The IDF at work "fighting terrorism"

From today's NY Times, describing an IDF raid wherein the government of Israel defends itself against terrorism:


"The largest operation was launched against Beit Hanoun, a town of about 20,000 Palestinians in northern Gaza.


A 21-year-old man, Samer Hamad, was wounded by Israeli tank fire while standing in a field near his house, Palestinian doctors said. Hamad was taken to a local clinic, but Israeli troops barred ambulances from transferring him to a hospital in Gaza City, his relatives said. The wounded man eventually was taken by taxi on a side road, but died before reaching the hospital.


The Israeli military said Palestinian paramedics never submitted a request to enter Beit Hanoun.


Army bulldozers knocked down an outer wall of the girls' high school in Beit Hanoun, and soldiers pitched tents in the courtyard and raised an Israeli flag, witnesses said."


From Ha'aretz, on the another raid the same day:


"Palestinian security officials said three policemen were killed in Dir al-Balah when an Israeli bulldozer destroyed their post. Troops shot two other Palestinians in an exchange of fire in Beit Hanoun and at least ten people were arrested, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said. ...


Palestinian security officials said the five policemen were killed in Deir al-Balah when an Israeli bulldozer destroyed their position. Israeli sources said the five were shot dead by tank fire when it appeared they were about to open fire. There were no reports of Israeli casualties."


That's five more PA cops that won't be arresting any Hamas activists.


Notice the deliberate attempts to humiliate: destroying schools and police stations, raising the flag of the foreign occupier, killing local authorities, killing a guy standing in a field (maybe he was trying to terrorize the field); denying access to medical services. This isn't anti-terrorism, it's terrorism, intimidation and provocation in order to ensure, as some advocate, "continual war."

He still has delusions. He thinks that George Bush is Don Corleone, and he thinks that the fairest system of world government is demonstrted by Osama Bin Laden,Yasser Arafat, and Paradise Poker. Of course he mixes mama and papa into his garbled speach when discussing Paradise.....


The medication hasn't helped.

It's heavy-handed use of force, perhaps oppressively so. You don't quote anything about the context of the events so it is somewhat hard to judge all that is going on; e.g., was the man standing in his field hit by stray fire, or was he deliberately targeted while he was doing nothing? What about the context of the events as a whole?


Humiliation is NOT terrorism.


Shhoting 5 PA policemen who were about to open fire is NOT terrorism.


Raising a flag is NOT terrorism.


Denying medical services, depending on the circumstances, may range from necessary to very bad. My guess is that this was indeed on the bad side but we don't know the details of the ambulances, etc. or if there were security concerns that might have weighed somewhat (although I agree probably not enough to justify this).


Terrorism is not merely suppression, or oppression, or the use (or overuse) of force.


Don't you see the difference between the above and: suicide bombers striking a girl's bas mitzvah party, suicide bombers attacking a disco, the murder of Olympic athletes, the targeting of a totally uninvolved family who is vacationing in a foreign country?


The PA is not doing what they must do to curb terrorism. Arresting a few militants isn't going to do do the trick. The PA needs to declare illegal the existence and operation of Islamic Jihad and all other such organizations operating from within their territories, close their offices, arrest ALL leaders of these organizations and force the other members to disband. Israel is retaiating against the PA for allowing these groups to continue, flourish and launch attacks from within their territory.

I will amend my statement on the denying of medical services to allow the possibility that under some circumstances, it should be considered criminal. However even this is NOT the equivalent of suicide bombers targeting a girl's bas mitzvah party or the murder of Olympic athletes.


Doesn't anything strike you as being illogical and wrong about the idea that targeting totally innocent and uninvolved people, as a means to make a point, is an acceptable means of settling disputes or waging war? I think the entire world needs to make it very clear that this practice is both morally and logically wrong, and that it cannot and will not be tolerated anywhere.

Very insightful response.

Reading this post, together with the "Justification for Arab Hatred" post below, is very depressing.


One does not have to approve of Palestinian tactics to also disapprove of Israeli tactics. And one does not have to approve of Israeli attitudes to be sickened by, for example, the Saudi government's thinking, as exemplified in the article cited in the "Justification for Arab Hatred" post.


Rather than questioning Chris's motives or sincerity or evenhandedness, I prefer to read what he posts and absorb it's content. Posts like the one immediately below Chris's (by "chris Alger's Psychotherapist") serve only to show the willful ignorance or the poster. There is no question that Israel has not been merely an innocent victim in its dealings with the Palestinians. This is not to say that the Palestinians are blameless in the apparently endless cycle of violence. But those who dismiss the information Chris posts because they don't like him or his views are only looking at one side of the story.


The Zionists and the Israelis have always treated the Palestinians with contempt. Those who, even in the early years, pointed out that there were people on the land, were ignored or marginalized. The Zionists chose to ignore them and concentrate their efforts on the British, first with diplomacy and then with guns.


There is plenty of blame to go around for all parties. The first Israeli historians were basically triumphalists who insisted their country had done and could do no wrong and that the enemy was 100% to blame for the problems. More recently, younger historians such as Benny Morris and Avi Schlaim have shown that such a viewpoint is distorted. Sharon's worldview certainly has more in common with Jabotinksy's Iron Wall than with Chaim Weitzman's socialism.


This leaves me with the question I posed in another thread below: What is the answer? Is there an answer? Are the parties doomed to continued fighting until one is basically eliminated or marginalized, like the Amerian Indians? It seems a problem almost without acceptable solution.

I have heard, and read a bit to similar effect, that the Arabs treat the Palestinians like dirt too. It is only because the Arabs hate Israel even more that they side with the Palestinians versus Israel. For instance, I have heard that Jordan has a very large Palestinian population themselves (can't vouch for this), yet they annexed land which was allocated for the Palestinians now living in Israel--basically Jordan robbed them.


The whole thing is an unbelievable mess and let's not forget that many desert peoples have a long history of infighting for ages (and does any other culture have the actual specific concept of 'holy war' built into their religion?)


At a certain point I think you have to say, look, dammit, here's a settlement and nobody likes it 100% but it's better than endless fighting. So here it is and abide by it and that had better be the end of it. And I think it that along with a settlement and homeland, the terrorist organizations should have to cease and desist ... or else. It needs to be made crystal clear that terror attacks targeting innocent uninvolved parties are intolerable.

A long time ago there was an organization called Brit Shalom which favored the creation of a bi-national state in Palestine. There were some Jewish luminaries who favored this approach, including, I believe, Judah Magnes and perhaps also Martin Buber. I am Jewish, but the idea of a Jewish state has always been a problem for me. I can go to Israel and have all of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, but President Bush, for example, cannot. And this is so because of the religion we profess, or rather, the religion our mothers professed.


I would hope there would be a Palestinian state alongside of Israel with a mutual defense pact and I dream of their merging one day into that bi-national state. These hopes and dreams are overridden, I'm afraid, by the reality of what I fear will be continued violence, leading to disaster. The Palestinians, absent the kind of massive, imposed solution you allude to, will probably continue their tactics, similar to the way the American Indians tried to stave off the inevitable in the 19th century, and their fate in the 21st century will probably approximate that of the American Indians in the 20th century, without the casinos.


