Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Except, of course, to Mistah Kurtz. He dead, too.

They ought to get OSHA on this.

The Hamas' HR people are going to have to start advertising this as a temp position.

Perhaps Hamas will have to post the job opening online.
I suggest Monster.com.

Good riddance -- wasn't he the co-founder of Hamas, 16 years ago??

The only concern I have is that the bad guys in Iraq will exploite/capitalize on this, but, on the other hand, they don't need any excuses either.

I'm so glad I found this site!! --- I used to post at dailykos, but got fed up w/the anti-American Socialist bullshit.

Rick Ballard: The Hamas' HR people are going to have to start advertising this as a temp position.

From your lips to Allahpundit's ears:

Help Wanted

Maybe he got it in the john like the Hussein boys did.

Geez, and I thought the turnover in high tech was ruthless! Of course the terrorism bubble probably pays better.

I have a minor bit of humor on this at my blog.

No innocent bystanders injured or killed this time? Then nice work, and more power to them.

Turns out that one of the bodyguards who were 86'd in the strike was one of Rantisi's sons.

I won't shed any tears for Rantisi, but seriously, how can this be a good thing for the United States? Sharon just walked out of the White House with a blank check. Who will believe that Bush did not also agree in advance to this assassination? If we want to change the Arab world - a project that ultimately depends on shifting the views of people who are currently deeply suspicious of American motives - why are we so careless about doing things that make us look like an enemy of Arab people?

No matter how much we support Israel, it is foolishness itself to imagine that Israel spares any thought for American interests. I suspect that Sharon would see pushing America into a corner in which it gives up on having any constructive relationship with the Arab world as a good thing.

Mork: Who will believe that Bush did not also agree in advance to this assassination?

I hope he did. He would be a hypocritcal ass to hunt bin Laden and tell our allies they can't do the equivalent.

why are we so careless about doing things that make us look like an enemy of Arab people?

We are an enemy of Rantisi. Rantisi wants (oops, wanted) every Jew in Israel dead. He's a little Hitler. A local bin Laden. His supporters are not our friends. Israelis, on the other hand, are.

If we find bin Laden we'll drop a bomb on his head. We're within our rights, and it's no one's place to tell us otherwise. Some Arabs will scream in rage, but that's just too bad for them. I'll be pissed off right back at 'em.

Israel has the same right for precisely the same reason. If it pisses people off, again, that's just too bad. Fighting back makes the enemy mad. I'm sorry to be flip, but big deal. That's what happens in war. It's not a reason not to fight back when people are willing to die in order to kill you.

Michael, I assume we both believe that the majority of the Arab world consider the Palestinian cause is legitimate and that Israel has acted in an unconscionable manner in opposing it, right?

We also both agree that our long term goal is to get to a position where there are fewer people in the Arab world that hate the United States sufficiently to act violently against it, right?

So, given those two facts, how does it help America's interests to be closely identified with what is likely to be seen by many Arabs as an act of Israeli brutality against the Palestinian people?

I can see how you could think that it is in Israel's interests to get rid of this guy, and I can see how it is Israel's interests for people to believe that America okayed it in advance, but I can't for the life of me see how it is America's interests for people generally to believe that the US was behind this.

The chest-beating glibness of your last paragraph is not merely "flip", it's muddle-headed and dangerous. If our enemy is the Arab people, we can't win. You can remove regimes, you can destroy organizations, you can conquer nations. But the only ways to defeat an entire population are to kill them, or to change their mind.

The question is not whether this "makes the enemy mad", but whether it makes the enemy larger and more dangerous than it was before.

Hey Mork,

you can deal with terrorism by being nice to them in the hope that they'll decide to like us, or you can kill them. Given that Arabs didn't like the U.S. BEFORE we starting killing terrorists, I doubt they'll like us any less if Israel does the same.

You're so damn scared of making "Arabs" mad, but maybe THEY should be scared of making US mad. How's that for a novel idea? Who should be afraid of who? I think that's the question you pansy ass Liberals should start asking yourselves.

Tell me, who in his right mind will volunteer to fill Rantissi's spot? Anybody? Bueller? Yes indeed, it is THEY who should worry about pissing US off.

MORK...

I agree with you that all of these assassinations are only inflaming the situation. But the fundamental question to be asked is NOT does it make the enemy larger and more dangerous than before. The fundamental question to be asked is whether or not the Israelis have a right to defend themselves. This is not the moral equivalent of, say, George W. Bush assassinating Jacque Chirac. It's Ariel Sharon going after an organized group of thugs trying to drive his people into the sea.

If you accept and recognize the nation of Israel, you have to accept their right to defend themselves. Maybe the route they're taking lately is going about it the wrong way. You can make that argument. But you can't, in good conscious, say they don't have a right to go after these bastards.

Changing hearts and minds is vitally important. But self-preservation has to come first.

Well, in the first place, Grant, I wasn't really questioning the assassination itself. My comments were directed at the way that the Israeli government has manipulated the situation so that the United States will be regarded as being equally responsible for the assassination.

But even then, I disagree. From the Israeli perspective, the question of whether it had the "right" to do this is secondary: surely the first consideration is simply whether or not, as a simple matter of cost versus benefit, this action has made Israel safer or not.

By the way - I should add that I do not mean to imply that I have a strong view that the answer to that question is "no". I'm only disagreeing with the method of your analysis, not the result.

DAVID...

Do you really want to live in a world in which everyone is literally afraid of the United States? It might be the price we pay for defending ourselves, pissing off and terrifying the whole world, but I'd hardly call that a good thing. It actually sounds like that's what you're after: Not admiration but fear.

Must be the "pansy ass liberal" in me coming out here, you think? Sorry if I'd rather opt for The City On A Hill.

No Grant, I don't want to live in a world where everybody is afraid of us. However, I do want to live in a world where our enemies are TERRIFIED of us. Yes, I want the Rantissis, the Bin Ladens, and all their supporters and sympathizers to soil their pants at the very thought of our righteous anger.

As far as the false premise you've offered about us "terrifying the world", don't be silly. If you've not committed a crime, you've no reason to fear the gas chamber.

Mork,

I care about Arabs who think the Jewish race should be wiped off the face of the earth as much as I care about Nazis.

Any Arab who thinks the goal of Hamas is legitimate, as opposed to those who support a two-state solution, can go to Hell along with Rantisi.

If they don't like us, that's fine with me. I don't want such people to like us because I would hate what we would have to become in order for them to do so.

Michael,

spot on. The Morks and Grants of the world would have US change to suit THEM, instead of the other way around.

Appeasers. Defeatists.

I'm with David on this. We are not going to invade Belgium.

David: The Morks and Grants of the world would have US change to suit THEM, instead of the other way around.

No, I'm not with you on that. We posted at the same time. Grant is not an appeaser. Is Mork? I dunno. Perhaps.

Mork: From the Israeli perspective, the question of whether it had the "right" to do this is secondary: surely the first consideration is simply whether or not, as a simple matter of cost versus benefit, this action has made Israel safer or not.

To quote the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo:

"Hard pounding, this, gentlemen; let's see who will pound longest."

Michael - while I'm totally impressed by how tough and manly you are, you're either deliberately evading the point of my post or you have some very strange and contradictory views on human nature and Arab opinion.

The Arab world contains a spectrum of opinion, right? There is probably an overwhelming majority who believe generally that the Palestinians are the good guys and that Israel has generally treated Palestinians unfairly. There'd probably be a solid majority that believes thinks that the intifada, as a general concept, is justified. Then there would be a pretty sold number that has some degree of sympathy for Hamas, divided into a group that understands why they do what they do, but thinks that they're misguided/immoral, and a group that supports them outright.

It's also obvious, isn't it, that public opinion is not fixed. It results from a mix of cultural factors and observations of external events.

Your little rant makes sense if the group of individuals holding the views you disdain are (a) absolutely fixed in their views and (b) the only people in that spectrum who give a rat's arse about the assassination.

If, however, the assassination also makes members of those other groups hate America more, or shifts people from a milder to a more virulent position in the spectrum, then the net result is clearly worse for America (unless the military effect of the assassination has an offsetting positive effect on American security).

To put it more simply, if the enemy is America-hating Isalmicists, we don't help ourselves by turning more people into America-hating Islamicists, or making them sympathetic to them.

Of course we will need to take military actions from time to time that risk that effect, but that situation just calls for rational cost-benefit analysis: will the improvement in our military position outweigh the secondary effects. If the answer is no, then we don't advance our cause by taking the action, no matter how much more we can thrust our chests out and make ringing speeches if we do.

