The Middle East

Moderator Note:

I hope we can use this thread to post interesting news and opinion articles, ones which pertain to the current situation: the spectacle which continues to devolve on-scene, in our favorite part of the planet, and before our very eyes. If you feel a subject or article warrants a new thread, however, by all means, don't let this discourage you. Just trying to be un-cluttered.

Now, on to my motives in posting the above article—some questions:

1. British PM Tony Blair has emerged as The supporter of America(and President Bush) during these hectic times. Do you think that Mr. Blair's less tolerant approach to the Israeli incursions took some charge out of Washington's usual leniance with Mr. Sharon?

2. If Washington has endevoured to match sentiments eminating from London—acknowledging the importance of their British allies on the international scene—what shift in foreign policy, if any, may this signal.

Personally, I think this a Major shift by Washington, and one which marks a new importance for England in international realtions. Not only has Israel appeared to lose favour, but Washington appears to be picking international allies, and working harder than usual to maintain them.

'I don't want to be here... but what would you do?'

Observer Worldview

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday April 7, 2002
The Observer

We met the Israeli soldiers in a little square not far from the Lutheran church in Bethlehem's old quarter. We were walking to the Church of the Nativity in Manger Square, where 200 Palestinians, including scores of gunmen, are trapped in the church built on the reputed site of Jesus's birthplace, when they stopped us.

As we waited, a Palestinian sniper's round cracked in the street. The soldiers quickly took cover, pointing their weapons from behind street corners built of honey-coloured stone. No second shot came in, so the soldiers started to relax. They seemed happy to talk briefly among the rubble, as water poured from smashed pipes down the street, but they refused to give their names.

It was the Major who broke the ice, a short and stocky man with a grizzle of dark stubble on his face. He told us he had been in the city for five days. He worked for a hi-tech company in civilian life. He was 34 and like most of his company a reservist, called up for emergency military service a week ago on Friday.

He was in Washington when the call came, preparing to celebrate Passover with members of his family. He paid with his own money to fly back for military service.

We asked if Israel could win its war on the West Bank. The Major shrugged his shoulders. 'I don't know,' he said with surprising honesty. 'I do not want to be here. It does not feel safe. But they are killing our people so I have to be here. I feel I should be doing something.'

He turned to questioning me: 'What would you do in our circumstances,' he asked. 'What would you do if every day they were bombing your coffee shops in London, if the shops were empty, if you were afraid for your young daughter to leave your building?'

A colleague challenged him about the damage his comrades had done; about the walls smashed to pieces by passing tanks, the shop doors blown open, the contents scattered broken on the floor.

'Do you think,' he asked, 'that the tanks should not be here? Do you understand why we have brought our tanks into these streets?'

But what about the ruined and apparently looted shops we had passed along the street? 'We are searching for weapons. We are working in a hurry. You cannot do that without making a mess.'

He paused for a moment. 'I heard something on television the other day,' he said. 'Someone was saying that the Oslo peace agreement meant we should be able to have a cup of coffee in Baghdad. Instead it has turned out that we cannot even have a cup of coffee in Tel Aviv.'

A second soldier walked over to talk to us. He was young and tanned with a floppy mop of hair under his helmet. He was 24. He told us he was a shift manager at a Tel Aviv coffee shop that was hit by a suicide bomber eight days ago, killing one person inside. Normally, he would have been inside, but he was called up for reserve duty 24 hours before.

He gave the impression he did not much want to be in Bethlehem but, like his colleague, explained that Israel was under attack.

'I tell you, we have found a whole exhibition of weapons searching these houses,' he said. 'I can only tell you what our company has found, but we have uncovered a machine gun, rifles, pistols, shotguns, explosives and hundreds of Molotov cocktails.

'We find them really well hidden. We have found them in beds, hidden in children's rooms, in cellars with locked doors that do not look as though they have been touched for 30 years.'

As if on cue, we heard their colleagues shouting down the street: a few minutes later these soldiers brought in two Palestinian men carrying two ammunition boxes which the soldiers told us they found in the basement of the building in which the Palestinians live.

We were allowed to speak to them for a moment. The older man gave his name as Ahmad Abu Subeih, the younger - in his twenties - as Osmama Masalma. 'The soldiers found ammunition in the cellar,' said the older man. 'But it is not mine. I do not know who it belongs to. I live in the floor above.'

