victim. If you're dropping a 1 ton bomb on an apartment building, you're intending to kill more than a terrorist. I've explained this quite a few times, so I don't know why you're having such a hard time with what seems like a simple point. It's not like a war, it's not like a police action: it's heavy handed and over the top and morally indefensible, although you're trying your best to defend it.

[TimElhajj]

Another 100% dodge. Will you admit that you are willing to judge that killing civilians is immoral but unwilling to examine which group does that more often and more deliberately? In other words, that you are willfully blinding yourself to any determination of which groups have conducted themselves more civilly?

Maybe I'm just having a hard time with the quotes in that post, but I don't understand what you think I am dodging. I think you're talking about the terrorists. I have already said countless times that they are evil. Do you want me to sign something? The terrorists need to be captured, tried, and punished for their crimes. No matter what the terrorists do, the Palestinians still need a fair shake. This is exactly the attitude that annoys me to no end. The terrorists are evil so let's just forgive everything bad Israel does, and condemn the Palestinians to a life time of poverty and second class citizenship. That is moral relativism.

[TimElhajj]

If we were suffering weekly terrorist attacks, I think the president would probably loosen the rules of engagement and people would probably support it, overall, assuming a reasonable balance was struck. Your implication--that Americans would never accept the death of an innocent American to combat terror, the way they accept innocent Palestinian deaths--is completely wrong IMO, although I guess we don't know for sure. I'm pretty confident, though.

Gimme a break. So if they told you we dropped a 1 ton bomb on your Mother's apartment building becasue there was a known terrorist on the floor above, you would be okay with that?

[Bub, Andrew]

Gimme a break. So if they told you we dropped a 1 ton bomb on your Mother's apartment building becasue there was a known terrorist on the floor above, you would be okay with that?

I wouldn't, of course not. Just as you wouldn't be ok with your mother dying just because she took the wrong bus downtown or sat in the wrong cafe. At least Ry's mom knew she was in danger, given the presence of terrorists in the building and knowing how Israel deals with them. (Small consolation I know, and I'm aware the Palestinian people aren't exactly able to "up and move" when a terrorist moves in.)

But here are a couple questions for you. In your scenario, isn't the terrorist also to blame? Doesn't his choice to hide where babies live make him partially responsible for their fate? Isn't it incumbant on the Palestinian people to ostracize the terrorists? You say above that these terrorists should be captured and punished. How would Ry's mom fare if it was a commando raid rather than a bomb? (Better, I'm sure, but the raid could incite the entire neighborhood.)

Btw, Isn't the Assassination Policy a direct result of the Palestinian Authority not cracking down and capturing known terrorists?

[TimElhajj]

Well thank God for you, standing up for the little guy. Here's something I learned as a defense attorney: you can stand up for the powerless little guy and still know that what he did is wrong or even reprehensible. You can fight for someone's right to fair treatment without having to pretend that they haven't done anything wrong, or burying your head in the sand and saying "I refuse to know who has done more wrong here."

You can also be an arogant SOB, imagining you can't be wrong. If these were just my ideas, you might have a point. But nothing I am saying is orignal or new. As ydejin points out, world opinion is on my side.

[TimElhajj]

At least Ry's mom knew she was in danger, given the presence of terrorists in the building and knowing how Israel deals with them. (Small consolation I know, and I'm aware the Palestinian people aren't exactly able to "up and move" when a terrorist moves in.)

It's not like they go around with Terrorist tattoed on their foreheads, either. I have read about a parents of suicide bombers who had no idea what their children were involved in until they got the news. These are just more rationalizations.


In your scenario, isn't the terrorist also to blame?

Yes.

My god. How many times have I said this? You want me to sign something, right? Altogether class: the terrorist are evil. It's almost like you guys think Palestinian and terrorist mean the same thing.

[TimElhajj]

Isn't it incumbent(sic) on the Palestinian people to ostracize the terrorists?

Wow, that's an interesting concept. Now we've made it our mother's responsibility to fight the war on terror. And win, no less! Come on ma, you're fighting for your life here sweetie!

