GameBanshee Forums

Provoking, no doubt.
But still, I have to receive satisfying answers..

I've been pushed by that other thread, regardin' the "flaming" of US.
To answer one of the posts there, I can say I've witnessed anti-americanism for my whole life, where I live.
And again I take the analogy with football supporters, who just choose a side, and then stick with it whatever happens.
The same goes for Israel, IMHO.
Actually many (here) hate Israel *only* 'cause they're friends with the US (take it as a sure and tested information).
Anyway, many good arguments are usually used to support this hate towards Israel: they violate UN resolutions, they are the oppressors, etc.
Many state that they actually ask for (i.e. deserve) terrorism.
To the argument that terrorism in Israel strikes *deliberately* at civilians, replies vary from "terrorism is always
a bad thing" to, again: they deserve it, palestinians are desperate and have no other mean than this one.
I've even heard (believe me or not) that the olocaust, though injust (hey, thanx for pointing that out!),
was provoked by their behaviour!!!

So here are my two questions, maybe people here can finally give me adequate answers.

• Palestinian leaders obviously state that terroristic actions towards civilians are unjustified criminal actions.
  I've seen MANY times (for instance, funerals) scenes where Palestinian civilians were praising hamas, and many hooded figures were manifesting their intention to become suicide bombers.
  So my question: why authorities there do not *arrest* those people, the latter ones, at least? Or stop them somehow?
  Isn't that a proof of connivence, or worse, with terrorism?
  If Israel violates UN resolutions, what does this behaviour exactly violate? Nothing?
• Did Israelis, during or after World War II, go on rampage for german civilians? Did they try to deliberately kill
  german kids? Did they start a terroristic campaign against german civilians, to vindicate the slaughter of their people?
  Maybe the wrongs they suffered weren't enough (8,000,000 killed), with the same meter used to justify the actions of suicide bombers today? Why this hate towards Israel, at all?

Sorry, I've nothing against Palestinians or other populations, but I've really heard to much flaming against americans
and israelis (all the more in these days), so I feel the need to defend them somehow.
If they have bad leaders... well, so does the rest of the world.

EDIT: Forgive my deep ignorance.. due to the lack of a state, probably the means to actually arrest someone are flawed
You see, I hope, that the point of my post is that israelis don't deserve to be considered like that by half of the world

@ Littiz, you've posted a succint and accurate account of what I've thought for a little while. Thanks for sharing it.

I can say that I agree with what Littiz says. If Palestine do indeed say the terrorist actions are illegal and immoral, why not take further actions to stop it? It's accurate to say that if the Palestinian suicide bombers were stopped, retaliatory attacks from Israel would be removed. It's a vicious cycle, and for anyone to side with a 'nation' is morally wrong - both sides are losing hundreds of civilians a day that don't deserve it.

Littiz, I will post more in this thread later. The Palestine and Israel has been a problem child since 1947, and I have much to say regarding the history of the area and the absolutely lousy way the UK (the area was a British early in the 20th century and that was really the start of much trouble), the UN and the US has handled the question .

Anyway, first I think it of importance to establish that Israel and Jewish people are two different things even if they coincide partly. A majority of Jewish people outside Israel, and many of them do not support the state of Israel and are against Zionism. Being Jewish does not mean you are Zionist. Regardless of your position in the issue, it is of utmost importance to distiguish between the two. And furthermore, being for the state of Israel does not mean you are authomatically for the methods Israel use, and accept that they occupy land etc. In the same manner, being for the creation of a Palestine state does not mean one support suicide attacts etc.

Supporting the Palestine people right to have a state and get back the land Israel is now occupying, does not mean you are against the US or even against the Israel, but it may mean you against the methods used and the great injustice committed to the Palestines. However, I have noticed that especially in the US, people who support the Palestines are sometimes called antisemites which is an expression of the same kind of rhetorics as Bush used, "you either support us or you are with the terrorists".

In the same manner, being Zionistic does not mean you want to wipe out the Palestinians from the earth. However, there are of course some extreme racists in both groups, but neither are representative for the group as a whole. I am sure there are some people who view the Holocaust as something the Jews brought on themselves, the ultraright minorities in Europe sometimes contain antisemitic elements. And there are elements in Zionism who also are racists, who can forget the Israeli rabbi who said "ten thousand Palestinian lives are not worth a Jewish fingernail".

