Palestinians and "desperation"
 

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2065703

Summary: an opinion piece that says suicide bombers don't bomb out of desperation (for lack of their own homeland), but out of hope (that Israel can be destroyed). The opinion that it's out of desperation is widely repeated because it's intellectually convenient.

(And I said it here first. Patting my own back)

I don't see these two ideas as being mutually incompatible..perhaps out of desperation the impossible dream of defeating the Israeli coloniser seems a possibility.

Don't you think it just a little bit likely that if a person could live a life free of IDF harassment, if a person could feel more than a second class citizen in his own country, then that person might be less likely to carry out something as mad turning themselves into a human bomb.

The Palestinians have been getting a rough deal from no end of people, but mostly the Israelis, for over fifty years, it is hardly surprising if the extremists in their camp are wining the hearts and minds..In my opinion any argument that goes along the lines they started bombing us worse when we started talking peace to them, so we shouldn't talk peace to them is sick.

Sick? It's logically sound. Why should Israel do what demonstrably didn't work?

I am not looking at this as a person out to get the best strategic position for Israel..I am looking at this as an uninvolved third party.

It is sick because it lacks any sense of ethics, because it treats THEM the Palestinians as a single entity, if one group of THEM commits violence they must all pay the concequences, so we will use THEM to jail each other (divide and rule..old hat) It is sick because it is an excuse to rollback what was a half hearted peace process anyhow. It is sick because where will such thinking lead..turn Gaza and West Bank into a jail for people send the IDF warders to beat up the trouble makers every now and again. Good luck for a solution to the problem, of course a large segment in Israel now don't believe there is any solution and would really just love to be done with the awkward problem of what to do with the original inhabitants.

Hrm. Maybe if most ordinary citizens were suicide bombers, your argument would look less than retarded.

If you read the article, you would have caught the bit where he talks about placating the Palestinians. And you would have remembered that he said that even 100 or 200 people intent on killing themselves (and taking Israeli citizens with them) would still be enough to wreak major havoc. And if you had looked at other stats, you would realize this to be true, as there have been exactly <b>20</b> suicide bombings this year - 2002 - and look what they've done.

Then you would realize that placating the Palestinians does nothing to stop Hamas and Islamic Jihad, seeing as they vigorously oppose the idea of Israel having a right to exist.

Then you would understand why Israel <b>must</b> crack down on militants.

Please read the article thoroughly before posting again. It really truly does make sense.

I will reply more when I have more time

but answer this one..

What exactly will Israel "cracking down" on militants solve beyond the short term..how will such a crack down contribute to making this sort of thing a part of the past..

I loved the crack pot analogy in the article equating Palestinians to the Flu

I agree Yelof, the important thing is to look long-term.

I don't believe I understand the whole thing, cos it's just so damn big. As Dennis Miller puts it, "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong." So here I go:

People smarter than me have been pointing out that the whole thing is a serious cultural "disconnect". Arabic/Islamic belief systems are different than ours.

Their society is an honor/shame society, and they desperately want to believe that their culture is superior to that of the west. Unfortunately for them, it isn't -- at least in terms of how its restrictions also fail to produce any economic growth at all, even standing on top of gallons of the most valuable natural resource in the world.

(sidebar: if you don't agree that economic growth makes a superior culture, try freedom, or democratic principles, or humanity to man.)

Israel, with the economic abilities that freedom and individual rights, grew into a world powerhouse in a matter of decades. No Islamic/Arabic state has been so successful since -- well, you'd have to go back aways. Like a millienia or so.

For the shame-based society, to have another culture so thoroughly thrash them is not only a silly matter of pride, but is brutally shameful. It's unacceptable to their belief system.

That's why Arabs could believe so uniformly that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the entire thing is an Israeli plot. Nobody must know it was us; it was a shameful thing. Our culture cannot go wrong.

And so, for the Palestinians, it is not so bad simply to be occupied, but to be occupied by the Israelis -- another culture, demonstrating its superiority to ours -- that is downright unacceptable.