Once you get past your heroic posturing, it's pretty obvious, isn't it. I mean, we wouldn't willingly hand Al Qaeda military weapons, would we? Why doesn't the same apply to propaganda weapons?

As for wondering whether I'm an "appeaser", well, I just think that it is a sign of how closed your mind has become that you could convince yourself that empty name-calling like that is remotely meaningful.

David, I realize that both Mork and I are to the left of you. But if you can't differentiate the WIDE gulf of opinion between Mork and I simply because we're both to the left of your uber-right-wingness, than you might as well start attacking Tony Blair and Totten and John McCain and whoever else to your left just the same.

And, no, Michael, I'm not calling for your head 5 minutes after you just defended me. I'm simply trying to make a point.

I wouldn't EVER have us change to suit the likes of terrorists, David. You say it's a false premise that, in defending ourselves, we're terrifying the world. I wholeheartedly disagree. We're terrifying the world, the liberal democratic world included, at an alarming rate. And I never said that it was in any way our fault or unjustified, simply that it's unfortunate.

I don't want the French or anyone else to hate us, man. I want them all to think we're the greatest nation on the face of the earth because we are. They hardly think this. It sucks. Oh well. I wouldn't want it to be this way.

That's not appeasement. If that's what you call appeasement, wanting the world to admire you and not fear you, then I'm calling you a warmongerer.

Rational cost-benefit analysis?! What the hell good is a rational cost-benefit analysis for the Israeli people if they're all dead?

If someone's trying to kill you, you kill them first. It's called self-defense.

Forgot to say above - where your position appears to be self-contradictory is that your position on Iraq is premised on the capacity of our actions to change Arab opinion for the better. But now you are writing off swathes of the Arab population on the basis of their present beliefs, as if Nazis, being Nazis at a certain point of time, would be so forever so and never again Germans.

Rational cost-benefit analysis?! What the hell good is a rational cost-benefit analysis for the Israeli people if they're all dead?

If someone's trying to kill you, you kill them first. It's called self-defense.

Fuck, Grant, for a smart guy, you say some stupid things.

If someone is trying to kill you, what the hell do you think cost-benefit analysis suggests that you do?

Here's a clue: self-preservation is a "benefit".

DAVID AND MORK...

I sware, to you two there's nothing between Hobbes and Ghandi, hubristic empire and pacifism, is there?

It is possible to walk that thin line. I'm just saying. It's not either/or.

Whoops, third line should have been in Italians, too.

I sware, to you two there's nothing between Hobbes and Ghandi, hubristic empire and pacifism, is there?

Grant, are you actually reading what I'm posting. I can't imagine where you get the idea that I'm a pacifist. Perhaps it's just that you've never someone who proposes fighting a war rationally before.

I don't think it's too stupid to point out the futility of "costs" when THE benefit IS your self-preservation, Mork. I never claimed that it wasn't a benefit. I'm just trying to give perspective, here.

The Israelis have a right to not get killed. Period. Even if it makes life sucky (a TRULY stupid sentence, there).

Grant,

Being "admired" is great (not that the French have EVER liked us, let alone admired us). But do you really think the Belgians, et al, fear us because we go after OBL, and support the Israeli war against Hamas? C'mon. Yes, it's true that they may oppose our policies, but fear us? I don't think so.

I think that those Belgians, in Europe and elsewhere, who claim to "fear" us, do so for their own political purposes, and we shouldn't be swayed by them any more than we should be swayed by terrorists and their enablers.

Re warmongering, I think in times of war, "warmongers" are the folks you want on your side, not peaceniks. Does Churchill ring a bell? He was called something like that, a warmonger. And this IS war isn't it? (and no, I'm not puffing myself up to be like Churchill, but sometimes insults aren't really).

Yep, I'm reading what you're posting and you're sounding like a pacifist to me. Arguing that we ought not piss off those who would become terrorists by not killing terrorists leads to that logical end.

"To put it more simply, if the enemy is America-hating Isalmicists, we don't help ourselves by turning more people into America-hating Islamicists, or making them sympathetic to them"...

By attacking terrorism we're going to "make" more terrorists. I think that's pretty cut and dry. Do you suggest we stop attacking them? That's what it sounds like.

Thanks for calling me smart, though.

I sware, to you two there's nothing between Hobbes and Ghandi, hubristic empire and pacifism, is there?

Yes, it's called targeted assassination.

Hobbes would level a Pal village for every suicide bombing, and Ghandi would place his faith in the goodwill of terrorists.

I don't believe in the senseless killing of innocents, but pissing them off is of far less concern to me, Belgian or not. That doesn't make me a warmonger or a "hobbesian".

Churchill was an imperialist, you know. Everyone seems to overlook that. I don't know why. Not that he wasn't the savior of Britain and a great War President. It just bares pointing out.

Roosevelt is a much better hero...(if you're willing to overlook the Yalta Conference). About the Yalta Conference though, there's alot of evidence to suggest that Roosevelt honestly didn't think of himself after a certain point as a person who ever die. Seriously. Three terms and death became a foreign concept. Had he still thought of himself as a mortal, he probably would have let Truman run in 1944 instead. Stop and imagine just how much different the Cold War would have gone had a fully functional President presided at Yalta.

Grant, you are really being obtuse. Let's make it simple. Let's say we could come up with a sinlge numerical scale on which we could calculate both the military benefits to us of a particular action and the benefits to the enemy as a result of more recruits and funding.

Let's say that taking a particular action gives us 5 units of benefits, but gives the enemy 10 units of benefits.

Do you see that we don't help ourselves by taking the action, because that's a net loss of 5 units?

It should be obvious from what I've been saying, but it apparently isn't to you, that if an action gives us more benefit than it does the enemy, we should take it.

For example, actually attacking and capturing and killing people who are determined to attack the United States will always give us more benefit than it does the enemy. So I support doing it.

On the other hand, I would argue that, so far, attacking Iraq, for example, has benefitted the enemy but has not benefitted us. In relation to today's incident, we received no benefit from being associated with the assassination, but suffered a propaganda cost. That is a net loss.

I'm sorry if this is so elementary that it sounds patronising, but if you don't understand what I've written so far, I don't know of any other way to communicate it.

Grant,

I like Churchill because for years he was excoriated by the opposition as a loose cannon, but then turned out to be right all along. It would have been easy for him to do what his opponents were doing--choosing the feel good option, the popularity option--but he stuck to his guns because in his mind he knew he was right even if in his gut and heart he would have preferred the easier, softer option.

And I do believe the peaceniks speak from the gut, not the mind. I do believe the soft option leads to more deaths, and prolonged conflict. Nothing brings about peace faster than victory. This isn't triumphalism or warmongering, I'm merely stating the facts as I see them. And history bears this out.

MORK...

I think we're just misunderstanding each other. You're talking about the costs and benefits of America being associated with today's assassination. I'm talking about the assassination itself, that is to say, the Israelis' right to defend themselves.

We've been talking in circles, you and I. Sometimes people can be TOO smart for their own good, you know. Damn that sounds conceited.

Grant - I'm not sure where I've misunderstood you, but if you didn't realize what I was taking about, you must have missed this:

Well, in the first place, Grant, I wasn't really questioning the assassination itself. My comments were directed at the way that the Israeli government has manipulated the situation so that the United States will be regarded as being equally responsible for the assassination.

But even then, I disagree. From the Israeli perspective, the question of whether it had the "right" to do this is secondary: surely the first consideration is simply whether or not, as a simple matter of cost versus benefit, this action has made Israel safer or not.

By the way - I should add that I do not mean to imply that I have a strong view that the answer to that question is "no". I'm only disagreeing with the method of your analysis, not the result.

But I'm glad we're on the same page now!

Shit, the fourth para should have been in italians, too. Just can't get the tags right tonight!

About Churchill Again...

Hey man, Churchill was great. I love Churchill the War Leader and agree with everything you just said about him, David. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan. I was just pointing out the sidebar of him being the head of imperialist Britain, which is something you never hear mentioned at all anymore. The Indian point of view paints a very different picture, and Roosevelt REALLY had to twist his arm to get him to give up the various colonies.

As much as you probably despise Woodrow Wilson for his internationalistic approach (which I'm sure you would call "soft"), I really appreciate Roosevelt for finally pulling off the centerpiece of Wilson's post-war agenda and decolonizing the European countries. Forgive me if I can't help but think of Churchill in a less than perfectly flattering light because of that.

Grant,

That's great. I have no desire to lionize the man in any context other than in his opposition to the Nazis, even if it meant he was criticized as a warmonger.