The Major shrugged. 'He could be telling the truth. I don't know. But we are going to take them in for questioning.'

A few hours earlier, in another town, we had met some Palestinian soldiers. In a week of covering the fighting these men were a rarity - the only Palestinian policemen or soldiers we had seen in uniform who were not prisoners or bullet-riddled corpses.

We found them standing at a check point on the back road that leads into the city of Hebron from the road to the settlement at Kiryat Arba. Like the Israelis, they were happy to talk.

They said their names were Mohamed Ashour, 24, and Manar Abu Hussein. Their position, a breeze-block hut, was overlooked at a distance by a substantial Israeli blockhouse site on a nearby hill.

I asked Mohamed, the more assured of the two, what he would do if the Israelis came into his city as it was rumoured they were about to do. He said he was not frightened, but that he would 'do a little something' before running for his house.

What were his orders, we asked? 'They say we should avoid a fight and go home and hide our weapons and take off our uniforms,' he said without embarrassment. He had been a soldier for two years in the Palestine Preventative Security Force. He did not look so happy with his career choice.

As we entered Hebron we heard from Médecins Sans Frontières of panic in the city. 'Everyone is expecting a large-scale occupation,' said Jimena Cabana, a young Spaniard working for the charity. 'We have seen panic-buying of food and medicines. All the food shops are empty. The hospital has drawn up an emergency plan to deal with the casualties. It is as if the city has been overtaken by some kind of psychosis.

'This week alone we have been forced to send our local staff back to their houses on two occasions because we were expecting an invasion of Israeli tanks.'

The story of the past nine days has been the story of two communities under siege. For all the carnage of the spate of deadly Palestinian suicide bombings, for most Israelis the siege is - as terrorism always intends - largely psychological.

And recent opinion polls reflect the view of the Major. Among Israelis the campaign enjoyed overwhelming support. A poll in the Jerusalem Post said 72 per cent of Israelis backed the war, while barely 17 per cent opposed it. The poll reflects a hardening of attitudes among Israels over the question of Yasser Arafat and any future Palestinian state, with more and more Israelis saying openly that they feel Arafat should be expelled.

For the Palestinians too it is a siege, but in the West Bank last week that siege was very physical.

More than a million Palestinians in half a dozen cities are now under renewed Israeli occupation. On Friday in Bethlehem the meaning of that siege was articulated by Senator Jean-Marie Dedecker, a Belgian parliamentarian, turned back from an attempt to reach Manger Square.

'When we tried to reach the square the soldiers came up to us and said that if we did not leave then they would shoot us. We wanted to go into the church and talk to those trapped there but we were told there was no chance.

'It is terrible - horrible - what is going on here; they are not only killing people with guns they are starving them and strangling their society. It is not a war against terrorism, it is a war against people. This is war about who has the biggest muscles. They are making a concentration camp out of the West Bank - it is a hard word - but they are are destroying everything, the economy and the infrastructure.'

It is a tough analysis. But it is not the only time I have heard this from independent observers. A day earlier I had spent some time with Ola Skuterud, of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Skuterud has been working in Ramallah. He too believes the offensive is as much to punish the Palestinians as to root out the terrorists among them.

'We have had four of our ambulances destroyed this week and a vehicle owned by the International Committee for the Red Cross deliberately crushed by a tank in Tulkarm.

'My analysis of what I have seen is that the Israelis are not trying to kill as many people as possible. Rather they are being careful to do the opposite, which is why we do not have hundreds of people dead. What they are doing is targeting the infrastructure of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority and ambulances come under that heading. They are turning cars upside down, digging up roads, running into the houses, blowing doors and wrecking water pipes and electricity cables. They are destroying for the sake of destroying.'

The reality is that both sides in their anger are in danger of utterly dehumanising the other as they lurch deeper into their mutual hatreds.

For Israelis of all political persuasions, all Palestinians are now seen as a threat and as the enemy. This is reflected in the myopia of the Major and his friend who, one suspects from the briefest of encounters, are decent men who cannot see that terrorising entire neighbourhoods to find a handful of gunmen might leave them open to criticism.