If the US government is struggling to fight terrorism, why would you think the civilians in the territories would have a better chance? Wouldn't the terrorists just shoot the people that give them any crap? I mean, they're terrorists, right?

This smacks of more rationalization. Let's punish the Palestinians because the Israelis are being terrorized.

[Brad Grenz]

Isn't it incumbent(sic) on the Palestinian people to ostracize the terrorists?

Wow, that's an interesting concept. Now we've made it our mother's responsibility to fight the war on terror. And win, no less! Come on ma, you're fighting for your life here sweetie!

If the US government is struggling to fight terrorism, why would you think the civilians in the territories would have a better chance? Wouldn't the terrorists just shoot the people that give them any crap? I mean, they're terrorists, right?

But if the terrorists are the minority, and the public at large makes the conscious decision not to suffer their presence we might have some hope at ending this conflict. You're right, the conflict would be completely asymetrical. The terrorists would be hopelessly outnumbered, and slaughtering the Palestinians who try to stop them isn't going to win them more support. It's everybody's problem, and EVERYBODY has to be part of the solution, even the elderly mother has a role to play. Staying home, playing the victim and rationalizing the existence of Hamas through their (obvious) PR campaign involving schools and clinics solves nothing. That's the crux of the problem, Hamas and Arafat and those like them don't want a peaceful solution, because they can not, and will not be a part of it.

[Rywill]

You could read it the way you describe, or you could read it in context of the discussion I was having with Andrew. If you do the later, then it's an honest question about how the words he chooses to describe Palestinian civilian casualties. Collateral damage is, as you said, not an intended victim. If you're dropping a 1 ton bomb on an apartment building, you're intending to kill more than a terrorist. I've explained this quite a few times, so I don't know why you're having such a hard time with what seems like a simple point. It's not like a war, it's not like a police action: it's heavy handed and over the top and morally indefensible, although you're trying your best to defend it.
No I'm not. But saying "Some Palestinian deaths were not collateral" is completely different from saying "Some Israeli deaths were collateral." You're being so obtuse on this point that I'm going to drop it.

[TimElhajj]

But saying "Some Palestinian deaths were not collateral" is completely different from saying "Some Israeli deaths were collateral."

That has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.


You're being so obtuse on this point that I'm going to drop it.

Read: Since I've tried my best and failed to twist what you're saying, and I can't imagine actually discussing your point, I'll just keep my mouth shut.

[Ben]

McCullough- The Palestinians are not engaged in resistance. They don't blow up soldiers, bridges, supply depots, etc. They target civilians specifically. Massive difference.


Tim- You still don't know what "collateral damage" means. That's the point. Or perhaps you don't know what "target" or "intend" mean. At some level, your understanding of the situation breaks down, that's clear. Palestinian civilian deaths are not the intended consequence of Israeli actions. The Israelis, if given the choice between dead civilians and no dead civilians, all else equal, would choose no dead civilians. That is not true for their counterparts. There is no target for the damage to be collateral to. They just want to kill as many Israeli's as possible.

Down to the real point:
Yes, punish the Palestinian civilians if the alternative is taking suicide bombings quietly. It's no worse than what's being done to the Israelis, and if the populace really didn't support the terrorists there wouldn't be a terrorist problem. They'd be criminals, not heroes of the people.

Do you disapprove of bombing, say, Hamburg in 1943?

It's a shame that Israel has to choose between dead terrorist+dead civilians and live terrorist, but given that choice and the fact that the civilians are essentially citizens of a hostile foreign nation... If I was an Israeli I wouldn't lose sleep over the deaths of people harboring terrorists.

[Jason McCullough]

McCullough- The Palestinians are not engaged in resistance. They don't blow up soldiers, bridges, supply depots, etc. They target civilians specifically. Massive difference.


Well, would it have any effect at all if they attacked military targets? I think they'd just be shot dead before they got within a mile (excepting assaults on soldiers in the territories).

