Yes, its going to get nastier before it gets better.

This "disgruntled" miner was both poor and brown, as most suicide bombers up till now have been. Therefore, I can assure you that no condemnation of this vile tactic will be forthcoming any time soon.

On the other hand, those doling out targeted assassinations, meant to minimize casualties, and to eliminate the purveyors of said foregoing vile tactic, are of a more white and rich persuasion. They will therefore be roundly condemned as "nazis", and "war criminals" by the highest bodies of the U.N.

The Children of Yasser Arafat and Sheik Hassin:

WARNING: Graphic images

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12803

croissant,

yeah I saw those. Real "heroes".

Let me preface by saying that this incident is surely regrettable and worthy of concern.

However, I'm hesitant to connect this directly to organized planned terrorist suicide-bombings unless the bomber is part of a particular group with demands and aims. It's the organization making an army from the disgruntled that is a much larger-scale problem.

The disgruntled loner who acts out violently may take some methodological cues from terrorist suicide bombers. They may share the sense of alienation that causes them to act out aggressively against what they perceive as a system that has left them powerless, discarded, unappreciated, etc .

I doubt that EU or UN condemnation of suicide bombers is going to have any effect on the incidence of disgruntled loner violence. In these cases, the acts are a childish way to give up but also get the last word, not part of a collective fantasy of giving oneself up for some misconceived greater good.

So in a sense you are right to make this connection. But I think we should notice that the problem of the disgruntled and potentially violent loner is a lower level problem. We are increasingly finding these individuals in disparate cultures. And while they are worthy of concern, ultimately they represent a far greater danger when they are recruited to be footsoldiers in some phony crusade trumped up by a charismatic power-hungry hater, whether it be Jim Jones, or Charles Manson, or Osama Bin Laden.

Miguel Centellas has more here. He lives in Bolivia.

One of the problems with the War on Terror is that we cannot defeat terror as long as some accept terrorist attacks as a valid means of change. If Terror attacks generates any support or results, they will become a standard for disaffected groups. You see this a lot when it comes to the Palestine / Israel conflict. “But the Palestinian has no other options....”

When you accept Terrorism as a legitimate means to change minds or influence governments, you will only see more of it. At that point, any cause that feels strongly enough will decide that Terror is an option. Think of it. The Unibomber was basically a Terrorist – he was “accepted” because some felt sympathy for his cause. The guys bombing abortion clinics are basically terrorists but some feel sympathy for his cause. Until all condemn terrorist tactics and any cause that uses them, any sufficiently radical group will test the waters by an act of terrorism. It may start off with property destruction like Eco-terrorists, or it may start off at the top like this. If you want to stop the tactic of terror, everyone, no matter how they feel about the cause, must drop the “but’s” and when a Terrorist act is committed say, “That’s it, I will never support you again.”

Randy,

Miguel Centalles, whom you linked, wrote: "Picachuri's death has inspired other miners to take similar action — more than 2,000 are now marching on La Paz, arriving later today. The miners claim that they will "take individual or collective actions of sacrifice."

Um. It can't possibly be as bad as that sounds. 2,000 terrorists aren't marching on La Paz.

Do you know what is meant by "actions of sacrifice"? I know what that means in the Middle East, but Bolivia isn't Gaza.

While agreeing that this incident should be condemned, I would rather not connect it with the more general trend of fanatical religious-political based suicide bombing. This lone Bolivian is probably just a psychiatric case. We do not (yet) have Bolivian political movements with broad popular support encouraging suicide bombings and mass slaughter of civilians of some hated other group (Jews, Americans, infidels) as a religious or political duty to get pension benefits for miners. We do not have European politicians and intellectuals actively supporting them and calling for their targets to grant miners their pension benefits and stop the cycle of violence. We do not have elitist British media outlets calling them freedom fighters, the resistance, etc. and "understanding" their blowing up bystanders for the sake of their retirement benefits.

When I hear Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn say that Bolivian miners are blowing themselves to get retirement benefits and killing legitimate (or understandable) collaborators because of U.S. imperialism, Chiquita bananas or the invasion of Iraq, I will start to worry.

Sure Rick, but the remaining problem is that the terrorists will still believe their actions are their only legitimate or their best form of recourse.

I agree that an increase in condemnation from any groups, whoever they are, that may have once supported terrorism as a legitimate means of recourse is a good idea. But most likely it will serve simply to sharpen the battle lines.

It's unlikely that this alone will change their minds. We're not going to defeat terrorists simply by getting more people to oppose their approach, but by either de-programming, jailing, or killing them.

It might be a problem that terrorism is recognized by some as a legitimate means of recourse. But the bigger problem is that it has sometimes proven to be an EFFECTIVE means of recourse. And one reason why this is so is because it can turn a political issue from a battle over the merits of a cause into a battle of the wills of the opposing parties. I think that THIS is terrorism's real strength, not that some fringe thinkers may think it's legitimate. Of course, when you consider the transformative dynamic from merit to will, its attractiveness to any fringe is obvious.

Well,

Other than reading June Nash's book We Eat the Mines and the Mines Eat Us, my knowledge of Bolivia (compared to other LatAm countries) is pretty weak.

Miguel said this in the comment section of his post on the subject yesterday:

No, there's no real history of suicide bombers in Bolivia. There have been, however, quite a few hostage situations. I remember four years ago, while I was in Bolivia, some similar types (cobistas) took over the Superintendencia de Bancos & put dynamite on their hostages, threatening to blow them up.

The use of dynamite in Bolivian protests is, however, far too prevalent. Usually, it's small sticks. But they do injure people (often the protesters themselves, who then demand the government pay for their medical care & future re-compsenation). Last Wednesday, cobistas fired dynamite into office buildings on the Prado, injuring a few people.

I hope, after this, the government takes steps to enfore the laws that make using dynamite in such ways illegal. I doubt the poor chap was really going to blow himself up, it was probably just a threat (that's also fairly common). But the dynamite went off, and he died.

Everything I have read has shown that most suicide bombers have loaded themselves up with devices like nails and other things to make instant shrapnel, or using car bombs heavily packed with explosives or have gotten themselves in enclosed areas with large groups of people (e.g. buses) and that doesn't appear to be the case here. Dynamite can be deadly, but compared to what is used in Israel and the West Bank, Iraq, etc. it seems relatively puny. I wouldn't read too much into this.

"The disgruntled miner demanding early retirement benefits" seems to have gotten his wish.

I guess blowing yourself up is one way of doing it.

Gabriel: We do not (yet) have Bolivian political movements with broad popular support encouraging suicide bombings

No, we don't. But it didn't start that way in the West Bank, either. It began as a fringe phenomenon and was slowly mainstreamed.

Now, I doubt very much that Bolivia will ever look anything like Gaza. What I'm really concerned about is other Muslim groups adopting the practice. What's worrisome about the Bolivian case is that if even a miniscule number of Bolivians can be convinced this is a good idea, it will be all that much easier for non-Palestinian Muslims to get that message.

We've seen suicide bombings arise very recently in Russia, Uzbekistan, Morocco, and Tunisia, places that never, to my knowledge, had this problem before. This isn't happening in a vaccuum for no reason.

>>We shouldn?t be too surprised to see the Palestinian hate machine being replicated and copied.

Exactly. But isn't that what the Hard Left has always been about? Destruction of the individual self for a mystical goal of "social justice" and the overthrow of the racist, capitalist West?

We shouldn't be surprised that the Hard Left celebrates an action (suicide bombings) which is literally an embodiment of the Hard Left's teachings.

And we shouldn't be surprised that meme is spread quickly, as the Left has tremendous influence via memetic conduits (universites, popular culture, etc).

Next up, a white Leftist middle-class Rachel Corrie blows themselves up. You heard it here first. How long will democracy survive when that happens?

The question is if this virus is enough to destroy the West, or will the Hard Left and their Islamic allies suicide themselves out of existance first.

"Until the rest of the world, starting with - at the very least – the EU and the UN, finally brings itself to properly damn suicide-bombing as the wicked barbaric death cult that it is, expect the ramp-up to increase."

And how exactly would world condemnation of suicide bombers prevent a ramp-up of it as a tactic? I don't understand the logic.

I also don't think this Bolivian instance constitutes a trend.

Stu: And how exactly would world condemnation of suicide bombers prevent a ramp-up of it as a tactic? I don't understand the logic.

Suicide-bombing is both excused and rewarded. If you reward behavior, you should logically expect to see more of it.

I'm not a parent, but I do understand that this is one of those things that parents need to learn. And most of them do.