Unfortunately, being right next door to a separate yet incredibly superior culture is also an unacceptable humiliation.

Now here's a compelling thought. The last time the US was forced to deal with a shame-based society was... the Japanese. In the 20s and 30s they believed that their culture was superior, that their religion was the favored one, etc. They quit believing that when the superior culture demonstrated its superiority in a very, um, compelling way, something they couldn't fail to notice.

But I can't end on that thought. The only thing more powerful than the A-bomb, friends, is western culture. And with communications technology, we can now export that culture from underneath. Its economic force cannot be denied, and the productivity gains that it creates will inevitably be bigger than oil.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

And one more thing. (I just can't stop writing. Somebody stop me!)

If you're in favor of stuff like human rights and against stuff like fascism...

Giving the Palestinians their own state tomorrow would probably be kinda bad for the Palestinians. They would inevitably be yet another Islamo-fascist state, with all the trappings thereof. You know, things like slavery, subjegation of women, beheadings, etc. If they were really lucky, they could end up like Turkey - Islamic, but kinda progressive. But there don't appear to be many progressives in that sector of the Islamic world.

With millions of Muslims, no oil, corrupt leadership and a cultural tradition of extreme violence, there's very little chance that a Palestinian state would be a voice for peaceful and loving diplomacy.

Wow...hadn't thought of it that way. So very true.

I'm reminded of aviator and aviation writer William Langewiesche's story in the Atlantic about the EgyptAir 990 investigation. It really fits in.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/20...ngewiesche.htm

Langewiesche's father is Wolfgang Langewiesche, author of "Stick and Rudder", a classic aviation textbook.

Very neokamikazi. I see the analogy, Japan wanted to rule "bring peace to their region" through their superior culture. The Islamic fundamentalists' desire is to turn back the clock to what is held as a truly great, historic civilization- Completely purged of Western cultural pollutants. A different measure of greatness. I see the "shame" as more a hatred of interference, democracy and cultural pollution. I agree that an immediate Palestinian state would be not so great for the Palestinians.
Suicide bombers dont act out of desperation, but duty. They're valuable and effective weaponry, meant to inflict damage on their enemy. Shine them up and show them off.

Ok I said earlier I would return to the original article

far from deterring suicide bombings by Hamas, an "equitable settlement" would likely have provoked more.

Or perhaps not..I read in this months "New Scientist" an interview with Mahmoud El Zahhar 3 or 4th in command of Hammas
He is asked what Israel would have to do for Hamas to end its armed struggle.
"Get out of the Territories. If they are not here, whom an I going to fight?" This he says is the minimum. There are other things, such as the right of return for Palestinian refugees and the establishment of a Palestinian state. But nothing is possible while there are Israeli soldiers and settlers in the Gaza Strip and West Bank."
So some settlement seems possible with Hamas, and for sure not all would agree with the inevitable compromise, but they would end up like the Real IRA in Northern Ireland today, yesterdays warriors unable to give up the fight, almost irrelevant.

Prior to Israel's offensive in the West Bank, suicide bombers were striking at nearly a once-a-day rate.
So is Israel to continue demolishing houses and treating Palestinian areas like a war games area indefinitely? In terms of overall human suffering we'd be better off with the bombings, which without violent response and with instead dialog would eventually peter out. Israeli fear is fear to eat out at a restaurant, more of them die in car accidents each year then by bomb, the same cannot be said of Palestinians


last week's attacker came from the one location (the Gaza Strip) that Israel didn't target.

That the policy might be temporarily effective does not prove that it will be effective in the long run or that it is just.

Palestinian terrorism does not result from Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but from Israel's existence.

so there is no hope for Israel then? as she shall have no peace until either she is gone or all her enemies are..there certainly are and will always be Palestinians who will fight for liberation of ALL the homeland, but there will be those who while perhaps never giving up theoretical claim will accept some other just settlement..the Republic of Ireland to this day claims all the island of Ireland and when conceived and at times that claim was a full wish of both government and people but with time the claim has become symbolic and may even be reversed as part of some final peace settlement.