Much of the negative view of Zionism and the state of Israel you see in Europe today, is a result of Sharons hardline politics during the present intifada. Sharon's line increased the military aggression towards Palestine, and that in turn increased the suicide attacks which in turn increased the need for military action even more. Just like the hostage situation is Moscow last year only destroys Chenya's rightful struggle for freedom against Russia, the Palestine suicide attacks on civilians only destroys the Palestine's people rightful claims.

And where does the US come in? Well, in 1947 the US delayed the voting in order to secure the creation of a Palestine state, and since then, the US has always supported Israels actions whatever they have been. "Israel must have a right do defend itself when attacked" does not equal "Israel has a right to violate the Geneva convention and get military and finansial support for this from the US". Also, I think many people in Europe react to how the US media portray's the conflict. Very often you see the big broadcasters use expressions such as "6 Israeli were killed. The Palestinian authorities claim that over 20 Palestinian were killed" although the Palestininas death have been confirmed by independant sources. This gives the impression that maybe the Palestinians casualties are in doubt, maybe they are only claims and not true...and that is a severe media bias that of course affect the American public.

C Elegans, you make a brief mention of Palestinian breaking of Geneva conventions. You establish that Israel have (proven, and agreed) but you say nothing at all of the similar way Palestinians kill civilians, or the mention you do make is passing and as an afterthought.

@Littiz: I guess I should try to answer those questions although im not entirel sure what you were asking about.

• Why doesnt palestinian gouvernment take a harder stance against terrorism?
  
  Though arresting people for their opinions about Hamas would imo be an absurd interruption of their political rights, I think that this article might give you an idea about why Arrafat have difficulties to act.
  
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1766273.stm
• Why support palestine terrorism when the victims of the holocaust didnt attack german civilians?
  
  While I do think that the victims of the holocaust did indeed have the right to kill german civilians if that would have lead to for example getting out of a concentraion camp there is another important point to make here.
  
  The Israel-Palestine conflict would be easy (or at least much easier) to solve if the past misdeeds of both israel and palestine would have been the only problem. This is not the case. The main reason for the palestine attacks are not Israel violence, but rather the occupation of palestine territory. In palestine lives a rather small amount of Israeli settlers, but they occupy a very large area proportionally, and more settlers are moving in constantly, driving away the people who lives there under gun point. Not only is the areas this settler occupy very large, The areas in queston are also the most water dense. This in a region that has almost no water. The exploatation of natural recources and the wageing of demographical warfare is the primary reasons for terrorism, not grudge over killings.

And to avoid confusions about my stance on the issue:

• I do support the creation of a sovereign palestine nation within the UN set borders.
• I do support the existance of Israel within the UN set borders.
• I do support the refugees right to return home.
• I do support attacks on Israel millitary and settlers(save children) to achive this.
• I do not support attacks on civlians inside Israel.

Originally posted by Dottie

• I do support attacks on Israel millitary and settlers(save children) to achive this.

So it's ok for Palestine to kill civilian's (settlers as you say), yet it's morally wrong for the US to kill civilians in Iraq. It's not going to be different, either. Palestinians killing Israeli's is as bad as Israeli's killing Palestinian's and coalition forces attacking civilian targets.

It's all in the same boat.

Originally posted by Nippy
So it's ok for Palestine to kill civilian's (settlers as you say), yet it's morally wrong for the US to kill civilians in Iraq. It's not going to be different, either. Palestinians killing Israeli's is as bad as Israeli's killing Palestinian's and coalition forces attacking civilian targets.

It's all in the same boat.

ROFL, no its not. In one case you have persons (very often armed) who take active part of the occupation and exploitation of another nation, in another case you have persons who happens to live in a nation invaded over oil.

And if you had read my entire post I did clearly state that I was against killing civilians inside israel.

But I didnt post this to make a debate with you out of it, I posted it to make my stance clear for Littiz.

What a mess

Man how does one even begin on a subject that was a problem before we were born, and (by all appearances) will surely be one long after we are dead?