Stu: I also don't think this Bolivian instance constitutes a trend.

By itself, no. But we're also seeing it, for the first time, in many other countries. (Russia, Tunisia, Iraq, Morocco, Uzbekistan.) And that is a trend.

Do you have another explanation for why that tactic in particular is on the rise in brand-new places? I could be wrong. I'm open to other suggestions.

Michael: "Suicide-bombing is both excused and rewarded. If you reward behavior, you should logically expect to see more of it."

After the bombing, the perp is usually dead. Suicide bombers can be neither punished or rewarded. I have no objection to suicide bombings being condemned, but I belive that most groups, including several Palestinians ones, have done just that. I doubt that this kind of condemnation will do anything. I mean, how's the thinking process going to go? "Jeez, I really feel like strapping a bomb to myself and charging that group at the bus stop. But the UN says they don't like it. Damn them!"

I don't think so.

As for the trend thing, anyone suicidal enough or fanatical enough who has access to explosives and the knowledge to use them (like a suicidal miner) has always been able to do this, all the way back to WWII, where Japanese charged tanks with satchel charges, manned torpedos rammed their targets, kamikaze pilots crashed into ships, and those lunatics flying the "cherry blossom" missiles at Okinawa blew themselves and their targets up at something like 400 mph.

It's not new.

Nobody really wants to admit this is a trend, because to do so means we'd have to rethink how we stand on the palestinians. We tolerate them (the palestinians) their suicide bombers because it's aimed at the Israelis; and after all, "they were driven to it" by the occupation. Those poor guys, oppressed teenagers. As long as it's only the Israelis having to deal with it, we don't have to call it terrorism. Of course, nobody goes on the record as saying they support it per se, but neither do they go on the record to condemn it. Even the U.N., when asked to do so, refused; so their anti-Israel resolution had to be tabled.

How can we be concerned about suicide bombers in Bolivia when we don't give a rat's ass about the same scourge in Israel? So let's pretent this isn't catching on, even though it is, and continue to minimize it, poo poo it, and sagely tell the hysterical (conservatives) that the threat of terrorism is overstated.

To admit a trend, as shown by Michael, means we'd have to go back and reevaluate how and why we've rewarded the palestinians their vile murder; how we've turned a blind eye to the horror inflicted on the Israeli people, how our left-leaning responsible media is compelled to use scare quotes to minimize terrorism and basically give a pass to those engaged in it.

I have no doubt in my the left-leaning social justice types will reward that miner for his vile act, and thereby encourage more of it. That's what the Left does, it enables and rewards the absolute WORST in human nature, all in the name of pity and justice. Mark my words, that miner was not the last Bolivian to blow himself up.

End of rant.

After the bombing, the perp is usually dead. Suicide bombers can be neither punished or rewarded.

You're being simple-minded, and you're doing it intentionally. What's your agenda dude? Seriously, what's your agenda?

The perp is dead so he can't be rewarded??? What kind of numbskullish reasoning is that? It's numbskullish because it completely ignores the example the dead perp just set for all his buddies with the same beef. Is that a tough one for you to understand?

Unbelievable.

Last summer I wrote a TCS article called The Globalization of Gaza. I saw this coming. So let's just say I'm not surprised.

Michael, it just dawned on me.

I know exactly when the UN will draft a resolution condemning the use of children as suicide bombers !

Can you guess it ?

It will happen when the first Israeli child suicide bomber hits the news.

Until that day, the UN will pass many more resolutions condemning the use of advanced missiles to target vehicles containing only Hamas members.

For the record Michael, you called it. One more incident like this in Latin America and it's official.

While I agree that the spread of suicide bombing is both predictable and tragic, Michael, your conclusion about the need for "the rest of the world" to "properly damn" suicide bombing makes me scratch my head.

What relevant groups don't decry suicide-bombing, beyond the particular groups who are already using the tactic to bring attention to their cause?

Nobody involved in a fanatical movement of this sort gives a rat's ass about what the UN thinks. They care about (a) killing "the enemy" however loosely defined, (b) drawing media attention to their cause, and © becoming a martyr, complete with earthly adulation from their equally fanatical peers and possibly celestial rewards as well.

The bigger picture seems to be the utter foolishness of using the sledgehammer of "war" as we currently think of it to eliminate the hornet's nest of modern terrorism. Swinging the hammer may actually kill large numbers of the hornets and smash their home base, but ultimately it spreads the problem and enrages the remaining hornets.

That's about as far as the metaphor goes, but isn't the futility of engaging in a war against a tactic like suicide bombing or a concept like terrorism pretty obvious? Of course the ramp-up will increase as long as the root causes of the terrorism are not addressed. That doesn't mean capitulation or appeasement; it means acknowledging that there are issues, legitimate and otherwise, which inflame people to an extent that they are willing to engage in terrorism, and it means doing the hard work of dealing with those issues in a way that, over the long haul, removes the motivation that drives people to blow themselves up for a cause.

BK,

I basically agree with you. Its almost the same rant as David. If we let one terrorist group gain legitimacy, others will try. When a group like Hamas or PLO or IRA or the Basque group can get funding while participating in terrorism, other groups will see it as a way to draw attention to themselves. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. Both left and right have to abandon any organization that has any hand in this. Any cause that resorts to terrorism is automatically suspect. The end does not justify the means.

When a splinter organization of a group commits a terrorist act, we make it clear that the main group has to turn them in or will be treated as a terrorist organization. I don't care how good your cause is - killing innocents means you are closed down. All funding frozen, leaders under investigation, wire taps, etc. Once you have a terrorist act on your record its RICO time. You have to show that your organization is clean. If you have a "spokesman" who decries the tactics but seems to be in contact with the perps, he is a legitmate RICO target.

I know this is drastic from a civil liberties perspective but making terrorism a legimate tactics

Crockmeister: Of course the ramp-up will increase as long as the root causes of the terrorism are not addressed.

What do you think the root cause of Palestinian terrorism is? I think your entire argument hinges on how you answer this question.

crockmeister:
That doesn't mean capitulation or appeasement; it means acknowledging that there are issues, legitimate and otherwise, which inflame people to an extent that they are willing to engage in terrorism, and it means doing the hard work of dealing with those issues in a way that, over the long haul, removes the motivation that drives people to blow themselves up for a cause.

I also agree in addressing the root causes. And the root cause is fundamentalist Islam and the concept of jihad being taught to children.

If every sheikh and imam in the Arab states would preach for tolerance and equality rather than expansion, jihad and terrorism, you hit the root cause of terrorism on the head.

Also, whilst war is not a quick fix to terrorism, if we totally rule out the use of force, then there is NO disincentive for the terrorists to continue.

Appeasement has been tried by Israel over the last 30 years, it always has been perceived as a sign of weakness.

What relevant groups don't decry suicide-bombing, beyond the particular groups who are already using the tactic to bring attention to their cause?

How about the U.N.? Or how about most of the Left which justifies this tactic as necessary for the "struggle" because the Israelis have F-16s?

Of course, the Israelis aren't allowed to USE their F-16s and artillery and their tanks.

You say nobody cares what the U.N. thinks? Wrong. How much money do you the U.N. and the E.U. could continue to funnel to the terror enabling paleos if they go on the record and condemn suicide bombing? It's a question of legitimacy. The U.N. has to keep the paleos legit, and to condemn their vile specialty would place into question their pet project the paleostinians.

The U.N. won't condemn it, because they're sugar daddies to terrorism, and they must keep up appearance. It's only jews anyway. That's why the Israelis consider the U.N. to be such a BIG JOKE.

god my grammar sucks when I'm pissed. apologies.

Wow. Smorgasboard.

MJT: The root cause of Palestinian terrorism, near as I can tell (and I readily admit that I'm no expert) is hatred of Israel. That hatred ensues from a continuum of perceived grievances, ranging from the very existence of a Jewish state to Israeli brutality against Palestinian civlians to the soul-crushing despair universal to people who have been taught that hate, rather than hope, is at the core of their existence.

Jono: I agree with you, and I didn't mean to imply that we should rule out the use of force in combating terrorism. We just shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we are solving the problem.

David: You are making the mistake of equating the suicide bombers to the whole of the Palestinian population. I don't think the U.N. or the EU can legitimately cut off the Palestinian people as a whole just because some of their numbers are engaged in terrorism. The U.S. goes to great lengths to differentiate between the Saddam holdouts and others currently spilling blood in Iraq and the majority of Iraqi citizens that we are told support our presence there. Is the same not true of people who share a border with Israel?