The Palestinians of all kinds too have become locked in the same cycle. A similar myopia means they cannot see how repulsive the suicide bombers so many lionise are to ordinary sensibilities, or how they undermine the case for their own state.

In the same way as the Israelis cannot see there are more effective ways of dealing with terrorism by a process of political negotiation, the Palestinians have become locked into the idea that the only way to achieve a state is by armed struggle and the most nihilistic kinds of violence.

Both are redundant. Both exacerbate the violence, driving the two communities ever further apart.

That process of dehumanisation was dramatised by a conversation with a Palestinian I encountered on the streets of Bethlehem. Michel Nasser, a portly middle-aged man, was walking in his dressing gown and slippers, emboldened by the presence of reporters to leave his house to look for bread.

'This is the first time I have seen the light in five days,' he said. 'We have food but we have had no water for five days. We are not terrorists. Yes, there are gunmen living among us. But that is a minority. It is not the whole population, to punish us like this.

'You know, when the Israeli soldiers were fighting here last autumn they came into our streets and they spoke like people. We understood them as men like other men. Now they are worse than the terrorists.' [/b]

<a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,680263,00.html" target="_blank">The Observer</a>

A poor justification Kronos. The Palestinians haven't been blowing themselves to bits for catastrophe's sake. There's a reason those large, dominating, military forces advance on the impoverished, segregated, communities which breed terrorism.

To which Mr. Sharon will undoubtedly reply:

"If you can have your war on terrorism, why can we not have ours?"

I'm not suggesting that the Israelis sit on their hands now that Palestinian fanatics have resorted to terrorism. What I am pointing out is that Israel—particularly under Sharon, just look at the degree to which violence increased since his inception—bares considerable responsibility for the present situation.

A poor analogy, perhaps, but consider Israel the bully, and consider Palestine the disturbed victim who brings a gun to school. The Arab world are supposed 'friends' who have a vested interest in seeing Palestine distract the bully. The UN is the teacher, or school administration, who consistently fail to address the problem. We are the classmates who observe, passively, pretending the situation is not our problem. To imagine the outcome is not difficult.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way.

Fair enough.

I think you are ignoring a lot of the past.

The past, or the past as You interpret it?

Israel the bully? I can't buy that.

Why not? I'm somewhat familiar with the history of Israel, from the foundation or Zionism, to Chaim Weizman and the Parition of Palestine. Israel has, to one extent or another, been bullying the Palestinians since it's inception. This doesn't justify terrorism, or account for the deplorable actions of other Arab nations, but it provides some explanation as to Why the Palestinians are so fanatical.

Arafat knew what he was doing every time he has ignored or turned down a peace proposal, and I think what is happening now is his ideas gone wrong.

Certainly, Arafat hasn't contributed much to the peace process, and one could argue that he shoulders significant blame with Israel—and the rest of the planet—for the present fuckery in the Middle East. But tossing all the blame on Arafat is like tossing all the blame on Israel: dumb.

Furthermore, your point does little to refute my claim that Israel has bullied the Palestinian people. Unless, of course, you believe the rash actions of one man justifies the internment of an independant people. What to do with all the black people who listened to Malcom X and his Nation of Islam speeches, one might ask...

He wants the world to feel sorry for the Palestinians so they can get what they want...well as long as the US stands by Israel he wont get that.

Umm, OK. This has nothing to with my point. If you wish to write a condemnation of Arafat, go right ahead. It's not a difficult task. But don't expect ME to give your balmy, unsupported theories serious consideration.

Do you really think Arafat wanted what little authority remained to him comprimised; his influence on extremist groups stifled by Israeli security; his people aggravated into violent rage by incursive Israeli settlement—endorsed by the Sharon administration—while he was rendered impotent by security measures; to be shacked up in his Ramalla compound, away from medical treatment, all while Israeli tanks motor through Palestinian homes?

You need a better reason than "I think so."

Think about what would have been accomplished if Martin Luther King had people in his organization strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent white people.

Think of what Mr. King would not have been required to accomplish if innocent white people hadn't been so racist.

I mean really, that does not sound right but just imagine it....well that is what Arafat does.

What Arafat does, or what extremists in the PLO do?

Yes, Arafat is, in many ways, a complete ass.

Yes, Palestinian terrorists are deplorable.

So is shooting-up one's highschool.So is bullying. My anology stands.

