I wanted to think about my response to the latest bombing for a couple days before posting...just to give it some serious thought and clarity.

I read a bit of Cactus48 the other day...interesting site.

I find myself growing apathetic towards the conflict. I would probably not feel this way if I had more of a personal stake in this (a friend who is a diehard Israeli/Jew or Palestinian). Maybe it's because I watch and read too much news, but I find myself getting desensitized to it all. At this point, I entertain two main streams of thought:

1--Let the Israelis and Palestinians kill each other off...the US can stay out of it.

2--The US should invade Israel and Palestine, beat down both sides, and claim the land as a new colony.

Many of you might be familiar with Congressmen Dick Armey (the House Majority Leader) and Tom DeLay (the House Majority Whip). They're both Republicans from Texas. (I'm putting in the last part for background only. To give an idea of where they MIGHT stand.)

The last time each has been on Hardball, I have been amazed by what has come out of their mouths. Wednesday, DeLay said that there is no need for a Palestinian state, that Palestinians should join Israel.

A few weeks ago, Armey was saying that the West Bank and Gaza are Israel's, and not for the Palestinians...I believe he was advocating a Palestinian state somewhere else on the Arabian Peninsula.

I don't doubt that part of it was soundbiting, but these guys genuinely seem to believe what they are saying.

Although Israel has a 20% or so Arab population, there is no way that the Palestinians would join the State of Israel...not after all the fighting that has been done.

As far as a homeland somewhere else, that won't happen either. Both peoples have been on the land for ages.

How much faith can really be put into Arafat in the end? He's not really a "leader" per se; he's more of a spokesperson a la MLK or Gandhi.

I've been moving away from the "desperation" argument of the suicide bombers. It seems that these bombers simply want to hurt people, and they don't care who (well, they want to hurt Israelis, but no one in particular). The father of Wednesday's (the first one) bomber was like, "He's (the son) a martyr. We can only hope that God will take care of him" (or something along those lines).

As I understand modern warfare, great pains are taken to avoid innocent civilians...you attack military targets. And while the suicide bombers do this on occasion, it's been civilians recently. There is simply no justification for going on buses or into clubs and injuring and killing people. Period.

Perhaps the Palestinian extremists have not heard of, or don't care for, the principles of nonviolence. Maybe they could care less about MLK or Gandhi. At the rate things are going, the Palestinians will never achieve independence...because IMO, they're going about it the wrong way. I would say that the Palestinians have been treated unfairly by Israel, and I'm sure that Israeli soldiers have killed innocent Palestinian civilians. But you can't fight fire with fire.

Arafat could be the great statesman of our time. He could get on television and make grand speeches about his vision of a Palestinian state. He could speak of not "stooping down" to the level of the Israelis. He could speak of Israelis and Palestinians living together side by side in peace...they could hold marches with both peoples walking side by side, hand in hand down the main street in Tel Aviv. He could use a great quote like this, and make it his own:

"We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone."--MLK

I'll be the first to admit that I am a ridiculous optimist and idealist. But we already know that when both sides are peaceable, progress can be achieved (Oslo). Although there are years of anger and hatred between them, I honestly believe that if both sides sit down, talk honestly, focus on commonalities, treat each other as equals, and keep the lines of communication open, we could see two states side-by-side living in peace. They don't have to like each other, but they should be able to respect each other's right to be where they are.

If you're talking about Arafat and Sharon ... I'll be the second to admit that you're a ridiculous optimist and idealist. ;)

Thats why you have to get them wasted first...

Some of you might remember the Sharon-Arafat boxing match.

You're trying ot tell me i can't argue without conceding the point? *sighs*
Anotehr cultural context where people ahve been denied thier right and resorted to armed struggle? No others? LOL. Hmmm letsee Northern Ireland, Vietnam (Franch), Kashmir, Chechnya, do i need to go on? There is nothign ewn about it, nothign new about killing civvies, nothing new about killing kids, nothing unique, nothing any more or less barbaric either.

Bullshit. Tons of kids have been shot protesting by the IDF, its not uncommon. They simply don't care - they have nothing else to live for. Tahts the bit you don't seem to be able to get.

"Don't seem to be able to get" are words that do not flatter you. I encourage you not to use them, or words like them; that sort of approach will not serve you well.

This whole idea of desperation is debunked tonight by USS Clueless. The critical point:

We shouldn't think of our enemies as mindless animals, but we can't assume that they're motivated by the same things that we are. It's important to understand just how much different their culture is from ours, so as to understand how they will interpret our actions entirely differently than how we intend them to be interpreted.

How different is that culture? I keep pointing it out. You keep trying to find the similarities. "If *I* were treated that way, I'd go violent too!" But when pressed with the complete act -- killing the five-year-old -- you stop. You won't go there. You won't even think about it and surely you won't discuss it.

That's how different the cultures are. One of the bombers last week was a 22-year-old graduate student in a well-off family. He was not desperate. He had everything to live for. But his motivation was in his afterlife; in a religious fervor, he truly believed that his act was sacred, and that the more people he killed, the more awesome would be his reward from his god.

One thing that should strike you is that his position is not really negotiable. "Ahmed, what concessions can Israel give to convince you not to continue your violence?" "They can sacrifice several hundred Jews to Allah in my name." "What, no land or charitable contributions??"

There may be differences in culture between Americans and Aussies, too, which might account, in part, for the different interpretations of the debaters.

Ok i have played this out out badly, sorry i haven't had the time to really write anythign decent, the last week i've spent of a 3000 word paper on power relationships between North/South korea and external influences.

Ok lets start over.

Yea there is something rather fucked up about killing 5y.os and no, i cannot understand the mentality, but i can take a fair shot at the logic.

Terrorism like that works on exactly that, terror.'Tactics liek killing random members of the public, or families when peoples backs are turned are remarkably effective. Im not prone to being angry enough to kill kids, but couple decades of indocternated hatred of someone who is runing your life, mix in a little relgious fevour that feeds so easily on repressed people and man, i can see where they are coming from. See what i mean? Of course i can't directly identify, but i can understand the mentality and what causes it and more importantly how fundamentally it is the result of Isreali actions.

Or, perhaps, Israeli actions are the result of Palestinian extremists' actions.

That's why we can argue this all day. Neither side is willing to accept any blame. Couple that with the fact that Arafat will not <b>lead</b> his people to where they want to be... situation normal: all fucked up.

Couple that with the fact that Sharon will not lead his people to where they want to be ...

Well at this point, Jag, you'll have to go over to today's thread in Image of the Day because the topics merged and I put some thoughts in replying to Yelof there. Sorry.

Sharon will be gone soon enough. He is hardly the biggest problem in this mess. He is big, no doubt. But he does not have the longevity of Arafat.

Imagine how much different the middle east would be if Arafat would crack down on militants and lead peaceful, non-violent protests of Israeli occupation. Put Gandhi in as the leader of the Palestinians and see how different it is. Arafat sits back and spews rhetoric, interspersed with the occasional condemnation of suicide bombing which he does hardly anything to stop. There is a world of difference between saying and doing. There is a world of difference between sitting at the top and leading.

Ummm Sharon has been leading zionist groups since the forties and fifties, how much more longevity do you want?

He's been the recognized head of the Israeli government for how long?

One doesn't need to be the head of the government to be influential, and he has been in and out of government positions for at least the last twenty years. A real difference between Sharon and Arafat: One has won the Nobel peace prize and the other is being tried in the Hague for war crimes...