Personally, I find much more sympathy for the Isrealis right now. I agree the Palestinians require and should be given a homeland, but at this point in time, I simply cannot understand how the Isreali government can sit down with a man like Arafat who has proven time and again that he is nothing more than a common thug. You can view Sharon the same way, if you like, of course ... all just sorta depends on who you want to back. I, personally, can't back a group of indivduals who make it a point to seek out and kill civilians at every possible opportunity. Whatever kind of injustice has been visited on the Palestinian people, they will never have any moral stand in my book until their practice of suicide bombings is at an end.

Here’s an objective timeline and background:

In 1917 the British got in their hot little hands the Belfour declaration, itself in part a maneuver against Turkey following WWI. Among other things, this declaration called for the ‘reformation’ of a Jewish state.

In 1922 the League of Nations both ratified the declaration and put the British in control of the land (not nation) of Palestine.

Jewish immigration to Palestine was well underway in the 1930’s, prior to WWII. The existing population broke out in violent opposition to the immigrants, and in 1939 the British attempted to curtail further immigration. Fearing the Germans more than the British, it continued with little abatement.

The US under Truman was neutral in the conflict, maintaining relatively good relations with Arab nations despite their Soviet leanings while still calling the Belfour declaration a valid step toward self determination.

In 1946 a joint US / British study found that the whole of Palestine could not peacefully become an independent Muslim nor Jewish state, it now containing a large Jewish minority. It recommended the formation of two states and determined that the space and resources were sufficient.

Arab states, the existing Muslim Palestinians, Jewish Palestinians, and even the majority of British opposed the findings. The mind boggles to consider a proposition these groups could ever have agreed upon.

The British, now facing sometimes violent opposition from both sides, attempted to wash their hands with the formation of the UN’s UNSCOP special committee. UN resolution 181 in 1947 proceeded in much the same direction as the previous year’s joint study. A Muslim state, a Jewish state, and an International Buffer zone were established.

Despite some (though certainly not much) agreement from Arab states to the resolution, the Arab League recommended sending armies to the border. In 1948 they invaded Israel.

/end timeline

I’ll procedure with a departure from the purely factual, and offer some more subjective information.

While the Israelis repelled the invaders and started about building their homeland, the Palestinian reaction was more one of anger, and they banked on their Arab neighbors being able to expel the interlopers. The anger is easy to imagine, what is more difficult to understand is why they never resolved themselves to building a nation in a similar vein.

Much to the chagrin of the Palestinians, after being rallied for battle, their allies slowly backed away from any firm commitment for support. The Palestinians were left with a new enemy on their border, no real support system, no organized government, and a mixture of justifiable anger and unjustifiable hatred. Terror attacks against the newly created state of Israel eroded any support they might have gotten from the west.

So why does the US favor Israel (and it’s pretty clear that they do, though it is less clear that there is anything unfair about it)? They are a democracy. They never had Soviet leanings during the cold war. They are not theocratic – a system that never sits well with the US. Despite some admittedly brutal methods, they do not engage in, nor support terror. They have not been the aggressor in any open wars with neighboring Arab states (sans the territory that was supposed to become Palestine.)

And there are probably some less savory reasons. Oil? Probably not one of them, oil would be cheaper and easier to get by inviting Saddam to Las Vegas and showing him a good time. Wanting to unbalance unfriendly states. Keeping a ‘hall monitor’ in the middle east. A vocal voting block.

I can agree that Israel, especially over the last decade, has gone too far and has become an oppressor, but to say that Israel is wrong and the Palestinians are right is laughable. Pick up a legitimate history book. I wouldn’t want to audit either group for adherence to Geneva Conventions, but the Palestinians would win any bad neighbor contest hands down, and that is no mean feat.

I consider this question of US aid a curiosity, but not altogether relevant. I put the number at about 1/3 (not 1/2) of the governments foreign aid budget, and there is a schedule to scale it back to nil. Huge for the moment, but so what? I’d rather see the money spent on reducing the deficit or on education, but I don’t get the point. It’s brought up like it is an indicator of something important, but I can’t tell what it is. Someone spell it out for me. Am I supposed to think “aid here equals endorsement of oppression there” or “aha! Those Jews always get the money” or possibly “*shrug* it’s a 60 year old nation under siege”?

And that about sucks up any free time I have today. Please consider any failure to answer as bemused contempt Seriously, it won't be possible for while.