Goddamn, I miss the Cold War Democrats. All this talk of Truman and Roosevelt has got me sentimental and I wasn't even alive then.

Now all the Democrats have become is the "Party of Peace". Sigh. What I wouldn't give for a modern Jack Kennedy.

You guys ever see that cover of Time Magazine a while back with a picture of Roosevelt on the cover and the words "They Don't Make Democrats Like Used To"? Oooooooh, that one hit home.

Now all the Democrats have become is the "Party of Peace".

Try telling that to the Serbians.

Mork is right. This whole "peace" thing only counts when it's a Republican in charge.

Okay, David, please tell me there was some kind of sarcasm in that comment just then. If you are TRULY agreeing with Mork, well, I think hell just froze over.

Grant,

I'll admit I was being self-serving in my "agreement" with Mork.

Yes, Dems drop bombs too. But for some reason, the peaceniks don't come out in as nearly the numbers when the Dems are dropping the bombs as when the Republicans (or Israelis) do it.

Okay, here's a question for you, David. I don't think Clinton was hawkishly humanitarian enough because he didn't intervene in Rwanda. I give him credit for Kosovo and Bosnia, but our ignoring of Rwanda 10 years ago has always pissed me off. Do you think the same?

"Yes, Dems drop bombs too. But for some reason, the peaceniks don't come out in as nearly the numbers when the Dems are dropping the bombs as when the Republicans (or Israelis) do it"...

Not that I consider myself a peacenik, but I'm a Dem who doesn't discriminate on this. Backed the War in Iraq, same as Friedman and Blair and Hitchens and Berman, on the liberal grounds of human rights and took a lot of shit for it. I realize I'm in the minority. But we're not all bad.

I think Rwanda was criminal. I didn't really understand, until very recently, the degree to which Clinton, Albright, Europe and the U.N. ignored the warning signs coming out of Rwanda. It was pure political expediency, and they hoped that the crisis would dissapear all by itself (as did Bush Sr. and the Europeans towards Bosnia in the early 90's); and if not, that they could avoid any blame if anything did happen. Pure disgusting spinelessness by gutless politicians and bureacrats.

Think the Republican leadership of the time would have backed Clinton had he tried to do something about it, though?

Have you ever read "Terror and Liberalism", by the way?

Grant,

My gut response is that no, the GOP would have blocked it. On the other hand, they did back Clinton in the Balkans, so who knows.

No, but the title sounds very inviting I must admit.

Grant,

re Rwanda, the size of the intervention there would have been miniscule, making it an even easier sell than Kosovo. And Clinton didn't even try. Albright REFUSED to use the word "genocide" because it would have triggered a mandatory response, so they danced around the term like the lying hypocrites they are. They knew it was a powder keg. This isn't a case of 20-20 hindsight quarterbacking.

And I'm still in shock that Rantissi was terminated.

g'night

Sheik Saruman...ha. I just now got that.

Mork,

Israeli government has manipulated the situation so that the United States will be regarded as being equally responsible for the assassination.

There they go again, those evil manpulative JOOOOOS! Have you been reading the Protocols again?

You seem to care a great deal about what the Arabs want. Why don't you care to consider what the Israelis want for their tiny little sliver of this planet? I smell the foul odor of anti-Semitism in your views.

Bush wasn't manipulated into anything. Just the opposite. This is the end of us being manipulated by the Arabs into thinking their cause any legitimacy. The Confederates, Nazis and Soviets all thought their causes was legitimate too. None of those causes were legitimate and neither is the Arab's.

I hope Bush doesn't let the Israelis kill Arafat. We should do it ourselves for the American blood he has on his hands. The only reason we haven't killed Arafat is because we have been manipulated by the Arabs. When are we going to stop playing games with the Arabs? I hope this is the start.

Mork,

I mean, we wouldn't willingly hand Al Qaeda military weapons, would we? Why doesn't the same apply to propaganda weapons?

...

But now you are writing off swathes of the Arab population on the basis of their present beliefs, as if Nazis, being Nazis at a certain point of time, would be so forever so and never again Germans.

When we fire-bombed Dresden, did we give a propoganda victory to the Nazis? The repudiation of the Nazis in contemporary Germany is the result of the devastation they brought on themselves by embracing Nazism.

The killings of Yassin and Rantisi with the obvious approval of Bush is a message to the Arabs. If you continue on your current path, then at some point we will do to you what we did to the Germans and Japanese. And we will do it with all the destructive power of modern technology.

The gloves are off. The Arabs continue on their current path at their peril.

Now let's kill Arafat.

Mork,

On the other hand, I would argue that, so far, attacking Iraq, for example, has benefitted the enemy but has not benefitted us.

You are either ignorant or a liar. We have benefited tremendously by overthrowing Saddam. We removed a tyrant who was a threat to us through his support of terrorism, his WMD programs, his record of aggression against his neighbors and his own people and his open defiance of us. We temporarily (thanks to the left) re-established the deterrent effect of American power which led directly to the capitulation of Gaddhafi and our rolling up of the global nuclear black market. We temporarily gained some leverage over the Iranians, Saudis and Syrians who were all briefly wondering who was next. We have given an opportunity for an Arab country to embrace reform.

People like you have squandered much of the benefit of our action in Iraq. Thanks to you and your ilk, the Iranians, Syrians and Saudis no longer fear regime change. We have paid the price of your efforts in blood. The insurgencies of Fallujah and Sadr are the inevitable outcome of the efforts of people like you. Is that what you wanted?

HA, if the only way you can respond to any suggestion that the interests of Israel and the United States is not identical is to level accusations of anti-semitism, then fuck you.

I don't know or care what else you had to say, because I stopped reading at that point.

Mork,

Let's say that taking a particular action gives us 5 units of benefits, but gives the enemy 10 units of benefits.

In your simple-minded scale, you neglect to include the fact that our FAILURE to take action in response over three decades of Arab/Islamic terrorism going back to the the assasination of RFK accrues units of benefits to our enemies.

Their whole cause rests of on the assumption that we are weak and decadent. Any failure on our part fight them re-affirms this and gives them hope that they can win. Every time we kill them, we plant the seed of defeat. We should keep killing them until they catch on. If they fail to catch on, we must destroy them.

Mork,

then fuck you

Fuck you too if you insist on empathizing with our enemies.

I don't know or care what else you had to say, because I stopped reading at that point.

Ignorance is bliss. Your problem isn't your reading. It is your writing.

Has there been any information, speculative or otherwise, about who is going to replace Rantisi? If there is, does anybody want to make a guess as to how long the next guy will last?

Oh, and seeing that everyone else seems to have spoken out on this. I think its a good thing that the Israeli's killed Rantisi. Though I am left wondering if their campaign to wipe out the Hamas leadership before the pullout, or whatever you want to call it will succeed. Mainly because Hamas has a lot of members and I'm not sure if Israel can get them all before the due date for the withdrawal.

"The Arab world contains a spectrum of opinion, right? There is probably an overwhelming majority who believe generally that the Palestinians are the good guys and that Israel has generally treated Palestinians unfairly. There'd probably be a solid majority that believes thinks that the intifada, as a general concept, is justified. Then there would be a pretty sold number that has some degree of sympathy for Hamas, divided into a group that understands why they do what they do, but thinks that they're misguided/immoral, and a group that supports them outright."

LOL! Yeah, sounds like there's a spectrum of opinion in the Arab world that runs from A to B.

Seems that Rantissi has been replaced, BUT, they're not saying who he is.

Hmmm....I think they're catching on now.....

And who cares what the Arab 'street' thinks. Its not like they control anything, really.

eric,

Now I have a mental picture of the Hamas' people gathered around a large desk behind which sits an empty chair. I wonder if he'll sign documents with invisible ink.

He must have been drawn to the immediate vesting of full mortuary benefits.

Sure didn't take long for Hamas to find a way to blame the US. As if the IDF could take out Rantisi at any time, but was waiting for "permission from Bush". No, I'll bet the IDF took it's opportunity as soon as it found it.

But by blaming the US, Hamas figures it might be able to keep Bush from EVER talking to an Israeli ever again for fear he will be blamed by Hamas. Nice try. Only the feeble minded will believe that. Or care. Hamas will try any trick to separate Israel from it's allies. That's what it's supposed to do. It is the enemy of Israel. And Israel has the right to defend itself.

I hope Israel is able to pull out of Gaza soon. That way the Palestinians will be able to go ahead with their plans to turn it into a lavish Mediterranean resort area.

HA - Now let's kill Arafat.