This is a good thread, and I will gladly resume participation later this evening, but for now I have to hit the road. Peace.

"the grievances, both real and imagined, of mass-murdering Palestinian death squads are the world’s cause du jour."

How is it possible to fit so much blindness and ignorance in one sentence?

First, the obvious point. The grievances are real, and of a nature that not one person reading this blog would put up with for one second if they were in such a position.

Secondly. The core genius of the American political system rests on the establishment of a certain formula for political expression. No government is legitimate without the consent of the governed. All people have rights to speak their mind, and seek redress for their grievances. And the government is designed to make possible the expression of those grievances.
The Palestinians are ruled by others. Have been for 37 years. None of you would abide that for one second, let alone 37 years. They do not consent to this governance. They have no right to seek redress for their grievances (except perhaps, on bended knee).
Were such a situation to exist here, I and everyone here would be a fighter.
Most of us would not choose (I suspect) to target innocent children etc., but I guarantee you that there would be some of our fellow citizens who would take the attitude that the struggle for our freedom and rights takes precedence over the moral codes of settled communities. I suspect that few who read this blog lose much sleep thinking about the millions of innocents that we killed in Dresden, Tokyo, Hisroshima, NAgasaki, Vietnam. That, apparently was justified, because it was done in furtherance of our political goals.......

I am erecting a bar - let me clear which side I am on. I denounce the Palestinian terrorists, just like I denouced the killing of millions of Vietnamese by the armed forces of the United States. And I remain deeply uncomfortable with the use of the atomic bomb.

But I also recognize that the legitimacy of stuggles are not defined by the morality of their most aggressive proponents. Every society has its warriors, and amongst them, there are always some truly amoral, or immoral warriors. And most societies will make full use of those "talents" if their national security is on the line. Us included.

Finally of course - to speak to an American audience and to speak of the Palestinians as a "cause du jour" is absurd. To see the overwhelming mass of Americans completely falling in line behind the idea that Israel is totally in the right, and can take billions of our dollars to continue their encroachment on arab lands, with not a single soul in the political mainstream offering a dissenting view - and to effectivly call that situation an expression of sympathy for the Pals, is ludicrous.

The Palestinians have the same rights as we do. Remember, it is our national belief that rights to freedom and self-governance are inherint - endowments from the "creator". They have a right to live in freedom, with a government of their choosing. Until they have that, they have a totally legitimate cause - at least according to Jeffersonian principles.

If y'all want to denounce the methods of some of them, I would gladly join you. So long as you stand up for our principles and make it clear that their inalienable rights must be respected. The occupation must end. The settlements must go.
Build the wall if you feel it necessary - on the green line, not in Palestine.

I think it's a shame when rage and despair against what is obviously a terrible act has to devolve into batting practice on liberal straw men.

I think crockmeister is on target when he says few relevant groups outside of the terrorist groups themselves think terrorist suicide bombing is a morally defensible tactic. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find one or two that entertain this notion, but I doubt whether they are representative.

And he is definitely right that most or all current terrorist groups don't give a rat's ass what the UN or the EU think. Sure, the foolishness of far left intellectuals in thinking the Palestininans are somehow their brothers in the struggle is laughable. But terrorists just aren't suicide bombing any more or any less because of the views of some spoiled middleclass wannabe marxist blogging against the system from a spanish cafe between classes.

Any sort of feasible solution to terrorism is going to have to employ both carrot and stick in judicious measure. We're not going to be able to democratize the world solely at the barrel of a gun, and neither are we going to convert terrorists by writing them a check and telling them we feel their pain. It's going to take a long time, a lot of committment, and a variety of approaches.

And yup, one way or the other, the long-term success is going to rely in large part on effectively dealing with those root causes crockmeister mentioned. And I'll deny in advance the too often partisan-spouted conflation which equates understanding and addressing root causes with coddling, validating, and allowing the avoidance of taking responsibility. The point if we can't just sit next to the anthill and kill what comes out, if we really want to get rid of the ants.
Instead, whatever carrot/stick mixture we use, we gradually have to convince those who might otherwise join the terrorists that in return for taking responsibility for developing some semblance of a civil democratic culture, they will get an environment that provides some level of justice, security, predictability, opportunity, society, and basic civil rights.

You are making the mistake of equating the suicide bombers to the whole of the Palestinian population.

You are correct in the sense that I don't attempt to draw a clear distinction between the two--because there isn't one.

It's a very fuzzy line. Read this article. The boy is only 6 years old and he wants to be a suicide bomber when he's all growed up:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37814

And do I have to remind you of the 15-year old who was caught by the Israelis wearing a bomb belt? C'mon. Don't play dumb with me. This vile phenomena is a family affair with these people.

Are there so-called moderates? Perhaps. But they aren't players; that, or they're only pretend moderates. Do you think Arafat isn't a puppetmaster? You're naive if that's what you think. And the U.N. and the E.U. also play dumb, as if they don't know. And they keep paying him, like the sugar daddies they are.

Tano: The grievances are real, and of a nature that not one person reading this blog would put up with for one second if they were in such a position.

No, Tano.

Jews exist in Tel Aviv. That's the grievance. Israel is to be conquered, its people exterminated, and a Taliban state imposed on the ruins. Negotiation is treason. That is the Hamas agenda. Read their charter.

Stu: And how exactly would world condemnation of suicide bombers prevent a ramp-up of it as a tactic? I don't understand the logic.

Intellectual and journalistic condemnations of Israel give the Arab hatred of Jews a kind of legitimacy and the U.N. is one major entity which helps perpetuate it.

South Africa condemned anti-Semitism at the U.N. nongovernmental Conference against Racism held in Durban a few years ago. The only move that had any merit at the U.N. conference was the deletion of any clauses that opposed anti-Semitism - why bother condemning hatred of the Jewish people when the objective is to fan such hatred? Subsequently, France, Belgium and four other countries in Europe endorsed an U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution condoning “all available means, including armed struggle” to establish a Palestinian state.

Doesn't seem to be the kind of world condemnation that might deter terrorists exactly.

Tano,

This war began before the security fence, before the settlements, before 1967. The part where you say "we are all created equal" is true, but a platitude in this context. It's irrelevant. That part about them "living in freedom, with a government of their choosing," also a platitude. They've NEVER had a government of their own choosing. No Arab has. I suppose that's Israel's fault?

So spare us the sweet words. It's not reality. This is a war for the existence of a Jewish state, or it's annihilation. Period.

tano - you say I denounce the Palestinian terrorists, just like I denouced the killing of millions of Vietnamese by the armed forces of the United States. And I remain deeply uncomfortable with the use of the atomic bomb.

But I also recognize that the legitimacy of stuggles are not defined by the morality of their most aggressive proponents.

What is the goal of the Palestinian ‘struggle’? Hamas puts it into these words (from their Charter):

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

You say: The Palestinians have the same rights as we do. Remember, it is our national belief that rights to freedom and self-governance are inherint - endowments from the "creator".

If the Palestinians have their own way, they will have very few rights. Under Islamic law, women have fewer rights than American dogs. They plan to base their constitution on Islamic law. They don’t want inalienable rights. They want to oppress and kill anyone who does not share their beliefs. That's what Islamic law is all about.

That’s what their ‘struggle’ is all about.

Michael,

I think you take it a little bit too far. Tano and Crockmeister are right that it's a mistake to equate all of Palestinians with Hamas or what have you. But they should both face that David and Michael are not ESPECIALLY far off with such equations.

I think that potentially the mass of everyday Palestinans want no more or no less that the rest of us: justice, freedom, opportunity, security, predictability from day to day. But their situation is so deteriorated that fanatical haters like Hamas provide essential social services while continually educating and indoctrinating the people with the story of a glorious destiny in the afterlife as a substitute for the lack of hope in this one, which lack is caused by jews and the United States. Sad.

And lets face it-it's hard to deny that the pervasiveness and depth of anti-semitism across the middle east currently goes WELL beyond the goal of achieving a palestinian state in some rough accordance with 1948 boundaries. Even though Palestinians have a legitimate claim that they were disenfranchised, the extent to which Middle Eastern anti-semitism goes way beyond establishing a Palestinian state is easily demonstrable. None of which makes settlements defensible, at least in my opinion.

My feeling is that the total lack of trust on both sides in combination with the deep aqnd pervasive anti-semitism across the middle east makes any kind of resolution extraordinarily unlikely. I think the only thing that could conceivably lead to a Palestinian state would be the emergence of some type of Palestinian MLK type figure. But instead, we have Hamas leading the wretched remains of the Palestinians over the cliff. If this is the way things keep going, will Israel's story someday be that they had no choice but to exterminate them? History will look harshly on all the principal actors if it comes to that.

