Interesting to read the oddly vacant rethoric of an Israeli right-winger. I sincerely hope people like him are indeed in the minority, because that view of the world is part of the problem in the Middle East. I know most Israelis like to think the Arabs are the problem. But Israelis need to also address their own existential dilemmas internally, if we are to find some sort of solution somewhere down the line.

Are all the rockets as rusted as these look? Could they really have flown recently in the condition they all look to be in?

Iron supposedly rusts when it burns.

Great post, I love the garden art!
-L

bad vilbel;
I know most Israelis like to think the Arabs are the problem.

How do you know that?
Keep on demonising those pesky zionists bad vilbel. Your kind of view of the world is part of the problem.

Arab Muslim Fanatics are the problem. For almost 60 years they have tried to exterminate the State of Israel. Now a subset of the same Arab Muslim Fanatics (i.e. Terrorists) are trying to impose their world view on the rest of us, or to kill us.

I hear lots of talk, and read many articles and opinions, yet the Arab Muslim Fanatics continue their quest.

It may not be the "best" answer, but I suspect that if we kill every Arab Muslim Fanatic we can find, the problem will eventually be resolved. I would prefer we start with the leaders.

Clearly, demonstrably and consistently the Arabic Muslim world is not capable of policing their own; their leaders do not even speak out (with very rare exceptions) against the terrorists.

Am I scared of the Arab Muslim Fanatics getting WMD's? You bet I am, and I find it difficult to understand how anyone cannot know that the clock is ticking.

Ron

Your rightwing nutcase is as delusional when it comes to the Palestinians as Hezbollah is when it comes to the Israelis. What your "friend" did not state, because he knew his audience, is what he is really thinking: his solution to attaining "all 3" in the formula is ethnic cleansing (politely known as "transfer" in Israeli circles). Sadly, its not an uncommon (though unspoken) sentiment among Israelis. The only difference between them and the Hezbollah types is that, when it comes to the West and Westerners, one party is media savy, and one party is media stupid. And the price of all this, together with our inability to see through this, is paid by innocent Palestinian and Lebanese children via American produced bombs. Oh, and btw, the analogy to Americans was incorrectly reversed...the Palestinians are the natives, and the Russians came to Israel post 1989. But that fact doesn't fit the Israeli narrative on which successive Israeli governments would, if they had their way, bomb the hell out of the Middle East to force acceptance of.

Jono,

If you bothered to read most of my comments, you'd see that I don't demonize "those pesky zionists". I do, however, recognize an extremist, when i see one, whether it's an Iranian like Ahmadinjad, a Hezbollahi, or an Israeli right winger.

Ron,

You say: "It may not be the "best" answer, but I suspect that if we kill every Arab Muslim Fanatic we can find, the problem will eventually be resolved. I would prefer we start with the leaders."

Please list an example of where this approach has succeeded in the history of the civilized world.
You sound very much like the Hezbollah guys who think that if they kill every jew on the planet, the problem will go away.

oh this is gonna be a strange night-thread.

NKLondon -- Jews lived in parts of the West Bank more or less continuously over the centuries; the Pals were nomadic and settled in about 200 years ago or less.

Michael -- what IS the statute of limitations? 1967? When Israel was the first and ONLY nation told (retroactively) it had to give up territory it gained by military victory? Or maybe the statute of limitations runs back to 1948? Wait -- Does that mean China has to quit Tibet?

Or is it back to the 1920's? Does that mean the Kurds get their promised homeland, and the Hijaz and the Shia regions of Saudi Arabia get their land back? The last US forcible territorial acquisitions were only about 120 years ago.

Look - some Settlements in the WB were bought and paid for by Jews in the 1920's and were recognized that way on Jordanian maps when it held the area. Jews had lived in some WB cities in significant numbers as long as the Arabs had, until killed or forced out in 1948 or later.

Jews returned in numbers to greater Israel in the mid 1800's, btw, from northern African countries -- originally into Gaza. The Jews who believe they have as good a claim to the WB as the Arabs are not without some legitimate points -- they are not all right-wing madmen, although they are nevertheless a minority point of view. Their claims will be sacrificed for peace -- IF peace can be gained. Right now that's far from clear.

The majority of Arab people might be happy just with Gaza and the WB, but Arab leadership has shown they are not. To think about just leaving the WB unilaterally -- after the Qassams from Gaza, Katyusha from Lebanon, and open threats by militants to attack Ben Gurion airport with RPG once Israel leaves the WB -- would be insane.

Me? I'd give up the West Bank in a blink, but never give up the Golan -- which also had long-standing Jewish settlements over the centuries, up to fairly recently. But I don't live there.

We have to worrry about human future when educated westreners like the writer engage in extreme ethnocenrism/tribalism. Not a word about fellow humans killed in Gaza. I believe count is 200 in last month.

Michael, probe a little further at this Gaza vs. West Bank thing. I think you'll find that many if not most Israelis actually see these places very differently... The emotional connection, size of the communities, and geographical features of the West Bank make it a different ball game. It's not a given that "the center" wants out of the West Bank and would be false to say that the majority want to pull out in the way that they pulled out of Gaza. It's far more complicated than that. And it's in these complications that I think you'll find some good stories to tell.

People have different ideas as to what kinds of withdrawals to make, if any, and public opinion polls since going through the internally traumatic Gaza withdrawal and then watching the Palestinians turn it into Mogadishu, and even more so since this Lebanon incident, show opinions hardening against unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. The fact that the only place that has been even remotely quiet and not causing trouble in recent months is the West Bank isn't lost on people.

Please dig deeper.

Josh,

I promise you, the center in Israel wants out of the WB.

But now, Hizbollah and Hamas has given the hard right in Israel an excuse to shoot the bird.

Me, I would get the hell out of the WB, add another 10 meters in height and width to the wall and give the Palestinians one chance.

One suicide bomb, Kassem or as much a pebble, I would over run the WB.

Pam- Some of the so-called Arab leadership you deride were actually born in what is now Israel. (Mahmoud Abbas as a case in point.) Beyond their hometowns, how much more should they give up to satisfy someone else's lust for land?

Pam, you'd "give up the West Bank in a blink" when in the sentence just before you state that the "militants" may attack Ben Gurion with RPGs. Ben Gurion is 6 km away from the 1967 border. How far did the Katyushas from Lebanon land again?

Sergio Munoz, I'm sure MJT would like to be more fair and balanced and with his knowledge of Arabic try to gain an understanding of what the average Gazan is going through, but I'm not sure he wants to get kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam by gunpoint.

bad vilbel, similar to understanding that the Southern Lebanese Shi'ite would become more pro-Hez'bollah with Israeli ordinance falling on them, I'm sure you can understand that "extremists" like Tzvika would become more right wing after having Kassams launched at them on a daily basis. And he's hardly extreme; extremists in Israel are the orange-ribbon wearers who said NO to Gaza withdrawal outright (the Religious Zionists), many of whom had to be forceably removed from their homes in 2005. Tzvika, a secular Zionist, states that he was FOR Gaza withdrawal. While that sounds nuanced, that distinction is a major difference among the Israeli polity.

Pam,
Sorry, but the 200 year thing is nonsense...while I'm sure it fits the Israeli narrative of "land without a people for people without a land" and Golda's "there never was such a thing as the palestinian people", why dont you go interview every second person in the WB and have them trace back their ancestry...or is it that only jews tell the truth while all arabs are liars?