Sounds good to me. It's encouraging to see the peace process finally moving forward over there.

d-rod
We should call it what it is, the "Piece Process".
I guess we'll now have to see if the IDF gets the new leader by judging the size of the Palestinian "car swarm" after each IDF terrorist take-out. Hope they guess quickly.

Re: previous comment.
Hmmm. "guess" is the wrong word. Should be "find him quickly". Then serve the Palestinians another big steaming pile of terrorist take-out.

By now, this thread has been beaten to death, and I don't want to repeat arguments that have already been made, but I'd like to address a couple of Mork's points. First, your initial point, that Sharon manipulated Bush, is pure, unfounded slander. Israel has been regularly knocking off Hamas guys for years, including recently sheik saruman (thanks, guys, I loved that one). Why do you automatically assume that this assassination was specifically planned to exploit the Bush visit? Or that Bush didn't approve it?

Likewise your unnecessary statement that Israel spares no thoughts for U.S. interests. Every country acts primarily in its own interests, why cast this as an aspersion against Israel? Are Israelis somehow worse in this regard - more selfish, scheming, and untrustworthy? By the way, I'm an American living in Israel, and while I can't speak for the Israeli government, I can attest to the genuine love, sympathy, and gratitude average Israelis hold for the U.S.

Your cost/benefit argument is a meaningless abstraction. What, are you planning on having auditors from Ernst&Young go to Hamas offices and interview their people? Will the same auditors then interview bereaved parents in Israel and ask them how many units of suffering they've experienced? The statistics that do exist show that since Israel began its war on terror, including targeted assassinations, the number of successful attacks has dropped dramatically - by something like 80%. We also know that Rantisi was the mad dog leader of a group that opposed peace and openly advocated killing innocent Israelis (yes, there is such a thing), and which amply demonstrated its intention to carry it out. To oppose this with the fact that Arabs will be mad, regardless of how irrational their anger is, is not what you choose to call a cost/benefit analysis, but a simple equation of appeasement.

To oppose this with the fact that Arabs will be mad, regardless of how irrational their anger is, is not what you choose to call a cost/benefit analysis, but a simple equation of appeasement.

Don't call them appeasers, and never ever EVER question their patriotism.

Good shooting, boys.

The Palestinians learned earlier this week that the official policy of the United States is to withdraw any support for Palestinian claims for territory they lost in their wars of aggression.

The learned that the United States is deadly serious about not recognising the PA under Arafat as a participant to negotiations - because the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists.

I have posted a hugeous post on the "The New Column" thread. I believe it applies to the context of this one, too.

JOHN KERRY, PATHETIC.

With Tim Russert this morning:

RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.

KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That’s a big question for me. You know, I thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it’s an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

RUSSERT: You used the word “war criminals.”

KERRY: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don’t like it when I hear it today. I don’t like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn’t talking about the soldiers and the soldiers’ blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier—I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I’m not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.

RUSSERT: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...

KERRY: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.

RUSSERT: So you stand by that?

KERRY: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that’s not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you’re angry about something and you’re young, you know, you’re perfectly capable of not—I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I’d have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I’m proud that I stood up. I don’t want anybody to think twice about it. I’m proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I’m proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I’m not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times.

I like Jerusalem NewsWire's take:

Israel executed the blood-soaked Yassin less than one month ago as the venerated terror chief left a Gaza mosque.

At the time, Rantisi vowed to "open the gates of hell" in response.

Tonight those gates opened for him.

Every country acts primarily in its own interests, why cast this as an aspersion against Israel?

It's not cast as an aspersion, and, yes, it should be obvious to everyone that countries act in their own interests. But I think the hostility it caused confirms that many people either reject the proposition or resent it being made, which is a good reason to continue making it.

I don't know if this is John Kerry REALLY getting serious about the War on Terror or not, but it's good to see that he's at least trying.

Now if we could only get the man to talk this way about Iraq. That would be a real improvement.

Good for John! He also gave a one-word response when Russert asked him if he agrees with Bush that Israel can keep some of the land seized in 1967: "Yes"(!). But needless to say, if I agree with Kerry, his supporters may feel a little differently. Check out the comments on Kerrys blog:

Mork, the brave standard-bearer of appeasement.

docob,

appeasers, far from being cowards, always consider themselves to be standing on principle, therefore more courageous than the rest of us sheople. Unfortunately, history always shows them to be fools.

appeasers, far from being cowards, always consider themselves to be standing on principle, therefore more courageous than the rest of us sheople. Unfortunately, history always shows them to be fools.

I've been scouring the quotation reference (and source) for the zinger from a a fudge-stirer who when asked if s/he felt brave about taking a ballsy, right but risky and unpopular stance. The approximate response: "No I'm a coward. I'm scared to death of what may happen if the b*st*rds win."

Meanwhile, the appeasers feel terribly principled and daring in handing the dragon yet another lollipop (to borrow the classic Dr. Seuss imagery). In this case of course, the lollipop is the face of every victim of Fatah/PLFP/Hizbollah/Hamas/Etc terrorism.

Mork, was it good that the US left Vietnam, and then Pol Pot murdered 2.5 million? What's the hindsight cost/benefit ratio of that?

I think cost-benefit is fine, and it helps to focus on some real disagreements, like (1) values. If the US needed to stay 5 more years in Vietnam, to stop the commies; but lose 50 000 more Americans to save 2 500 000 Cambodians, should we have done so? I'm enraged Kerry doesn't have to answer this question.

On assination -- it's pretty good. Hamas "leaders" get macho support for defying Israel, and the US, and promising to kill all the Jews. There a lots of bullies -- who make others get in the street and scream hate, too. Nobody knows how many, since there's no free press in Gaza or under the PA. Keep stomping on the head, until Hamas is afraid to openly state that their goal is the elimination of Israel.

NOT killing the leaders (for 50 years?) did NOT work. Maybe the PA thugs will start to ask, wouldn't a peaceful 2 state solution be better? So far, not yet -- but I think around 2007, after a couple years of Iraq success and free (er) press, Gaza will be MUCH changed.

I'm 100% pro-assasinaination, 100% pro temporary fence. Destroy Hamas, kill Arafat, stop pretending Israelis think Palestinians are human beings. Anything to cut down on the terrorism, encourage nonviolent resistence -- and possibly induce shame in at least some American Jewish and non-Jewish supporters of Israel at the obscene self-importance, greed and indifference to non-Jewish life that characterizes the West Bank settler movement, as well as the extreme indulgence of that movement that is expected from the United States government as a condition of "supporting Israel." If you think I exaggerate take a look at a map and see where the places that Sharon has asserted Israel must be allowed to hold in perpetuity are located: Gush Etzion, Kiryat Arba, Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel, and several settlements in and around Hebron. Annexing them all and providing for their water and security and integretaion with the rest of Israel would require that the West Bank to be almost entirely bisected, leaving the future Palestinian state divided into three cantons: north and south west bank, and gaza. What moral right do Israelis, who already have annexed 78% of the best land even though they are soon to be less than 50% of the population, have to these towns? On top of that, most Israelis are unwilling to give up the Jordan Valley, on the border with Jordan, even though the US has just eliminated there most threatening foe from the east. And then I have to read in the goddam New York Times today quotes from Likud party members who talk about how it breaks their hearts to demolish a couple of settler outposts. What gall! This has everything to do with power, nothing to do with principle, except maybe the principle that God plays favorites with different ethnic groups.

Speaking of gall, I wonder if every once in a while Arafat might not regret the supreme gall he displayed in turnig down the outrageously generous Camp David proposal of a few years back? That sure turned out wonderfully for him.

Hey Markus,

what do you mean when you say the Israelis have already annexed "78% of the best land" ? I'd appreciate a clarification, because it's been my experience in the last 3 years that claims like this turn out to be palestinian distortion and disinformation passed on by their Lefty symps. How does that number jibe with the Oslo accords which required the Israelis to withdraw from 95% of the West Bank, and which was refused by you know who. Please reconcile those numbers for me. Thanks.

Re Israelis not viewing palestinians as human, don't forget it's the palestinians who view the Jooos as "apes and pigs", not the other way around. And that view is taught in their schools and broadcast over their media. It's no wonder that blowing up Joooish school buses is thought of as heroic. In fact, I'd say that the Israeli policy of targeted assassination proves quite the opposite. Remember the Syrian town of Hama, and how it was flattened? That's the Arab way. Imagine what the palestinians would do to the Israelis if they had the means! Sub-human indeed.

Regarding peaceful resistance by the palestinians, this shows your COMPLETE lack of understanding of the Arab mind, Arab values and culture, and most importantly, their relationship with the dhimmi Jooos. Basically, you're ignorant. It will never, ever, EVER happen. NEVER.