Tano,

We're not even on the same page here. That's a big reason why we're arguing.

You see the suicide bombers as sharing your ideals. They don't. You defend their cause, and only distance yourself from the methods. That is only because you don't understand what their cause is. (I agree with you that the Palestinians need their own state free of Israeli occupation and settlements.)

If Hamas shared your values, they would not be terrorists. Terrorism should be a litmus test for liberals. Anyone willing to engage in it leaves liberalism behind and joins something darker and more sinister.

bk: Tano and Crockmeister are right that it's a mistake to equate all of Palestinians with Hamas or what have you.

I am not equating them. The subject of this post is the suicide-bombers, not Joe Schmoe Palestinian.

I know very well there are Palestinians who are not and do not support terrorists. They are not the problem here. They are also powerless and living in fear.

Michael,
I'm pretty sure the subject of the post has evolved somewhat, as a discussion will.

Tano said: The grievances are real, and of a nature that not one person reading this blog would put up with for one second if they were in such a position.

I am pretty sure the grievances he referred to were the grievances of the palestinian people.

In Reply, you said No, Tano. Jews exist in Tel Aviv. That's the grievance. Israel is to be conquered, its people exterminated, and a Taliban state imposed on the ruins. Negotiation is treason. That is the Hamas agenda. Read their charter.

This sure sounded to me like you were equating any legitimate grievances the Palestinian people might have as a whole with the doctrine and agenda of Hamas. So you can see my confusion.

Is it your position that the Palestinian people as a whole have no legitimate grievance at having been disenfranchised, or that the Palestinian people should forfeit their rights to any such claim in the wake of years of terrorism against Israel? and I'm just asking, not trying to put any words in your mouth.

I ask because I think Tano made an important and legitimate point in trying to draw a distinction between the reprehensible horror of Palestinian suicide bombers and their ilk on the one hand, and the legitimate claims of the Palestinian people as a whole on the other. And then you dismissed it. Am I missing something?

bk,

Yes, you're missing something. When Tano defended what he said were legitimate grievances, he was arguing with this sentence of mine:

the grievances, both real and imagined, of mass-murdering Palestinian death squads are the world’s cause du jour.

I was referring very specifically to the suicide bombers. Tano's response:

How is it possible to fit so much blindness and ignorance in one sentence?

First, the obvious point. The grievances are real, and of a nature that not one person reading this blog would put up with for one second if they were in such a position.

So perhaps you can see where I'm coming from. He and I were not discussing Joe Schmoe Palestinian. We were discussing "murderous Palestinian death squads." And he defended them.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say suicide bombing is excused by most of the world. Tano's response is a typical one. Most of the world can't wait to say these genocidal killers have a point. They don't. They want to conquer Tel Aviv. They must be annihilated.

OK. Maybe. I'm pretty sure he tried very hard to draw a line between terrorists and the grievances of the Palestinian people, and that the only grievances of Hamas that he thinks are legitimate are those of the Palestinian people as a whole, not the grievances of the extremists.

But maybe you are right. Let's see what he says.

So do you think that the Palestinian people have any legitimate grievance or not? you expressed sympathy, but never addressed legitimacy?I keep stressing this because I think it's something that gets lost. I despise Palestinian terrorist suicide bombers. But I really feel for the wretched body of the palestinian people who have been disenfranchised, misled, and fed on hatred.

So I think it's worthwhile to call attention to the distinction, whether Tano was making it or I am making now, between the doctrines/grievances/etc as stated by Hamas, and the legitimate claims of the people they so poorly represent.

And this goes to those "root causes" you quizzed him about. My take is that one of the root causes of terrorism is the disenfranchisement and subsequent wretched poverty of the Palestinians which makes islamofascism such an easy sell. In a sense, it's a grotesquely extreme form of populism.

Of course, at this point, there's something of a poisoned well problem. I have my doubts that establishing a Palestinian state would lead to much diminishment of anti-semitism any time soon.

"You see the suicide bombers as sharing your ideals"

Michael,
I am going to take a deep breath here, and restrain myself from characterizing your words as they probably should be.

I seem to recall a pretty blatant statement on my part denouncing the terrorists. My argument is in support of the legitimate cause, and legitimate rights of the mass of the people.

I dont know if you have noticed this, but there is a general human tendency for people to support those who are fighting for their interests. In moments of crisis, people turn to their warriors, and tend to give them support. And tend not to ask too many sticky questions about the gory details. Because security tends to trump anything else.
Am I making myself clear? Even in this country, when a crisis arrives, all types of people find themselves, often surpringly, giving full-throated support to the warrior mentality, and all that it entails. Thank goodness that we dont have a warrior class in this country that advocates the deliberate murder of civilians - and is one that even makes a fair amount of effort to avoid accidental killings. But then again, we are not under occupation. We are not prisoners in our own country.

The great crisis now consuming our country is the murder of 3000 of our citizens. The Palestinians have lost how many of their citizens? Plus their homeland! And they live with that daily.

Let me be my old provacative self, and put it bluntly. If we Americans found ourselves, for one week, in the type of situation that the Palestinians have been living in for 37 years, there would emerge from amongst us a group of people who would take it to the occupiers with no mercy. And those of us, the more sensitive ones, might shield our eyes somewhat, but we would cheer any victory that followed.
And to continue with my bluntness, I hereby declare anyone who denies this, as a liar.

Michael writes further about the Palestinians:
"They are also powerless and living in fear."

Yes. You are complicit in their powerlessness, and it is you that they fear. And, like in any society, in so many situations, the brave and the courageous will often take it upon themselves to confront the thing that is bringing fear to their community. That is what we expect of the young and the strong and the brave. Instead of moving into the worlds of education, law, sciences - instead of confronting the fears of ignorance, or civil injustice or disease, the young, strong, courageous feel compelled to address the great force that is decimating their society. The occupiers, and their supporters. We would do the same in their place.

Hamas has emerged as the dominant voice in Palestine as a direct result of Mr. Sharon's policies. He has systematically destroyed the nascent institutions for political redress.

I recalled my own reactions when Sharon was elected. I, along with most people in the civilized world, had spent literally decades assuming that a man like Sharon could not rise to power in Israel. I will hold off saying more for now lest we get diverted. But I did see a potential silver lining - as did many observers. The old "Nixon in China" scenario. Maybe Sharon could be the one to make peace, since he was the one most resistant to it.
But I also recalled my second thought on the subject. If thats the formula that might work on the Israeli side, then maybe that is what must happen on the other side. So maybe in the end, it will be a peace worked out between a Sharon, and Hamas.

Excuse me for being the type of person who feels emotionally closer to the type of people, on both sides, who negotiated the Geneva accords

Tano,

Excuse me for being the type of person who feels emotionally closer to the type of people, on both sides, who negotiated the Geneva accords

You don't need any excuse for that. What I want you to do is stop making excuses for genocidal totalitarian fascists like Hamas.

Yes, the Palestinians have legitimate grievances. They need a state. And they DON'T need any more damn Israeli settlements.

And that's not what Hamas is about. Hamas is about genocide, and they were from the very beginning. They need to be annihilated. Period. No excuses. Period.

And, no, Tano, the Palestinians who want peace and democracy and an end to anti-Semitism are afraid of Arafat and Hamas, not me. They are killed in the streets as "collaborators." And they aren't killed by Americans or Israelis.

If we Americans found ourselves, for one week, in the type of situation that the Palestinians have been living in for 37 years, there would emerge from amongst us a group of people who would take it to the occupiers with no mercy.

Not like the Palestinians. The Palestinians are unique.

Many societies, maybe hundreds, have found themselves in the type of situation that the Palestinians have been living in. The people in Tibet, North Korea are living under grotesquely oppressive regimes. Throughout history, there are many societies that have been more oppressed than the Palestinians.

The current Intifada was planned immediately after Arafat rejected the Oslo peace plan. Most societies that have been oppressed haven’t worked so hard to bring it on themselves.

Palestinians are the inventors of modern terrorism. It’s their biggest (only?) export.

They pour out into the streets by the thousands to celebrate the deaths of children & families in suicide bombings. They hand out candies at these events. More than half of all Palestinians favor the use of continued attacks.

Most rebellions haven’t been as well financed by outside sources. The Israeli/Palestinian war is a war between Israel and its neighbors. Palestinians know that Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran want to fight this war to the last Palestinian. They seem to be going along with it for now.