It's an evil thing to do, but I'm not sure they have an alternative.



Down to the real point:
Yes, punish the Palestinian civilians if the alternative is taking suicide bombings quietly. It's no worse than what's being done to the Israelis, and if the populace really didn't support the terrorists there wouldn't be a terrorist problem. They'd be criminals, not heroes of the people.

Do you disapprove of bombing, say, Hamburg in 1943?

It's a shame that Israel has to choose between dead terrorist+dead civilians and live terrorist, but given that choice and the fact that the civilians are essentially citizens of a hostile foreign nation... If I was an Israeli I wouldn't lose sleep over the deaths of people harboring terrorists.

As everyone has pointed out, the popular legitimacy of the bombings are very much in doubt. Using the "saving the oppressed from a dictator, even though you have to kill a few of the oppressed to free them" model that was so popular in Iraq doesn't help, either; the Isrealis aren't saving anyone. It's entirely self-defense.

Anyway, Isreal can go fuck itself just as much as Palestine at this point; the people running Isreal obviously don't give a shit about peace at this point. That they keep winking-and-nodding at settlements tells me they're "well, they're not going to stop killing us, so we may as well take everything we can get." It's like they're unable to realize that maybe, just maybe, they're trapped in a prisoner's dilemna with such thinking.

[Ben]

McCullough- Other resistance groups have managed to mix in the odd attack on military targets here and there through history, you know. The Palestinians don't even try anymore. They kill civilians because that's their goal.

They have the alternative of taking one of the offered deals. ydejin world may not think the offered deals are fair, but you don't get what you want when you are tiny, mostly powerless, and have a history of misbehaving. Stop holding out for a deal that is never going to happen, because Israel has the balls to stick to it's guns here.

I'm not using the saving the oppressed from a dictator excuse, I'm using the "reap what you sow" excuse. I imagine we didn't kill very many Jewish citizens of Hamburg those nights.


Israel is the one who giving up their territory here, it's understandable they aren't real eager to give away even more territory to a group that has spent the last 50 years trying to kill them.

[TimElhajj]

Tim- You still don't know what "collateral damage" means. That's the point. Or perhaps you don't know what "target" or "intend" mean. At some level, your understanding of the situation breaks down, that's clear.

Apparently you can't be bothered to articulate where my understanding of the situation breaks down, although I've been quite specific with my examples. You might as well just put your fingers in your ears yell loudly.


The Israelis, if given the choice between dead civilians and no dead civilians, all else equal, would choose no dead civilians.

Actually that's wrong. The Israelis did have a choice when they dropped the 1 ton bomb on that Palestinian apartment building. They could have chosen not to drop it. They could have chosen a smaller bomb. They could have chosen to attack the target in a different way. But guess what? They didn't. In this situation they had a choice and they chose dead civilians. Doubtless there are other examples when the choices are not so clear, but to act as if the Israelis never do anything wrong or make statements like the one I just quoted above, is just plain wrong.


I wouldn't lose sleep over the deaths of people harboring terrorists.

These are just more rationalizations to ease a guilty conscious.

[TimElhajj]

you don't get what you want when you are tiny, mostly powerless, and have a history of misbehaving.

You're going into the incorrigible bucket if you keep this up.

[Jason McCullough]

Attacking military targets would be completely pointless; they can't hope to do any damage. Their only alternative to attacks on civilians is giving in.

Violation of the Geneva convention or not, it's the only way they can get what they want.

[Bub, Andrew]

Not a student of passive resistence there, are you McCullough....

[Anders Hallin]

The Palestinians don't even try anymore. They kill civilians because that's their goal.
What, all of them?

[Jason McCullough]

Not a student of passive resistence there, are you McCullough....

Well, I don't think it'd work against the Isrealis. Gandhi didn't say it was universal.

[Sharpe]

Not a student of passive resistence there, are you McCullough....

Well, I don't think it'd work against the Isrealis. Gandhi didn't say it was universal.