In this thread, I've seen several comments regarding the use of terrorism by Palestinians. I think that we tend to look to other oppressed groups who used non-violent methods to achieve their aims (Gandhi, MLK) and wonder why the Palestinians themselves have not tried non-violent resistance.

Here's one helpful article by Gush Shalom, an Israeli peace group:

80 Theses for a New Peace Camp

I wanted to write my thoughts on terrorism (most of which is gleaned from the philosopher, Hannah Arendt).

A healthy and vibrant opposition is necessary in any political system that professes democratic values, but terrorism itself emerges out of a sense of desperation. The presence of widescale terrorism indicates that there is something unhealthy in the political system. Terrorism itself is best understood as a contest of a state's power and legitimacy.

There are two types of terrorism that need differentiating: 1) the terrorist regime and 2) the siege of terror. That is, terrorism can either be done from above (the terrorist regime) or below (siege terrorism). Both the terrorist regime and the siege terrorist have a degree of commonality. They both operate within the bounds of their own rationality, which may not make sense to the outside world, but does have an internal logic; and both operate with political motivations. Terror, for them, is both a weapon to achieve political power (the 'terrorist', guerilla, freedom fighter, etc.) and to maintain political power (the police state). Terrorism is as much a tool of states and governments as of revolutionaries and political extremists. The main difference between these two types of terrorism is legitimacy. It is generally easier for governments to legitimize their activities versus the terrorists than vice-versa.

Perhaps another subset of terrorists not included above are the criminal terrorists who are not members of a group with a just cause - for example, the Unabomber.

Hannah Arendt wrote: Rage is by no means an automatic reaction to misery and suffering as such; no one reacts with rage to an incurable disease or to an earthquake or, for that matter, to social conditions that seem to be unchangeable. Only when our sense of justice is offended do we react with rage.

Terrorists typically seek to right a wrong, reform or replace a corrupt institution, or destroy the state, which they view as oppressive. In that sense, they are organizing their rage into rational acts of violence designed to be a swift and direct means to the end. In the context of the US, an event like the Oklahoma City bombing shows how a swift, violent, spectacular act was to draw attention to a cause that was fanatical and suppressed. The goal of terrorism is not to destroy but to destabilize the opposing side, and to demoralize or panic the public. If anyone can be a victim, then the pressure on the government to capitulate grows higher because no one is safe from violence or guiltless any longer. Further, in a state, if governmental and societal institutions become corrupt or closed to change then the possibility for peaceful means of opposition disappears and the possibility of violence increases. Where there isn't any peaceful means of opposition, then the possibility of terrorism is tremendous.

This is growing quite lengthy - some conclusions:
Causes of terrorism-
Closed system: The political system is closed to minority or opposition groups who find they have no voice within the government, and no ability to change the system from within. (To me, this characterizes the Palestinian plight)

Nationalism: Nationalistic movements often enjoy broad bases of support and the nature of nationalism lends itself to continued growth, even in the absence of a coherent political ideology. If ethnic drives at national identity are not politically accommodated by governments, that leaves open the possibility of organized terrorist activity with broad-based support. (Example: the Basques)

Poverty: Disillusionment over future prospects leads to revolt. (Example: the Soweto children's uprising)

Radicalization: An individual uses an extreme ideology to explain his own difficulties. (An example of this would be the under-educated, unemployed white male skinhead, who finds an explanation for his low social position in the radical ideology of white supremacy.)

Voodoo: if you do not add fundamentalism to that list, I'm going to pout.

Fundamentalism: A belief system that has been warped or manipulated to a point where those who don't share it are not valued. (Examples: planned parenthood bombers, radical Zionists, proponents of Jihad)

This post is not meant to flame anyone. I'm an ignorant and I admit it..
We all speak partly out of reason, partly out of passion, so debating can help

@CE:

And furthermore, being for the state of Israel does not mean you are authomatically for the methods Israel use, and accept that they occupy land etc.

Good point, which incidentally proves how senseless is the use of terrorism.
They could easily kill the "good Israelis" from their point of view.
And sometimes that's even their intent, to prove that they don't want them at all.
Remember the slaughter of kids at the Kibbutz? I rate it as probably the *MOST* revolting thing I've ever seen in my life.

I take it even *Bush* wants a state for Palestinians, so I think we all pretty much agree on this point.