It's worth remembering that many guerilla and terrorist organizations (for example, the IRA)

use(d) Menachem Begin's book The Revolt as their bible in planning and executing their policies. This is not to excuse or in any way condone the activities of the Irgun, the IRA, or Hamas, but to point out that many times people who are convinced they are 100% right will resort to violence against civilians to try to achieve their goals. Hopefully we in the United States and elsewhere can use our influence to convince the combatants that neither side is 100% right and that, as you suggest, a solution must be found that, unavoidably, will not be liked 100% by either party.


Otherwise I fear we face an earthquake of such colossal magnitude that the pre-shocks we've experienced these past 100 years, horrible as they have been, will seem miniscule in comparison. I hope I am wrong about this.

I strongly agree with Mr. M here. It appears that what you are doing is taking things out of context to present your case. Sort of "the end justifies the means" sort of thing. You must understand that Israel has a very democratic and open government. Thus when news comes out of its territory, it comes with warts and all, and it's easy to just seize on the warts if that's what you are looking for.


On the other hand, the countries and organizations that you seem to praise do not operate in this fashion. Their news is more controlled and their warts are kept hidden. In the Arab world, based on my understanding, only Jordan has a fair amount of democratic freedom, and even here it is not close to what Israel has to offer. You should keep this in mind when you put your anti-Israeli posts here. For example, if you lived in Syria and wanted to post anti-Syrian information, how long do you think you will be allowed to do it.

"For instance, I have heard that Jordan has a very large Palestinian population themselves (can't vouch for this), yet they annexed land which was allocated for the Palestinians now living in Israel--basically Jordan robbed them."


I think this is a forgotten point. In the original partition of Palestine there was suppose to be a Palestinian homeland, but the Arabs refused it.

"Humiliation is NOT terrorism."


I didn't equate the two. It serves to provoke terrorism, however, which is why our own government criticized Israel for the raids, as reported in yesterday's Houston Chronicle: “Before the raids, the United States said Israeli attacks in heavily populated areas were counter-productive, a rare rap on the knuckles from Washington for Israel.” "Counterproductive" means "tending to hinder the attainment of a desired goal." Even our government understands that these raids don't serve to "combat terrorism."


The same source reports the obvious: “The Palestinian Authority says its ability to rein in militants is hampered by army blockades on Palestinian areas.”


"Shooting 5 PA policemen who were about to open fire is NOT terrorism."


They opened fire because an Israeli bulldozer was trying to destroy their offices. Or do you think the bulldozer was just standing by and the bulldozing, as with the other rocket and missile attacks on PA security offices (virtually every week now), was an afterthought?


I can imagine your response if Palestinians drove a bulldozer to Jerusalem and tried to demolish an Israeli police office, and then killed 5 Israelie officers for shooting at them. If I were to say, well, they only killed them after they shot at the Palestinians, so that's not terrorism, you'd call me a rank apologist, and you'd be right.


"Don't you see the difference between the above and: suicide bombers striking a girl's bas mitzvah party, suicide bombers attacking a disco, the murder of Olympic athletes, the targeting of a totally uninvolved family who is vacationing in a foreign country?"


No, I'm afraid I don't see the difference between using a tank to kill a civilian standing in a field by his house and using a suicide bomb to kill civilians in their homes. Nor do I see the difference between shooting IDF soldiers eating lunch and using rockets in a crowded civilian area to kill Palestinian militants (not just "terrorists"). Nor do I see the difference between Israel's "extrajudicial killing" of Palestinian officials and the PFLP's murder of Israeli officials. Maybe you could clarify it.


"Terrorism is not merely suppression, or oppression, or the use (or overuse) of force."


I didn't say that terrorism was the "mere" overuse of force, but it certainly can be, unless we just want to plant different labels on our side and their side (Palestinians "terrorize," the IDF "merely overuses force"). According the State Department, terrorism is the "[p]remeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Unless we adopt the hypocritical position that no government can engage in terrorism because they use armies instead of "subnational groups," destroying schools, police stations, blocks of homes, extrajudicial killing and "indiscriminate use of lethal force," all constitute state terrorism by the IDF.


"The PA needs to declare illegal the existence and operation of Islamic Jihad and all other such organizations operating from within their territories, close their offices, arrest ALL leaders of these organizations and force the other members to disband."


And just how are they supposed to do this while trying to dodge IDF bullets, rockets, bombs and bulldozers? If you were a PA police officer, how fast would you run to work in the morning while the helicopters hovered over your office?


"Israel is retaliating against the PA for allowing these groups to continue, flourish and launch attacks from within their territory."


Clearly if the IDF "knows" that the PA is tolerating terrorists and allowing them to flourish, it has more arms, men and other resources necessary to capture and arrest them. It knows perfectly well that the PA can't round up every terrorist hiding in every corner and cubbyhole of the West Bank and Gaza any better than it can. So it does the next best thing: it destroys Palestinian authority and infrastrucure, makes hundreds of civilians homeless, denies access to medical aid, and murders the odd civilian. That's terrorism.

"It appears that what you are doing is taking things out of context to present your case. Sort of "the end justifies the means" sort of thing."


You're being vague. Of course if the ends never justify the means, what does? OTOH, I tend to think the means are the ends, and that they need to fall within some moral framework if they can be justified.


"You must understand that Israel has a very democratic and open government."


True, and I think more democratic and open than ours in many respects. But the 4 million Palestinians that effectively subjects of this government, that have to obey IDF orders, stop at roadblocks and checkpoints, pay taxes, obtain licenses and permits for operating business and building things, to say nothing of having their homes and schools demolished, have no right to vote or participate in the government that lords over them. That's not democratic, is it?


"Thus when news comes out of its territory, it comes with warts and all, and it's easy to just seize on the warts if that's what you are looking for."


I don't think it's appropriate to describe the killing of unarmed civilians and destroying schools and homes are simply "warts and all." To use a counter-example, Hamas provides (or used to provide) medical care, schools and other services. Is concentrating on the murders they commit just "siezing on the warts if that's what you are looking for?" Of course not. It's saying that the good things they do don't justify the bad things. I don't see why the same doesn't apply to Israel's government.


"On the other hand, the countries and organizations that you seem to praise do not operate in this fashion."


I don't think I've praised or "seemed to praise" any government that has any role or takes any side in this conflict. If you just want to find examples of racism, tyranny, brutality and state terror that make the U.S. and Israel look good by comparison, you'd hardly need to look much further than most of the governments of the Arab world, and I'm including the Palestinian Authority.


"Their news is more controlled and their warts are kept hidden."


You're kidding. I can find 100 articles in a minute from the U.S. press describing how crummy things are in the Arab world. Tom Friedman's columns in the NYT by themsleves are incredibly damning, to say nothing of the anti-Palistinian crowd like Krauthamer, Safire, Chris Mathews, The New Republic and Commentary.


"In the Arab world, based on my understanding, only Jordan has a fair amount of democratic freedom, and even here it is not close to what Israel has to offer."


Probably true.