Show me how Israel has "bullyed" Palestinians.

In an attempt to avoid searching the internet for a VALID archive of examples, I'll cite Israeli settlement on Palestinian land(by hard-liners), and the general internment of the Palestinians.

I should also add, in the interest maintaining an aura of objectivity, that the Palestinian people have been bullied by their Arab 'brothers', albeit less directly.

Israel has fought 5 wars for its ability to exist, it only occupied Palestinian territory because it did not feel secure without the occupation.

Often, these wars were fought against Arab countries such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebannon—a country, one should note, which was a pillar of commerce and stability in North Africa before Israeli occupation. Despite the Arab connection, one should not mistake these wars as Palestinian-caused.

Though the first war, after Parition, saw could be argued a thus, despite massive efforts by the above-listed countries(and others).

The creation of Isreal is the only way in which I think you have a very valid point, but then again for right or wrong Britain controlled that territory...and for right or wrong they gave the Jews a homeland.

Indeed. British Imperialism buggered most of Africa—Colonials set borders in an arbitrary manner, rather than along pre-existing tribal boundaries, which is why one may observe various African tribal units(Tutsi and Hutu, for example) slaughtering each other today—and having ones homeland created by dying empire begs the question.

If you agree that the Israeli people have the right to stay there, then I cant see the Israeli's as bullies.

I don't believe the situation is so cut-and-dry. Do I have problems with the state of Israel? you bet. Do I feel Ithat Jews have a right to live in Palestine/Israel/Canaan? absolutely.

Except for a few instances I believe for the most part the Israeli government has done it best to protect its people.

The Israeli government has done an exceptional job of this. Often by bullying the Palestinians, most often by displacing settled Paletinains with Jewish farmers, internment, and so on.

I think to understand the situation you have to look at the mentality of Jews after the Holocaust.

Sentimentality is not a valid argument.

They will not allow the same thing to happen. People forget all the concessions Israel has made, it has tried for peace...what concenssions have the Palestinians agreed to? None that I know of...

I'm not an apologist for Palestinian foot-dragging. However, one must understand that what was once Palestine, has now taken the Symbolic title of 'Israel'. And to some misguided people—Israeli and Palestinian—such symbols mean everything.

I'm under no delusions that Palestine doesn't shoulder as much blame as Israel for the current shit-festival. If not more. I'm also under no delusions that Israel is "merely trying to defend itself."

Think to yourself.

I do, for the most part.

Decide whether you believe that Israel has a right to exist.

On the above premise?

I do not believe Israel has a right to exist in its present state.

Once you come to that decision, and it has to be made to be able to dicuss this (at least in my opinion) and it is in the positive I think you will see that for the most part all Israel wants is its own safety...and the only thing that it wont give up in exchange for that safety is its existence.

This isn't a valid argument. Even if I believe Israel has I right to exist, I am still allowed to be critical of Israel. And Safety is a relative term. The shit-list of things countries have done in the name of safety is long and dirty.

If your decision is in the negative well...thats a whole different discussion.

Not entirely negative, just relatively so.

Sharon is a war hawk, Arafat is a terrorist. If you are the Israeli government what do you do? If you are the Palestinian people what do you do?

Israeli: kill Palestinians.

Palestinian: kill Israelis.

Myself: move somewhere sensible.

THIS IS AN OBJECTIVE, AND VERY INFORMATIVE ASSESMENT OF THE CURRENT HOLY LAND FUCK-UP. ONE WOULD BE PRUDENT TO READ IT.

Mission impossible?

What happens if the United States says jump, and nobody moves?

By*NORMAN SPECTOR

Globe and Mail**
Wednesday, April 10, 2002 –*Page*A15

Colin Powell lands in Israel on Friday on the most difficult assignment of his career. It's his third try -- and the Americans' 11th attempt -- to end 18 months of violence between Israel and the Palestinians. U.S. emissary Anthony Zinni has already struck out three times, and Mr. Powell -- and U.S. President George W. Bush himself -- have now put their credibility on the line.