Much of the negative view of Zionism and the state of Israel you see in Europe today, is a result of Sharons hardline politics during the present intifada.

Here you are wrong, imho.
I say it's an old thing. I've always seen it. Their friends to the US, so..
Maybe nowadays it seems more fashionable to some.

@Dottie:
My point was that, despite the incredible facts that happened to them, the victims of the holocaust -or their
relatives- never used senseless violence (to my knowledge).
Does the killing of Israeli civilians or kids save someone from an actual, immediate threat?
No. Yet many people over the world support or justify those acts, out of pure hatred towards Israel.

Though arresting people for their opinions about Hamas would imo be an absurd interruption of their political rights, I think that this article might give you an idea about why Arrafat have difficulties to act.

So, what's Israel to do about it?
Laws don't allow to arrest people who support Hamas (ok, let's concede freedom of opinions...) NOR aspirant suicide bombers, so why should Israel be concerned with UN resolutions?
Why follow international Laws, when *no law* grants to somehow stop self-declared future suicide bombers, on the
other side?
What should Israel do about the fact that Saddam Hussein was granting contributions to the families of the terrorists,
thus raising terrorists' motivations even more?
It seems pretty sure this thing happened, and it's even likely that other nations/leaders were doing the same thing...

Forgive me, but your argument about the right of killing settlers amazes me.
Following this line of reasoning, let's see...
Take the immigrants in Italy. Assume I don't want them here (which is not the case!).
Technically I, personally, have never conceded them the right to enter. Maybe my government has, but not I, and many
(MANY!!) are simply clandestines.
Once they're here, they contribute to deplete resources which I could consider mine, occupy jobs which I could
consider good opportunities for me.
So, do I earn the right to kill them? Sparing their children maybe?
There's not a difference in concepts here, only in scale....

@Lazarus:

Whatever kind of injustice has been visited on the Palestinian people, they will never have any moral stand in my book until their practice of suicide bombings is at an end.

My heart impulsively would push me to this position, too..
But that would be the opposite mistake

@Wav: thanx for the enlightenments!

@Voodoo D.: still have to read your post

I'm in general agreement with Waverly's points, above, with the exception of this:

So why does the US favor Israel (and it’s pretty clear that they do, though it is less clear that there is anything unfair about it)? They are a democracy. They never had Soviet leanings during the cold war. They are not theocratic – a system that never sits well with the US. Despite some admittedly brutal methods, they do not engage in, nor support terror. They have not been the aggressor in any open wars with neighboring Arab states (sans the territory that was supposed to become Palestine.)

I think US political support for Israel is in general much more obvious and self-serving: there is a large minority of Jews in the US who maintain the same kind of nostalgic attachment to a "homeland" they've never seen that most of us do, who come from some immigrant stock. The Jewish vote is a very big factor in many urban US areas, and even politicians running for local office, who can have no impact at all on international issues, make a point of shouting their support for Israel.

The neighboring Arab nations have done their bit, shooting themselves in the PR foot time and again. The Six Day War as portrayed in the media made an invaded Israel look like a David against the Arab Goliaths (inaccurate; that David had more military might at its disposal than all the invading Goliaths combined). The autocratic style of rule in Israel's Arabic neighbors hasn't helped build support for them in the US, where almost nobody pays attention to the strong theocratic tinge to Israel's curious representative democracy. (For example, if an Israeli Jewish couple wants to get wed, they have to do it religiously, or it isn't recognized. More, they have to wed by a rabbi of the Orthodox Jewish sect, or they aren't legally wed. That's despite the predominance of two less reactionary Jewish sects in Israel, the Conservatives and the Reformed.)

The Exodus myth also remains strong in the minds of US citizens, the idea that the Jews managed to rise up as a people and throw off the yokes of the Brits and take the land their government paid for from its Palestinian residents. This has not only been debunked, it has been abandoned by even mainstream Jewish historians in the last decade-and-a-half. Recent studies from prominent Jewish historians point out that most of the Arab residents of Palestine either rejected the money they were offered for their land, or never received an offer at all. They were arbitrarily removed by the nascent Israeli government, which realized (rightly) that you can't really rule a state when the residents you want to make up that state are a minority.