Because terrorism long predates the 1967 occupation.

what resistance to the occupation of lands prior to 1967 proves that all Israeli lands must be returned for peace?
or perhaps reversal of 1949 might have seen achievable in 1963 but does not seem humane or realistic now.

Suicide bombings started only after the 1993 Oslo Accords, which provided Palestinians with their best opportunity for a state.

Many consider the Olso Accords to have been deeply flawed, the Palestinians gave away too much actual control to Israel and allowed Israel to defer to later any issues of real substance

see for here for example

The position I would advocate was IMO best expressed by Stickerboy in a kuro5hin post

A New Framework for Peace in the Middle East

Undertoad.. I know what you are getting at here.. hell I have been to both Egypt and Israel and I preferred the Israelis, and I didn't even like most of the arrogent pushy SOB's. Although I think there is a lot in Islam that is beautiful, and in the past it's culture was impressive and progressive now days much of it seems infantile and although I wouldn't use the term "Superior", they would contest that our culture is overly occupied with the self and would point to our treatment of the elderly for example.. never the less I know in which culture I'd rather live in. The Israelis have certainly done very well in Israel, but massive overseas funding must have something to do with it. That the Palestinians are motivated by shame, although anger and a sense of injustice would be more appropriate descriptives, does not matter if their cause is just.

Also the Palestinian Authorities record on Democracy is pretty bad and a Palestinian State could end up a hellhole but at least it would be their hellhole

Basically why I replied to Undertoad's original posting is that I believe that the suicide bombings are the symptom, but the Israeli government would like to treat them as the disease itself. The disease is IMO the unjust settlement division of the land and power between the two peoples.

Good reply. Several good points.

I don't have anything in reply, I only have an interesting link to a very clear explanation of the shame-culture vs. guilt-culture that has nothing to do with the current struggle:

http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/shame_guilt.htm

Interesting well written article contrasting shame and guilt..I liked those matrices.

I think shame explains more why the other Arab nations don't completely drop the Palestinian cause, it doesn't to my mind explain the motives of the Palestinians themselves

I'd be very interested to see facts which support your claim - i.e., the number of Palestinian deaths in car accidents for 2001 against the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli suicide bombing in 2001. Or even just bombing, period.

Now... just because the Hamas leader says that they would stop operations doesn't exactly mean that they would. For example, I can say "My penis is eighteen inches long", but this hardly makes it fact. What has been demonstrated so far is that when Israel is not attacking militants, Palestinian groups are attacking Israel, and when Israel cracks down on the West Bank, suicide bombings fall off very quickly.

This line of thinking always amuses me. "I feel that the best offense is to run away. That way you instill fear into your opponents." Let's stop kidding ourselves here for a second and look at the situation. Israel cannot possibly afford to not retaliate for suicide bombings because in doing so, they enable Palestinian extremists. If Israel stops responding, it is the real-world equivalent of bending over and spreading your cheeks. Do you truly honestly believe that Palestinian extremists will stop the bombings if Israel discontinues the killing of militants? That's a foolish notion, and it's laughable. No matter what you read, no matter what they say, it is not as simple as "they want the West Bank and Gaza and Golan back." Let us not forget that those lands were acquired in the 1967 Six Day war which, while started by Israel, was a <b>pre-emptive</b> strike against nations that were preparing to attack Israel. There is hatred between these peoples that is simply impossible to comprehend from the outside. The West Bank is an excuse to wage war against a religion.

Your argument is for Israel to stop responding to attacks and create dialogue. Okay. How about... Palestinian extremists stop attacking and create dialogue? How come no one ever brings up that possibility? How come the pressure is on Israel? What <b>possible</b> justification would Israel have for attacking Palestinians if there were no suicide bombings or attacks on settlements? How the hell could they possibly justify that? They couldn't. The Palestinian extremists have the key to stopping the attacks and they refuse to use it.

Finally... do you really think that the Palestinian Authority is doing all it can to stop militants?

