You'd think they'd understand the hardships of state sponsered persecution wouldn't you?

Civvies aren't normally targetted but colleteral is incredibly high, shoot first and ask questions later is the motto for raids. There are however exceptions, like an Apache firing a hellfire into a peaceful protest a month or two ago.

I'm sure Jewish Weekly quoting an IDF officer is *totally* unbiased in every way.

I assume since you realize silly arguments about the magical leader of every single palastinian citizen doesn't exist you're retreating to such enlightening arguements as 'there are palastinian snipers'. I mean seriously, that article was not even close to journalism, if anything, it highlighted his own baises and inability to see that there is suffering on both sides.

Yes and since the snipers are a valid response according to you, I assume you won't use them as a counter-argument.

The Problem of a leader who does not represent the people is a difficult one. I assume you are in favor of Democratization and whatever might bring that about. Not sure how you resolve the Hussein problem if the Arafat problem is a valid one. The Pals who blow people up seem to consider Arafat a legit leader - they rally around him when he is threatened - so if their bombing and sniping actions are valid their support of Arafat is valid too.

The truth is that the Pals are led to believe that through their actions they can actually defeat Israel, which is why they persist and why other peoples, such as (look, more examples, Dana) the Tibetans with China, the Kurds with Hussein, etc. do not turn to suicide bombing of innocent people.

A great majority of Palestinian people are in favor of continuing the intifada.

Well, we have a few problems here.

Firstly.
What year is it? No, really. They have no been in a position to reign in militants without outside help for a very long time, as the situation has deteriorated they have lost most remaining authority and ability.

Secondly, you fail to differentiate between an understandable response and a valid response. I in no way support terrorism but I understand why people have resorted to the actions they have, it's called empathy.

Secondly, please stop using the 'aww cute liddle kid got wasted line', it does nothing for your argument and frankly, serves only to undermine the entire discussion.

I'd like to see a source (preferably avoid rabid zionist monthly this time) for the 'vast majority', in detail. I'm fairly convinced the vast majority of people just want to get on with their lives without being shot, humiliated, bombed, shot at from choppers, caught in inter-group fighting and IDF/militant fighting. That goes for both sides. The 70% odd support for the withdrawal from Gaza points strongly to that. Those that do support continuing the campaign most likely do so because periods of relative peace certainly haven't drawn many concessions from the Israelis.

As far Arafat, he is a symbol, of course people are going to rally around him, doesn't mean they listen to them or if his will is not particularly popular it's going to happen.

"The truth is that the Pals are led to believe that through their actions they can actually defeat Israel, which is why they persist and why other peoples, such as (look, more examples, Dana) the Tibetans with China, the Kurds with Hussein, etc. do not turn to suicide bombing of innocent people."

Interesting that you draw on both Tibet and the Kurds as examples of peoples who face a similar situation to that of the Palestinians. I am heartened that you see the equivalences in both of those. Both are examples of horrendously repressive regimes who have asserted their will violently against another people and refused to grant them even the most basic of freedoms and rights.

You also point out that the Jews did not resort to suicide bombing during the Holocaust. Is it then your assertion that when faced with potential or actual genocide a people should maintain only a peaceful resistance? If the history books had within them descriptions of Jewsih suicide bombers blowing up a cafe in Berlin in protest for Auschwitz would you seriously condemn them?
The Victims of the holocaust did not have time to plan and equip a violent resistance. They had been removed from positions which would have allowed the procurement of weaponry long before the Final Solution had been decided upon. Who knows what they may have decided to do to fight their oppressor had the Germans chosen to oppress them much over a long time rather than annihilate them in the fastest possible way.

When WW2 was fought and the world rallied to one side or the other the Allies very much did target civlians. There is no way to firebomb an entire city and not kill civilians. At that time the nations involved believed that total war was the answer. What the Palestinians are doing pales in comparison to what we did to various ares of Germany, not to mention Japan. The only reason it seems so much worse in the Middle East is because the people conducting the war are not an organised state army.......at least not on the Palestinian's side.......Which brings me back to the beginning of this post. Interestingly most Americans percieve Chinese activities in Tibet as an appalling act of oppression against a weaker people. Likewise the Hussein regime's maltreatment of the Kurds. Even if the Kurds had resorted to blowing up buses in Basra it wold not change the basic facts of their oppression. It merely adds another innocent life to the tally and leaves another mother weeping.

Dana, fine. If you believe Israel is acting predatorily, my examples are strong and provide evidence of people not turning to suicide bombing. If you don't, my examples are weak but you'll still need to explain why terrorism is acceptable.

And. Either Israel and Palestine are in Total War, or they are not. If Palestinians believe they are in Total War and thus killing of civilians is acceptable, then Israel may retaliate in any way they like, because it's Total War.

The real problem is that the Pals believe they are in Total War and Israel is so strong that it can keep their Total War at bay by swatting them like mosquitos. To be truly resolved maybe it will require actual Total War from both sides. I'm not sure you'd like the result.

i fair to see the difference between sudicde bombing and just plain old civvy killing which I used by, oh, every terrorist movement in history, hell I could name around 15 off the top of my head.

Now why do they do that I wonder. I wonder if it's anything to do with overwheling odds, poor equipment, lack of numbers, lack of professional training and sheer desperation. There can't be many harder targets in the world than an Israeli military positions, how one is meant to attack one with an Ak47 and a homemade mortar if you're lucky is beyond me.

If Arafat had authority in 1999 then you still need to explain why he didn't reign in the terrorists at that point.

Struggling to have empathy for the terrorists and avoiding it for the innocent victims is called being an ass... at the politest.