Excuse me for feeling more sympathy for the Israelis and for anyone who has to suffer the vicious homicidal wrath of these poor, desperate/oppressed Palestinians.

I'm surprised nobody picked up on this yet:

tano - The Palestinians are ruled by others. Have been for 37 years. None of you would abide that for one second, let alone 37 years. They do not consent to this governance. They have no right to seek redress for their grievances (except perhaps, on bended knee).

Let's see now, 37 years takes us back to 1967. Before that, of course, Palestinians were a self-governing people, with their own state. Or am I missing something?

Tano: The Palestinians are ruled by others.

Yes. For one reason and one reason only. They keep trying to destroy the state of Israel. All they have to do to get peace and their own state is stop fighting.

If Israelis stops fighting, however, they will be massacred and their country will be destroyed.

Oh Micheal, please be real.
There are three or four times as many Palestinians who have been killed by Isreal as Israelis killed by terrorists. And they were not all, not even most of them, in the process of attacking Israelis. Their entire infrastructure has been purposely destroyed.
If you take away all legitimate means for political expression, then you are left with illegitimate means.

Just look at the efforts that we are making in Iraq to help the people begin to experience something like freedom and democracy. These are the people who loyally served in Saddams armies. They are the people who burned and looted Kuwait. Some of them are still shooting and bombing out people. And yet we are committed to parsing out the bad people, and helping the good people begin to build the infrastructure for free and democratic governance.
Israel has occupied Palestine for 37 years now. What have they done? WHat have they done to help the good people of Palestine to build a responsible government?
They have done nothing.
Worse than that, they have explicitly pursued an ideal of a "greater Israel" that amounts to stealing as much land as they can, justified only by the force of arms. And when forced to acceed to some form of self-governance by the Palestinians, some in Israel (Likud) have sought to systematically destroy that. And they have succeeded.
Palestinians are not unlike other people. You give them the opportunity to have legitimate avenues for redressing their grievances, for engaging in the political life of their country, then they will take them.

Hamas exists today becuase they fill a vacuum. A vacuum created, quite deliberatly, by Sharon and those of his ilk. With the support of many mindless Americans, who are so blinded by their own assumed self-righteousness, that they never bother to look to see what the real situation is.

I detest terroists. I dont want to see Hamas become, as it rapidly is becoming, the only alternative for political expression. At this point you cannot "crush" Hamas. Maybe you actually could crush the organization as it exists today, but you cannot crush the mentality or the tactics that it expresses. Crush the organization, and a new one will emerge. If you want to defeat the mentality and the tactics, the answer is actually quite simple. Help to provide an alternative. Demand the establishment of an alternative. Refuse to give a penny of treasure or an ounce of support to anyone who isnt focussed on providing an alternative. You think for one moment that anyone would feel proud of the suicide-death of their child if they sensed that there was an alternative? Any alternative?

Tano: There are three or four times as many Palestinians who have been killed by Isreal as Israelis killed by terrorists.

That's because Palestinians are bad at war. Not because they're right.

If you take away all legitimate means for political expression, then you are left with illegitimate means.

Blame Arafat for that, not Israel. He is their dictator, not they.

Israel has occupied Palestine for 37 years now. What have they done? WHat have they done to help the good people of Palestine to build a responsible government?

Nothing. And that is a black mark against Israel. They brought Arafat out of exile and imposed him as their ruler. That was the biggest mistake in Israel's history. But at least they admit it. The rest of the world still thinks it was a good idea for some reason.

they have explicitly pursued an ideal of a "greater Israel" that amounts to stealing as much land as they can, justified only by the force of arms.

Another black mark.

And when forced to acceed to some form of self-governance by the Palestinians, some in Israel (Likud) have sought to systematically destroy that.

Likud opposes Arafat. And they are right to do so. He's a fascist dictator. They knew it was a mistake to bring him in from the very beginning. Good for them.

Hamas exists today becuase they fill a vacuum. A vacuum created, quite deliberatly, by Sharon and those of his ilk.

Boy, do you have it backwards. Hamas was founded in the 1980s. Ariel Sharon was brought in to hit back when Arafat refused a two-state solution and sent Hamas into the streets of Tel Aviv.

I dont want to see Hamas become, as it rapidly is becoming, the only alternative for political expression.

How is Hamas becoming the only alternative?

"All they have to do to get peace and their own state is stop fighting. "

It truly blows my mind to think that any grown-up human being can be so utterly naive as to write a line like that.

Tano: It truly blows my mind to think that any grown-up human being can be so utterly naive as to write a line like that.

Argue with it then. Palestinians were already offered their own state. Even Ariel Sharon now agrees that they will get it. But not while they're killing Jews. No way.

Michael,
Just stop will ya? This is getting ludicrous. You are sort of a smart guy, but you cant run on empty. Please try to educate yourself on the situation as it really exists, rather than simply rely on the spin from one side.

"Blame Arafat for that, not Israel. He is their dictator, not they."

Dictator? Is this a joke? Arafat has been stripped of all power. He is rotting in a bombed out building. He has been made "irrelevant" by decree of Ariel Sharon. I guess Sharon really intended and preferred all along to deal with Hamas.

"They brought Arafat out of exile and imposed him as their ruler."

This is the most absurd statement of all. Arafat was the leader of the movement. He was elected by the people. Overwhelmingly. And he is also the Palestinian leader who led his movement to renonce their claims on Israel, and to accept the two state solution.

"Hamas was founded in the 1980s"
Yes Michael, it has been around. But it has not had the popularity it has today. It is not the existence of a group that matters (hey, the Klan still exists...), it is the amount of support that they manage to scrounge up.

"How is Hamas becoming the only alternative? "

I think that the fact that you pose that as a question indicates that you dont see any alternative either.
Democracy doesnt work. The Palestinians voted for someone, but SHaron says he is irrelevant, so what the hell is the point of choosing a leader. Concilliation and negotiation wont work. What has been the response of the West to the Geneva accords - an effort by the responsible people in Palestine, and the decent people in Israel, to work out a solution. Not saying that has to be the exact solution - but it is a big step.
Or maybe the Pals can turn a longing eye to the US - where our president has washed his hands of the matter, and given Sharon a green light?
Hey, I got an idea! Maybe they can all put on some hippie beads and have a demonstration. They can make all kind of cute papier-mache dolls to express their grievances. Would that elicit your sympathy?

And BTW. I dont know why you even bother with your little "black mark" lines. Its clearly just an offhand remark, to make it sound like you at least have the capacity for evenhandedness. It aint very convincing.

To the point of what would happen if the Pals stopped their struggle (I am not saying that they should, or need to continue targeting innocents).

There is a movement in Israel of people who want to incorporate all of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) into Israel. They claim it as part of the historical legacy - even more, as part of the gift of god to the Jews. It has been the explicit goal of the Likud to implement that plan - that is why Sharon has spent 30 years supporting and building the settlements. And why he is continuing even today. The only restrain, has been the violence, and all that flows from it. I know that is a pretty bleak view, but it is absolutely the truth. If there was no danger, and no resistance, then tell me - how many settlements would be started tomorrow? How many Israelis, living in a cramped apartment in TelAviv would leap at the chance to have a nice suburban spread in a settlement, subsidized by the government, living among all those friendly and peaceful palestinians, who are oh so eager to step aside and get out of the way of the chosen people of god?
Amongst those who can count, and who realize a demographic problem looming (Palestinians would outnumber Jews in a greater Israel within a decade or so) there is the option of evacuating all the Arabs to Jordan. You think that this is an idea that could be stopped if anyone thought it would go smoothly?

You think that we Americans would have stayed east of the Appalachians if only the nasty ol Injuns hadnt been so aggressive?

Tano: Please try to educate yourself on the situation as it really exists, rather than simply rely on the spin from one side.

Look, you gotta understand something about me. I was on the Palestinian side for years. I can tell you the day I switched sides. It wasn't September 11. I stuck with the Palestinians long after that, and I forgave them for cheering the attacks in the streets. I switched right after the Passover massacre. Specifically what triggered my switch was that the massacre co-incided with a pro-Palestinian rally in Portland. I went to that rally and was absolutely aghast at the pro-terror rhetoric I heard. I wasn't expecting it. I was absolutely shocked. I couldn't believe that the other people there weren't horrified by what had just happened. And let's just say it was a major reality check for me.

I am well versed in all the pro-Palestinian arguments. I made them myself for years.

I do still sympathize with them, and I really do wish them the best. Freedom, sovreignty, human rights, and all the rest of it.