Not really on topic, but this reminds me of an absolutely classic alternate-history SciFi story written by Harry Turtledove called "The Last Article" - its basically Ghandi vs the Nazis and is a great short story. This was when Turtledove was still writing thoughtful alt history instead of the formulaic crap hes churning out now.

(NOTE - I'm not comparing Israel to Nazi Germany - I'm just saying McCullough's comment reminded me of the short story.)

On the overall topic here I haven't said anything b/c I think the situation doesn't have any answers. I feel like people scream at each other saying "your side is worse than my side" when the hard reality is that *neither* side is doing the minimum necessary to take steps towards peace. I don't feel the sides are morally equivalent - I do blame the Palestinians somewhat more overall dating from the Oslo process through the present. But the fact is, NEITHER side has done the least that's necessary for peace: to stop the attacks on the Palestinian side and to remove the settlements on the Israeli side. Both continuing terrorist attacks and continuing settlements are fundamentally, deeply incompatible with peace (no they're not morally equivalent, I consider the terror attacks worse - BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER). As long as the Israelis keep constructing settlements in the areas seized in the 1967 war, there's not going to be any peace; and as long as Hamas etc keep attacking Israelis there's not going to be any peace. Also its useless to argue over "who needs to take the first step". As a practical matter these things have to happen simultaneously, or peace will go nowhere. Since that's not bloody likely I believe that there will be no peace at least in the short to intermediate term.

I do believe that with sufficient will the Israeli public could force the government to abandon the settlements. Or alternatively the US might possibly have the power to strongarm the Israelis to give them up. But that would not bring peace by itself. Along with that the Palestinians would HAVE to stop attacking and take strong steps to crack down on the terrorist factions. But the Palestinians (just like the Israelis) dont have either the will or the political organization to do what's necessary and nobody in the world seems to have the combination of will and leverage to force the Palestinians to do it.

I tend to be skeptical that internal pressure will ever overcome the political hurdles on both sides and bring peace. That leaves external pressure but I simply don't see a way to bring external pressure to bear on the radical Palestinian factions. (I do see some ways to pressure the Israelis, in terms of US aid and international trade.) You could either say the Palestinians have nothing to lose or they are too hate filled and fanatical to ever give in. Either way, I don't see any way to make Hamas etc lay down their arms. And I don't think just hunting Hamas down is a successful strategy: every operative who is killed seems to get replaced. With a population of millions who are potentially available to become radicalized, I don't see the Palestinians running out or militants or terrorists any time soon. IMO, there's no peace coming.

Scream at the other side all you want. The situation is fucked. Until someone can figure out a way for the internal "moderate" factions *on both sides* to *simultaneously* move towards peace, or until there is massive external pressure *on both sides* to force peace *simultaneously*, it ain't gonna happen.

In my mind, the thing that could break this logjam would be external pressure on the Palestinians (b/c I feel there are already levers that the US can turn on the Israelis). But that's not going to happen until you see a massive change in neighboring Arab governments, the death of Arafat, or maybe both. Given the fact that the Palestinians are already under an armed occupation with checkpoints, searches etc, its not like additional force would do any good (unless you were to advocate deporting all or most Palestinians which I do not agree with). I suppose it might be possible to provide an "incentive" to the Palestinians to shut down Hamas etc (I mean a bribe essentially) but there two big problems with that: it might lead to bribing the terrorists which will only lead to more terror; and as long as Arafat and his outfit are running the show it will do no good.

So my shitty answer is that there is no answer. I wish I could think of one but I cannot. It makes me almost begin to think we (the US) should start pulling out entirely and leave both sides to their (self-created) fate.

Dan

[bmulligan]

Attacking military targets would be completely pointless; they(Palestinian bombers) can't hope to do any damage. Their only alternative to attacks on civilians is giving in.



Sterling silver analysis. Ba'ath party loyalists and their immigrant terrorist brethren in Iraq seem to have the opposite strategy. They feel they can make a dent in the American millitary. A bomb is a bomb, it kills civillians and soldiers just the same. Saying the Palestinians have no other recourse but to target civillians as primary targets indiscriminately is ludicrous. How about bombing an Israeli electrical generation plant, a water treatment plant? no, killing civillians is a much better millitary strategy.