As for the rest of the comments here which presume, falsely, that Jews (including the remarkably blond pale-faced nordic variety so native to the swarthy middle east who arrived from Russia post berlin wall) have seniority to the WB by divine right, why not put the Israeli "we're the only democracy rhetoric" to practice: annex the WB, and give all Palestinians full citizenship and right to vote. Anything else, combined with a claim to hold the WB, is apartheid...either that, or at least come clean with what you really think: TRANSFER (aka ethnic cleansing)...clearly neither of these truths neatly fit the Israeli "we're such innocent good democratic land-renouncers" narrative. Of course, there's always the "solution" of Ron...kill all the scum Arabs and be done with it.

Saw this today on Haaretz...author may be a self-hating Israeli, but its very telling:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/756413.html

NKLondon, spoking like a true European who has never experienced an existential threat in your lifetime, like Israelis seemingly have to every 10 or so years.

To quote the Amira Hass article from the link you posted: "We are not in danger of our lives, we will not be jailed in concentration camps, our livelihood will not be damaged and recreation in the countryside or abroad will not be denied to us." Tell that to the 44 civilians killed in Israel proper by Katyusha rockets during July and August of this year. Or was that an example of an occupying people getting their just desserts.

So why don't you mosey off back to (NK)London where Jews couldn't live without fear of inquisition, forced conversion, exile and death for a good 1500 years. Remember, modern Israel as a Jewish State wouldn't have come to fruition if people who think ***exactly like you*** hadn't slaughtered 6,000,000 of the often "blonde, pale-faced nordic variety" in the early 40s. But now that those pushy Jews have had a state for but 58 years, oh, the apartheid!

Quote: "A Qassam could have struck us at any moment, although the odds were low enough that I didn’t worry about it. I even tried to worry about it just so I would have an idea what it can feel like to live next to Gaza."

This is what I like about this blog, Mike, you bring in a personalization to the events in the news. I like your fresh expressions.

Btw, I linked to you from Happy Catholic's blogroll.

The problem here, in my humble opinion, is that we choose to get bogged down in questions of morality (be it divine right, statute of limitations, or other such rethoric). And I'm talking about both the arab and the israeli sides here. Across the board.

What we should be looking at is more realism and pragmatism. At some point, down the line, these 2 sets of people are going to have to learn to co-exist. And that is not going to be possible as long as both sides continue to discuss who has the RIGHT to what, based on the past.

I realize it's a hard view for a lot of people to grasp, or reconcile with what they've grown up with. But the past has, in many ways, been the main hurdle in constructing the future.

Let me give a very basic, overly simplistic, and perhaps dumb, example: I happen to live in the US. Tomorrow, I could choose to buy a house in, let's say San Diego. I don't have to worry about whether that area was originally founded by Spanish Fransiscan monks, or that it was inhabited by a tribe of nomadic native-americans. If we started to worry about the fact that this land was taken from the native-americans years ago by the Spaniards, and then taken from the Spaniards by the British, and so on, everybody and their sister would have a claim of some sort. And if all these groups decided to get armed and start fighting for said land, there would never be a solution. By the very essence of this conflict, it does not HAVE a solution.

JJ,
My my, I hit a raw nerve. You are highly presumptuous and self-righteous..though thats hardly a characteristic unknown among Israelis and their supporters...I'm actually AMERICAN but happen to live in London...Italian by background, and much swarthyer than your average russian who suddenly calls Israel home (while the native palestinians their bretheren kicked out in 1948 in an ethnic cleansing that long predated Bosnia sit in refugee camps in totalitarian states like syria). But as for your slight of the British, were it not for their legitimization of the zionist project via the Balfour Declaration, there would likely be no Israeli state today. And the existential threat your reference, that implicitly justifies killing 1000 innocent Lebanese (majority children), again is based on the premise that, somehow, sovereignty-by-divine-right (a precept unknown to any other polity except the Saudi's) superscedes denial of Palestinians their due rights...a religious fundamentalism of its own in essence, but thats neither here nor there. Hey, you deprive a people of their homeland, ethnically cleanse them, use the great powers in a duplicitous manner to achieve your objectives, humiliate them, deny their existence, deprive them of water, confiscate their land, cut down their olive trees, restrict their movements like rats in a cage even when they need to get to a hospital for a medical emergency, and your wonder why the threat is existential. And then you use that existential threat to, implictly, justify holding control over a people without either giving them citizenship like a true democracy, nor releasing them free, and further using cover of lacking a "true peace partner", while undercutting moderates like Abbas at every chance to embolden the radicals, thereby causing the rockets that further underscore the existential threat, which then justifies the slaughter of Lebanese in a "just war". Wow, Simply wow.

NKLondon, while trying to sort through the many strawmen you build up and knock down, one thing leaps out: who the hell are these "Nordic" Russians you are so obsessed with? Hitler pretty well established that there are no Nordic Jews. Did you really mean Jews of the pale-faced SLAVIC variety? Or are you simply repeating a confused pamphlet from the Finsbury Park mosque that comprises your education on the Middle East?

Palestinian terrorists kidnapped the young
Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit just across the
border from Gaza

OK Michael, they are terrorists for "kidnapping" a soldier. Can you accuse israelis of terrorism for kidnapping CHILDREN?

JJ,
One more thing...you've just proven the Palestinians point...the Palestinians are the fall guy for Europe's crimes in the holocaust. You could at least be a little more honestly direct about that and say that if the Palestinians pay the price for Europe's crimes in the holocaust, so be it. But spare me the narrative of the innocent beleagered state of democractic israel which gives up [other people's] land and looks for peace partners. The spin versus reality is disgusting.

Between the total lack of self-awareness exhibited by this:

"You are highly presumptous and self-rightous"

and the obsession with swarthiness, Nordic-ness, and pigmentation generally, and the reference to Israel's ability to "manipulate" the world's great powers, it's pretty clear that Mr. NKLondon is not someone susceptible to reason or able to break the constraints of his preconceptions. So be it. But let's hope his swarthiness doesn't get him mistaken for a Jew in the wrong part of London.

Brutus,
The pigmentation underscores a point... but if you are one of those fundamentalists who believe God gave Israel to the Jews and thus after 2000 years, without any precedence in history, boundaries can be redrawn on the basis of 2000 year old land claims underpinned by a religious precept, you will never understand the point I was trying to make, no matter how dramatic the I make the visual. As for being a Jew in London, you'll never know the humiliation of being a "dirty arab" in an israeli airport security line or a "cockroach" (to use Yitzhak Rabin's words) in the west bank.

Brutus,
The pigmentation underscores a point... but if you are one of those fundamentalists who believe God gave Israel to the Jews and thus after 2000 years, without any precedence in history, boundaries can be redrawn on the basis of 2000 year old land claims underpinned by a religious precept, you will never understand the point I was trying to make, no matter how dramatic the I make the visual. As for being a Jew in London, you'll never know the humiliation of being a "dirty arab" in an israeli airport security line or a "cockroach" (to use Yitzhak Rabin's words) in the west bank.

“If the Qassam lands next to you,” Zvika said, “it will kill you. But it if lands ten meters away it won’t kill you.

Depends how lucky you are. A friend of mine was about 50 meters from one, and was hit by shrapnel. He's okay - he was hit in the leg - but it could have been a lot worse.

NKLondon writes: The spin versus reality is disgusting.

The Jihadis lost their "rights" in the same manner they gained them, through war. But my question to you is, how much space do Jihadis need to roam free?

http://www.uwec.edu/kaldjian/ncgeIslam/maps/muslim_distribution%20small.jpg

“What is the solution to this problem?” Shika asked Zvika. Zvika had no answer, not even a bad one.