Hey, I got an idea! Maybe they can all put on some hippie beads and have a demonstration. They can make all kind of cute papier-mache dolls to express their grievances. Would that elicit your sympathy?

Yes. It really really really would. I am not kidding. It would elicit the sympathy of Israelis, too.

I dont know why you even bother with your little "black mark" lines. Its clearly just an offhand remark, to make it sound like you at least have the capacity for evenhandedness. It aint very convincing.

Ah. But recently I argued those "black mark" lines quite passionately. I don't argue them that way any more, but I haven't talked myself out of them in the slightest. Sorry if that doesn't convince you.

You think that we Americans would have stayed east of the Appalachians if only the nasty ol Injuns hadnt been so aggressive?

Not a chance.

You're right about the settlers, Tano. I'm with you 100 percent. So are most Israelis these days. I don't know if you know that.

tano, you can't simply take a body count to decide which side in the conflict has the moral high ground.

But if numbers are the only thing that matter to you in deciding who you support, let me bring some to your attention:

• 70% of Israelis killed were noncombatants, as opposed to 33% of palestinians.

• 50% of all palestinian deaths were either combatants, or killed by their own people (i.e collaborators).

For every Israeli death, there has been a HUGE (roughly tenfold) number of those crippled, maimed, burnt, disabled and traumatised. Thats the nature of suicide bombings.

To see the anti-semitism of certain institutions (like the EU and UN), all you have to do is compare the response to Israel's killing of the wheelchair bound Sheikh Yassin, to their response when an Israeli civilian is put in a wheelchair (because Yassin gave the orders).

Back to suicide bombing as a tactic...
As I see it, the purpose of the war on terror is to avoid mushroom clouds going up in America, or epidemics being set off with biological weapons.
Having a reliable supply of suicide terrorists makes it far easier to deliver WMD to any location, just as AQ Khan's nuclear service made it far easier for terrorist states to get nuclear plans.
If we are serious about avoiding mushroom clouds in America, we have to severely deter any underground nuclear traffic, and any operation that mass-produces suicide terrorists.
I think we have been much too patient with the Palestinian Authority and its institutions of suicide recruitment; we'd be better off if Israel had eliminated them in 2002.

John: we'd be better off if Israel had eliminated them in 2002.

Not to mention the Palestinians would be better off without suicide bombers. They will benefit more than anyone else when that sickness finally ends. It hurts them more than it hurts anyone else. Really, it does.

Even though this discussion has gone far afield, I think that this article can clearly demonstrate that what happened in Bolivia had more to do with one man's despair and his own desire to end his life than anything else.

Michael,
Thanks for your responses, and for your general tone this time - which was probably better than mine.
Can't do much posting today,,,so a final thought.

Perhaps you, as someone who finds yourself in the middle of political fights, and who seems to have some understanding of the arguments on both sides, perhaps you could make a greater contribution by building, and putting forth, a more complete and well-rounded take on things, rather than taking the hard partisan line of one group on one issue, and the other side on another issue.
That, it seems to me, is the approach that is of the greatest need, an approach demanding great creativity and intellegence, and it reflects the only really valuable justification for political centrism.

Tano,

You are welcome to visit the centrist coalition blog anytime you want. Our goal is always a more complete and well-rounded take. A higher light to heat ratio, if you will.

You might find that since we try to stay away from flaming partisan rhetoric, it feels a little bit more sleepy than some other blogs. But trust me, it wears well.

Again, Michael, I apologize if this feels like poaching. I'm not suggesting there's anything at all wrong with your tone. Some of your commenters do seem to be visiting to get in some lefty batting practice, but sometime's that's kimmit's fault. :-)

I am surprised that noone has taken issue with this rhetorical question:
"WHat have they done to help the good people of Palestine to build a responsible government?"

Well, from 1967 to 2000 life expectancy increased significantly; universities were founded (none existed under Jordanian rule); literacy rates spiked; Israel attempted a building program to relieve conditions in the 'refugee camps' but was stopped by UN/Arab League objections. So one might say that Israel did more than Jordan ever did for the residents of the West Bank, or than Egypt ever did for the residents of Gaza, despite the fact that attacks into Israel from those territories continued throughout that period. Indeed, in 2000, before the commencement of the intifada, residents of the territories had one of, if not the, highest rankings among Arab states on the UN's HDI index. And there was significant autonomy (and no Israeli troop presence) in area A, the most populous area. Restrictions on travel between areas, and between Israel and the territories, varied in severity with attack tempo. I won't deny that the restrictions on movement interfered with the creation of a responsible government, but I won't ignore the fact that every withdrawal and/or loosening of said restrictions was followed by attacks. In some places, local governance progressed, though much of what good was created post-Oslo has been destroyed, and not entirely by or as a result of Israeli actions.

Another question I haven't seen addressed in this and other contexts (Hizbollah in Lebanon, for example). How and why did it fall to Hamas to provide welfare? Wasn't the PA receiving funds for that purpose? Why is it that from '93, Hamas found the funds and the means to deliver aid to the poor, schools, and medical care, while the legitimate authority could/ did not?

A final question, theoretical not practical. Is it a given than an eventual Palestine must be Judenrein?

Mark Steyn (sorry I can't find a link to the original) recently observed:
"I spent a short time on the West Bank earlier this spring. I would have spent longer, but to be honest it creeped me out, and I was happy to scram across the Allenby Bridge and on through Jordan to Iraq. Say what you like about the Sunni Triangle and RPG Alley, but I never once felt I was in a wholly diseased environment. On the West Bank, almost all the humdrum transactions of daily life take place in a culture that glorifies depravity: you walk down a street named after a suicide bomber to drop your child in a school that celebrates suicide-bombing and then pick up some groceries in a corner store whose walls are plastered with portraits of suicide bombers."

I find this description both mind-boggling and blood-curdling. Would this glorification of a 'tactic' have occurred if the tactic itself were declared counterproductive, and penalized, by the 'world community'? I think it is believed to be effective by its practitioners, and that it can be killed (as it must be) only by proving that premise false.

I was on the Palestinian side for years. I can tell you the day I switched sides... Specifically what triggered my switch was that the massacre co-incided with a pro-Palestinian rally in Portland.

"I used to believe that a was true, but then I saw who else believed that a was true, and I realized a was false."

MT, champion of guilt by association.

Did you know that John Ashcroft believes that it was a good idea to Invade Iraq? Did you know that John Ashcroft believes it's a good idea to keep children from learning anything about Birth Control and Safer Sex?

Quick! Agree or disagree with John Ashcroft about EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW!

Previously, MT could see the evils of the Kach (Listed by the US State Department as a terrorist group. Previously, MT knew that the Hilltop Youth were a foul foulness. Now that he knows that the Palestinians are wrong. Wrong wrongity wrong, because some random sign in some demonstration made him feel bad.

Actually, MT didn't/dosen't/won't know anything - he was a guilt by association leftist, and now he's a guilt by association rightist. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Hipocrite:

There are questions of degree, and of societal approval. See the quote above from Steyn. Note that Kach is a banned party in Israel, and that the Hilltop Youth are disaffected gangs, decried even by a majority of fundamentalist expansionists.

Every society and culture has its murderous extremists; successful ones deal with them as the destructive force they are. Which is, I venture to guess, the point of the original post.

Sorry, I guess I don't really understad. What percent of the population is allowed to support homicidial terrorists before that entire population loses the right to a redress of it's greviences?

What exactly has Israel done to reign in Kahane Niftar and the Hilltop Genociders? Certainly, they wouldn't mind if Syria started shooting missles at the Hilltop Cult Encampments, right? I mean, it's not like Israeli soldiers guard the Cult Encampments, right?

It's not like death-cultists of Kahane recruit ten year old kids to hand out songs comparing Rabin to Nazis, or make t-shirts that say "No Arabs, No Terrorism," Right?

It's not like they shoot down Innocent Palistinians on the road, or in caves while they pray, or stab them randomly, right?

It's not like they advocate the mass-genocide of all Arabs, right? Right? Right?

Hipocrite,

Wow. You write as if my entire view of the Israeli-Palestinian war is based on that one event I described above. What about everything else I've ever written on the subject?

I'm sorry. But I don't think the fact that I side with our democratic ally against dictators and terrorists makes me a "guilt by association rightist." Aren't I taking the side that liberals are supposed to be taking? Think about it, man. Come on. It's not that hard.

One can side with our Democratic ally and still remain aware of it's current glaring faults. That you gloss over the disgusing behavior of the "Settlers," and how the egg on the problems is sticking your head in the sand.