And what about the alternative, giving in? Is this not a requirement of the peace process? Therefore, the inability to 'give in' says that they have no desire to make peace whatsoever. Or is it only Israel who should be required to give in?

Could the blatent targeting of terrorist leaders be a detterent to becoming one? I realize it may fuel their ranks, but perhaps it may also serve to make the leaders of these groups unpopular with the surrounding majority. If they realize they are targets simply by association, people nay begin to ostracize these freedom fighters along with their leaders until they are either killed or driven from 'Palestine'.

[Bub, Andrew]

Not a student of passive resistence there, are you McCullough....

Well, I don't think it'd work against the Isrealis. Gandhi didn't say it was universal.

I wonder. The British Empire was far more powerful, its reach was longer, and it was considerably crueler. There also wasn't CNN, etc., to film it all an outrage the world yet Britain still was beaten in this way. Britain also wasn't beholden to the rest of the world in quite the same way Israel actually is today. If Ghandi were a Palestinian he'd have the world stage. Would the world accept Israel gunning down or clubbing passive resistance? Unleashing the dogs or hoses or demonstrators who aren't throwing rocks or blowing themselves up?

Most of the world actually abhors suicide bombers more than Israel's 1-ton bomb tactics. If you took the frightening lunacy of suicide bombing out of the equation... how would Israel's tactics look then? Who would dare support it?

[jeffd]

Attacking military targets would be completely pointless; they can't hope to do any damage. Their only alternative to attacks on civilians is giving in.

Violation of the Geneva convention or not, it's the only way they can get what they want.

Do the ends justify the means in this situation?

I think there's an alternative way for the Palestinians to get what they want, but all of it is rooted in the history of their leadership. So long as Arafat is in fact the head of the Palestinian movement they will never get what they want.

JD

[Gav]

Not a student of passive resistence there, are you McCullough....

Well, I don't think it'd work against the Isrealis. Gandhi didn't say it was universal.

This is absurd. Yossi Beilin (one of the Oslo negotiators) as much as said that he'd be willing to give up half of Jerusalem (this was while the peace process was going on, not an after-the-fact rewriting history thing. I remember the controversy.) Yitzhak Rabin was also saying that maybe it wasn't worth sacrificing soldiers to defend a few people in the territories--again, sending a signal that Israel should re-think its position on the settlements.

At that time, there were also bus bombings to which Israel didn't retaliate (that's my recollection, at least--I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

Then there were some terrorist attacks, and Arafat didn't seem to be doing much, and people began to doubt the wisdom of Oslo, so Netanyahu came into power. After a while, Israelis decided that peace was worth some sacrifices after all, and the peaceniks came back into power, ready to do some serious negotiating. Even if you agree with ydejin that the deal put on the table wasn't any good, it was a starting point--I think that if Arafat had tried insisting that a number of settlements be removed, instead of insisting on the right of return (which was the deal-breaker, according to a number of people present at the time), things would have moved forward.

But he didn't, and of course, the intifada started up, and now Yossi Beilin, Peres, et al have no power and no credibility. Maybe, just maybe, there's the slightest, teeniest chance that non-violence would have led to a better position than where things are now.

Gav

[bmulligan]

It seems to me that since the palestinians do the dirty work of the Israeli economy, they are in a perfect position to strike and force Israel to capitulate to concessions. Workers unite? Maybe some of the commie union labor leaders shoud send an envoy to the territories to 'organize' them. There are other options besides bus bombings.

[ydejin]

It seems to me that since the palestinians do the dirty work of the Israeli economy, they are in a perfect position to strike and force Israel to capitulate to concessions. Workers unite? Maybe some of the commie union labor leaders shoud send an envoy to the territories to 'organize' them. There are other options besides bus bombings.