90% of Israelis live within 15 miles of the West Bank, including all of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Given what happened in Gaza and Lebanon, what is your solution to this problem?

I don't see any short-term solution. Long term, who knows what can happen?

BTW great post. As usual.

Redaktor,
If you're confusing "Jihadis" with the Palestinian national movement, then your spin at justifying Israel's control of stolen land isn't quite up to Israeli propaganda standard. The Palestine national movement at its core was national and secular. Indeed, some of the most prominent Palestinian nationalists were/are Christian (even the terrorist ones like the founders of the DFLP and PFLP). But of course, the subsequent hijacking of the Palestinian national movement by Islamic fundamentalists everywhere serves the Israeli narrative quite nicely...particularly when the hollow ring of "a land without a people for a people without a land" began to show the Israelis for what they really are.

As for the solutions, here they are: which do the Israelis want to choose:

(1) annex west bank and gaza and give citizenship to all people in those territories (my vote, since it will exposure the Israel democracy narrative for the myth it really is)

(2) hold on the west bank and subjugate palestinians, and keep gaza as a prison (the vaunted "gaza unilateral withrawal" was nothing more than a repositioning of the prison guards from inside the prison to outside the prison gates)...this is called apartheid (i know, offensive to say that when it comes to the holocaust victims, but being a victim doesn't give licence to victimize)

(3) unilateral withdrawal...perpetual civil war

(4) the hard work option: help to build rather than serially undercut and destroy palestinian institutions, stop the serial daily humiliations of people that has been the vanguard of israeli occupation for too many decades, stop trying to steal water rights, stop building settlements, and then suck it up, and conclude a true negotiation rather than an imposed surrender on Israeli terms under the facade of a camp david media show. Egypt and Jordan kept their borders quiet when they signed a deal...i know, there is no "warm peace" of exchanging choclate chip cookies and baklava around a camp fire for sky and fox news to film, but Israelis on those borders have what they want.

The only moral choices are 1 and 4. Number 2 is naive and foolish, unless used as a sly attempt to re-occupy and then perpetually hold the WB in a more "spin" friendly framework, in which case, would be consistent with Israel's true colors.

Number 2 can only be sustained on the basis that Jewish right is super senior to Palestinian rights,which is called raciscm.

Oh, and there is number 5, which is no doubt the unspoken real wish of the silent majority: Transfer (aka ethnic cleansing). But the Palestinians have not been sufficiently demonized yet by the Israeli machine to make that a media neutral event...but its probably coming.

Oh...and there's an alternative Number 6: kill all the palestinians and be done with it (Ron's "solution" above...)...deem every palestinian to be a jihadi or fundamentalist, and given that labels in today's soundbite world stick, that would be sufficient, per Ron's prescription, to annilate them all, thereby solving "Israel's" problem (and for good spin, spare the Palestinan Christians, because that will play well to the evangelicals in the U.S.)

Typing too fast...meant Number 3 (and not number 2) above is naive and foolish....

Bad Vilbel, I like the way you constructed the rational, pragmatic way out of the ME nightmare. But just looking at the comments before and after your lucidity one becomes quite aware of how infused the human brain is with obstinate 'beliefs' that harshly refute and decry the rational and pragmatic.

I have followed your commenting closely of late, and find much to laud in your down to earth solutions. I would add only one thing to what you wrote. And that is that what makes living in the US and much of the western world a lot saner and safer is that the rule of law is embedded so strongly. Not perfectly, but strongly.

And coincidentally, I live in San Diego. I'd gladly welcome you as a neighbor.

Allan,

Thank you for the kind compliment. Unfortunately, i do not have a SOLUTION. I have observations, collected over a lifetime spent both in Lebanon and the US. But certainly no solution as of yet. I wish I did.

Lebanese and Israeli's:

How long would it take for a damaged car to rust? Does the climate in your region cause crazy amounts of rust?

We have to worrry about human future when educated westreners like the writer engage in extreme ethnocenrism/tribalism.

Oh sod off. I'm not Jewish, and I'm not done writing about Gaza yet.

I also don't get to go in Gaza right now, and I'm writing about what I see and hear.

Ethonecentrism/tribalism? Fuck you.

AR: OK Michael, they are terrorists for "kidnapping" a soldier.

The same people blow up busses and restaurants. So, yes, they are terrorists. If they strictly targeted only soldiers I would call them guerillas.

But you can't be a terrorist on Monday and get to be called a "guerilla" on Tuesday. Not by me, you can't.

Michael,

Don't let the trolls get to you.

Mike (the one asking about rust):

My memories of Beirut...Cars fall apart from rust within a few years, if that tells you anything.
The salt from the mediteranean air and the high amounts of humidity, i believe.

Kassams can do horrible damage.

I was covering a PR opp in the former jewish settlement in Gush Katif last year when kassams started raining down. I hooked up with another journo and we went looking for them. Suddenly an ambulance sped by and we followed. Arriving at the scene we found two dead Palestinians and a dead Chinese.

Blood and body parts littered the area. There was another badly wounded Palestinian. His legs were mush and he was in shock. Died later that evening in an Israeli hospital.

It was my first, and hopefully last, pigua (terror attack). But, living in Tel Aviv as I do I doubt it.

About rust: Bought a new bike last month and already the rust is starting to build up. No rain here in Tel Aviv, just very humid.

Poor Israel. I just had no idea Michael. Thank you for your objective reporting and making it clear how dangerous it is for Israeli civilians. One of these days you might actually travel to the West Bank or Gaza and see how the Palestinian civilians have been treated. Of course, the IOF will try to scare you to prevent you from doing so, and if you go anyways, you may become a target (not from the Palestinians who would love to tell you about their wonderful life, but by the IOF since they know any journalist who goes to the territories despite their warnings must be be up to no good).

Every story or conflict has 2 sides. The Israeli side has been heard quite well in the US MSM, so you are adding nothing except pretty pictures. The Israeli media is more objective than this.

To be fair, I recognize that any aspiring journalist in the US has to conform to the MSM view. Some say this is due to AIPAC influence.
An interesting article on this subject at the link below:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

Get over yourself, Paul. I have been to the West Bank already and I tried (and failed through no fault of my own) to get into Gaza.

AIPAC does not contribute to or bully this blog in any way.

Sorry if writing about rocket attacks looks like part of a conspiracy to you. I suppose when I interviewed Peace Now last week that was part of the same conspiracy. Right?

MJT - I don't always agree with you but your a pretty cool guy. Stay safe.

Craig
Chico, Ca.

Michael, I have not read everything you have written (I will find it and do so). I know AIPAC does not apply pressure directly to MSM journalists, nor bloggers, and it is pretty much self censorhip at this time. Corporate sponsors and corporate owners of MSM outlets generate the pressure indirectly. But at this point it is more the carrot than the stick.

While I have not went to Israel myself, my sister visited the West Bank 2 years ago with her husband. His family came from Jerusalem and moved to Jordan where he grew up and still has some family in the West Bank, so of course he is Palestinian. From her accounts, and his, (he is not objective), things are pretty brutal and the checkpoints are something else just going from one section of the West Bank to the other (not just into Israel which you would expect).