I sure as hell hope not. The lawlessness in the West Bank is unreal. Where else can people kill each other and then drag the dead bodies down the street without getting arrested, thrown in jail, tried, convicted and imprisoned? The PA and its police make almost no effort to quelch extremism and disarm militants. They are enabling it to happen.

So let's quit blaming Israel for everything. Both sides have caused a lot of the problems, and it's up to both to fix it. It's not as if Israel has the key and is failing to wield it.

[ Edit - ., $s/fo/of/ ]

Man what a flame war from a moronic opinion writer with an IQ lower than room temperature.

Well isn't that a self-defeating statement.

98% of suicide bombers are stopped before they manage to detonate. DO the math. Look at the people, TIME had a study of each this year, comparing, what a diverse bunch they were too, graduates, fanatics, kids. Fucking hell I think the idea of a state based on 22% of their fucking land is generous enough. You've got the 40% of Israelis thinking they should remove all Palestinians from the west bank and Gaza - what the fuck do you expect?




Why was Hitler so damn popular after WW1? Because you had a large, desperate population looking for someone to blame. Fast forward 50 years, why are Hamas etc so popular.....hmmm

I was talking to the leader of the Palestinian delegation to Australia the other day (came to school for a talk) He was an atheist himself with made his views on this all the more interesting.

Being under the thumb of the oh-so-fucking-civilized Israelis is such a goddamn improvement I suppose? Blindingly obvious aside, any set up state would be a: under intense scrutiny, b: intense aid, both would help create a reasonable government. In reality neither state is viable, Israel survives on $ from the US.


Its also based on sound logic (happy people don't kill themselves), anecdotal(Interviews), historical (after Oslo was a virtual halt on terror) and statistical evidence (vast majority wanted, and probably still do want peace (hard to take stats while being shot at by IDF)), unless like that pile of drivel you posted which appears to be posted on a series of fundamentally flawed analogies and logical leaps that defy human comprehension. My god this guy knows about about intellectually convenient arguemnts, the entire concept of "fantastic offer with 98% of wanted territory that arafat refused" bullshit i keep seeing circulated is such an utter falacy its nto funny. Starting with the obvious, its not 98%, its less than 22% of what the palastinian state was, secondly it divided palastinian territory into 3 areas, requiring pasing of Isreali military blockades to get between them. No part of jerusulem was even offered. My god i jsut noticed this guys arguemtn is that ethics are basicly ilrrelavent as long as miltary action is effective?! Omg.........I guess this guys solution to kashmir is to nuke pakistan and solve northern ireland by rounding up every irishman and forcing them into the sea.

Demonstrating that Israeli checkpoints and the military are doing a fine job in lessening Israeli civilian casualties.

Thanks for helping make our point.

My point was it defeats the statement you made above that.....
why do i bother

The number of people killed and injured in Israeli traffic accidents in 2001 was more than twice as many as all those who died or were hurt in terrorist attacks

http://www.jewsweek.com/images/traffic0108.jpg

Although this must be partially due to..

Drivers in Israel are undisciplined, don't bother to obey road signs or the rules of the road, and have virtually no road manners whatsoever.

I noticed that too. Israeli drivers are mental, I reckoned it comes from a proportion of them who learned how to drive tanks before cars

I reckon, of the countries I have visited, the worst drivers were

1) Israel
2) Egypt
3) Italy
4) Portugal

I'm only listing countries, mind you, if I was listing people I'd have to place myself somewhere high on the list as it took me eight goes to pass my drivers licence!

So, Yelof has been reduced to accusing Israelis of bad driving in "support" of his other arguments ? How lame.

Actually if you read back through the tread you'll see that the Israelis being bad drivers slightly weakens my argument, as they are such bad drivers it is perhaps not so surprising so many of them die that way. I posted in response to dhamsaic's request for evidence to back up my earlier claim. Not so lame after all I think, or where you just pulling my leg?

Yelof - wrong peoples.

You said that more Palestinians are killed by bomb than by car each year. I asked you to produce facts that either

a) more Palestinians are killed each year by Israeli suicide bombers than are by car accidents

or

b) more Palestinians are killed by Israeli bombing, period, than are by car accidents.