I think the Infitada has already smashed the Israeli economy. Gav may be able to provide more details, but my understanding is that the Israeli economy is in very poor shape. However, I think as Israel views this as a vital security matter, they are willing to let the economy go down the drawn rather than concede defeat to the Palestinians.

I do think there are other civil disobedience techniques that could be tried. As Tim has pointed out, an American was killed a while back while she was trying to stop a bulldozer from destroying a house. If they had a line of women and children blocking the bulldozer, that might have been more effective (or it might have simply invited massive amounts of rubber bullets from the Israeli army). Another problem with civil disobedience is that it only works well when there is a free press. US Newspapers had unfettered access to report on the Civil Rights movement. I don't believe reporters have completely unfettered access to the occupied territories. And I do not trust Israel to allow accurate TV broadcasts of Palestinian Civil Rights protests.

[ydejin]

McCullough- The Palestinians are not engaged in resistance. They don't blow up soldiers, bridges, supply depots, etc. They target civilians specifically. Massive difference.


Well, would it have any effect at all if they attacked military targets? I think they'd just be shot dead before they got within a mile (excepting assaults on soldiers in the territories).

If I recall correctly, the Palestinians were actually doing quite well with attacks in the occupied territories before the March 2002 Passover Bombing. In one incident a single sniper took out an entire Israeli checkpoint killing around 7 or 8 soldiers. Roadside bombs also destroyed an Israeli Merkava tank. At the same time, some Israeli soldiers were refusing to serve in the occupied territories. These soldiers believed that the occupation was illegal. They also reported a variety of abuses (www.nytimes.com/2002/02/02/international/middleeast/02RESE.html?ex=1013) by the Israeli army including:



But in interviews in Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's most widely circulated newspaper, they reported incidents during their service in which they said that soldiers had fired at Palestinians who did not endanger them, including stone-throwing boys as far as 100 yards away.

Their accounts have not been disputed by the army, and General Mofaz said the reported incidents would be investigated.

Ariel Shatil, 32, said that in the Gaza Strip last September, his squad was supposed to fire heavy machine guns at a Palestinian town in response to mortar fire. The gunfire penetrates thin walls and windows, and that kills people, and you don't know who you're killing, he said. Mr. Zonshein said that in an area where he served, houses and orchards were bulldozed in response to Palestinian gunfire.

We all have limits, he said. You can be the best officer, and suddenly you're required to do things that you can't be asked to do: to shoot at people, stop ambulances, destroy houses when no one knows who lives in them.

There was talk that with Israeli soldiers being killed in the territories and soliders refusing to serve in the territories, perhaps Israel would withdraw as they had from Lebanon. Then the Passover bombing happened, and Israel dug in. No more talk of refusing to serve in the territories. No more talk of withdrawals.

I'm still not sure if Hamas overplayed their hand, or if they simply didn't want peace, even if it meant Israel withdrawing from most of the territories. I wouldn't be suprised if it was the latter.

I think this little bit of history really shows that a lot of Sharpe's analysis really is spot on. There definitely seems to be a radical part of the Palestinians that doesn't want peace. At the same time, that doesn't excuse Israel for their blantly illegal attempt to build settlements in the occupied territories, or for shooting kids with rocks at 100 yards, or for stopping ambulances, or for firing heavy machine guns into towns, or dropping 1-ton bombs on apartment buildings.

While there are plenty of truly horrible acts on both sides, I guess I'm particularly galled by Israel's actions because my government is supporting Israel with money and weapons. That makes me partly responsible for the horrible actions being done by Israel. In contrast I take no responsibility for actions taken by Hamas. I also remain convinced that Israel was to a large extent responsible for creating the terrorist problem -- as previously pointed out (www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=125138#125138) the Palestinian population got along fairly well with Israel even after the occupation until Israel started building the settlements.

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe I'm wrong about the passive resistance thing then. God knows it couldn't hurt them to try.

Anyway, I really agree with this:


I guess I'm particularly galled by Israel's actions because my government is supporting Israel with money and weapons.