"You should keep this in mind when you put your anti-Israeli posts here."


Cheap shot. I'm not "anti-Israeli" for denouncing Israeli terrorism any more than denouncing anti-Israel terrorism is "anti-Palestinian" or "anti-Arab."


"For example, if you lived in Syria and wanted to post anti-Syrian information, how long do you think you will be allowed to do it."


I agree that they'd probably shoot me. But what's your point? That having the right to dissent means that one should have the decency to refrain from exercising it if it makes other uncomfortable? You don't believe that, do you?

im gonna ramble a bit but here goes.


were americans. thats #1.


israelis,jews, whatever, have a tremendous influence in our government. arabs dont.


after terrorist attack a lot of people were saying we need to adopt the israeli model. now do we want that? you see what i mean. you see why a lot of people are critical of israel?


dont believe me? skeptical? (thats it, no more questiions).


remember alan dershowitz (spelling) in the la times saying we need to start torturing people (a la the israeli model). sounds crazy but his argument was that you *can* be compelled to testify (your 5th amendment notwithstanding) *if* the court gives you immunity. so he was saying that the court can already coerce testimony, lets go the whole way and use physical torture (in extreme cases).


well, is that what we, as americans, want?


brad

"Doesn't anything strike you as being illogical and wrong about the idea that targeting totally innocent and uninvolved people, as a means to make a point, is an acceptable means of settling disputes or waging war? I think the entire world needs to make it very clear that this practice is both morally and logically wrong, and that it cannot and will not be tolerated anywhere."


Why do I have to keep saying this: I agree that doing these things is absolutely wrong. I agree that Palestinian terrorism against civilians is a brutal crime. I've said this time and again.


Where we disagree is that I also think that when Israel does it, it's also wrong, and that Palestinian crimes against Israel do not justify Israeli crimes against Palestinians. You keep arguing that as long as the IDF's brutality falls short of the worst acts of Palestinian terrorists, it's either alright or not a fit subject of criticism. It's purely hypocritical, even if what the suicide bombers do amounts to something worse on a gradient of evildoing. Besides, you and I don't fund the suicide bombers, but we fund the IDF. I'm not as interested the bad things that can't be my responsibility as those things that are. People who think otherwise are called "hypocrites."

'"You must understand that Israel has a very democratic and open government."

True, and I think more democratic and open than ours in many respects.'


i really wont touch this without having a lot of evidence to back up my opinion, but lets just say that i dont want to model our country on that of israel.


'Cheap shot. I'm not "anti-Israeli" '


you can call me 'anti-Israeli', i dont care. im pro american, pro US, and thats it. you can call me anti-arab, too, but frankly arab ideals have never and probably will never catch on in this country so theres really no reason to discuss them.


brad

"israelis,jews, whatever, have a tremendous influence in our government. arabs dont."


I don't think that U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians results from "jewish influence" over the U.S. government. Jews remain a small minority in the U.S., outnumbered even by muslims. Despite a well organized pro-Israel lobby, it's influence cannot account for force of U.S. commitment to Israel. To take two examples, Jews in the U.S. were probably more unified in their affection toward Israel from 1948 until the Lebanon invasion, but for much of this time (1948-1973)were often ignored in favor of perceived U.S. interests. Look at Eisenhower during the Suez crisis, or the "Rogers Plan" for withdrawal from the occupied territories. Also, I doubt that very many jewish supporters of Israel care much about the huge amount of aid we give to Egypt, which most policy makers consider a key to U.S. mideast policy.


Yeah, I read that Dershowitz favored legalizing torture, even to the point of proposing "writs" of toruture. About what I would have expected from this academic thug.

well, my (somewhat incoherent) point was that theres a reason to be critical of israels faults (since we dont want to adopt them), but no real reason to be critical of arab faults (since theres about a 0% chance were going to turn this country into an islamic kingdom).


also, thats really my only interest in israel (or any arab country or whatever).

(its effect on US). theres a lot of bad stuff that goes on in the world, but lets make sure that as americans we dont let things like death squads/ torture squads happen here.


brad

If I was a native in a land and a foreign government split up my country and offered a large share to quasi-colonial group from halfway across the globe, I would refuse too. Wouldn't you?


KJS

The reason I dwell on these points is to refute your calling these types of Israeli actions "terrorism," in the post above and other posts. Here is what you wrote:


"This isn't anti-terrorism, it's terrorism, intimidation and provocation in order to ensure, as some advocate, "continual war.""


I don't believe it is "terrorism" on the part of Israel. Apparently you and I have different definitions of terrorism, or you tend to lump all sorts of abuses or heavy-handed actions into a similar category. I am trying to point out that there is indeed a difference in what is going on. I'm not saying the IDF is blameless; they are probably far from blameless. What I am saying is that the direct and deadly targeting of innocent uninvolved persons in order to make a political statement is terrorism, and I believe it is both logically and morally flawed in the extreme. In other words, if you have a gripe, deal with the people you have the gripe with, or even fight them...but don't go blow up a family on vacation or a little girl's bas mitzvah party because you have a gripe with the people running her country. I strongly believe that such actions must not be tolerated by the world, and that such actions are a very large step beyond what is reasonable or right, no matter which side you are on.


As for the IDF and their actions, no doubt there are problems and injustices that should be addressed. However the actions you cited are not the equivalent of pure terrorism, and I believe that this distinction is very important, and not just in a theoretical sense. Thus I feel compelled to point out these differences, and hope that you will see the differences too.


Terrorists targeting a family on vacation, for instance, makes not much more sense than someone punching out a neighbor of yours whom he doesn't even know just because he happens to be mad at you who live next door. It is a misdirected attack and is especially reprehensible in my opinion when it involves deadly force. So if you want to talk about the IDF or Israeli brutality, fine; but I have a problem when you start lumping all manner of perceived wrongs in with terrorism, and referring to it all as "terrorism." In my mind terrorism is a deadly and especially vicious, unjust practice aimed at the weakest and most blameless members of society, most often merely to make a political point. If they want a war, even a guerilla war, that is one thing; but when they start attacking young children at a birthday party or families on vacation or Olympic athletes, they have crossed every and all lines of legitimate, reasonable or half-decent human behavior.

" So it does the next best thing: it destroys Palestinian authority and infrastrucure, makes hundreds of civilians homeless, denies access to medical aid, and murders the odd civilian. That's terrorism."


No that's NOT terrorism. Terrorism is a suicide bomber at a little girl's bas mitzvah party. If you can't see the difference I really don't know what more to say.

I agree that the spectre of Dershowitz' suggestion is appalling if applied to US citizens.


However I rather do think that a few key al Qaeda leaders, if captured, should be forced to reveal a list of key associates and whatever future attack plans they may be privy to by any means necessary. In other words in extreme cases like this where the safety and lives of our people are at serious risk, I say make the bastards talk so we can hopefully prevent the next attack.

Andy,


Altough never a member of Brith Shalom Buber was very much an ally in the quest for a bi-national state.