I realize the suicide bombing had to be stopped, but it seems collective punishment of the civilian population to accomplish this is not right. Of course, the argument then goes, but it is the civilians who harbour the terrorists and who are the suicide bombers whose family is paid by the terrorists. Of course this is a Catch 22 situation, make people so miserable and hopeless they will blow themselves up to kill a few Israelis, and then use this as justification to make them more hopeless and miserable. Never ends.

Paul, has it ever occured to you that most Americans are naturally repulsed by terrorists? That they need no pressure from the "Jewish lobby" in order to come to this conclusion all on their own?

Look. I'll bet you 10 to 1 odds that I have more sympathy for the Palestinian narrative that two thirds of Americans. I'm not saying I'm better than that two thirds, just that I have studied the history more than they have and can more easily get beyond the Palestinian=terrorist cartoon.

But I am just as opposed to Palestinian terrorism as that two thirds. You should be able to understand this since you yourself are aware that most Palestinians are not actually terrorists, and that the idea that "pro-Palestinian must equal pro-terrorist" is retarded.

Anyway, as far as AIPAC bullying the so-called "MSM" goes, I saw the local New York Times bureau chief in Jerusalem a few days ago. He was more obnoxiously anti-Israel than the Palestinian journalist who shared the stage with him. The Palestinian guy was pretty reasonable and likeable, actually, but the American NYT chief was insufferably arrogant, elitist, and condescending. I would absolutely hate working for him. And I assure you it's not because he's part of some AIPIAC plot or the victim of one.

Also, Paul, the reason I am not writing about what's going on inside Gaza right now is because I don't know what's going on inside Gaza right now.

Israel is killing Palestinians! Well, yes. But the who, how, and (precisely) why are a bit murky.

I could scream Israel is killing Palestinians! But I would have zero credibility among people who want to figure out what's actually happening, and only earn credibility among people who want to beat up on Israel whatever the circumstances. That is not my interest, and it is not my job.

I just read your Peace Now article. It is a good article, you present the other side of the debate in Israel fairly. I wish I read it before posting on this article, as I would have tempered my comments a bit.

But you do not often see articles like your Peace Now article in the US MSM (some blogs -yes). So there is no question of the bias by the MSM there. AIPAC has some help from the Christian Right in their efforts, but it may be that it is partly due to Americans wish to see the world as Good vs Evil, Black vs White. After all, we like and identify with Israelis more than the Arabs, so the US MSM tell us what we want to hear, and it resonates well with the War on Terror story, so everyone is happy.

It may not be the "best" answer, but I suspect that if we kill every Arab Muslim Fanatic we can find, the problem will eventually be resolved. I would prefer we start with the leaders.
-Ron

Please list an example of where this approach has succeeded in the history of the civilized world.
You sound very much like the Hezbollah guys who think that if they kill every jew on the planet, the problem will go away.
-BV

Two things, BV-

1) there are no examples of that approach working 'in the history of the civilized world' because people who do that kind of thing are generally not considered 'civilized'. However, it is effective. The problem is that it involves killing a lot of people, which is very unfashionable these days.

2) the Hizbullah guys are correct- if there were no Israelis, there would not be a problem with the Israelis*. The problem, from their POV, is that killing Israelis is a lot more difficult than they would like.

Ron is also correct. If there were no muslim militants, there would not be a problem** and Americans could go back to ignoring the middle east and wondering when the cops will find the person who killed JonBenet Ramsey.***

What we should be looking at is more realism and pragmatism. At some point, down the line, these 2 sets of people are going to have to learn to co-exist. And that is not going to be possible as long as both sides continue to discuss who has the RIGHT to what, based on the past.

The realistic and pragmatic view is that the Israelis have a certain amount of territory and the people who want to take it from them are not strong enough to do so.

The Israelis are willing to co-exist- if they weren't, there would be almost no palestinians, and much less Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians. The intransigence is almost entirely attributable to a bunch of assholes who refuse to admit that they have been defeated.

Traditionally, when someone refuses to admit they've gotten their ass kicked, what you do is keep kicking their asses until they admit it. Eventually, they will either come to their senses, or get buried.

Apparently the Israelis are too civilized to do that.

Let me give a very basic, overly simplistic, and perhaps dumb, example: I happen to live in the US. Tomorrow, I could choose to buy a house in, let's say San Diego. I don't have to worry about whether that area was originally founded by Spanish Fransiscan monks, or that it was inhabited by a tribe of nomadic native-americans. If we started to worry about the fact that this land was taken from the native-americans years ago by the Spaniards, and then taken from the Spaniards by the British, and so on, everybody and their sister would have a claim of some sort.

Do you know why you can buy a house in San Diego with a clear title?

It's not complicated.

The Mexican government knows which side lost the Mexican-American war.

The Mexican government knows if it tried to re-negotiate the terms of the treaty that ended that war, it would be defeated.

They have grounds to object. The version of the treaty that Mexico signed included an article that said that the US would respect Mexican land grants. The version the US Senate ratified didn't.

You can probably guess which version is considered authoritative, and why.

And if all these groups decided to get armed and start fighting for said land, there would never be a solution. By the very essence of this conflict, it does not HAVE a solution.

...the Mexican government also knows that if a bunch of assholes started launching rockets into San Diego from Mexican territory, the Mexican government would be held accountable, and that if the Mexican government was unable to stop those assholes from launching rockets into San Diego, the border would be moved south until the people launching rockets could no longer hit targets in San Diego.

The reason there has been ~160 years of peace between Mexico and the US has nothing at all to do with Mexicans liking Americans or vice-versa. People who think that co-existence between the Israelis and the Palestinians should (or even can) be based on friendship are naive.

That is not how these things work.

You don't have to like someone to leave peacefully next to them. You just have to understand that fighting with them will cause a lot more problems than it will solve.

A lot of people in the middle east don't seem to understand that. I don't know why.

*considering arab history, I'm sure there would be plenty of other disputes, of course. Arabs don't even seem to get along with other arabs very well.

**of course, in the US's case, we would just be dealing with different problems.

***...and to all the people who wish Americans paid more attention to the rest of the planet, I say "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it".

I realize the suicide bombing had to be stopped, but it seems collective punishment of the civilian population to accomplish this is not right.

Hey, Paul, if you've got a better way to keep suicide bombers from killing people, I'd love to hear it.

The Israelis aren't manning checkpoints in Gaza because they want to. They're doing it because they don't want suicide bombers (or anyone else) to kill Israelis.

As you say, there's more than one side to it.

Bad Vilbel, great comments! -- but in order to move forward, there must be some reconciliation with the past.

And withdrawal from the West Bank is ambiguous, to the new Wall? to the '67 border? (I sure wish Israel had built the Wall on the '67 border -- perhaps a $10 000 000 / square km territory compensation could be made to reach agreement?)

Whose land is it? -- the reason for most historical wars. Peace/ surrender means giving up claims on the land.

The creation of Israel in 1948 was not completely just (but read their declaration), after the UN accepted a Jewish state in 1947. This declaration ended the not-just rule of the British, who had previously ended the not-just rule of the Ottoman Turks.

There's nobody alive in the world who remembers a "just status" for the lands of Israel and Palestine. No "Palestinian refugee" was born in any recognized country of Palestine -- they were born in some occupied territory.

Or, after 1948, most were born in perverse and inhumane refugee camps, like the one in Lebanon that the Leb people are rightfully so ashamed of, and it is the Lebanese who keep the Palestinians born there in a cage, rather than accepting them like the Bavarian Germans accepted the 3 million Czecho-Slovak Germans who were ethnically cleaned after WW II.