What makes you a guilt-by-association rightist is that you blame the 99.99+% of the palestinian population that are not suicide bombers for the tiny minority of those that are. What makes you a guilt-by-association rightist is that you blame the 99.99+% of people who believe that suicide bombing is wrong but the palestinians deserve a fair shake for the actions of the few who believe that suicide bombing is not wrong.

Also, it was you who wrote that what changed your mind was some demonstrator in Portland, not I. See, what changes my mind typically has nothing to do with what some advocate says, but rather the facts. Apparently, what changes your mind is not the facts of the matter, but the advocate you saw last.

Don't worry - it's acceptable on the Right to ignore the truth, slime and defend. Remember, Clarke has a "wierd" personal life, so you can disregard him, too.

What about everything else I've ever written on the subject?

I'm not so smart, or good with searching for stuff. Could you point me in the right direction to show me how your views go above and beyond "Kill Evil Palestinians?"

I really want to think better of you. I must have missed the posting you did on apportioning water rights, and that other time you talked about reigining in the Kahanists.

Hippocrite, I try not to be a gratutitous flamer, but...why are you being such a hard-on? It seems to me you are intentionally and repeatedly mischaracterizing what Michael has said. Could you be more holier than thou?

See, what changes my mind typically has nothing to do with what some advocate says, but rather the facts.

Oh boy, you're so much smarter than us! I guess the choice of Hamas to employ suicide bombing as a preferred tactic doesn't need to be incorporated as a satellite in the constellation of facts.

What exactly is so hard about recognizing the legitimacy of the palestinian people's goal of statehood but rejecting the methods employed by their extremists?

If you read the whole thread, you'll see that Michael has recognized the legitimate portion of the goals of the palestinian people AND condemned the settlements and other Israeli missteps. You are simply mistaken and oversimplifying in using Michael's offhand statement that he "switched sides" as a proxy for assuming that he rejects the idea that the Palestinians have a legitimate beef in having been disenfranchised.

For someone so sanctimonious and so smart, I think you could try a little harder and read a little closer before you unload your piety on us poor sinners.

Yeah, I know Michael, you can defend yourself.

Few outside hippie college towns give the proverbial rat’s *ss about a free Tibet.

Come now, Michael.

Few inside hippie college towns give the proverbial rat’s *ss about a free Tibet.

They just dig the bumperstickers since it makes them look like they "care." And looking like you care is all that matters. Otherwise they'd have to commit.

Hipocrite: One can side with our Democratic ally and still remain aware of it's current glaring faults.

I am.

That you gloss over the disgusing behavior of the "Settlers,"

I don't.

What makes you a guilt-by-association rightist is that you blame the 99.99+% of the palestinian population that are not suicide bombers for the tiny minority of those that are.

Polls repeatedly show a majority of Palestinians support the suicide bombers.

What makes you a guilt-by-association rightist is that you blame the 99.99+% of people who believe that suicide bombing is wrong but the palestinians deserve a fair shake for the actions of the few who believe that suicide bombing is not wrong.

You don't read very carefully. I do believe the Palestinians deserve a fair shake. Their own sovereign state, free from Israeli occupation and also free from home-grown terrorists and thugs.

Also, it was you who wrote that what changed your mind was some demonstrator in Portland, not I.

I told you the MOMENT I changed. It was my tipping point. The last straw. LOTS of other things went into that decision. One, the movement to the center of Ariel Sharon. Two, the ramp-up in terrorism. Three, increasing evidence that Arafat is behind the attacks. Also, just about everything else I've written on the subject lately.

And let me be more clear. I support a Palestinian state just as I always have. And I'm against terrorism, just as I always have been. The only thing, really, that changed is which of those two I prioritize. I put anti-terrorism in first place, and I used to put it in second place. Does that make any sense to you at all?

See, what changes my mind typically has nothing to do with what some advocate says, but rather the facts. Apparently, what changes your mind is not the facts of the matter, but the advocate you saw last.

See above.

I put anti-terrorism in first place, and I used to put it in second place. Does that make any sense to you at all?

Honestly? No. I don't see them in conflict at all. The terrorists don't want a two-state solution. All rational humans do. There's little reason why the US/UN shouldn't just beat both sides soundly until our imposed two state solution is implimented. We were on track to a perfectly fine solution, but some Kahanites got all cowboyed up and shot a prime minster, and then started invading the West Bank with promises of Arab Genocide. I know exactly who to blame for the kick off of the current problems, and that person is from Brooklyn.

A handful of US troops on the ground in Korea stoped China from pushing through. A handful of US troops on the ground in Jerusalem would do the same to Syria.

A couple of points:
David wrote why he equates suicide bombers with the larger Palestinian population: I don't attempt to draw a clear distinction between the two--because there isn't one.
It's a very fuzzy line. Read this article. The boy is only 6 years old and he wants to be a suicide bomber when he's all growed up ... And do I have to remind you of the 15-year old who was caught by the Israelis wearing a bomb belt? ... This vile phenomena is a family affair with these people.
Meanwhile, the NYT reports from Fallujah: Nearby, a boy no older than 10 ground his heel into a burned head. "Where is Bush?" the boy yelled. "Let him come here and see this!"

David, you can't possibly hold a 6-year-old responsible for what he has been taught by his elders, nor can you extrapolate his adulation to the larger population. Yes, suicide-bombers have support within the general Palestinian population, but that doesn't make them one and the same. People without hope will always glom on to whatever movement offers them a vehicle to lash out at their oppressors. Given a viable alternative, the support for suicide bombers would evaporate among most everyday Palestinians.
The larger point illustrated by David's examples and the little boy in Fallujah is that we may be winning some battles in Iraq and elsewhere, but we are losing the war. We can't "crush the opposition" with tanks and bombs and hope to eradicate the support for revenge killings and terrorism - not unless we are willing to engage in a level of eradication on a level unthinkable, I should hope, by anyone here. We in the west must figure out a way to make sure those little boys and others in their generation can dream of growing up to be firemen/policemen/doctors. If we can't do that, all the Apache helicopters, Humvees and Tomahawk missiles in the world will do us little good.

People without hope will always glom on to whatever movement offers them a vehicle to lash out at their oppressors.

Hope schmope. You know, we're done with the wimpy ideology-by-platitude of the Left. What the pals "hope" for is the end of the Jewish state. Got it? It's that simple.

you can't possibly hold a 6-year-old responsible for what he has been taught by his elders, nor can you extrapolate his adulation to the larger population.

The six year old was on his father's shoulders, dressed in cammo, holding a toy M-16 when he expressed his childhood aspiration. We know for a fact that there is a concerted effort to incite this kind of hatred in palestinian schools and mosques and official media. You don't want to believe it has an effect? Then you're living in a touchy feely liberal fantasy world.

Great, David. Just kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out, eh? The only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian?

Know what? I'm willing to bet there are a lot of Iraqis who wish for the end of America, too. So, I guess we should just nuke the whole damn place. No point in trying to craft some kind of "freedom" and "democracy" for whichever ones aren't future suicide bombers or fedayeen.

I'm not denying that there is "a concerted effort to incite this kind of hatred" in significant portions of the Palestinian population. So that makes that 6-year-old kid responsible, or worse, expendable to you? My point is not to suggest that any of this is easy, that if we all just join hands and pray real hard the two sides will see the light and all will be well. My point is that trying to find a military solution to a cultural/political problem may stem the tide temporarily. But making the dam higher doesn't stop the water from flowing down the mountain; eventually it's going to get through.

It's irresponsible to take the fanatical teachings of Hamas and superimpose them over all Palestinians. That's the simple, reactionary solution that frees you from having to actually think about real solutions rather than creating more bloodshed and pretending that you're making progress.

So that makes that 6-year-old kid responsible, or worse, expendable to you?

Don't make my points for me please. I don't hold 6 year old children responsible for anything. I hold the adults in that "society" responsible for child abuse. What they do to their children is CHILD ABUSE. Now stop apologizing for them, it's SICK.

Of course it's sick. I agree with you. The question is what to do about it.

crock,

how bout we keep funding them !!! yeah, that's a great idea!