[I made an error of calculation here, when I first did this, dhamsaic kindly pointed out and I have made corrections, my original wrong figures will remain in brackets, as a reminder to myself to preview before posting]

You are right dhamsaic, I didn't provide the evidence you asked for, but lets have a go.

The actual statistics are hard to get but we can do some mental excercises.

First I need terrorist-"policing" deaths in Israel and PA areas 2001

The following I can only get out of a google cache a direct link brings me to the JP homepage

"The Jerusalem Post Monday December 31, 2001

659 killed in Israeli- Palestinian violence in 2001
More than 650 Israelis, Palestinians, and foreign citizens were killed in Israel and the territories during 2001, according to statistics released today by B'Tselem.
Israeli soldiers, police officers, and civilians killed 455 Palestinian civilians and members of the Palestinian Authority security services in the territories in 2001.
Another 10 Palestinians were killed inside Israel.
Eighty-six Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed by Palestinians
[It is these poor sods above I forgot to add in]
in the territories over the past year.
In addition, 101 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed by Palestinians within Israel.
Seven foreign citizens were also killed by Palestinians in 2001.
In total, 659 people fell victim to regional violence in 2001."

If we are to take then according to the previous link I posted that twice as many Israelis died in car accidents then
approx 388 people died on the roads of Israel in 2001
[I wrote 216 here originally]



There are 5.9 Million Israelis

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/is.html

There are 3.2 Million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/gz.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/we.html

Let us for sake of argument assume that Israeli and palestine have the same skill level of driver and car use (in reality they are both prob. as bad but the Israelis do use cars a LOT more)

That gives us very approx 206 Palestinians killed in car accidents.

[I wrote 117 originally]

More Israelis die in car accidents then terrorism, more Palestinians die as a result of Israeli response, or as a result of Israeli agression, have it as you may, then probebly die in car accidents.

The truth is that all deaths whatever cause are horrible, we would wish that everything was being done to save lives. Both sides in this conflict are suffering, but unevenly, a solution that guarenteed security for Israeli but condemed the Palestinians to the current political limbo in which they are suffering should be condemed by all disinterested parties as inhuman.

Intentionally or unintentionally, you're skewing the numbers.

187 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, so approximately 380 traffic-related deaths in Israel in 2001.

That's 1 in every 15, 526 that will die in a car accident. If we get the percentage of deaths and multiply it by the number of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, we arrive at an approximation of 206 traffic-related deaths. So while it's still supportive of your claim, it's less dramatic than you previously posted.

However, this still doesn't answer the queston: how many Palestinians died in traffic accidents in 2001?

We cannot safely assume that our approximation is correct, given that different cultures have different driving styles. For example, if you go to Mexico City, you will notice that the driving is <b>much</b> different than it is here in the US. Assuming that Israeli and Palestinian death percentages are exactly alike is fine for a relatively uneducated guess, but it doesn't really hold water.

I'd still be interested in seeing actual statistics for Palestinian road deaths in 2001, but for now, we'll assume that your statement is correct.

In my egarness to post
I did err by "Eighty-six Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed by Palestinians in the territories"
Opps well spotted..still as you point out doesn't change much..I will edit the original post to reflect the right estimates but I will also leave my error so as not to get myself off the hook for messing up

But really, all this is kind of irrelevant.

Terrorism accomplishes political destruction by combining the least number of resources with the greatest amount of inhumanity. The body count is irrelevant; if a similar targeted act of terrorism was directed at the President of the United States, for example, a body count of ONE would still be a political statement of utterly grave importance.

3000 dead at WTC, for example, is a horrifying number. But the tragedy is made more sobering, not less, at the idea that they were aiming for a higher number. And much more sobering that the economic system of not just the US, but the entire world, experienced an aftershock that probably led to much more suffering than the initial attack.

The extremists would like us ALL dead. And that, my friends, is the Big Picture.

The whole thread has descended into deep lameness.

I saw no relevance in the incidence of traffic accidents among the Israelis, and still don't, and I think the nice picture of the white car is even less relevant than the alleged statistics.