It should also be noted that people such as Ahad Ha'am (nee Asher Ginsburg), worked within Zionist organizations (Chibbath Zion and B'nai Moshe were two of their groups) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to oppose what they termed "political Zionism" in favor of a more humanistic approach that also gave recognition to the presence of Palestinians in the homeland they sought. Ha'am, for one, never thought Jewish problems could be solved simply by relocation, primarily because (being from the Pale) he was very aware that most would never live in Israel. He preferred to focus on creating a cultural center that would revive Judaism. Chaim Weizmann was one of his main followers, as was Buber. Ha'am wrote as early as 1892: "We should certainly be able to learn from our past and see how careful we must be not to raise the anger of the inhabitants of the land against ourselves through discreditable actions". Buber stated years later "Our claim is so mixed up with the furthering of England's Mandate over Palestine that we pass in Europe and Asia as the handyman of British Imperialism..." Two very strong statements from men who gaves their lives to the study and promotion of Judaism in Europe and the Middle East.


As Buber himself said "What it [Jewish State] becomes depends on those who make it". For me, it is one of the great tragedies of history that those who ended up inheriting this task chose to deviate from the plans laid out by Ha'am, Buber and Brith Shalom (which, notably, included Jews and Palestinians in its membership), instead opting to follow a path wrought with what appears to be a desire to conquer and subjugate the people who have inhabited that land for centuries.

the suggestion was broad and directly addressed 5th amendment, etc.


what about a suspected al Qaeda who emigrated here and is now a US citizen.


ive seen on the news that one of the reasons for the cuban prison is that its not on US soil so certain civil protections dont apply, or something like that.


brad

I don't think that U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians results from "jewish influence" over the U.S. government. Jews remain a small minority in the U.S., outnumbered even by muslims. Despite a well organized pro-Israel lobby, it's influence cannot account for force of U.S. commitment to Israel.


How many Arabs in Congress, Chris? How many Arabs own televison stations, movie production companies, newspapers, advertising agencies, recording studios?


The influence of the Jewish vote in this country far exceeds the number of Jews. Why? We have the money and we know how to use it.


As for your continual denunciation of Israeli tactics against those sworn to Israel's destruction, I say it's about time. And now, with the reticence of the US to hold Israel back the palestinians will be annihilated unless they decide they would rather be alive and accept Israel.


Israel has no qualms about killing every single Arab in the region. Pretty soon, maybe another fifty years the Arabs will get used to the fact that Israel is something they will have to tolerate. They'll create a homeland for the Palestinians and there will be an uneasy peace with many minor incidents.


It's going to happen and guess who it's up to?

Only non-US citizens who are al-Qaeda leaders...and not even all of them.


By the way this is the first I've heard of Dershowitz's suggestion and I consider it troublesome and inappropriate for the standard criminal justice system, and especially so for purposes of making people talk for merely criminal trial or civil purposes.


My suggestion applies only to the most dangerous foreign elements who have plans to attack and destroy us. In fighting against them, I feel that we have to do whatever is necessary in order to defend ourselves from future attacks, and this includes gathering intelligence about future planned attacks as well as intelligence regarding other key operatives, resources, locations, contacts and methods.

"Why? We have the money and we know how to use it."


It's a big economy with a lot of powerful actors. The Jewish influence explains the lobby, but not the policy.


"How many Arabs in Congress, Chris? How many Arabs own televison stations, movie production companies, newspapers, advertising agencies, recording studios?"


How many right-wing Latin American dictators in Congress? How many Indonesians and Turks or, up through the first Bush administration, South Africans? I understand that domestic opponents of the South Africa dictatorship were pretty well organized too, but look how long it took for them to have any effect at all. As for the Jewish media influence, I contend it's largely mythical, and to prove that I note that Jewish and non-Jewish media outlets alike say pretty much the same thing, and tend to make the same assumptions about the fundamental decency and necessity of U.S. foreign policy in every corner of the globe, not just the Middle East. Further, many Jewish supporters of Israel are none to keen about aid to Saudi Arabia, such as when Reagan gave them AWACS. Look how much influence they have there.


The range of goyim attitudes about Israel and it's occupation ranges from fanatic chauvinism and racism to misgivings and outright resentment. Jewish attitudes too.


"It's going to happen and guess who it's up to?"


Finally, a question with an easy answer. It's up to everyone.

He's mentally disturbed. He blames the Jews for eveything. He believes the Palestinians have a right to use violence, and that the Jews don't.


He's a Nazi.

It's Alger's form of Zionist conspiracy. he believes that it's a conspiracy to take over the world. He's Nazi.

No, ALger is Nazi. If you wish harsh demonstrations of his evile hatred of Jews then you can get it. He does believe that the US is run by organized criminals. He does believe in a world Zionist conspiracy to take over the world.

He dosn't believe in Israel's right to exist.


Alger is a Nazi. If you can't see that, then maybe you are a Nazi also.

You are a Nazi that believes in 1. a zionist conspiracy to rule Amerca, 2. You blame the Jews for their own murder.


Get Real, move to the Middle East and become the person that you want to be. Americans aren't safe with wanna be terrorists like you on our streets. The Homleand Defense Department should pick you up and send you to Guantanamo for interrogation. I'm sure that you have financially contributed to terrorist organizations.

Approximately, 60% of Jordan's population are Palestinians. Jordan itself is an artificial country only recently created by the United Kingdom like many other sheikdoms in the Middle East.

Keep in mind that the modern state of Israel was not formd at the expense of another, existing state. European Jews, the remnants of the WW II, fought for the establishment of Israel while that area was a colony of the United Kingdom. Watching the Jewish people fight for their historical homeland galvanized the neighboring Arabs (later called Palestinians) into a paralel action towards creation of a separate Palestinian state. Well, the Israeli Jews have been winning thus far.


Presently, all the parties have been caught in a vicious circle of violence such that everybody is affraid of the other.

How many Arabs in Congress, Chris? How many Arabs own televison stations, movie production companies, newspapers, advertising agencies, recording studios?


The influence of the Jewish vote in this country far exceeds the number of Jews. Why? We have the money and we know how to use it.


This in my opinion is on target. If a non-jewish person said this they might be labeled an anti-Semite. There are a disproportianate amount of Jewish people in high political positions. This MUST have at least some effect on policy. However, I agree with Mr. Alger in that I doubt the US-Israel tie would be that strong if the WASP power structure in this country wasn't also so pro-Israel.


As for Arabs "tolerating Israel", I'm not sure why the Palestinians should have tolerate their raw deal on all sides. They were summarily kicked out of what was then Palestine(sometimes violently so) to make way for the new state of Israel, after initially being promised independence by the British for their efforts in WWI. People might say that part of Jordan was supposed to be used for the Palestinian homeland, but the deal still stinks. If someone promises you 100% of something and you end up only getting half, you are not going to be happy. For the most part, there are very few Arabs still living within Israel proper. The ones living in the occupied territories are largely impoverished second citizens. While I don't condone suicide bombing, when you have two hands tied behind your back, sometimes the only thing you can do is bite.