The refugee problem is an inhumane Arab problem, with their willingness to treat human beings as political pawns, as sticks to use in beating Israel: "see how bad lives the refugees live" -- without mentioning that Lebanon, Jordan, Syria & Egypt, and their non-democratic leaders, are the cage-keepers. (And when you're born, and your parents are born, and your family lives in Lebanon, for instance, Lebanon is your "homeland".)

Lebanon should grant citizenship to all Palestinians in Lebanon, with a promise of dual citizenship of a future Palestine. Lebanon can, and should, open their refugee cage.

The Arab-Israeli citizens, those Arabs who didn't run, probably live the most "middle class" lives of all Arabs in the ME. Yes, some discrimination. But much less than Jews suffered with under Islamic governments. Jews are imperfect (no surprise) -- just much, much more human rights oriented than the Arabs.

Michael, don't your Jewish friends have any Arab-Israeli friends you can talk to about their ideas for a peaceful future?

Michael, the word terrorist is used so often, but seems we do not have a clear definition. It seems to be if a non-state actor kills civilians (intentionally or inadvertently) it is a terrorist act, but if a state kills civilians, it is either collateral damage due to imprecise weapons or bad intelligence, or a bad choice of weapons like cluster bombs in civilian areas.

The Germans most likely called those in the French Resistance terrorists. The American Indian probably called American settlers terrorists. The British called those who blew up the King David Hotel terrorists

But yeah, surely someone blowing up a bus is a terrorist and it is sickening.

But what do we call those who create the terrorist?.

The journalists and bureau chiefs of MSM
have eyes and ears. But what ends up in the MSM is influenced by fear of corporate sponsors, corporate owners of the MSM, as well as the career aspirations of the journalists who realize that if they get tagged as a liberal or anti-semite for criticising Israel policy, they may not get that promotion or job.

"Please list an example of where this approach has succeeded in the history of the civilized world."

Unfortunately, this approach has succeeded quite often in recorded history -- the Roman destruction of Carthage is one that springs to mind; from the Roman point of view, it was totally successful. The Mongol extermination of the Assassins (1258, I think) is another example, and I'm sure there are many others.

I'm not advocating the extermination of enemies as a matter of principle, but that's because it's morally wrong, not because it doesn't succeed.

"As for being a Jew in London, you'll never know the humiliation of being a "dirty arab" in an israeli airport security line or a "cockroach" (to use Yitzhak Rabin's words) in the west bank."

That's precious. People are trying to kill me, but that's no big deal, because it's not humiliating.
Although I'd bet that almost any Arab would rather go through an Israeli security line than experience what I went through in elementary school, so I'm not impressed.

Rosignol,
Ok, lets go with your quaint mexico / u.s. example...do any americans or mexicans live in a territory where they are not full fledge citizens of the sovereign ruling over that territory? So fine, have Israel declare the victory they've been so desparately trying to impose on the Palestinians since 1948 by annexing the WB and granting full citizenship rights to the Palestinians there. Only then is your argument consistent. To do otherwise exposes all Israel for the hypocrisy it really stands for versus its (and your) narrative.

Tom Grey,
Ditto. Its nice to review the tired Israeli narrative about Palestinian refugees, and nice to argue that Arab countries should grant them citizenship rights, but again, your argument would only be consistent if Israel granted citizenship rights to those in the WB. Oh, and the existing Arab citizens of Israel are not exclusively those who "didn't run"....they are also those who weren't ethnically cleansed in 1948 by the Irgun, Stern or other then-Jewish terrorist groups. But in the media gang-bang against Arab and Muslim terrorists, the world has forgotten that were it not for jewish terrorists groups pre-1948, the state of Israel with its current demographic today might be very different....but that wouldn't fit neatly into the Jews-are-wonderful and arabs-are-scum narrative that is so wonderfully aligned with Israel's real long-term underlying intent: control over the WB in perpetuity, in one form or another, underpinned by the religious fundamentalist tenet of sovereignty because God promissed them that land.

Sorry, Paul, you don't understand how journalism works in the U.S.

It's true that getting plausibly branded an anti-Semite will hurt your journalism career. But criticizing Israeli policy is the norm in American journalism. And obviously lots of people can criticize Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. I've done it plenty of times, and will continue to do so when I think it's necessary. Israelis themselves do it constantly.

Not one of the American journalists at that panel on media bias in Jerusalem a few days ago said one bad word about Hezbollah. Every single last criticism leveled was against Israel, bar none. If Hezbollah was even mentioned at all by the American journalists on the panel (which included the NYT and ABC bureau chiefs), Hezbollah was spoken of in neutral terms. There was no praise, but nor was there criticism or blame.

It was, truly, an amazing display of extreme bias by people who patted themselves on the back for being "balanced." They aren't remotely balanced at all.

When the Israel-Hezbollah war broke out I was accused by several people around here of being too "pro-Arab," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, because I opposed Israel's invasion of Lebanon from the very beginning. Arabs include everyone from pro-American bloggers in Iraq to Osama bin Laden. So I have to say I find it rather amusing when I get accused of being too pro-Israel by different people.

My biases are very simple: I am against terrorists and dictators, and supportive of reasonable, moderate, democratic people regardless of their nationality, race, or religion. That's it. So I'm supportive of the majority of people in both Lebanon and Israel whether I agree with their politics or not. And I'm categorically opposed to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the settler movement, although I oppose each of them in different ways and to different degrees. (It is less bad to build a house where you shouldn't than to blow up a bus and murder old women and grade school kids.)

Opposing Hamas and Hezbollah does not make me anti-Lebanese or anti-Palestinian. And that's especially the case when you consider that most Lebanese people agree with me on this question. I am much more legitimately pro-Lebanese than the idiots in Cairo and London who wave Hezbollah flags. But whatever.

I have more pressing things to do than argue about this. So I'm done. Carry on if you must.

Maor,
Your are implicitly stating a position that is the undertone of Israel's modern history...whatever happens to the Palestinians in the misery caused to them by the grind of Israeli occupation and discrimination, thats somehow justified because everyone's trying to kill the Jews...whether the Europeans in the holocaust, or the Iranian fundamentalist today. Europeans exterminated 6 million jews, and so palestinians must pay the price and accept that a jewish state usurps their land, defeats them, scatters their people, occupies and humiliates those left. And then reinforce and justify that position further with every mad statement uttered by the Iranian President. What a moral nation.

NKLondon,

You are aware, are you not, that most Israelis with to give the Palestinians their own state in the West Bank and Gaza? Your "analysis" seems to skip past that little details and only applies to the Israeli far-right, not to Israel as it actually exists in the real world.

Brief technical note on the rusting of Iron (or Steel, as is most likely the material used in the rockets). Iron does indeed rust when burned but that rust would be the high temperature oxide which is a purplish red color. The pieces in the picture display the low temperature orange oxide that forms under normal atmospheric conditions. Given the amount of rust visible, I'd say that those rockets are some weeks old.

When the Israel-Hezbollah war broke out I was accused by several people around here of being too "pro-Arab," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, because I opposed Israel's invasion of Lebanon from the very beginning.

But before that, did you not claim that "Israel needs to bomb Hezbollah villages"?

Rosignol,
Ok, lets go with your quaint mexico / u.s. example...

Compadre, you were the one who brought Mexican/Spanish land claims into this...

do any americans or mexicans live in a territory where they are not full fledge citizens of the sovereign ruling over that territory?