Re power vs principle, are you as vociferous in your criticism of Hamas and their ilk who believe in driving jooos into the sea, as you are of Israel? No, not a peep out of you. These people don't even believe in a two-state solution, but you're outraged by some "settlements". You don't even realize how silly you sound. You Lefties are just silly. Silly rabbit.

docob -- What particular aspects of Camp David were "outrageously generous" and why? Perhaps the one sqare mile of land in Israel propoer that it offered for every nine square miles of annexed West Bank land?

David -- by 78% of the best land, I mean the 78% of the land west of the Jordan River. The same area that will include an Arab population majority in about ten years. If Camp David was "outrageously generous", what would you consider "merely adequate" for this majority to be?

No one ever remembers that it was the Israelis who rejected Camp David just as much as the Palestinians. Barak's governing coalition fell apart after he went to Camp David because he was willing to offer a few Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem (NOT the Temple Mount area)to the Palestinians. As a result, elections were scheduled, Sharon went to the Temple Mount in September to give the finger to the Arabs, the Palestinian rejectionists obliged him by beginning the Intifada, and the Israelis overwhelmingly rejected the possibility of a just settlement in January. I do not absolve Arafat of anything. By refusing to produce a counteroffer and letting the Intifada start again he failed his people, and everyone else, when it really counted. But the fact is, a majority of neither side wanted peace, only power over the other.

Like I said, destroy Hamas. I despise Hamas and Arab rejectionism. I do however, plead guilty to stressing Israeli over Arab responsibility as well as being inclined to understand Palestinian rage, while also seeing it as utterly self-destructive. Similar, I suppose, to the way that liberals for better or worse sought to understand black rage in the riots of the sixties (and nineties, in LA). The Palestinian story appeals to my sense of outrage about injustice. They are basically being made to suffer for the sins of Nazism and other European antisemitism and for the sins of their non-Palestinian Arab nations who started the 1948 war and later refused to admit defeat and resettle the refugees. But its not the Nazis and the Arab nations who have their boot in their face today.

Also, as a westerner, and a Jew, I instinctively hold "my people" (a term I really hate to use) to a higher standard, particularly when we are at such a military advantage over our enemies. Building the wall on the green line would not threaten Israel one bit, and people who do not recognize this are willfully blind and, in my view, most likely guilty of ethnic and religious chauvanism.

I guess I should have said "surprisingly", perhaps "unprecedentedly" generous -- my main point was that Arafat refused. I was watching the process closely, and it was Arafat who walked out, effectively leaving Clinton hanging, not to mention Barak, both of whom had exposed themselves politically (please no cheap Clinton jokes). If anyone wonders at US reluctance to get reinvolved with negotiations while Arafat is still in power, they need look no further than this.

As far as it being a "fact" that neither side wanted peace, I'm not as sure of that as you seem to be. I think that Israelis were tired and ready to deal, a man willing to deal was in office, and there was an American administration willing to put prestige on the line to host/facilitate.

I'd argue that the Palestinians were at the peak of their bargaining power, but failed to take advantage due to Arafat's ultimate inability/unwillingness to accept any form of "two-state" solution.

Also, as a westerner, and a Jew, I instinctively hold "my people" (a term I really hate to use) to a higher standard.

Markus,

you are one of those self-hating jooos. This is not an insult (because I have no stake in the matter), it's merely an observation.

particularly when we are at such a military advantage over our enemies.

This is false. The Israelis have a military that was designed to fight against Arab armies on the open desert, and which they are basically not allowed to use against the palestinians. Instead, they spend most of their man hours foiling terror plots on Israeli cities by palestinian guerrillas and terrorists. Even the incursions are by the IDF are designed for this purpose. So, I'm not overly impressed by your David and Goliath imagery. And you should shed some of the guilt over that, guilt-ridden Jew that you are.

by 78% of the best land, I mean the 78% of the land west of the Jordan River. The same area that will include an Arab population majority in about ten years.

But under Oslo, Israel was to cede up to 95% of that land. You've not yet reconciled the numbers. Am I misunderstanding it?

They are basically being made to suffer for the sins of Nazism and other European antisemitism and for the sins of their non-Palestinian Arab nations who started the 1948 war and later refused to admit defeat and resettle the refugees.

No. The palestinian Arabs had a chance in 1948 for a state with FAR MORE LAND than under Oslo, and they rejected that too. Sorry, it's hard to feel sympathy for a people who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Regarding the collapse of Oslo, the palestinians got their big chance for a state and AGAIN they blew it, Sharon's middle finger notwithstanding, and Barak's ouster nothwithstanding. Arafat took a big fat dump on Barak's head, and made him out to be a fool. That's why he lost. Arabs and their weak ego, it's their tragic flaw. Do you see why I don't feel sorry for them? Blacks during the civil right movement-- peaceful, dignified and righteous. True victims. They were people we could identify with. Not victims of their own stupidity. See the difference? You need to get over some of that misplaced guilt.

Building the wall on the green line would not threaten Israel one bit...

The campaign against "the Wall" has primarily been against the wall itself, and only secondarily against its boundaries. Is that an accident? No, of course not. When the campaing against the wall failed they fell back to plan B, and attacked its boundaries--anything to stop it. Why stop it? Because a fence/wall ensures a two-state solution. Without a physical boundary, the palestinians can keep playing their games of attrition and tire out the zionists so as to force a bi-national solution and destroy the jewish state. It's crystal clear in my eyes.

Do you see how hard it is for some of us to feel "sorry" for them?

David --

I don't think "self-hating jew" is an apt description, since my antipathy is directed outward, not inward. But if by "self-hating" you mean that I think that justice for non-Jews is not one speck less important than justice for Jews, then i guess that is what I (proudly) am.

Since we've both read some history, tell me if I'm off base:
Under the UN Partition plan of 1947, Israel was granted about 57% of the land, Arabs the other 43%. Had there been no war and no Arab removal, the Arab lands (43% of area) would have been about 95% Arab, and the Jewish state (57% of area) would have initially had a roughly a 50/50 mix. Not ideal for a Jewish majority future, given greater Arab Demographics, but pretty fair considering the million plus Arabs west of the Jordan at the time, most of them near coastal cities rather than the West Bank. But with millions of Jews waiting to immigrate from Europe, Ben-Gurion, not to mention the Jewish fascists in the precursors to Likud, were willing to take what they could get, and figure out how to remove the excess Arab scum later. The opportunity came immediately. Israel decisively won a war, NOT started by the Palestinians, but rather by the other Arab nations (why isn't this a relevant distinction to you?), winding up with 78% of the land. And after the 1967 war, Israel controlled 100% of the land east of the Jordan. So here is the progression: 57% (1948) to 78% (1949) to 100% (1967). What Barak offered was 95% of that last 22% that Israel captured in 1967. This would have left it with over 80% of the area east of the Jordan.

Objectively, putting aside your personal feelings about the respective peoples, their attibutes and worth, explain why giving 78% of the land to the people (Jews) that will soon be the MINORITY of population west of the Jordan, is somehow excessively generous to the group (Arabs) being offered the other 22%, who in fact will soon make up the majority population in the whole area?

Your support for blacks in america during the civil rights era is touching, but if you go back and read southern literature from the era, segregationist southerners made the same appeals that you and others are making to Jews: FEAR the Negro, FEAR the loss of your way of life, FEAR the future of YOUR PEOPLE. Anyway, I'd be more critical of Palestinians for not embracing nonviolence if I wasn't fairly convinced that if they actually had, people like you still be trying to change the subject to whether or not Palestinians even exist as a people. Your support for a two-state solution is touching, but back in the eighties, did you support (or would you have suported) the extreme leftists in Israel who first proposed the idea?

American Indians, also, were not called savages for nothing. In fact, Palestinians story is quite similar to that of the Indians, except they didn't die of New World diseases, and they didn't head for the Plains. A superior people conquered them. But they didn't die, they stuck around, they bred, and they got pissed.

From a strictly pragmatist standpoint, the number of attacks in Israel has gone way down in the past year, and even more since the IDF started killing Hamas leaders. There's been a lot of wailing about how the next Hamas leader is much more hardline and the Israelis are really in for it now, but so far that has yet to translate in to concrete action.

Maybe the Israelis really have defeated Hamas as a viable terror force.