Officially, Palestinians greeted with approval Mr. Bush's tough-talking speech last week, though Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has yet to comply with any of the President's demands. Nor have moderate Arab states, several of whose leaders Mr. Powell has been meeting with this week on the road to Jerusalem. These countries were asked by Mr. Bush to condemn suicide bombers as "murderers, not martyrs." Instead, at the Arab leaders' meeting after the speech, they welcomed the Palestinian uprising known as the intifada and referred to suicide bombers as resistance fighters.

Mr. Bush's tough words against Israel's reoccupation of the West Bank finally got Ariel Sharon's attention, but only after the President turned up the volume, making it clear that there are limits to legitimate self-defence and that "now" means now. The result, however -- Israel's pullback from the Palestinian towns of Tulkarem and Qalqilya -- was coupled with Israel's expanded operation into other communities, including the outskirts of Hebron.

Such moves only serve to reawaken latent U.S. suspicions of Mr. Sharon.

Washington knows full well the kind of danger into which they are sending Mr. Powell. They know that the Israeli leader has no endgame (since there's no military solution to the conflict), and that he's no fan of the only conceivable political one -- a viable Palestinian state living beside the Jewish one. Nor do they have any illusions about Mr. Arafat.

Indeed, this fact has sunk into the Palestinians who are are reeling from Mr. Bush's description of their leader as a liar who is up to his ankles in terrorism. While Canada, the European Union and the Arab League continue to support Mr. Arafat, the Bush administration has now endorsed Bill Clinton's conclusion that the Palestinian leader's refusal to negotiate scuppered a possible agreement at Camp David in July, 2000.

How to explain Mr. Bush's determination to enter this minefield? Some see it as a prelude to an attack on Iraq, but there are other strategic interests that probably come first. And I don't mean Israel.

The prospect of a third energy crisis -- and recession -- concentrates presidential minds wonderfully. While the Arab street did not calm down after last week's speech, oil prices did. And while Saddam Hussein may be doing his best to ratchet prices back up again -- withholding his production from export -- Saudi Arabia says it holds the solution to it all in its hands.

To Washington, the Saudi peace plan, first put forward at the recent Arab summit, may be the means to bridging the gap between Israel and the Palestinians. More importantly, it may be the price the United States must pay for its oil, and for an end to Saddam.

But if Mr. Powell tries to resolve the Mideast conflict first -- as the Arab League demands -- this Vietnam vet will soon discover the true meaning of "quagmire." He cannot count on moderate Arab states to pressure Mr. Arafat -- they are threatened by their own instability. And he will not find Mr. Sharon amenable to change -- 18 months of violence have seen to that.

As for Mr. Arafat, "trapped" in his Ramallah bunker, don't count on his support for even the limited goal of a ceasefire. Mr. Arafat believes violence is working -- and he may be right.

In fact, though loath to encourage the view that "resistance" tactics work, Washington has already signalled the Palestinians that a freeze of Israeli settlements would follow shortly after a ceasefire. Such a development could well bring about the fall of Mr. Sharon's government, a consummation devoutly wished by Palestinians if they are to secure another U.S. blandishment -- an independent Palestinian state.

Mr. Zinni came close to realizing a ceasefire earlier this month, but Mr. Arafat held out for a "political horizon" -- meaning up-front Israeli concessions. Neither a promise to meet with Vice-President Dick Cheney nor a trip to the Arab League summit in Beirut could do the trick. Nor, it seems, did U.S. pressure on Mr. Sharon to pull back his forces from Palestinian cities, and drop the demand for seven days of calm before sitting down to talk.

Mr. Arafat's response, in Israeli eyes, was the Passover massacre -- perpetrated by a suicide bomber he had just released from prison. It's not surprising that Mr. Sharon has been reluctant to end military operations that have stopped such attacks on Israelis.

Mr. Powell, and even Mr. Sharon's fiercest critics, understand that the suicide bombings will intensify once the incursion ends.—note: many posters appear not realize this—That's why Israel will hold out for Mr. Arafat's agreement to an "immediate" ceasefire, apprehension of suspected terrorists and seizure of illegal weapons, as Mr. Bush demanded last week.

Israelis know they're in a war -- an asymmetric one, to be sure, but not a popular uprising like the 1987 intifada, either. While they don't know how much terrorist infrastructure their soldiers have uprooted, they know that several suicide attacks have been thwarted.

Mostly, they're relieved to resume some semblance of normal life on their side of the Green Line.