Yep. Lots of Americans retire to Mexico (it's a good way to stretch retirement funds, and the warm climate is good for some health issues). They retain their American citizenship and do not acquire Mexican citizenship- they are considered 'resident aliens', and are most emphatically not 'full fledge citizens of the sovereign ruling over that territory'.

And of course, the illegal immigration problem in the US is well known, as is the fact that the majority of those illegal immigrants are Mexican nationals, who are certainly not 'full fledge citizens of the sovereign ruling over that territory'. There are also a lot of people who came to the US legally, to live and work, and have not become American citizens. They, too, are 'Resident Aliens', also known as 'Green Card holders'. I know a bit about this, my stepmother happens to be one.

I thought you were better informed than this...

So fine, have Israel declare the victory they've been so desparately trying to impose on the Palestinians since 1948 by annexing the WB and granting full citizenship rights to the Palestinians there. Only then is your argument consistent.

Consistent with what? You don't have to be a citizen of a country to live in it. All you have to be able to do is pay the bills. You don't even need permission from the government to be there if you're smart enough to go somewhere that's lax about enforcing it's immigration laws (such as the US).

To do otherwise exposes all Israel for the hypocrisy it really stands for versus its (and your) narrative.

Hypocrisy?

Compared to what? Are you familiar with what the nations who expelled jews in '48 did with the property of those expelled?

Woke up this morning and NK London is up to his old tricks, accusing other posters of espousing "divine right" when last I checked no Religious Zionist has posted in this thread. The posters here who have argued against unilateral withdrawal of the West Bank are doing so for security considerations, not on religious grounds. Same goes for not allowing all WB and Gaza Palestinians to be citizens, and in doing so enabling Hamas to be a legitimate political party within the state of Israel -- security reasons, not on religious grounds.

But since you're so interested in victimhood, place of origin and skin pigmentation, NK, I have one question for you. Make that two:

Say if those pale-faced Nordic/Slavic/raped-by-Cossacks-so-have-blue-eyes Jews stayed in their home territory of Europe after 1945 and started blowing up German, Italian and Soviet Russian civilian buses and restaurants as payback for being displaced and murdered en masse. Would you vouch for their right to resistance? What if your Italian grandparents happened to be caught in the crossfire?

I look forward to your response.

the Palestinians are the fall guy for Europe's crimes in the holocaust.

Um, no. Sorry.

The Palestinians are the fall guy for Palestinians (and their friends) trying to wipe Israel off the map.

And one may weep that they haven't yet succeeded in wiping Israel off the map, even as one bitterly decries the difficulties and problems they've "encountered" for having thus far failed.

For truly, should Palestinians have to suffer just because they've tried---and failed (thus far)---to wipe Israel off the map?

However, all this may change; they may ultimately succeed.

To be sure, they'll keep trying (firm believers in justice that they are).

And as long as they keep trying, they'll be the fall guys.

So that one may continue to weep their failure and their suffering, and criticize Israel for having the temerity to want Palestinians to fail in their quest for justice.

The other huge holes in NK's "anybody who doesn't think Israel is the devil, claims Israel is perfect", is the failure to look at Arab decisions.

Try this timeline.

In 1947, Arabs rejected a two state UN partition plan. No democratic vote. So, OK, it was mostly corrupt Arab dictator leaders who, without consulting their people, rejected Palestinian statehood, then.

From 1948 - 1967, Egypt controlled and occupied Gaza, Jordan the West Bank -- neither supported the creation of a Palestinian state. Both supported murdering Israelis. Did Israel stop the Palestinians from creating a state? No. Only Arabs stopped the state creation.

Is Israel stopping Palestinians from declaring a state, now? Basically, no. It's the Palestinian fear of responsibility, as well as borders (an issue for Israel in 1947-48, too) and especially Jerusalem.

Humiliation? Hah hah -- the 'stupid' Palestinians are humiliating themselves. They would rather fight, and lose, and be poor, than start businesses and try to create some wealth. They would rather depend on UN / EU (WU first, Wuss U) / US aid handouts to the PA, like dependent little babies, than do much economic development themselves. Yeah, they are pathetic -- and Israel may not be fully innocent. But it's about 90% Palestinian action consequences, so I only have about 10% sympathy for them. How convenient for Arabs: Israel's not perfect, everything is Israel's fault! (Especially the millions of dollars given to Arafat's widow to make her say what accounts hold the hundreds of million taken by the beloved Arafat and not used for investment?) Of course, maybe it's just my opinion that the Palestinians are acting like stupid suckers for Arab power hungry bozos who don't care for the normal people, except as a way to claim how bad Israel is.

In fact, I have far MORE sympathy for the poor black Muslims in Darfur, who really are being murdered and humiliated and raped by ... Arab Muslims.

Finally, the existential issue is crucial: does Israel have a right to exist? Israel says yes, anti-Israelis either say "no" honestly (Hamas & Hezbollah), or imply "no" like NK neo-troll. Egypt was bribed to say "yes" -- but their gov't did say yes.

Iran is also saying "no", and by its actions is preparing to back their "no Israel" with nukes.
I fear this.

NKLondon,

Point one: The pale-faced blond Judeans/Israelis have the same right to be in Israel/Zion/Middle East, as your swarthy "Italian" ass has a right to be White Europe. If you think otherwise, get your swarthy racist ass back to Pakistan, where it belongs.

Point two: Jews were fighting on behalf of the thoroughly "secular" and anti religious Soviet Communists, so what does that mean? There were Jewish Jihadis fighting the Spanish and French in "Al-Andalus" Spain. Your "religious" affiliations are totally meaningless. There are some Jews, which even today, lend their support to Jihadis: the Neturei Karta sect. So whether they be dhimminized Christian-Jihadis, or Jewish-Jihadis, or thoroughly Muslim-Jihadis, is irrelevant. Just like you, Jihadis they are all the same.

"I realize the suicide bombing had to be stopped, but it seems collective punishment of the civilian population to accomplish this is not right."

Ummmm... what the hell is suicide bombing if not collective punishment? Or rocket attacks on non-military communities? So its OK for Arabs to collectively punish Israelis, but not vice versa? Doh' - silly me - I always forget international law only applies when it's against Israel. Tell the Arabs to stop their own suicide bombers and rockets, and Israel will stop 'collective punishment.'

"(It is less bad to build a house where you shouldn't than to blow up a bus and murder old women and grade school kids.)"

Michael, I wish that fit on a bumper-sticker!

"People are trying to kill me, but that's no big deal, because it's not humiliating." Great response, Maor -- but since shame is worse than death for Arabs (and before you jump down my throat, anyone, explain Honor killings to me in any other terms) being questioned and frisked by Jews at an airport IS obviously justification for a terrorist response.

Rosignol and Tom Grey,

You guys are kinda preaching to the choir here. I said that both sides will have to co-exist for this conflict to be resolved (which is what you 2 are saying as well). Obviously, one side wiping out the other would solve the problem. But I think we all agree that is not HOW this should be solved. (Lest we forget the horrors of the Holocaust, Pol Pot's Cambodia or Saddam's idea of solving the Kurdish problem in Iraq)

I think any reasonable person knows that the ultimate solution will involve 2 states, side by side. They don't have to like each other, as you guys said, they just need to respect each other's sovereignty and, as Rosignol pointed out, need to realize that they gain more by being at peace than they do by trying to wipe each other out.