Markus -

Your argument is unintelligible gibberish. You can't judge fairness today by the facts as they existed in 1949, but only as they exist today. Do you honestly think fairness requires that Israel give back Jaffa, and the Galilee? If so, then I suggest you join Hamas, since they are the only ones that think so too. Moderate Palestinians were fully prepared to accept the Barak deal, before Arafat queered it. This same compromise was formulated as early as 1996, in a blueprint hammered out in secret meetings in Stockholm between Yossi Beilin and Arafat's hapless deputy, Abu Mazen. So why are you pissing on it? Whether or not Barak could have sold it to the Israelis we'll never know, since Yasser the-worst-leader-since-Nero Arafat started his intifada and single-handedly revived the political career of Ariel Sharon.

And from what part of your anatomy did you pull out the idea that the Palestinians did not declare war on Israel in 1948? Of course, there was no Palestinian state back then to declare war, just as there isn't today. That doesn't alter the fact that between November 1947 and May 1948, prior to the invasion by the Arab states, Israel had to defend against a large scale guerilla war waged by Palestinian guerillas operating from some 450 villages throughout Israel. Didn't you ever see the movie "Exodus", with the Arab attacks against the convoys? Those were Palestinians. They were hostile.

Finally, since when did overbreeding create an entitlement to your neighbor's land?

Wrong, Marcus. You're talking to a guy who literally wept at the killing of Rabin, and in the 80s I was not a partisan for either side, but for both. I grew up on Ann Frank and Leon Uris, but I also had many palestinian friends in college from the West Bank and Lebanon. So I was not partisan. You'll have to take my word for it.

But you, my friend, are so partisan as to be deluded if you think that you sound sane, let alone reasonable, when you blame "the Arabs" for the 1948 war in order to exculpate the palestinians from any responsibility. That truly is a novel argument that in all my years of arguing this issue I've never heard anybody else make. Congratulations. You've actually introduced something new into the blogosphere. New, but ridiculous. Enough said about that.

Regarding what people said about "NEGROS" during the civil rights days, what does that have to do with me? Try to use some logic here and follow along. Just because they were afraid of negros does not by logical extension mean I'm a fool for being afraid of palestinians. I've already distinguished between the two groups, and if some bumpkin in the 50s couldn't see the difference, as I do, it's because they were racist fools, whereas I am a logical giant, and not a racist at all. Do you follow? Now, I would ask you also to use some logic.

Your analogy of the American indians is backward. Again, illogic. If the indians came back today and claimed some of their land from whitey, you would be THRILLED. But if the Jews did exactly the same thing, you call them conquerors. This reminds me of the movement of Aztlan here in America which believes in just such a reconquista. Ironically, they are so anti-zionist that it has spilled over into anti-semitism. Why is it ironic? Because the Jews have done exactly what the nation of Aztlan whishes THEY could do in the U.S. southwest. Irony if I've ever seen it. You have just made the same leap into illogic as the fools at Aztlan have done.

Markus,

I don't think "self-hating jew" is an apt description, since my antipathy is directed outward, not inward. But if by "self-hating" you mean that I think that justice for non-Jews is not one speck less important than justice for Jews, then i guess that is what I (proudly) am.

I don't believe that you hate yourself either as a Jew or as an American. Your problem is that you have a deep desire to present yourself as a moral person. The path of least resistance to morality is self-criticism.

You have chosen this path out of intellectual laziness and emotional weakness. From what I've seen of you here on Totton, you fail to balance the sins of Americans and/or Jews with our virtues and recognize that our virtues far outweigh our sins and that in some cases, our sins were committed by choosing the lesser of two evils.

You want justice for non-Jews and that is a worthy goal. But you can't give justice until you get justice.

Interesting that no one wants to answer my questions about what aspects of Camp David were overly generous toward the Palestinians, what a merely "adequate" offer would entail, and why offering such scraps to the Palestinian Arabs would be morally justifiable.

Mark C -- I didn't see "exodus" but I will check into the Palestinian guerilla actions you mentioned in the Independence War. How would you have expected the Palestinians to react to the Jews as they returned to displace them? Would you have liked them to invite them in for tea? Do you deny that EVEN IF NO WAR OF INDEPENDENCE HAD OCCURRED it would have been necessary to transfer a large number of Arabs living within the the new state of Israel in order to maintain a Jewish majority ? Do you have any doubt that such a transfer would have occured under any circumstances?)

David -- I do have a fundamental problem with Israel and with zionism. Namely, I cannot see the justification in the fact that I, an American Jew with no connection to the land for 2,000-2,500 years, am entitled under the Law of Return to become a Israeli citizen and move into a house in Jaffa, while an Arab family in a UN refugee camp holding the title and deed to the same property in Jaffa cannot, simply because I belong to the right religious and ethnic group and they do not.

I keep harping on what happened in 1948, and about the morally dubious underpinning of the original zionist idea, because there are only two possible explanations for the Palestinian and Arab attitude to Israel over the past fifty years: either they are backward bigoted bloodthirsty barbarians, or they are a people with legitimate grievances that unfortunately can only be partially addressed. If it the former, there is NO HOPE FOR PEACE, ever, barring Arab extermination. If it is the latter, there is hope. Israel exists, and despite its questionable beginnings, its people have a right to live there in peace and security. Therefore, the right of return for Palestinian refugees cannot be granted. What I am for right now is simple and reasonable: implement the so-called "geneva accords", build a fence at Israel's new border, and if necessary, bring in US troops to the new Palestinian state to clean house and root out corruption.

HA -- Ah, now I see. My goal is to "present" myself as a moral person, as opposed to simply trying to hold morally correct views on political questions, as you and everyone else who agrees with you does. Therefore, my inclination to listen impartially to and learn from both William Bennett and Noam Chomsky when they debate each other on the nature of America is simply a function of my vanity, "intellectual laziness", and "emotional weakness." Appreciate your coffetable psychoanalysis. (By the way, I just responded again to your comments about American sovereignty in an earlier post.)

Markus,

the palestinian Arab from Jaffa of which you refer would still be living in his ancestral home had they accepted the U.N. partition plan, as the Jews did. Neither side got everything they wanted, but the Arabs wanted it all, the Jews did not.

Those palestinian Arabs who did not flee or make war are still living in their ancestral homes. They were not cleansed from the area as you so strongly wish to imply. Again, imparting upon them a victimhood that isn't there. They are a people that suffer from their own mistakes, unlike the American Negros of the 50s.

Re your feelings about your ancestral home, Zion, that's fine. But that's only because you live in America in this time and age. Had you been born a jew at any time before this, your feelings would be quite different I can assure you. And because I am a student of history, and you are not, I see zion through the eyes of those who longed for it.

David,

I probably should visit Israel sometime, maybe I would have a greater appreciation for the zionost dream and its reality. And if you have gone, or plan to, I hope you've taken or will take the opportunity to visit the West Bank or Gaza.

"the palestinian Arab from Jaffa of which you refer would still be living in his ancestral home had they accepted the U.N. partition plan"

I'd like to understand why the propoerty owner was welcome in Israel in May 1948, but not three or four months later? Like I said, without a war, the UN partition plan would have led to an Arab majority in Israel within a couple generations. Who in Israel would have accepted that?

"Neither side got everything they wanted, but the Arabs wanted it all, the Jews did not."

Likud, and their precursors, which have been the ruling party in Israel for all but a few years since 1977, have always wanted all of the land from the Jordan to the Mediteranean.

Even Ben-Gurion in 1937 said:
"No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country."
quoted in Righteous Victims by Benny Morris

Markus,

on the micro level, the suffering of victims, be they in Israel or the West Bank, affects me equally. The face of a young palestinian girl weeping for her dead brother affects me as much as when I see dead Israelis. But on the macro level, I don't see the parties as on equal footing, because of the decisions that have been made by their leaders and adults.

Re the palestinian Arab being allowed to return home 3 months after the war, my answer to this is that Jews expelled from Arab countries have not been compensated for everything THEY lost. Does that bother you? Do the Jews have a right of return to the fertile crescent? To North Africa? Why not? Is it because Israel has resettled its refugees and the Arabs have not? Should Israel be penalized because the Arabs refuse to resettle their refugees? Should Israel accept into its midst a virulently anti-Israel population?

I am aware that the early zionists wanted as much land as they could get as part of their philosophy. Despite this, they were willing to accept the Partition Plan. Alternatively, had the Palestinians accepted the Plan, and the zionists instead made a land grab, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion right now. I would not be defending the zionists.

But when the Plan was rejected by the Arabs, all bets were off, and war decided the boundaries. It's a choice the Arabs made, and they refuse to accept the consequences of their decision. PERIOD.

David -- The Palestinians certainly haven't missed any proverbial opportunities to miss opportunities. (Although between 1967 and 1992, none were really offered. The so-called Alon plan, in particular, was a joke.)