If Mr. Powell fails to secure a ceasefire, and the suicide bombings resume, the Jewish state will eventually adopt the logic of critics who morally equate all civilian deaths. The situation is ripe for escalation, and even a regional conflict.

Norman Spector was Canadian ambassador to Israel and Canada's first representative to the Palestinian Authority

Here is my original argument:

I'm not suggesting that the Israelis sit on their hands now that Palestinian fanatics have resorted to terrorism. What I am pointing out, is that Israel—particularly under Sharon, just look at the degree to which violence increased since his inception—bares considerable responsibility for the present situation.

I elaborated by creating an anology around a school-yard bully, and the victim who goes on a murderous rampage. I do not condone murderous rampage.

Furthermore,

I am not:

"...deluding [my]self [into] think[ing] the Israeli army is using this war on Palestinian terrorism as an excuse to murder innocent Palestinians. "

I do not:

"...think that America's war on terrorism was[sic] just a big elaborate excuse to go shoot up some poor innocent Afghanis."

I am not:

"...creating illusions in [my] mind and inventing a reality based on those illusions."

I NEVER 'ASSUMED' IT IS ISRAEL'S GOAL TO KILL PALESTIANS.

I have no such delusions.

If you wish to debate me, do not fabricate fictitious opinions on my behalf.

Additional points WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO WITH MY DISCUSSION WITH NED:

Who gives a shit? The fact that Israel fought against more countries than just the rag-tag Palestinian "army" makes those efforts to defend their own country LESS VALID?

Context please. I was pointing out the wars were not fought against Palestinians—who are the subject at hand. If one wishes to debate Arab-Israeli issues, one may cite the wars. If one wishes to debate Israeli-Palestinian issues, one should be more specific than "5 wars" if one chooses to cite the wars in an attempt to validate Israel's relationship with the Palestinians. The issue is not validity, however, but context.

The Israeli army has captured huge numbers of known terrorists and confiscated, literally, an arena full of illegal weapons. They didn't just let the hogs of hell out on the streets to fire on civilians. The people in the death count are listed as civilians because that's what they are; they're civilians armed with weapons with the intent to murder people.

Your bias defence of the Israeli army does little to validate your opinion. In addition, I made no such descriptions or claims—as to the ones you appear to be refuting.

Their goal is to prevent Palestinian terrorism from taking their own people's lives.

No shit.

In 1948, the UN offered to partition the land, the Jews accepted, the Palestinians refused, the entire Arab world attacked, the entire Arab world lost.

Of course. It wasn't in the Palestinians best interests. The Arabs weren't too keen on the Jews for obvious reasons—they wanted the land to themselves.

Then, somehow feeling they still had the right to the land, the Arabs continued to attack Israel over and over again, losing every single time, yet still not getting the picture.

If the empire cut you chunk of Africa, and the natives got restless after you took over, only to lose in every attempt to usurp you, I suppose that would give you the right to that land? To re-name it. To re-settle the locals in jurisdictions of your choosing—at the bequest of the empire.

I find it bizarre that you would think the Palestinians balmy for believing they've a right to the land.

Like it or not, every country in the world was attained by conquest.

That's piss-poor justification. Invalid.

That's how the world works.

Which doesn't make it right. Invalid.

Germany occupied France in WWII because they were invading another country, one that they did not have the right to. Israel, all of Israel, belongs to the ISRAELIS.

This very a poor argument. F.

The Arab inhabitants have just as much right to live there as the Jewish inhabitants do, and they're welcome, as long as they don't murder people (which, unfortunately, MANY of them do)

How open minded. One could say Jews have a right to live in Palestine, so long as they don't try turning it into Israel.

But this not the argument at hand. This a justification for the presence of Israel. the argument at hand is:

"What I am pointing out is that Israel—particularly under Sharon, just look at the degree to which violence increased since his inception—bares considerable responsibility for the present situation."

WHY are the people from A-town blowing pizza parlours to bits? Your example IS an oversimplification(and A and B towns are mixed).

This is not a justification. It is a recognition of responsibility. The people in A town(Palestine) believe the people in B town(Israel) are occupying their land.

Disagreements like this are what wars are for. The Israelis and the Palestinians/Arabs have had plenty of them. Israel won them all, but the Palestinians won't give up.