I think part of the problem is that the British basically lied to the Palestinians. They (the British) have a history of leaving their ex-colonies in disarray when the going gets tough. My solution (as unrealistic as it may seem) would be to a. establish a Palestinian homeland in the occupied territories. b. Slap a DMZ around Israel and c. force the British to pay reparations to the Palestinians, which can be used for building of infrastructure in the new country.

"Keep in mind that the modern state of Israel was not formd at the expense of another, existing state."


Tell it to Turkey. But even if true, so what? It was only formed at the expense of the people who lived there before and during the zionist colonization. If the conquest of the territory by the Ottomans and later the British makes the preferences of the people who lived there irrlevant, would conquest of Israel by others make the preferences of the people living there irrelevant? I don't think so.


"Watching the Jewish people fight for their historical homeland galvanized the neighboring Arabs (later called Palestinians) into a paralel action towards creation of a separate Palestinian state. Well, the Israeli Jews have been winning thus far. "


"Neighboring" Arabs? Just who do you suppose lived in present day Israel before it became a Jewish state? It's true that Palestinian national aspirations were largely dormant until the zionist efforts beginning in the 1880's and the subsequent fall of the Ottoman empire helped forge them. This was, after all, the age of nationalism for many countries and peoples.


You are suggesting, however, that the Palestinians didn't care about a state called "Palestine" until after Israel was formed. In fact the national identities and aspirations of the two groups were forged at the same time and grew out of a common conflict. You can date the efforts of Palestinian nationalists to the first years of the twentieth century.


I don't want to put words in your mouth but I'm amazed at how often I see variations of the following argument: Jews have an unqualified right to a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland of 2,000 years ago. Arabs and Christians that have lived in this land for the past several hundred years, however, should forget the past an accept modern realities, particularly Israel's invasion and domination of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967, and get on with their lives in some other country. They have no cause to displace Jewsish national territorial aspirations with those of their own, and the extent to which they desire this reflects their anti-Jewish racism and not any legitimate goal of self-determination.

BERLIN, Germany -- Police in Berlin have used water cannons to disperse protesters opposed to a right-wing rally against an exhibition on Nazi-era crimes by the German army.


About 3,000 neo-Nazis were diverted away from a planned route through the capital's former Jewish quarter -- a plan that had been condemned by the government and Jewish groups.


The neo-Nazis -- chanting "glory and honour to German soldiers" and "German soldiers -- heroic deeds" -- marched on Saturday from Berlin's Friedrichstrasse station between rows of police with riot shields.

" So it does the next best thing: it destroys Palestinian authority and infrastrucure, makes hundreds of civilians homeless, denies access to medical aid, and murders the odd civilian. That's terrorism."


No that's NOT terrorism. Terrorism is a suicide bomber at a little girl's bas mitzvah party. If you can't see the difference I really don't know what more to say.


What did Joseph Stalin say? "One person dead is a tragedy, one million dead is a statistic."


Does it really matter how innocent people die? If they are killed by a terrorist bomber or a police force? If they are innocent and dead what difference does that make?


Let's put this another way: Who faces a greater chance of dieing in the Middle East? An innocent Israeli who has nothing to do with the Israeli policy in the occupied territories, or a random Palestinian who has nothing to do with any of the terrorist groups? Judging by the reported death toll on both sides, I'm not sure the random Palestinian doesn't have more to fear.

It makes a great deal of difference how and why someone dies. It also makes a great deal of difference if they were deliberately targeted for death. It also matters if they were an innocent uninvolved person or not--and it especially, especially matters if they were both targeted for death and an innocent uninvolved person. And it matters if those who did the killing are targeting other uninvolved, innocent people for death.


As I said in another post, it's not just all about numbers.

So what exactly are you saying? If 100 innocent Israelis died at the hands of suicide bombers, it is worse than 100 Palestinians who were unrelated to terrorists dieing at the hands of the IDF? Let's be clear here. I say it's no worse. What do you say?

"If a non-jewish person said this they might be labeled an anti-Semite."


That's because it's so often said in a context that vindicates the label.


"There are a disproportianate amount of Jewish people in high political positions. This MUST have at least some effect on policy."


Technically, "some effect" is right, but you're barking up the wrong tree. In the first place, our political process doesn't respond because of the ethnicity of (some of) those in power, but because of the actual power that can be brought to bear on the system. The pro-Israel attitudes of the most powerful Jews in this country, while they probably play some role, are certainly outnumbered and overwhelmed by the concrete interests of the global private sector giants and the government diplomatic and military bureaucracies. Second, this is true as a matter of historical fact. Jews have figured "disproportionately" to their numbers in the intellectual professions for centuries in the West, but you can't identify much in the way of "pro-Jewish" policies. Quite the opposite, I would think.


The U.S. tilt toward Israel to the point of becoming it's chief and only significant sponsor, evolved slowly after 1948, accellerating dramatically after 1967 when Israel proved that it was a regional superpower and therefore a potential asset to long-range strategic U.S. (read: private sector) interests in the region. This process doesn't reflect some ascendency of Jews in positions of power in the U.S., but of the primacy of the perceived need to dominate the Middle East, Israel being just one role of a larger process. It's not about love of zionism any more than it was about anticommunism when the Russians were in the game. It's about ready access to the resources necessary to keep the industrial machines running smoothely, even if the day-to-day administration of the problem seems far removed from the ultimate purpose.

Somehow, Ivan's name landed in my name box while I was jumping between posts and I didn't catch it.


Sorry Ivan.

"It also makes a great deal of difference if they were deliberately targeted for death. It also matters if they were an innocent uninvolved person or not--and it especially, especially matters if they were both targeted for death and an innocent uninvolved person. And it matters if those who did the killing are targeting other uninvolved, innocent people for death."


This is absolutely wrong as a matter of elementary morality, logic and, in fact, the law. If someone blows up an airliner, that person is a mass murderer. It makes no difference at all if the reason he blew up the airliner was to kill as many people as possible, or to kill just one particular person on board which he felt he had a really, really good reason to kill, someone who was neither "innocent" nor "uninvolved." Aside from the merits of killing the target, the only issue on whether the remaining passengers were murdered is recklessness and "depraved indifference to life." With 900 civilian deaths, 1/4 of them under the age of 18, many under the age of 12, including deaths caused by the denial of medical care (even for pregnant women about to deliver and shooting at ambulences) under the circumstances described (standing in a field, running a red light, being a policeman, etc.), I think the IDF's record speaks for itself.

I don't think the point has been forgotten, but that it's a more complicated topic that's hard to address in a "thread." It's a great subject, though, because different perceptions of what happened and what was supposed to happen and why things happened as they did in 1947-48 goes to the heart of why people disagree so strongly on these issues.

. . . and penetrating analysis.


One ought not to throw words like "Nazi" around so easily. Some of us who lost relatives in the camps are sensitive about such things.

You can't be a lawyer. Wow. Here is what I wrote and the first line of your response:


M: "It also makes a great deal of difference if they were deliberately targeted for death. It also matters if they were an innocent uninvolved person or not--and it especially, especially matters if they were both targeted for death and an innocent uninvolved person. And it matters if those who did the killing are targeting other uninvolved, innocent people for death."