None of this should be seen as justifying the slaugther of Israelis by Palestian suicide bombers, or the murder of Palestians by the Israeli army. The use of these tactics reveals the moral bankruptcy, IMO, of the political leadership on both sides. And the US, under Dubya, is only making matters worse by giving the Israeli government carte blanche to do whatever it wishes. By contrast, Bush, Sr, was a refreshing difference in this respect. He put the arrogant Israeli government of its day (including its Defense Minister, who is now Prime Minister) in its place, and laid down conditions for aid. This, Dubya has said he simply "isn't allowed" to do. Nonsense. He lacks both understanding of the issues, and the political willpower to buck a voting bloc at home, IMO.

Are you sure you disagree, Fable? I gave the voting block reason in the next paragraph, under 'less savory' reasons.

LOL, I ain't touching this with a barge pole. Typically entrenched views, one man's freedom figher and all that nonsense.

Dottie supports the killing of Israeli military and settlers "but not kids". Does anyone condone the killing of kids, except maybe Palestinian terrorists who send kids off to die? Or Fedayeen who threaten to kill kids if other kids don't go out to fight?

Coalition troops, who aren't *anwywhere near Baghad* BTW (LMAO) just loving killing babies. Me, I love killing babies. :rolleyes

The "other" conflict is all about oil. No. Blood is way more expensive than oil dottie. Trust me, we're still paying for the sacrifice of world war 2. What good is Iraqi oil to us?:

The Brits promised both sides a state, and then left the delicate little problem to the UN. The Palestines were not in agreement of the formation of an Israeli state in 1947. Israel was attacked almost immediately after its formation.

I wish to continue Waverly's objective timeline and add a post-1948 timeline.

1967: In the six days war, Israel took land from Syria, Egypt and Jordan, among those the West Bank, Gaza strip and Golan heights.

1967-1982: Israel occupies 50% of the West bank and 30% of the Gaza strip for military use and Israeli settlers. 1300 Palestinian homes at the West band are demolished by Israeli military.

1991 and 1993: Peace treaties.

2000: Start of the present Intifada. Read the Mitchell Report, the report from the independant fact-finding committe:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/mitchell.htm

(For those of you who prefer to trust my ability to make an objective summary rather than reading the report:

The report says that US and Palestinians officials urged Barak to prohibit Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount since this would be provocative to the Palestinians. Barak declined, and Sharon went, together with over 1000 police officers.
The next day a large number of unarmed Palestinians demonstrated at the same place, and a large force of Israeli police clashed with the demonstrants. The police killed 4 and injured 200 with rubber-coated bullets. 14 policemen were injured.
The report concludes that the reasons for the current string of violence was divergent expectations of the result from the 1991 and 1993 negotiations. The PLO expected Israel to withdraw from Gaza and the West bank within 5 years. Instead, the Israeli settlements has increased with 70%. The Israeli are aware of the promise they made in 1993, that they would conceed regarding the settlements, but only in an overall solution that includes no terrorist attacks, and they point out that security is their main focus.)

/end timeline

In my first post in this thread I tried to answer Littiz question why many Europeans have a negative view of Israel and the US support of Israel. In this post, I will express my personal opinions.

It is against the Geneva convention (which Israel has signed) to take territory from other states in war, and this is regardless if the war is in self-defence or not. Israels occupation of the land taken during the Six days war in 1967 is illegal and that is my main critisism against Israel.

My critisism of the US support of Israel is simply that no country should give military aid to a country that consistatly use the weapons to violate human rights and the Geneva convention. Israel has done this, and still receive unconditional aid from the US, whereas other states that recieve US aid has to meet certain conditions.

Waverly and I have had a discussion about this previously, and think we both posted good arguments and reliable links, which all can be found here

I also think anyone wanting to discuss the Israel/Palestine issue should read these informative documents compiled by Jews for Justice, and American Jewish organisation who oppose the Israel occupation
http://www.cactus48.com
where you should read their online book "The origin of the Israel-Palestine conflict"
and their British equivalent.
http://www.jfjfp.org

Originally posted by Nippy
C Elegans, you make a brief mention of Palestinian breaking of Geneva conventions. You establish that Israel have (proven, and agreed) but you say nothing at all of the similar way Palestinians kill civilians, or the mention you do make is passing and as an afterthought.

I do not support any attacks on Israeli civilians, not even in the occupied area.