Indeed they have.

You can yap all you want about how it's not fair that it's only the winners of the wars that get to make the rules, but THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

Usually, yes. The winners make the rules. I do not have accept those rules or agree with them. The rules are not inherently correct, morally or otherwise.

"Doesn't make it right" is a second-grade retort. This is the real world, and fortunately or unfortunately, that is the system.

This what is known as an "either/or" fallacy: Either you accept that this the real world, and the winners of make the rules, and that Israel is totally correct. Or you are wrong. Just because something is, does not make it correct.

Do not expect me to play "mindless stooge," and assert that this issue is no more debatable than the number of fairies in light-bulb. Simply because you have some 'correct' system that 'is'.

Serbia won in the Balkans and decided to resettle Albanian areas. Chaos ensued. By your logic, we should have been supporting Milosivich's resettlement[note: I'm not comparing Serbia and Israel on humanitarian levels, merely the situation, as it pertains to Adam's argument.].

Terrorism is never a justifiable means, no matter what the end. Defending yourself by targeting terrorists and stripping them of their weaponry IS a justifiable means.

Look, the land of Palestine was never stolen out of the hands of the Palestinians. It was a British Mandate, and the British had the right to do with it whatever they wanted.

There are many who would find that a deplorable and racist validation of Imperialism. I'm one of them. I'll chalk it up to poorly thought-out argument.

After WWII, they decided to give it to the Jewish holocaust survivors to be a Jewish homeland.

Yes, they did.

Aside from unconfirmable biblical claims, the Arab inhabitants were basically squatters.

Squatters and unconfirmed Biblical claims indeed. It's this sort of argument which drags things into the gutter.

The UN and the British made a decision, and the Jews were able to defend that decision for 50+ years, and build a prosperous nation out of it. The Arabs[note: he means Palestinians] were always welcome to live there, they could even have had their own country, free from British control or Jewish interference. But they didn't want that.

I do not deny this. It is, however, redundant to the issue of Israeli responsibility. It does outline one of the many short-sighted decisions made by Palestinians.

They wanted it all for themselves, and they lost[wars to get it back].

The Palestinian leadership wanted Israel out, no doubt. Arab nations certainly had no use for Israel. The Palestinians and Arabs, together and apart, did lose every battle they fought against the superior Israeli forces.

I feel that statement does, however, infer an unfair presumption that ALL Palestinians wanted Israel out.

And THEN, at Camp David a couple years ago, Israel offered them 98% of what they were asking for, and they STILL refused it!

Arafat did. And many supported him. I am not apologizing for daft Palestinian descisions.

They haven't learned a thing. Seems like the Palestinians deserve just as much, if not more, of the responsibility for their plight as the Israelis supposedly do.

Well, that's what I've been arguing all along. I'm just pointing out the responsibility Israel holds is significant.

remember:

What I am pointing out, is that Israel—particularly under Sharon, just look at the degree to which violence increased since his inception—bares considerable responsibility for the present situation.

Let's examine the question:

Sharon is a war hawk, Arafat is a terrorist.

This is the premise I presumed the question was based on. If it is not, I retract.

If you are the Israeli government what do you do? If you are the Palestinian people what do you do?

My response to this question was a frustrated observation of what seems to be occurring in the region. Arabs and Jews are killing each other. This nowhere near a flat-out condmenation of the Israeli army, nor a reflection of what I percieve their motivations—undoubtedly to route terrorists, and achieve stability for Israel—are.

Pardon my bad grammar. I'm short on time, and have been a bit hasty. Some of those sentences sound clunky. If you're unclear on any of them, quote the sentence, and ask me to clarify.

No need to be terse or dismissive. State your peace and begone. I maintain that Israel, to some extent, is as responsible for the current fiasco as Arafat and the Palestinians. I've attempted to explain the logic behind the stance which I've taken, and approach the subject without condemming or justifying either side.

I do not see the responsibility in current Israeli actions, rather, in the past handling of things Palestinian; an accumulation of percieved—in the eyes of Palestinians and, to some extent, others in the developed world—injustices which have inspired the current intifada. I offer no justifications for Palestian terrorism. I only offer a recognition that the middle-east is caught in a vicious cycle of feedback, in which the hatred of one side is amplified by the actions of another.