I don't particularly *care* which side is at fault, but you know, at least the Isrealis aren't practically living in the stone age. You'd expect a first-world nation with a well-developed society to not act so goddamn stupid.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Maybe I'm wrong about the passive resistance thing then. God knows it couldn't hurt them to try.

See the first Intifada; while not non-violent, it was low-intensity, with mainly improvised weaponry (stones, slings, maybe Molotovs) being used by the bulk of the Palestinians fighting the occupation. Nothing like what we're seeing now, at least.

[Lizard_King]

As Tim has pointed out, an American was killed a while back while she was trying to stop a bulldozer from destroying a house.

Rachel Corrie is hardly the best example, seeing as how there are a lot of reasons to question the legitimacy of her martyrdom. For instance, the relative culpability of someone who is driving a slow moving bulldozer or the cretin who dives in front of it (especially given the Grassy Knollesque variety of accounts), or the contents of the terrorist supply house she was trying to defend.

That said, even her brand of symbolic gesture is preferable and more effective than a suicide bombing in and of itself.

[Gav]

It seems to me that since the palestinians do the dirty work of the Israeli economy, they are in a perfect position to strike and force Israel to capitulate to concessions.
[/quote]
That's actually become less true over recent years. It was simply too much of a hassle to use Palestinians, what with having to close the borders on a regular basis, the security checks and so on. So Israeli businesses have switched to importing Thai workers and Rumanians.

Which is a pity, because the Palestinians could really use the money.


I think the Infitada has already smashed the Israeli economy. Gav may be able to provide more details, but my understanding is that the Israeli economy is in very poor shape. However, I think as Israel views this as a vital security matter, they are willing to let the economy go down the drawn rather than concede defeat to the Palestinians.

The Israeli economy is very bad right now--it used to depend on tourism and high-tech; as you can imagine, tourism is down the drain, and we all know what's happened to high-tech since the dot-com bust. But I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence--high tech's not coming back quickly, regardless of what Israel does, and making concessions to Palestinians isn't necessarily going to stop the bombings, which tend to be carried out by groups that aren't interested in the negotiations, like Hamas.

I do think there are other civil disobedience techniques that could be tried. As Tim has pointed out, an American was killed a while back while she was trying to stop a bulldozer from destroying a house. If they had a line of women and children blocking the bulldozer, that might have been more effective (or it might have simply invited massive amounts of rubber bullets from the Israeli army). Another problem with civil disobedience is that it only works well when there is a free press. US Newspapers had unfettered access to report on the Civil Rights movement. I don't believe reporters have completely unfettered access to the occupied territories. And I do not trust Israel to allow accurate TV broadcasts of Palestinian Civil Rights protests.
Actually, Israeli TV tends to be fairly left-wing, and is pretty independent of the government.

In any case, as I've said above, most Israelis (65+%) want to get out of the territories, admittedly for purely selfish reasons (they're expensive, they're a security burden, and they're a demographic time bomb). So it wouldn't take much non-violent protesting to convince most Israelis to go down the Oslo path again (IMO, of course) The problem right now is, rightly or wrongly, Israel doesn't want to be seen as giving in to terrorism, and so the Sharon government has a free hand on the territories. Even my wife, who's very left-wing, thinks that Israel should evacuate the territories only at the same time as they commit devastating attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al, just to show that Israel isn't leaving the territories because of their pressure.

(Please don't argue this point with me--it's her opinion, not mine, and I'm just using it as an illustration).

Gav

[Jason McCullough]

or the contents of the terrorist supply house she was trying to defend.

Say what?

[Lizard_King]

or the contents of the terrorist supply house she was trying to defend.

Say what?

look "Rachel+Corrie+terror" up and you'll see plenty of presentations of the IDF's rationales for its actions. Honestly, I can only assume an experienced Googler like yourself is just trying to be a pain in the ass when you ask things like that.

[Jason McCullough]

I hadn't ever heard that bit before. All I get from Google is screechy pro-Israel apologism, not sourced details that she was defending a terrorist stockpile.