EDITED due to deleted post, thanks Chanak

@CE: Thank you for bringing my error to my attention. Duly deleted.

Originally posted by Chanak
Excellent points, @Waverly. There certainly isn't anything more I can add to them.

To justify killing Jewish settlers, @Dottie, is to approve of the methods of regimes who ritually practice genocide as a way of life. Military against military, or military against police forces (the distinction in the Middle East between the two is very blurry) is one thing...but one abandons any sort of "high ground" when barbarism becomes acceptable. To "accuse" a nation of these practices, such as the US or Israel, then turn around and support such actions by another group or nation, is deplorable and devoid of reason. I find your "justifications" sickening, to say the least.

A little strongly worded, don't you think? I wonder what Dottie really meant and I try to keep in mind that English is his second language...

Continuation of settling Palestinian areas in Israel is one of, if not the main obstacle to peace there. The practice has been deplored by the US and the UN and violates international law. If I were president - I would deduct $100 million in US aid every time Israel adds or expands a settlement. Problem solved, I believe. Bush Sr. may have supported such a policy, Bush Jr. doesn't have the guts.

From the link I posted before:
47. As soon as the 1967 war ended (in which the Palestinians were left with only 22% of the land - down from the original 45% promised to them), the settlement movement began. Almost every political faction in the state participated in this movement—from the messianic-nationalistic "Gush Emunim" to the "leftist" United Kibbutz movement.

50. The dispute between the proponents of "Greater Israel" and those of "territorial compromise" is essentially a dispute about the way to achieve the basic Zionist aspiration: a homogenous Jewish State in as large a territory as possible. The proponents of "compromise" emphasize the demographic issue and want to prevent the inclusion of the Palestinian population in the State. The "Greater Israel" adherents place the emphasis on the geographic issue and believe (privately or publicly) that it is possible to expel the non-Jewish population from the country (code name: "Transfer").

51. The general staff of the Israeli army (under Ariel Sharon in particular) played an important role in the planning and building of the settlements. It created the map of the settlements—including blocs of settlements and bypass roads, lateral and longitudinal—so that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are chopped up into pieces and the Palestinians are imprisoned in isolated enclaves, each of which is surrounded by settlements and the occupation forces.

60. The most substantive flaw in the Oslo agreement was that both sides hoped to achieve entirely different objectives. The Palestinians saw it as a temporary agreement paving the way to the end of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian State in all the occupied territories. The respective Israeli governments regarded it as a way to maintain the occupation in large sections of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the Palestinian self-government filling the role of an auxiliary security agency protecting Israel and the settlements.

63. Throughout the period of the "Oslo Process," Israel continued its vigorous expansion of the settlements, primarily by creating new ones under various guises, expanding existing ones, building an elaborate network of "bypass" roads, expropriating land, demolishing houses, and uprooting plantations. The Palestinians, for their part, used the time to build their strength, both within the framework of the agreement and without it. In fact, the historical confrontation continued unabated under the guise of negotiations and the "peace process," which became a proxy for actual peace.

67. In his own eyes and in the eyes of Israel as a whole, Barak "turned every stone" and made the Palestinians "more generous offers than any previous Prime Minister." In exchange, he wanted the Palestinians to lend their signatures to "an end to the conflict." The Palestinians considered this offer preposterous, since Barak was effectively asking them to relinquish their basic national aspirations, such as the Right of Return and sovereignty in East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Moreover, while Barak presented the claims for the annexation of territories as a matter of negligible percentages ("Settlement Blocs"), according to Palestinian calculations Barak's offer amounted to an actual annexation of 20 percent of the land beyond the Green Line (which would decrease their promised lands again down to 17%).

Sharon is the most aggressive yet in his campaign to annex territory.

In a way the settlement plan is ingenious, because rather than invading a territory with the military (which would probably lose Israel all US support), the invaders are civilians. Those who find themselves displaced and their homes stolen are faced with fighting a group of civilians. If they don't fight, they lose. If they do fight, they lose. That's why I'm convinced that the only thing that can help the Palestinians is for the American government to take a hard-line stance against settlements.

@Voo: Thank you for pointing that out...I missed a key word in reading Dottie's post. With that, I think I'm going to go out in the woods, and eat some worms.