All this is well and good. However, you have a segment of the Arab population who thinks that, due to some divine rights of their own, they're entitled to ALL of a Palestine/Israel (this would be the Hamas types). You also have, on the other side, guys like this Israeli, depicted in the article, who's convinced the jews are entitled to ALL of Israel, again because of some divine right. This includes the West Bank (Gaza is far less biblically signifcant). Granted this guy may be in the minority, but my initial comment was that at some point, these "fanatic" types (on both sides) need to let go of these notions of entitlement, that are based on divine right or on stuff that happened 2000 years ago, and start living in the present.
The palestinians need to recognize that Israel is not going away, and that terrorism, guerilla resistance, and whatever else means are NOT gonna suddenly cause all jews to pack up and leave for the US.
Conversely, Israelis need to realize that they are not going to get to keep the West Bank, biblical land or not, and that they need to get over it. They are going to have to allow the palestinians a state that's viable (And gaza all by itself isn't).

That's all I'm saying. As long as a significant enough portion of the 2 populations continue to feel entitlement (based on divine rights or whatever else), the solution will remain ellusive.

There is nothing worse than someone feeling entitled. It makes them impossible to negotiate with, because, by definition, they don't believe there is anything to negotiate. This guy Michael interviewed displays that intransigeance with his "But it's our land" comments. And I was merely commenting no that, nothing else.

I think Tom Grey's post implicitely reaches for a real-world solution. The Palestinians (or those who spoke for them) made an unfortunate choice in 1947-48. The modern-day Palestinians have to live with that choice; it doesn't seem likely that they will ever get a do-over incorporating all the terms that they desire. Were a real Palestinian leader to step up (the opposite of those whose argument if extended necessarily ends with the glass-makers rendering great portions of the ME unihabitable for centuries) and set forth goals that are realistic and obtainable-and tell the Palestinians the truth about achieving those goals-perhaps a real Palestinian "State" would emerge; I believe the Israelis would like nothing better than to pass the WB and Gaza off to a responsible leader and populace. That leader does not seem to have appeared at this point in time, it isn't even clear if the Palestinian population would yet listen to such a person. Ergo, the status quo until and unless. Israel, like all national governments, has the right to do just as it is now-defend its people and borders.

Michael,

To echo Tom Grey's comments. I was thinking last night that I'd like to read an interview or discussions with the arab-israelis living in Israel proper (since you can't get to Gaza).

It won't be representative of Gazan opinion, obviously, but I, for one, am very interested as to what they have to say about the whole notion of a jewish state, down the line, and how they, as a minority, would see themselves fitting in. What happens if they ever become a majority? Will Israel insist on democracy? Will it rather preserve its jewish character through some sort of Apartheid? etc...

I will say that we are like a group of people tied to a rail line while a freight train is approaching after long having whistled in the distance. Same are debating the speed of the train, its length, its weight, some even venture guesses regarding the intentions of the engineer; all quite amusing. The debate has reached the point where some wonder if there’s a signal somewhere between the train and where we are, which if red, might stop the train. This to them seems very smart, because if the train stops, well, we are obviously not going to get hit. But unless the signal stays red forever, which in reality never happens, the train will start again. And it has. We, who are tied to the track of Western culture, WILL get hit and ran over.

Now, we can debate what’s in wagon No.11, or we can take steps to destroy the train. The Jihadist train is fast approaching.

Redaktor,

You're giving far too much credit to this jihadi train. I'd argue that in the grand scheme of things, the train that's unstoppable is that of western civilization.

In the end, although quite loud and vocal, the Jihadis will end up being nothing more than a blip in the grand process of history.

bad vilbel writes: ..these "fanatic" types (on both sides) need to let go of these notions of entitlement, that are based on divine right or on stuff that happened 2000 years ago, and start living in the present.

Nonsense. It is you that needs to start living in the present. These quote: "notions of entitlement," came about in the 1967 war, and again in the 1973 war. The Jihadis lost their "rights" to these lands in wars that they themselves started. Israelis should have gone Roman on these Jihadi bustards right then and there, and that would've solved the problem of Jihadi humiliation. In my view, it is still not too late to do just that, especially considering all the almost daily Jihadi provocations.

Israelis need to also address their own existential dilemmas internally, if we are to find some sort of solution somewhere down the line...

There is nothing worse than someone feeling entitled. It makes them impossible to negotiate with, because, by definition, they don't believe there is anything to negotiate.

Do you think Israel should be willing to negotiate away its existence, then?

Of course not, Solomon.

People here are either intentionally misreading my statements, or I'm not doing a good job stating them.

I said in a previous comment that i do not have a solution to the problem. I am not proposing any sort of concrete solution here. I don't know how this problem gets solved on the ground.

What I do know is that as long as both sides feel entitled to the WHOLE pie (again, i emphasize what i said in my previous comments: I'm talking about people who want the WHOLE enchilada here), there can be no acceptable solution (wiping out the other side is NOT acceptable, in my book).

Is this so hard to understand?

According to the CIA:
Singapore - 693 sq km
Gaza (only) - 360 sq km
Liechtenstein - 160 sq km
Monaco - 1.95 sq km (3 times Washington Mall)
West Bank - 5,860 sq km (about Delaware)

Without war conquest, any peaceful size is "big enough". Please, no "viable size only" arguments.

Either side could give or get more land, without viability constraints.

Tom Grey,

Fair enough. I guess Gaza could technically be like one of those city-states, given the right infrastructure.

bad vilbel,

There’s a reason they now call Europe, Eurabia. There’s a reason that the Reuters propaganda service is called Al-Reuters. Lebanon has gone from a tiny sliver of land with a Christian majority, to a tiny sliver of land with a tiny Christian minority. The same goes to Bethlehem and Nazareth in Israel. These were towns where there was a clear Christian majority. Today these Christians are driven away by their Jihadi "brothers". And let’s not forget that whole Middle East was a vast domain of Aramaic/Christian culture. Now it has all but been wiped out by the Jihadists.

The demographic picture is very scary and worrisome. Europe’s and North America’s birthrates are anemic, and declining. This is the opposite of the demographic picture in the vast and growing swaths of land comprising present day Jihadistan. So no, I’m not giving too much credit to this jihadi train. Neither am I asleep at the switch.

Redaktor,

I don't know where you're getting some of your facts from. Might wanna open up some real history books. Eurabia? Al-Reuters? Who's "they" who calls them that?
Jihadistan?

I tried having a reasonable conversation here. But obviously, some people are more interested in brandishing hollow slogans and coming up with cute wordplay.

Good day.

Remember Camp David 2 in 2000? Remember the Taba talks in 2001?

No, of course not.

On the other hand, even if one does even slightly remember them, it is only to reinforce the belief that Israel was not---is not---serious about negotiations with the Palestinians.

How does this work? Let's see. The Palestinian line, when they choose to use it, goes something like:

"1: Israel must withdraw to the May 1967 armistice line. And 2: Israel must withdraw from East Jerusalem. And 3: Israel must allow all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes within (pre-1967) Israel."

And then, when Israel responds, "But we can't agree to this. This represents the end of our state! We're not going to negotiate away our existence, and you can't expect us to negotiate away our existence!", the Palestinians---along with their progressive, justice-seeking supporters---will retort, "You see, Israel simply refuses to negotiate with us." (Perhaps they will even throw in the key word "intransigent," as in, "Those intransigent Zionists simply refuse to negotiate with us."

And in their wisdom, the Palestinians can continue: "You see, we even have the quotes to prove the true intentions of the Zionists, who themselves said, "WE AREN'T GOING TO NEGOTIATE."; and they also said, "YOU CAN'T EXPECT US TO NEGOTIATE."