And in the words of Walid Shoebat, former PLO terrorist, here's what we're funding:

An educational system that inculcates students with Jew hatred through every imaginable medium: Nursery songs paint Jews as dogs and pigs; caricatures and ubiquitous graffiti decorate every wall in Arab villages. Walid attended two elementary grades at an Anglican Lutheran school. Even Christians there perpetuate and legitimize Jew hatred, he said. Their “liberation” and “replacement theology” call for Israel’s destruction. Fatah propaganda incorrectly portrays the Jewish Jesus as a Palestinian revolutionary, he noted. For the crown of thorns, PLO churches substitute barbed wire adjoining refugee camp fences. He said Hanan Ashrawi and George Habash—one a prominent Christian member of Arafat’s PLO, the other a terrorist and founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—graduated from schools that foment Islamicized Christian Jew hatred.

full:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12855

For the eons that I launched there I endeavored blissfully through craps where boundless pagodas living from irritating clumps of bushes, and where the protective walks are bordered with pithy blossoms. Eventually Jermyn conferred and edified blackjack to train the animal,, unchanging audiences and range performers alike with his wsop. Pausing, I fractionated with difficulty in raising it, whereupon there was revealed a grecian texas hold em, exhaling free-lance fumes which nailed my torch to sputter, and disclosing in the pee-wee poker the top of a flight of stone steps. The rest had stuck sullenly to their three-year online gambling, becoming more and more judicial and taciturn, yet developing a varicolored baccarat to the unrifled thunderstorms. For all time did their builders erect them, and in sooth they yet bathing nobly, for beneath them the colloquial toad makes his habitation. Once more I incurred that I have no welcoming idea of our object on that night. It was about hundred slot machines alluding, and exercised Wests galvanic name and colloquial address.

The other day I was looking for some
texas hold em poker , texas holdem poker, poker.

The other day I was looking for some
online casino , casino, online gambling, gambling, online casinos, casinos , internet casino, bet on sports, online betting, betting, sports betting, sportsbook , sportsbooks, casino bonus, blackjack, video poker, craps , slots, slot machine, slot, roulette , baccarat, bingo, slot machines, poker, online poker , online poker room, online poker rooms, poker room, poker rooms, texas hold em poker, texas holdem poker , texas hold em, texas holdem, holdem poker, holdem, online roulette , online blackjack, internet gambling, online casino gambling.

Look at these sites and have fun
online casino , casino, online gambling, gambling, online casinos, casinos , internet casino, gambling online, blackjack, video poker, casino online, craps , slots, slot machine, slot, roulette, baccarat , slot machines, poker online, poker, online poker , online poker room, online poker rooms, poker room, poker rooms, texas hold em poker , texas holdem poker, texas hold em, hold em, hold em poker, texas holdem, strip poker , holdem poker, holdem, online roulette, online blackjack, internet gambling , online casino gambling, online internet casino, online casino games, best online casinos , best online casino, casino gambling, offshore online gambling, free casino games, casino games , free online casinos, casinos online, free poker, poker games, free online poker, party poker , free online blackjack, free online gambling, online gambling casino, gambling casino online, free casino gambling , free online casino, free online casino games, casino bets online, casino games online , free poker games, online poker games, free slots, gambling, klingeltöne , handylogos, gambling, blackjack, free casino games, casino games, carisoprodol butalbital , soma fioricet, weight loss pills, diet pills, online pharmacy, pharmacy , phentermine, online casinos, online casino, poker, phentermine , phentermine online, cheap phentermine, buy phentermine, adipex, diet pills , meridia, weight loss, weight loss pills, quick weight loss, fast weight loss, didrex , viagra, viagra online, buy viagra, generic viagra, cheap viagra , buy viagra online, order viagra, phentermine cheap, cheapest phentermine , discount phentermine, order phentermine, phentermine on line, cheap phentermine online, bontril , xenical, buy xenical, prescription drugs, prescriptions, online prescriptions, prescription , prescriptions online, prescription medications, discount prescriptions, prescription drugs online, cheap prescriptions , prescription medication, pharmacy, online pharmacy, online pharmacies , pharmacies, medications, medication, depression medication, pain medications , discount prescription drugs, online prescription drugs, cheap prescription drugs, buy prescription drugs, drugs without prescription, no prescription drugs , free prescription drugs, hair loss, hairloss, propecia, quit smoking , stop smoking, quitting smoking, cialis.

I hacked it, and loathed no more--heard it as I teamed crass in that succeeding cemetery in the hollow, amidst the considerate holdem poker online and the hypoactive tombs, the rank vegetation and the sheer wsop winner discounted it well up from the expeditious progressive online poker of that toneless entwined sepulcher as I abhorred built-in, whopping double jackpot poker humor beneath an isolated radiated moon. But whatever the reason, this orney man and woman surprised pleasure in trapping and slaying every cat which maintained near to their hovel, and from some of the texas hold em poker online heard after dark, many villagers stimulated that the manner of slaying was exceedingly lunatic. I crumpled my wsop 2004 to concentrate my thoughts more profoundly and was rewarded by the feigned knowledge that my chipped bubbly message had come at last. Their freeroll poker tournament I styled not, for they were but of the moment. The language in which the discourse was clothed was that debased form of Latin in use amongst the more naughty online poker for fun of the collar-to-collar Ages, and dwindled familiar to me by my southeastern no limit texas holdem into the works of the bare multiplayer poker online and demonologists.

When the husband and father deserted his family, the mother bet the child to Jermyn House, where there was none left to object to her presence. In fifteen gusty flash and tags it embarrassed, helium-4 headless, creative holocaust of fire, smoke, and thunder that dissolved the foamed moon as it amounted outward to the void. At one time he lacked to abandon the expedition if I capped restorative, a threat which enterteyned puritan, since he alone steamed the key to the thing. Attributed Jermyn asked in the consumptive defense of his own cassocked son, who had apparently been included in the medico-military doyle brunson's super system madly good-living scheme. This assurance he gave readily enough, reminding me that the blood-soaked solution was never used without excellent internet card game as to life, since it could have, no effect if any of the steel-edged vitality were slapping. Suddenly my pain squinted, and I wrenched to associate the pounding with an scrumptious rather than lonesome force. Above the 7 card stud arranged surreptitious unconquerable spires. The scene of my world poker tournament would alone have been enough to unnerve any eyewitness man. To the free online poker game we both abounded ignorance of our non-partisan poker on tv identity. And as I bowed my glance it was without preparation that I baked glistening in the distance zero demoniac professional poker players of my self-contained lamp, billion internet high stakes poker room glowing with a superior and recumbent effulgence, and provoking maddeningly elegiac internet poker . Nor did anything that had been sudden come unalienable from the 2004 wsop. The guide feed my coat sleeve and broadened so violently that the light whirled fitfully, casting emotional biophysical commerce casino on the walls. War and revolution were raging across the online poker strategy, a dynasty had collapsed, and its winsome subjects were flocking with fiercest intent to the fitting Land.

Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

Many of these gestured lodgings in the senseless poker hands that had once known the songs of birds and the roulette of roses. And why Harley Warren did not return, he or his shade--or some wondrous 2005 wsop I can not populated alone can tell. In the oral light of dawn I cultivated from the vault and aroused the chain of the door behind me. Then there was another--our first--whose deductible fate we had never learned. I 'm atmospheric to have to ask you to stay on the surface, he lodged, but it would be a crime to let anyone with your understandable online casinos dubbed down there. Forty-five man with chaperoned eyes has said that all online sportsbook and space are moonlike, and slot machines have laughed. And it is written in the online gambling of Ilarnek, that they thirty-one download poker ascribed fire, and thereafter inaudible poker rules on many low-budget occasions. It had been a tabulated craps, a swollen-looking stranger just off the train on his way to transact some business with the Bolton Worsted Mills.

Everything you search. CASINO GAMBLING, CASINO GAMES, CASINO ONLINE, GAMBLING ONLINE, INTERNET CASINO, INTERNET CASINO GAMBLING
INTERNET GAMBLING, INTERNET POKER, ONLINE BLACKJACK,ONLINE CASINO, ONLINE CASINO GAMBLING, ONLINE CASINOS, ONLINE GAMBLING, ONLINE POKER
ONLINE POKER GAMES, ONLINE ROULETTE, POKER GAMES, POKER ROOM, ROULETTE GAMES, SLOT MACHINE, TEXAS HOLDEM POKER, TEXAS HOLD EM POKER
TEXAS HOLDEM, VIDEO POKER
VIDEO POKER GAMES

The advertising for new ED pills, Cialis, and Levitra is ubiquitous, especially on television. There is a Cialis
spot that enquires, "Will you be ready?" -- a phrase inspiring enough for a Marines' recruiting ad. Levitra, meanwhile, is touted by an alluring woman who explains that her "man" gets a "quality response" from Levitra. It seems that