Israeli pulll-out
 

An interesting fact:
Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 to protect its northern borders from the Hezzbolah (pardon the spelling) guerillas (supported, admittingly, by Iran). They created a 12 mile or so security zone in southern Lebanon, manned by the IDF, to prevent the guerillas from getting closer enough to fire rockets into, and infiltrate, northern Israel. In 2000, when the issue of the Israeli pullout from Lebanon was on the table, the Israeli's were promised by not only Lebanon, but also Syria (who effectively controls Lebanon) the Hezzbolah leaders that the terror would end if the pulled out. So...they did. They removed all forces from Lebanon, pulled into northern Israel, where they remain to this day. Yet, have we seen any stoppage of attacks on the northern frontier? The guerillas continue to operate effectively in the area, firing rockets on troops and civilians in northern Israel, kidnapping Israeli troops, etc. Just goes to point that just because the IDF might pull out of the terrorites gained in the 1967 war, the terrorism will not halt. They might give a little, but it will never be enough. The radical groups not only want the destruction of Israel, but the Jewish people as a whole. They will NOT stop until the whole land of Israel, and its Jewish inhaditants, are pushed into the sea. The country isn't that wide, they dont have much farther to go.
Israel must not pull out...and if it does, it needs to create a concrete scurity buffer zone, to prevent any un-authorized entry into the soverign state of Israel.

On the other hand Israel pulled out of the Sinai Peninsula (concluding in 1982) and has had peace with Egypt ever since.

Was Israel getting attacked by suicide bombers from the Sinai prior to the withdrawal?

Three weeks ago Egypt said they would declare war on Israel if the other Arab nations would give them $100B:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...441265555.html

That would be one of the more idiotic things Egypt could do at this time. They would get the smack down so badly it wouldn't be funny. And they know this. It seems to me as though they just have a few loud-mouthed politicians.

I would like to see someone call their bluff and offer up $100B on the condition that they waged war on Israel.

Arab position
 

Egypt is in a bit of a precarius position. They are one of the only countries bordering Israel that stands a hair whim of a chance of over-running the IDF upon a surprise Egyption invasion. But that aside, Egypt has already lost a few wars it had a hand in starting. The Siani penninsula is a wastelan dof nothing-ness. Israel tryly had no resaon to remain there. If anything, it was a strain on the IDF to remain positioned so far from Israel proper. Their withdrawl was for nothing but strategic military reasons, not political. And no one can say that Egypt's opinion and conduct towards Israel got much better since their withdrawl. They still produce extremeists like there is no end, their government, still hugely anti-semestic, sponsors anti-jew AND anti israel AND anti US rallies in the streets. Egypt is on the same level as every other Middle Eastern country...still ass backwards in their society, still repressive..and still anti Israel and anti Jew.

OK skipping some sort of land for peace deal, or any attempt to open dialog to arrive at any sort of final settlement as there does not seem to be many here open to such suggestions.

Anyone care to justify the Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank? The existance of which blight the everyday life of the Palestinians living there..I could dig up links about how settler roads split comunities, about how small groups of religously inspired settlers require large military protection..but what is the point if you wanted you could find them yourself.

In case the charge of irrelevence is thrown at me again, pray tell what is relevent to a thread entitled "Palestinians and "desperation" " and concerning just what it is that motivates hate sufficient to blow yourself up to kill innocents.

Well, the Israeli government would be happy to justify it for you. They call the occupied lands "disputed territories," and say they have just as much right to be there as the Palestinians.

Now, could I personally justify them? No. From my standpoint, Gaza and the West Bank are lands taken during hostile action from Egyptian and Jordanian (respectively) administration. Israel should have never built settlements upon them.