I am catagorically against all forced transfers, and I think that displaced Sephardic and Oriental Jews ought to be able to return or receive just compensation. One similarity between the two expulsions is their roughly equivelent numbers. Another is that the ancestors of both groups generally expect compensation and acknowledgement of being wronged, rather than actual return.
There are several differences:
1. The expulsion of Jews occured AFTER the expulsion of Arabs.
2. The expelled Jews had a country to go to that not only welcomed them and offered citizenship but desparately wanted them. The expelled Arab's did not.
3. The Jews expulsion was and still is (most recently, in your rubuttal) invoked to exculpate Israel for any moral responsibility in the earlier Arab expulsions. Acceptance of these Jewish refugees, therefore, furthered the legitimacy of the Jewish state. The negligable acceptance of Palestinian refugees by other nations, when it did occur, did not further the aims of the accepting states in any way. In fact, in the case of Lebanon, accepting massive numbers of Palestinians was catastrophically destabilizing.

Look we can argue this forever. I'm for a two state solution -- and damnit this makes me a Zionist, despite all my equivocations and misgivings. I'm mostly angry about the settlements, and about the "facts on the ground" that once they go up, aside from isolated outposts, they are de facto annexed Israeli territory. I think this is a dishonest landgrab, and reduces the chance for future peace by requiring any future Palestinian state to be extremely tiny. Nations need to look out for their own survival first and foremost, and I have no problem with Israel holding on to the West Bank for the next fifty or a hundred years, or however long it takes for the Palesitinians to accept "the consequenes of their decisions." Just as I'd have had no problem with Israel holding on to the Sinai for as long as necessary, absent a real peace partner like Sadat. The difference is that Israel only had tiny settlements in the Sinai which could be easily uprooted. Obviously, this is not the case in the West Bank. Why does the absence of a peace partner justify a land grab, primarily for religious reasons, that makes the chance of peace in the future even more remote than it is today?

Yes, we could argue this round and round, and I haven't done that in ages it seems. I'm all for peace with the palestinians, but it doesn't appear they want it. The longer the palestinians stall, the more settlements will go up, and I'm cool with that, if only to put a fire under their seats and pressure them to make peace now before it's too late. Without that pressure, time is on their side, and the palestinians know it.

Markus,

Ah, now I see.

I'm not so sure. What purpose do you think your criticisms of Israel serve? Do you really believe that without your moral voice Israeli sins would go un-noticed?

The rest of the world is fully capable of condemning Israel without your help. China can destroy Tibet, Sudanese Arabs can wage genocide against black Sudanese, Russia can flatten Grozny and nobody bats an eye. Israel kills a couple of terrorist savages Like Yassin and Rantisi and the whole world is united in condemnation. What more can your voice add to this cacophony? Nothing.

Your problem is not self-hatred. It is self-love. You stroke your own ego by demonstrating your moral superiority to your own people. Now go donate a nickel to a worthy cause.

Markus,

Read this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3371

and this:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040420.shtml

Markus.
You need to study some history.
1. The mufti of Jerusalem incited riots to prevent
Jews from escaping the holocuast.
2. The mufti was a guest and friend of Hitler
during the war.
3. The Brits caved and issued the white paper in
1939, condeming the Jews of Europe to death.
4. So your Palistininan Angels are not sinless, If
there were another 3 million Jews in Israel now
(allowing 50% rescue of the six million), there
would be no demographics issue.
My advice to the Israelis is: The next time they bump off a Hamas leader, rent a squadron of B52's and carpet bomb the mourners. Then bury the whole Gaza strip.

HA: Do you really believe that without your moral voice Israeli sins would go un-noticed?

I’m stating and trying to justify my political opinions just like you and every other genius on this blog. The people who need to confront the facts of Israel’s share of responsibility for the conflict are its uncritical supporters. The people who need to see the Israeli position are the Rachel Corries of the world. The pretension to superior morality that you impute to me is your unfounded projection.

HA: China can destroy Tibet, Sudanese Arabs can wage genocide against black Sudanese… and nobody bats an eye. Israel kills a couple of terrorist savages Like Yassin and Rantisi and the whole world is united in condemnation. What more can your voice add to this cacophony? Nothing.

Bozo, as I said in the first sentence of my first post here, I support the assassinations. And I don’t claim that Israel is more worthy of condemnation than other countries, although given the fact that many powerful people in our country believe it is worthy of NO criticism does motivate me to speak up. Also, please explain why a greater moral outrage elsewhere makes criticism of Israel illegitimate. Sounds identical to the faulty logic of anti-war people who ask why we liberated Iraq when there are or have been other countries with even worse dictators who we have not sought to overthrow.

HA: Your problem is not self-hatred. It is self-love. You stroke your own ego by demonstrating your moral superiority to your own people. Now go donate a nickel to a worthy cause.

I bet as you read this, some asshole in Fallujah is saying the exact same thing to another Iraqi who has expressed opposition to the terrorist insurgency that is fighting to expel the infidels. You’re no different.

YOUR PROBLEM is not self-love, it appears to be that you are a simpleminded, arrogant individual who detests ambiguity and complexity, and has no respect for anyone holding ideas you disagree with, and no real interest in them, except as objects to stereotype and attack. You also see self-criticism, self-reflection, self-doubt as signs of weakness.

HA: Read this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3371
and this:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040420.shtml

Sorry, but I’m pro-Western Civilization, pro-democracy and western human rights standards for non-Westerners, pro-capitalism, pro-globalization, pro-America, pro-liberation of Iraq.

Smitty – If there were another 3 million Jews in Israel now(allowing 50% rescue of the six million), there would be no demographics issue.

The facts of the Holocaust, and the possibility that it could have been avoided or minimized had there been a Jewish state is a powerful point. I’d accept it more readily if the Zionists weren’t so intent on denying the fact that massive displacement of the indigenous Arab population was required, and that Jews as primary beneficiaries of that displacement ought to take responsibility for providing reasonable compensation.

My advice to the Israelis is: The next time they bump off a Hamas leader, rent a squadron of B52's and carpet bomb the mourners. Then bury the whole Gaza strip.

To the extent you’re not joking, Smitty, bin-Laden or Yassin couldn’t have said it better. You’re no different.

Hey Markus,

that's great that you hate Hamas. Most Palestinians don't.

And it's great that you want a two-state solution. Most palestinians don't.

It's great that you're against terrorism. Most palestinians aren't.

It's great that you support homosexual rights. Most palestinians don't.

etc, etc, etc.

In fact, you're out of step with most of the things palestinians believe, yet you're an advocate for them. Weird.

At least I can comfortably say that my own politics are in sync with mainstream Israelis and their aspirations.

YOu really should reevaluate either your positions, or the people whom you support.

David -- Most oppressed societies are indeed backward and tend to include within their own ranks both oppressive leaders and masses of ignorant and suggestible people capable of performing extraordinary acts of cruelty.
The African National Congress (ANC) was a good example of a organization with many corrupt leaders and brutal or even barbaric tactics, which nevertheless was basically fighting for a good cause.

A comment about refugee compensation that was in Walter Russell Mead's extremely sane and reasonable op-ed in today's NYTimes, "Why They Hate Us, Really":

"In Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and other countries, the large majority of people I spoke with are ready to tolerate the Jewish state — most even understand that the final boundaries of Israel will include some of the heavily settled areas beyond the pre-1967 borders. They also understand that few if any Palestinians will return to the homes they lost after the war that erupted when Israel declared its independence in 1948. And they are prepared to accept, though not to relish, America's close relations with Israel. Beyond that, they want increased American support for their domestic political reforms and for initiatives to enhance regional cooperation for economic growth and fighting terrorism.

But one thing sticks in their craw: Why doesn't America care more about the Palestinians' future?

They have a point. America's Middle East policy is unnecessarily zero-sum. We can be more pro-Palestinian without being less pro-Israeli. Indeed, to the degree that American policies help create support for compromise among Palestinians, pro-Palestinian initiatives can help Israel too.

Take compensation. United Nations resolutions call for financial compensation for Palestinians who cannot return to their family homes in Israel. Israel's position that it cannot accept millions of refugees and their descendants is reasonable enough, and the Bush administration's support of it is nothing new. But we should be equally clear about compensation.

Many questions need answering: where can Palestinians go to have their claims for lost property adjudicated and certified? What tribunal will hear these claims? What principles will guide its deliberations? Where will the money come from to pay the claims when peace is finally made?"

The United States can and should take the lead in building an international consensus on the compensation issue and, working with allies in Europe and elsewhere, help raise money to ensure that it is more than a pious wish.