Chris Alger: "This is absolutely wrong as a matter of elementary morality, logic and, in fact, the law."


Well, from what I see my above statement could also apply to the differences between first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. However, you think my statement is wrong morally, logically and legally. I'm simply stunned.


Targeting civilians is worse than collateral damage. Targeting uninvolved innocents, Olympic athletes, mall shoppers, children and civilians is worse than targeting military/political figures.


Another reason that motive and targeting matter is because those targeting innocent uninvolved persons will be inclined to do it again.


If you want to complain about the IDF and ask what should be done to avoid brutality and oppression, fine...great in fact. But it just ISN'T the same as terrorism, and if you think motive and intent don't matter in crime, in war, or in taking of life you are simply wrong. It may not matter much from the standpoint of the dead victims but it sure as hell matters in determining moral justification or lack thereof, or degree of blame, or to what degree it can be expected to be repeated.


I am also starting to get tired of arguing these points with you because I am getting the feeling that you will INSIST on drawing equivalences where they don't exist, and on using these false analogies to bolster your arguments.

"If a non-jewish person said this they might be labeled an anti-Semite. There are a disproportianate amount of Jewish people in high political positions. This MUST have at least some effect on policy"


It is indeed an anti-semitic statement. Because someone is Jewish doesn't mean they have a Jewish "agenda." Anti-semites assume that because certain influential people happen to be Jewish, they are advancing a Jewish agenda. Hogwash. Dangerous hogwash.


A disproportionate amount of Jewish people in high political positions? How many Presidents have been Jewish? How many Vice Presidents? Speakers of the House? Leaders of the Senate?


There are a disproportionate number of men in high political positions. Does this mean they are advancing a "men's" agenda?

Motive matters. The pure targeting of innocents is very different from the following things: collateral damage, deaths due to struggles between forces, and war.


It may not matter much from the standpoint of the deceased or their loved ones. However it still really does matter.

CA: " It's about ready access to the resources necessary to keep the industrial machines running smoothely, even if the day-to-day administration of the problem seems far removed from the ultimate purpose."


I think it's moght also have something to do with solidarity with the one democratic form of government in the entire region.

It is indeed an anti-semitic statement. Because someone is Jewish doesn't mean they have a >Jewish "agenda." Anti-semites assume that because >certain influential people happen to be >Jewish, >they are advancing a Jewish agenda. >Hogwash. >Dangerous hogwash.


Actually, Sammy B made the comment, so don't blame me. /images/smile.gif


A disproportionate amount of Jewish people in high political positions? How many Presidents have been Jewish? How many Vice Presidents? Speakers of the House? Leaders of the Senate?


I guarantee you the amount of Senators and Congresspeople who are Jewish is in greater proportion in the legislative branch than the Jewish population in America.

That doesn't mean they have a Jewish "agenda". But are you telling me that if these Congressmen and Senators were of Arab descent they wouldn't feel differently on some middle east issues? We are all supposed to be American, I understand that, but to think that our ethnic and religious backgrounds don't influence how we perceive things is naive.


There are a disproportionate number of men in high political positions. Does this mean they are advancing a "men's" agenda?


Some women think so. There are a lot of white people in Congress. They promoted the white man's agenda for quite a long time. If there were more black people in Congress, would it have taken so long to pass civil rights legislation or condemn apartheid?

Hey, man, why Chris Alger?? What's he got that I ain't got? I mean, why can't I have my own personal stalker?


Is it because Alger's name rhymes with Al Qaeda's? It's a phony name for pete's sakes.

'I'm sure that you have financially contributed to terrorist organizations. '


jdl leader is in jail; so if you gave to them then you gave to terrorist org.


b

it is hogwash but thats not the reason. the reason is that (all) high level politicians are taking money from foreign governments, notably israel and china.


brad

I was curious whether Alger's article really existed. It wasn't in my copy of the New York Times.


I searched the NYT database, and the closest article I could find was the article linked below. Note that the inflamatory information is missing. I think an editor's pen was at work, because in Alger's version the inflamatory information was not witnessed by the reporter. Rather, it is attributed to unknown "relatives" and "witnesses." I am generally skeptical of such hearsay accounts.


Also, Alger notably leaves out the lede of the article:


"BEIT HANOUN, Gaza Strip (AP) -- Responding to rocket fire, Israeli troops and tanks swept through three Palestinian towns and the outskirts of a refugee camp Wednesday in the biggest operation in the Gaza Strip since violence broke out nearly 17 months ago. Five Palestinians, including a civilian, were killed in exchanges of fire that began before dawn."


Note "[r]esponding to rocket fire" and "exchanges of fire."


There is no way Alger is going to change his mind, but I'd really hate for this forum to become an anti-Israel propaganda page. How about keeping it to poker?

whatchamacallit.

Right. And we support and aid autocratic Arab governments that spew endless streams of anti-zionist and anti-Jewish propaganda to demonstrate our solidarity with their ideology? Either the strategic policy is schizophrenic, or you need to look for another common denominator.

The article you referred to is dated 2/13/02 at 5:23 p.m. est. My post was made at 9:23 a.m. that day and based on the net version of the Times that appeared that morning. The link you cited is a re-written version of the event, citing "exchanges" of gunfire that never occurrred. Susequent witness reports indicate that the PA policement never fired weapons at the IDF, and at least two were murdered in cold blood, as was the man in the field. If you don't believe me, read the international press versions.

just a general point, but ive seen the same ap story appear slightly different in different newspapers.


brad

All of the mandates imposed by the League of Nations, including Palestine, were supposed to become sovereign states upon the termination of the mandate. By the end of World War II, all mandate areas had indeed became sovereign states except for Palestine. When Britain announced its intention to withdraw, Palestine too should have become a soevereign state.


But the League of Nations became defunct in 1946. Thus, legal questions arose regarding Palestine. The Arabs sought a ruling in International Court but the court refused to rule. The Arabs protested the UN assumption of authority over Palestine. The UN recommended a partition of Palestine into two independent states, one Jewish, the other Palestinian-Arab, with Jerusalem designated an international city.


The Palestinians rejected the plan as an infringement of their self-determination and on demographic and logical grounds. They argued that the Jewish state which the UN proposed comprised 56% of Palestine, yet the Jewish population was only 31%. They also said that the plan had rejected the idea of all of Palestine being an Arab state because it would contain a Jewish minority (31%), but accepted the idea of Jewish state that would encompass an even larger Arab minority (46%) within its borders. Also, 80% of the land within the proposed Jewish state's borders was owned by Arabs and it would garner 7/8 of the Arab citrus groves and included major Arab population centers.


The British foreign-secretary considered the UN proposal to be manifestly unfair to the Palestinians, saying that many of them saw it as "little more than a joke."


To the Palestinians, the "compromise" involved giving up something they already had, more than half of their lands, while the Jews had no land to give up. They saw partition as all gain for the Jews and only a loss for them.


They also felt partition would be the first step towards the Jews gaining all of Palestine, and this was indeed the goal of the Zionist movement. As early as 1937, Ben Gurion said, "No Zionist can forego the smallest portion of Eretz Israel. After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."