Settlements
 

I agree with the fact that the Israeli settlements really shouldn't be there. While I don't know if its because the Israeli government had no right (after all, it was captured land, belonging to them)...I think they shouldnt build them because it just makes it easy for the terrorists to attack them. An dit unfortunately draws away the IDF from tasks better suited then protecting a settlement. But...it might not be an issue if a group of a couple of hundred people people, made up of only families with children, weren't the intended targets of Palestinian gunmen who infiltrate the settlement to kill some young girls and their mothers and fathers. Has the IDF killed innocent Palestinians? No doubt. Is it regretted? Yes it is. But the IDF's goal is to AVOID civilian casualties. When those gunmen sneak into those settlements...they intend to kill as many innocent people as possible.

The problem with many of the settlers is that they are right-wing extremist Jews, just as there are left-wing extremist Palestinians. I'm not saying that this is true of all of them; but it certainly has been true for a majority of them <b>from what I have read</b>. They feel that they have a God-given right to be in the West Bank, and they aren't going to let a bunch of filthy sand niggers take that away from them. Look, for example, at how much Baruch Goldstein is celebrated. Many Israeli settlers will label him as a "hero" - one that killed 29 innocent Palestinians.

The settlers are generally of the far-right type and, truth be told, I have less sympathy for them than I do those who actually live within Israel and are hurt by terrorism. Their self-righteousness makes it hard for me to feel sorry for them.

I thought so too, until recently. Turns out to be another media myth.

While some of the 'settlers" really are the foaming-at-the-mouth Zionist types, the majority of them are there because it's a good deal. A lot of them are recent immigrants of with modest financial resources. The Israeli government subsidized the construction of their homes- up to 60% to 80% in some cases.

I was surprised. I'd always had the same image in my mind that Dave described... the Torah-totin', Galil-waving squatter. Guess I was wrong.

Hezboilah's recent attacks is in reposnce to IDF actions in the west bank and gaza.

but in reality poeple, and any here acutally honestly tell me if someone stole thier house, gave them a bit of the yard, occasionalyl run a backhoe though it, then spat on them they wouldn't get rather miffed?

It turns out that your scenario hasn't happened to MOST people in the West Bank and Gaza, and even if it had, it doesn't legitimize the murder of civilians.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iltoc.html

has some fascinating historical background on how the Middle East got to how it is today.

Thank you A. Whitney Brown. ;)

Hee hee! Good catch!

?!
YOu think the entire population used to live in less than 1/5th of the country? There is a palastinian family who has the deeds to the land the kessnet(in too much of a hurry to google the spelling) is buiilt on.

Deeds are written by governments. With what government do they have the deed?

Anyone catch the lead story on CNN.com the other night? "Yasser Arafat read to accept a country called Israel." Now, I feel that Yasser has made some big steps, finally moving out of 1948 and into 2002, realizing that Israel DOES exist, it IS NOT going away, and despite how many bombings he might order, fund, or turn his back on, it isn't going to change.

That would be "Knesset."

Jag's post brought this to my mind: Israel blows off the issue of lost land by claiming that Israelis lost land in Arab territories. So, my question of the day is this: If these displaced Israelis could get their land that is in Arab lands, would Israel give back land taken from the Palestinians?

(Sycamore's personal thought: God no. It could tie in too much to the "right of return" issue.)

I spoke to the leader of the palastinian delegation in aust about exactly that. Whether they would be willing to drop the issue of repatriations, get reperations and a removall of settlements, the answer was deffinately.

I was just watching Ashleigh Banfield's show on MSNBC, and happened to catch her interview with the Israeli Defense Minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer. Wow...what a refreshing difference from the windbags like Dore Gold. He was very down-to-earth, spoke of working with the Palestinians to give them a state, and of working with Yasser Arafat to achieve peace.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that he is a member of the Labour party, and may seek the Prime Minister position.

I had an interesting run it today. We had a speaker at school, a Dr Colin Rubenstien of an organisation designed to lobyy the australia into removing "anti-semetic" influences.
Wwell.. If you've been following this thread tis is the same guy who was previously accused of repeatedly lieing about the comments a human rights judge made about whether Sharon was a war criminal. Myself, with the backing of a few others asked him about this. His response to that and a question about his skipping of the details of the Oslo accords in the speach he gave was roughly was
a: I was an anti-semetic
b: If i didn't shut up i'd be slapped with a slander suit.