Markus,

coming from the Lefty spokespersons such as yourself to do the translating, you almost make the Arabs sound reasonable.

But what, may I ask, makes the palestinian refugees so special? Do you know of any refugees that receive, en masse, compensation? How many of the millions dislocated by the Indian/Paki wars received compensation? Will Jewish refugees also receive just compensation as part of this reasonable Arab proposal? I have to ask these questions because I know you haven't. The Japanese internment camps in WWII you say? Bad analogy, they were American citizens, and received compensation from their own government. None of that money went to an enemy people.

But what I find FASCINATING is how such virtually inconceivable ideas are put forth with a straight face by these Arabs, and Lefty humanitarians such as yourself pass them on without blinking an eye. And this takes the cake---these ideas are put forth by the very people who KEEP THE REFUGEES IN SQUALOR. Did you know that in many of these Arab countries they've passed laws to prohibit palestinian refugees from buying land? Did you know that? And they presume to criticize the U.S. for not caring about the palestinians? UNBELIEVABLE. Markus, doesn't this strike you as they height of double-talk? And if not, why not???

In light of the facts, forgive me for not being as gullible and highminded as you are. And you call yourself a Jew? I'm a christian, and I care more about your people than you do. How sad.

David -- As you know if you read my earlier post, I support repatriation or compensation for Oriental and Sephardic former Jewish refugees, as i do for Palestinians. I'm pretty sure that the Israeli government disagrees with me on this issue, since talking about refugees at all tends to open up a whole can of worms. Rather, they hope to keep the issue of Sephardic and Oriental Jewish refugees alive simply as a historical fact that negates whatever wrong the Palestinian refugees experienced earlier at the hands of Jews.

Interesting how when we discuss refugees and other Palestinian grievances the attitude of an uncritical Israeli supporter quickly turns self-righteous. Going from a plaintive "why do Arabs hate the Israelis so much when all Israel wants is peace?" to "where do Palestinians get off expecting to be treated any better than Pakistanis or any other group of refugees that have been treated like dirt throughout history?" Quite a change in attitude.

I don't know how to make it more clear: one nation's moral responsibility is not diminished by the moral failings of another nation, be it one with its own history of refugee atrocities, or be it an Arab nation that has refused to resettle the displaced Palestinians.

Those refugees HAD TO LEAVE, and their descendents today MUST NOT RETURN, because their presence would make a Jewish majority state impossible. I'm simply asking that the victims of this unfortunate but necessary demographic fact receive compensation. So is Mr. Mead, your typical "leftist" working for the Council on Foreign Relations.

"And you call yourself a Jew?"

The interest that myself and many Jews have in securing justice for non-Jews, including Palestinians, belies what is probably the most pernicious antisemitic stereotype about Jews: that they are exclusively self-interested.

Markus,

I can see that we will go round and round.

The Israelis hope to keep the issue of Sephardic and Oriental Jewish refugees alive simply as a historical fact that negates whatever wrong the Palestinian refugees experienced earlier at the hands of Jews.

So? It seems fair to me? All this means is that they'd like a bit of consistency from their critics. But consistency cannot be offered in this regard, and I can see how you'd be a bit sore at Israel for exposing this hypocrisy. But the hypocrisy remains yours, not Israel's. Moreover, despite the occasional mention of Jewish refugees, the difference is that the Jews aren't crying about it 60 years later. They've moved on and are doing things, as Jews are famously known to do. They've gotten a life, in other words. The Arabs, also famous for this, have done nothing, built nothing, squandered away one generation after another. Pity is not the first response that this provokes.

Going from a plaintive "why do Arabs hate the Israelis so much when all Israel wants is peace?" to "where do Palestinians get off expecting to be treated any better than Pakistanis or any other group of refugees that have been treated like dirt throughout history?"

It does not at all surprise me that palestinian refugees want to be treated better than Pakistani and Indian refugees, or better than any refugee that has ever walked the face of the earth. It's human nature after all. But what I don't understand, and I believe I speak for Israelis here, is why Israel is expected to do what no other country has ever done since the beginning of recorded history? And conversely, why should the Arabs NOT be expected to do what every other country has done since the dawn of time--repatriate it's refugees?

I'm simply asking that the victims of this unfortunate but necessary demographic fact receive compensation.

Did you know that the U.N. created an entirely new agency to oversee palestinian refugees? UNRWA. All other refugees around the world receive protection and assistance from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR. Did you know that? Did you also know that under the UNRWA regime, palestinians had only to live in Palestine for two years to qualify for refugee status? TWO YEARS. Look it up. Should they also be compensated? Why should they? How much?

If they have a deed to a house, pay them. If they don't, GET LOST.

"I probably should visit Israel sometime, maybe I would have a greater appreciation for the zionost dream and its reality."

Yeah, Markus, you should. Are you under 26? You can still take a Birthright trip for free. Do it.

Let me ask you this: do you think the Tibetans have a right to Tibet? How long would the Tibetans have to be in exile for you to believe their feelings about Tibet were illegitimate expressions of racism or peoplehood or whatever you want to call it?

How come you lefties wax so romantic about every exotic ethnic group on the globe, and their precious habitats, and customs, and rituals, except the Jews? If the Jews want to retain their culture ethnicity language homeland, they are racist. If any other group does, they are a threatened species bravely resisting the globalist hegemony of MacDonald's.

How come that is? Hmmmm?

You want to know why we call you a self-hating Jew? Because you actively AVOID according to Jews the same respect and support and acknowledgement of history that you give to other groups. You bend over backward to put Jews last.

Let me tell you something: if you can only say "my people" in quotes, with much squirming, then just don't identify as a Jew - you don't deserve to. It takes guts and love and adult responsibility to make the commitment to say "my people." Your precious civil rights activists in the South said "my people." Your precious Palestinians say "my people." But you can't. So go be a rootless cosmopolitan humanitarian projecting all your romatic spiritual longings onto exotic Others, preferably of a darker skin tone. You have a rich ancient beautiful culture right in front of you, which is your heritage, but you have to have the guts and self-respect to claim it.

"But one thing sticks in their craw: Why doesn't America care more about the Palestinians' future?"

For one thing, the Palestinians are not the center of the universe, even though they try to hijack every international body they can for their own cause (as in Durban, where they pissed off many of the African nations who wanted to , you know, actually address racism). As some blogger recently pointed out, why should the Pals get to jump in line head of the Kurds, for example? Or the Tibetans? Both groups which have behaved with much more dignity, moral rectitude, and self-reliance.

For another thing, Americans have gotten a good look at the Pals over the last 2-3 years, and they don't like what they see. They know Arafat is a lying kleptomaniac thug. They know he ordered the recent attack on the 2 Americans in Gaza. They remember the Munich Olympics and celebrating on 9-11. They see car swarms and toddlers dressed in suicide belts and mothers brainwashed to bomb children on buses. They were willing to see the Pals as an unkustly oppressed group and extend sympathy and support, but they don't like being taken for fools, and they don't like the Pals any more. Why should they care about a people who show so little care for their own future?

People say Israelis are lousy at PR, but I think the Pals have been shooting themsleves in the foot quite well on their own.

Markus,

Bozo, as I said in the first sentence of my first post here, I support the assassinations. And I don’t claim that Israel is more worthy of condemnation than other countries, although given the fact that many powerful people in our country believe it is worthy of NO criticism does motivate me to speak up.

You still don't get it. I have no doubt that you support the assassinations or Israel's self-defense. I don't think you are a self-hating Jew.

I'm not saying that Israel or even the US is "worthy of NO criticism." The fact is both are worthy of criticism, yes, but EVEN MORE WORTHY OF SUPPORT!. America and Israel get plenty of criticism and almost no support. Why do you feel the need to jump on the criticism bandwagon? What more does adding your voice to this mob accomplish? Nothing except to wear your moral superiority on your sleave and stroke your own ego.

Maybe, just maybe, if Israel received more support and less criticism, Israel would not be forced to take actions that are criticized by disenguous anti-semites who cloak their racism as legitimate criticism. And when you jump on their bandwagon, you serve their purpose whether that is your intent or not.

So go be a rootless cosmopolitan humanitarian projecting all your romatic spiritual longings onto exotic Others, preferably of a darker skin tone.

hehehe, classic! That says it all about these people, bunch of phonies.

Markus.
If you study history, you would know the object is not be as bad as your enemy it is to be worse.
I am not joking. The lesson of history are clear.
We beat the Nazis by destroying Berlin. 85 percent of all buildings. We totally destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To defeat terrorism the same must be done to GAZA. It's us or them, I vote for us.