I will most certainly not stop. She is at the root of everything we've discussed. You have empathy for her killer. You believe that, if you were in her killer's place, you could find yourself making the same decision, to push that button or pull that trigger.

Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah.

Poll taken 3 weeks ago. Survey SAYS:

- 10) If separate elections were to take place for the office of the president of the PA, you would vote for: Arafat 54%, Other 15%, Don't know 27%

- 13) Would you support or oppose armed attacks against Israeli targets from the Gaza Strip after the implementation of this disengagement plan which has been approved by the Israeli government? 55% support or strongly support.

- 16) In recent weeks there is a sharp decrease in the level of violence exerted by both sides. In your opinion should Palestinians continue nevertheless the suicide bombings inside Israel if an opportunity arises? 58.6% yes or definitely yes

My point is that the State of Israel is conducting a punitive war against the Palestinians ( whose lands they now occupy). Since Palestine has no actual army or state apparatus for the waging of war they have to use other, less conventional means.

There was a time when violence by Indians against the British, or even American against the British were both characterised as Terrorism. Any non state sanctioned violence against a dominant power is characterised by the dominant power ( and its allies) as terrorism and by those who carry it out as resistance and the fight for freedom. Bombs in civlian areas have been used by many resistance groups in history, what differentiates the current class of terrorist is that they use their own bodies as the delivery mechanism.

What differentiates the terrorist from the soldier is not merely that the terrorist targets civlians and the soldier targets other soldiers. What differentiates the two is that one wages a sanctioned war and the other wages an illegal one. America targetted villages of civlians during the Vietnam war because they were "sympathetic" to and therefore helpful to the enemy. Israel does the same thing. Britain did the same thing in Iraq whne we occupied it.

Intent however is not everything. There are other factors to consider. In Iraq we waged a war which killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. The fact that we were not actively seeking them out does not change the fact that they are dead. Likewise the fact that Israelis claim not to be actively targetting civilians does not change the fact that civilians are dying. The fact that the Palestinian suicide bombers are deliberately targetting civilians does not make the families of their victims suffer more than the families of dead Palestinians. Nor does it change the fact that there is a huge disparity betweenn the number of families made to suffer thus amongst the Israelis and their counterparts amongst the Palestinians.

Regardless of the Palestinians methodology their case is still a strong one. Israel is illegally occupying thehir land and they as a people are doing anything to resist. When America was wounded on 9/11 she struck o ut with force at those she saw as culpable. She was fortunate. She is a great nation with all the resources a great nation tends to have......America did not need to target civlians to make her point. America has the military resources to allow her the luxury of targetting armies and soldiers. If the Palestinians targetted primarily military personnel, they would be unable to make the slightest dent to Israels strength. They essentially have two choices. They can either fight for their homeland or surrender to Israel with no further resistance. If they choose to fight they would be foolish to attack Israel where she is strong. Only an incompetant general wages war on his enemy's strongest front. Since the Palestinians have no equivalent force with which to wage war against a well equipped army, they would be foolish to attack military personnel as to do so would simply bring a swift and bloody end to the battle with no gain to those that fall. It would have been a pointless sacrifice. Instead they choose easy targets. A competant general chooses to attack his enemy at his weak point. Many many armies have in the past waged their wars by "harrowing" the enemy's civilian populace. It makes military ( if not moral) sense in some circumstances to do so. Such activity has in the past proved useful in subduing civilian populations and severing their links with resistance fighters.

What the Palestinians are doing is waging war against an occupying Nation in the only way which has been left to them.

Because he felt he could get more ground by pushing a little harder most likely, I never defended arafat. Whether he could have at that point? I doubt it but certainly more possible than today.

She is not at the root of everything we have discussed. She's one of literally tens of thousands of innocent deaths on both sides.

Your survey does you more disfavours than favours when taken in context, unless statistics have been mssively revised 5% is not a 'massive majority' and considering the pressure cooker situation, low. There are many other factors, we don't know who was asked, when they were asked, and most importantly, who was present. Arafat has a tendancy to off contenders on way or another, there really is little political opposition, considering that I'd say this was a pretty low number.

You also failed to mention the questions in full, let me fill in the gaps you puttied over with spin:


59.3% Oppose
37.1% Approve.

So in short, if they really withdraw and let the area function as a viable economic zone with a certain amount of freedom, a stronger majority than all the questions you seem to think are son damning oppose attacks against Israel. Hell even in the West Bank, which would still be a mess of settlements, walls and IDF checkpoints nearly 30% support stopping attacks!

Also worth noting 74% support unifying the palastinian security services under a cabinet, not arafat and bringing in egyptian military advisors - to help develop a capable independant leadership.

If the Palestinian "refugees" had remained within the borders defined for Israel and become participatory citizens in the country and government, this wouldn't be an issue right now. A lot of the refugess, IIRC, have been ejected from other arab countries, including Jordan ...

(incidentally, I'm not a big fan/supporter of how the British just decided that Israel would exist.)

wolf, Israel would never allow them all to become citizens - the current Israelis would become a minority. The US leaned HEAVILY (this is post-ww2, they had some big bargaining chips) on the UK to establish Israel.

Riddle me this. What is the problem with a fence besides the location issue? I want these idiots in neutral corners, now.

I watched a documentary quite a while ago detailing a jewish/zionist family's move from Long Island to a settlement in Israel. They went pretty in depth into the risks they are their children would face - they had a very 'god wants us to live there, god will protect us' attitude.
I have a hard time with the notion that the settlers (and their adorable children) are innocent victims. It seems to me there are martyrs on both sides.

Israel is actively recruiting North Americans.

(yes, Jag, I know you despise WND, but that's where I saw the article.)