So the Arabs rejected the partition plan because they saw it as being imposed by outsiders who had no right to partition their land, because they felt the partition itself was unfair to them, and becaue they felt that the partition was a first step towards their losing all of their land. One can certainly see the validity in all three points.

You may be overlooking that it can be a factor without being the only factor or the primary factor.


Of course US policy is somewhat schizophrenic. This doesn't really that surprising, in such a complex world.

Chris:


I do not understand the nature of your grudge. We all can pick and chose criticizing anything and anybody in recent, medieval, or ancient history.


Injustices have been done throughout the history. All great supperpowers did not climb to that status by praying rosaries, or engaging into charity work.


No one in his right mind should like violence which indicriminately take the lives of innocent people. You do not like it; I do not like it. I am sure the Israelis do not like either. So how do you put an end to it and resume negotiations? How do enforce law and order?


What do you suggest as an immideate solution to the current blood shed?


You puzzle me by defending Turkey's right to Palestine/Israel. If you want to right the historical wrongs, you do not need to look that far away. Look at what the Europeans had done to the natives of the North and South America. Or else, briefly reflect upon the past 500 years of England.


Finally, asside from the daily grind in the present struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the underlying strategy between the two sides is to better position onself in the final negotiation settlement vis-a-vis the other. In the light of the current world mood towards terrorism, I do not see how the Palestinians plan to gain an upper hand through use of terrorist means.

....so what's your point? Israel is reacting to the terrorist actions with an eye fo an eye mentality. It's the only thing the Arab bastards understand. Take Saudi Arabia - how they hate the USA - until a Saadam or other bully comes a-marching. Then they know our phone number lightning quick - just like the French faggots and olympic judges who bake croissants for the Nazis. They knew our number too - pul-eeze mess-yer, puleeze help us get rid of the nat-zees. French scum! Saudi Arabian scum! Palestinian scum!

Go Israel!! Kick some ass.

"I do not understand the nature of your grudge."


It's not a grudge. Israel's domination over the West Bank and Gaza subjects many people to tyranny, deprivation, humiliation and terror. It isn't necessary to Israel's national defense, but instead imperils the security of ordinary Israelis to further a racist ideology of territorial and social control. Accordingly, Israel should negotiate a withdraw and leave the residents with sovereignty over their land, resources and communities. These sentiments are shared by most people, including many Israelis, and have been echoed by most governments -- in fact, nearly all of them, even if you exclude the racist Arab states -- throughout the world. Israel, however, refuses to consider this and has in recent years attempted to solidify its control through a massive program of settlement and colonization. Since the U.S. bankrolls the occupation, and provides the political and diplomatic support necessary to sustain it, we should dissent.


I haven't picked this topic randomly or because I have some particular animus against Israel, in fact I have a great deal of affection for it, as I do my own country. I think that people in a democracy have a duty to object to the policies of their government that are immoral and unjust. They have a lesser duty to object to injustices over which they have less influence. If they make a practice of objecting to the crimes of foreign governments while ignoring or apologizing for their own, they shouldn't be taken seriously. This ethic isn't novel or profound, but it's also not embraced by the maintstream U.S. media and by many so-called "patriots."


"So how do you put an end to it and resume negotiations?"


You do this by resuming negotiations, perhaps within the limited framework set forth by Oslo, perhaps not. The PA has been begging for this, Israel refuses to seriously consider it and the U.S. refuses to force Israel to consider it, something well within it's power.


"What do you suggest as an immideate solution to the current blood shed?"


As first steps, for the U.S. to terminate all lethal aid and threaten to cut aid altogether unless Israel gets back to the table. See how well Sharon or Likud fares at the polls by campaigning on a platform that says, in essence, "you'll have to pay the full cost of occupation because the Americans refust to foot the bill." I'm not aware of any time in recent history that the U.S. has even threatened to do this.


"You puzzle me by defending Turkey's right to Palestine/Israel."


I don't think this at all. You suggested that there zionists colonized a country with no state. There was a state, and it was the Ottoman Empire. But I don't think that this makes any difference. It seems to me to be a variation on the myth that the zionists colonized a barren land, implying that the only objections to this effort must be grounded in some form of racism, jealousy or other irrationality. To be sure, however, there have been many objections to zionism and Israel that have these elements at their heart or at least in the background.


"...the underlying strategy between the two sides is to better position onself in the final negotiation settlement vis-a-vis the other. In the light of the current world mood towards terrorism, I do not see how the Palestinians plan to gain an upper hand through use of terrorist means."


I don't think the Palestinians are doing much or trying to do much to improve their negotiating position. Israel has presented them with an ultimatum: abandon all hope of sovereignty over a continguous West Bank and Jerusalem. Since it is not possible for any Palestinian leader to accept this, negotiations have broken down.


The terrorism in the form of suicide bombers and the murder of civilians is deplorable but very few Palestinians take part in it. Israel has no right to punish them and their circumstances should not be held hostage because of a handful of murderous fanatics.


As for the other acts of violence, such as stoning and shooting at an army of occupation, I think the only valid criticism concerns tactical considerations, whether it truly advances legitimate goals. I think a lot of it is counterproductive and simply invites more violence. Morally, however, I don't have a problem with it any more than I have a problem with the tactical decisions of the French resistance.

There is actually an important point contained in Dr Wogga's post, although as usual, it is somewhat due to the tone of the rest of his material. There really are quite a lot of countries who dislike or even despise the US--until they really need our help. Then we are fine friends until the crisis has passed. After things have returned to normal, they have no problem with things like selling to Iraq scientific instruments which can be used in advanced weaponry, being our political adversaries in the U.N., saying we are too tough on China (yup, r-i-g-h-t), and in general making things very difficult for us on the world stage. However when the chips are really down they know who their real (and sometimes only) friend is. But little things like helping others out during times of great crisis, and at great cost to ourselves, do not apparently weigh all that heavily when it comes to the routines of daily life.


Sometimes I wonder if the USA just completely stopped helping other nations out, and concentrated entirely on our own prosperity and well-being (sort of like the Swiss), other countries wouldn't hate us so much. As a friend of mine put it, "the more you help them, the more they hate you. It has something to do with respect somehow." Well I don't think it is all that simple, and I do think we should sometimes help others out, but I do think there is a kernel of truth in my friend's remarks. Maybe it is something like lending money to poker players--I'll bet that a lot of them somehow hold you in lower esteem after you help them out, in a peculiar sort of way.

sorry when I make revisions on the Preview page I often screw it up

Don't you think Israel has a right to expect and demand that the Palestinians get rid of the highly visible, well-organized terrorist groups operating from within their territories/ If it were just a few madmen I would agree with you on this. But they have offices, etc. and the Palestinians allow them to flourish. OK so they arrest a few now and then. They need to make illegal and dismantle these groups and imprison the hard-core leaders...and I think Israel has a right to demand that the PA not allow organized terror to operate from within its territory.

Another ALger alias!

He knows that the PLO will never stop murdering children until the last Jew has died.

Why waste your time with him? If everyone but the FBI forgets about him, then he will go away.

"There is actually an important point contained in Dr Wogga's post, although as usual, it is somewhat due to the tone of the rest of his material."


The important point of Wogga's post was his cry "French scum! Saudi Arabian scum! Palestinian scum!" That says all I need to know.


"Sometimes I wonder if the USA just completely stopped helping other nations out, and concentrated entirely on our own prosperity and well-being (sort of like the Swiss), other countries wouldn't hate us so much."


An excellent idea, long overdue!


Any chance of it being adopted by an American administration, though? Is there a Monroe Doctrine in our future? Bah. I don't think so...

"Don't you think Israel has a right to expect and demand that the Palestinians get rid of the highly visible, well-organized terrorist groups operating from within their territories?"


I doubt that they're as visible as you imply.


In most cases, I'd say yes, but Israel has no right to demand that PA officials perform duties effectively while Israel tries to bomb and bulldoze their offices, attacks the people they have a responsibility to defend and breaks the peace they have a responsiblity to keep.


After Arafat's many calls for cease-fires that have been met with provocative assassinations and demolitions by Israel, and especially after the fairly effective December cease-fire during which Israel killed 21 Palestinians, proves that the Sharon government is completely cynical about trying to curb terrorism. It benefits from Palestinain terrorism much more than the Palestinians do. If it didn't, you'd see corresponding moves by Israel when the terrorism dies down in order to encourage it's quiescence, instead of just the opposite.

Chris:


I assure you that I do share your concrn regarding the loss of innocent life, marshall enforecemt and destruction of the property in both Israel proper and on the West Bank. We further agree that a peaceful negotiation should resume towards the lasting settlement in the region, that is Israel and West Bank area.


Having said this, however, a common sense tells me that there should be an immediate cessation of violence precedng the peaceful negotiations. I trust you'll agree with me on this point. For an effective peaceful negotiations to take place, both parties in the coflict should be earnestly committed.


You'll remember that the last Prime Minister, Barak, was elected on this political platform several years ago. Despite the Israeli hawks, he (at the Maryland, USA, negotiations with Y. Arafat and with the assistance of the then Pres. Clinto) was offering to Arafa, Gaza Strip, 98% of the West Benk and nearly all of the East Jerusalem. Instead of taking this deal - perhaps the best he'll ever have, Arafat additionally insisted on "the right to return" of 3 million Palestinian Arabs to the proper Israel. P. M. Barak, of course, could not negotiate his own country away, and the peaceful negotiatiions broke down.


I'll also remind you that at the same time Israeli army was finalize its withdrawal from the West Bank, leaving the area to the Palestinian self rule. The extremists among the Palestinian radicals obviously did not like the idea of the permanent peaceful settlement. They intensified suicide bombing into the Israeli cities. In response to mass-bomb killings, the Israeli public gradually lost the sympathy for the Palestinian misery and looked toward a strong-arm protection from terrorism. And that is how we arrived at A. Sharon.


Several Palestinian radical groups, such as Hamas, Party of God, Islamic Jihad, etc., effectively hijacked the peace process by carrying out unrestrained suicide bombing. Arafat has proved either impotent or unwilling to control these groups in order to enforce the peace. Hence the Israeli questioning as to fact whether Arafat is relevant to the peace process or not. Who do you negotiate with if you dismiss him?


It is to hope that reasonable people on both sides will garner enough courage to restrain the extremists on the both sides and engage in a fair, fruitful and lasting peace settlement. As it stands today, I do not see any peace prospect unless Arafat and his government put under firm control the Palestinian radicals.


In the direct confrontation with Israel, the Palestinians are too week to gain any grounds. By engaging in the terrorist bombing against Israeli civilians, the Palestinians are losing the strongest element in their struggle: the world support and sympathy to their national cause. Plainly, it is hard to blame the Israeli authority for defending its citizens.

What a oonspiracy..........the press is in on it too.......

"a common sense tells me that there should be an immediate cessation of violence precedng the peaceful negotiations. I trust you'll agree with me on this point. For an effective peaceful negotiations to take place, both parties in the coflict should be earnestly committed."


Absolutely. A party can't negotiate in good faith while trying to improve it's negotiating leverage through violence. They're not compatible.


But just as I don't believe that Israel can be 100% responsible to the actions of fanatic Jewish settlers, I don't think it's fair to hold the PA responsible for the actions of extremist Palestinians that commit violence. Doing so would be a mere pretext for refusing to negotiate, and I accuse Israel of doing just that.


"[Barak] was offering to Arafa, Gaza Strip, 98% of the West Benk and nearly all of the East Jerusalem. Instead of taking this deal - perhaps the best he'll ever have, Arafat additionally insisted on "the right to return" of 3 million Palestinian Arabs to the proper Israel. P. M. Barak, of course, could not negotiate his own country away, and the peaceful negotiatiions broke down."


You and I are informed by very different accounts of what Barak offered. I agree that Barak offered a large percentage of the West Bank under nominal PA control. It was to have been divided, however, into non-contiguous enclaves with no right of access between them, and Israel retaining all control of Palestinian movement. So the typical criticsim of them was that they amounted to "Bantustans." Barak did not offer the PA control over the eastern metropolitan area of Jerusalem, as this would consits of Israeli settlements extending to the Jordan River, cutting the West Bank in half. He offered nominal PA control over the Arab quarter, the traditional cutltural center of Palestinians, with no right of access to the rest of Palestine. "Right of return" was rejected outright (except for a modest resettlement proposal for perhaps 100,000 Palestinians), even though the Palestinains have made clear that it doesn't need to mean the retrun of 3 million Arabs to present-day Israel. Arafat himself acknowledged Israel's "demographic" concerns in a NYT Op-ed piece last week.


"I'll also remind you that at the same time Israeli army was finalize its withdrawal from the West Bank, leaving the area to the Palestinian self rule."


No, this was supposed have happened in 1997 or 1998. Israel's delay in implementing the Oslo accords and the ultimate failure to offer a contiguous Palestinian state, and the apparent inability of Israel's current political system to consider this seriously, all preceded the human bombing wave that began in September 2000. So you can attribute the current intifada as much to the dashed hopes for Palestinian sovereignty as you can to the perenially corrupt, ineffectual Palestinain leadership.


"Hence the Israeli questioning as to fact whether Arafat is relevant to the peace process or not. Who do you negotiate with if you dismiss him?"


I think the declaration of Arafat being irrelevant has more to do with Israeli domestic political forces than tactical necessity. In any event, the New Republic online has a good article on the guy that might replace him, an unusually broad-minded piece for an organ that usually specializes in Israel apologia.


"By engaging in the terrorist bombing against Israeli civilians, the Palestinians are losing the strongest element in their struggle: the world support and sympathy to their national cause."


Agreed.


"Plainly, it is hard to blame the Israeli authority for defending its citizens."


If that's what I thought it was doing I wouldn't blame it. I think Israel is trying to crush Palestinian resistence to Israel's domination of the West Bank and Gaza and trying to incite the violence that could justify Israel's contined occupation for the near-term future until the political stalemate within Israel breaks apart.

Heil Alger, Brad. Do you wear a silly mustache?