So how do you expect us to negotiate with those colonialist, apartheid racists? In spite of our sincerest efforts to reach an agreement with them, the Zionists only understand the language of force.

(And it works like a charm. Simply a glorious thing to behold....)

bad vilbel, in 2005 the Israeli government and military made a political decision, supported by the majority of their polity, to remove 9,000 Jewish Israelis (1,700 families) from their homes and livelihoods:

http://www.jcrcboston.org/site/c.kvKYLcMSIqG/b.1102587/k.8FD5/Israels_2005_Disengagement_Initiative_Numbers_to_Know.htm

Until the Palestinians do ONE THING to show that they, too, can make self-imposed sacrifices (other than funding Suha Arafat's shopping sprees in Paris), I think it would be difficult for most Israelis and pro-Israeli Westerners to take statements about Palestinian "entitlements" seriously.

What I do know is that as long as both sides feel entitled to the WHOLE pie (again, i emphasize what i said in my previous comments: I'm talking about people who want the WHOLE enchilada here), there can be no acceptable solution (wiping out the other side is NOT acceptable, in my book)

Thanks, that's a much clearer statement. Yet I wonder, at this stage, what can suffice for either party short of "wiping out the other side". As Israel's enemies become more powerful, and as they work to entrench their offensive military capabilities within their civilian populations, the ability for Israel to engage in other options disappears. As the mass-destruction capabilities of Israel's enemies grow, so will their desire to advance their goals by wiping out little Israel.

I recall that Gaza and its entire recalcitrant population was wiped out once before - by Alexander the Great. Nobody thought any less of him for it. Maybe it's something in the soil?

bad vilbel,

No. What you and your Jihadi brothers are trying to do here is slip us a Mickey. But not all of us are so stupid as to drink your concoction. People will finally wake up to see you snakes for what you are.

Solomon2,

At this stage, the ball is in the arab court. What they do with it, I don't know.
The good news is that there are some arab countries who recognize that they need to move towards peace (Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, and co.) We'll have to see where that goes.
The bad news is that you have those crazies in Iran to worry about.

Redaktor,

If you think that calling me names is gonna prove your point, more power to you...

bad vilbel,

Trust me, I'm way past calling you names.

"What you [BV] and your Jihadi brothers are trying to do here is slip us a Mickey. But not all of us are so stupid as to drink your concoction. People will finally wake up to see you snakes for what you are."

Whoa! I think Redaktor's train just jumped the tracks! Careful, your inner whacko is showing!
It is, however, very convenient when someone completely discredits themselves in a single comment. Saves the rest of us the trouble of actually looking for a reasonable argument in the rest of their comments.

Lovin' U BV ;)

bv: It's more complicated than that, the Iranian mullahs are not Arabs. My guess is that these chess-playing carpet-weavers are trying to fashion a situation where they will use the Arabs as pawns in a WMD attack that can be blamed on Israel, so that Iran gets off not just scot-free, but dominant in the region. Thus will a new Persian Empire be born, one utterly dedicated to the destruction or domination of Western Asia and beyond.

L writes: Saves the rest of us the trouble of actually looking for a reasonable argument

A reasonable argument towards what end?

More land concessions to satisfy Jihadi appetites? More Political Cowardice to assuage the Jihadi blood cult? What’s reasonable about that?

Solomon,

Of course you're right. It's hard to reply in short comments and still encompass the magnitude of the issues at hand.

Iran, in the end, is in it for their own ends, namely being the dominant regional power and being the leading bastion of Shiism against what they perceive as Sunni oppression. The threats coming from Iran, not only to Israel, but to the "moderate" arab states is growing. And looking at the geopolitical scene here, for a moment, I can't help but feel that countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt (the 2 sunni powers in the region) are taking stock of Iran as the bigger threat (rather than Israel). The Saudi peace initiative of 2002 (which is not being revived, apparently) must be seen in that light. The arab states, as a whole (minus Syria and its terrorist offshoots of Hamas and Hezbollah) are essentially over it, when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I think, although there are many details to work out, the fundemental issues (spare fo the right of return one) are fairly obvious at this point: 2 state solution, normalize arab-israeli relations and move on to worry about Iran.

The real question is, HOW do we get to that point, without allowing the extremist elements (Iran via Syria/Hamas/Hezbollah) from torpedoeing the whole process.

Addendum to previoust post:

Look at the Israeli-Hezbollah war under the light I describe above, and note the tacit approval given by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and co. to the Israeli operation (yes, i know, officially they were against it, but tacitly...) and the pieces of the puzzle become apparent: There is a drive to tackle the Iran/Syria obstructionism so that the peace initative can be revived.

Step 1: Syria gets the boot from Lebanon.
Step 2: Hezbollah is weakened, with arab approval, and hopefully marginalized.
Step 3: Hamas?

In parallel, the squeeze is put on Iran over its nukes, while the above 2 steps manage to take some precious leverage out of Iranian hands...

You get the picture.

BV said:

What I do know is that as long as both sides feel entitled to the WHOLE pie (again, i emphasize what i said in my previous comments: I'm talking about people who want the WHOLE enchilada here), there can be no acceptable solution (wiping out the other side is NOT acceptable, in my book).

Is this so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand is why you insist on morally equating the two sides in this conflict.

One side is in favor of individual rights and wants to live under a government that recognizes and protects those rights. The other side (at least the great majority of them) denies the existence of individual rights and is in favor of living under a totalitarian government that suppresses and denies those rights. One side advocates a free society. The other side advocates a society of slavery to religious edicts issued by theocratic authorities.

Only one of these two sides has the right to govern any territory -- and that is the side advocating individual rights, freedom and a government that protects both.

No one can claim the right to establish a government that does not recognize individual rights -- such a claim is a contradiction in terms. If there are no rights, then there is no right to establish any sort of government. If there are rights, then the only right kind of government is one that recognizes and respects rights.

This is where the entire Palestinian claim falls apart. NOTHING justifies the establishment of a state that does not recognize rights. No past violation of rights (if such occurred) can be a justification for establishing a government that does not respect and protect rights.

Nor can a previously rightless existence under some sort or tribal governance in a given area be a justification for re-establishing a government that does not respect rights. There is no right not to acknowledge rights.

It is a moral obscenity to suggest that the advocates of freedom must compromise and give the advocates of slavery some territory in which to practice their slavery. The only moral solution is for the advocates of freedom to keep killing the advocates of slavery until they give it up and embrace a free society.

I give up.

bad vilbel;
I sincerely hope people like him are indeed in the minority, because that view of the world is part of the problem in the Middle East.

---------------

I think i will express the view common to most secular israelis who are majority in this country that biblical significance of Hebron or West Bank means nothing. I have no problem to say goodbye to that wall also and frankly i know very few people in Tel Aviv who have been to it even once.

Theoretically i would like the palestinians to take their damn west bank and leave us in peace on the other side of the fence which route can be corrected if it s neccesary for the success of the negotiations. But I am not optimistic that anything like this going to happen any time soon

The right of return inside Israel proper is a big no no for the absolute majority of people here, left or right. If anything most israelis want peace to see less of the arabs and not more of them. But i bet the majority would be ready to accept additional taxes to pay the palestinians if they would be ready to compromise on that.

bad vilbel;
I sincerely hope people like him are indeed in the minority, because that view of the world is part of the problem in the Middle East.

---------------

I think i will express the view common to most secular israelis who are majority in this country that biblical significance of Hebron or West Bank means nothing. I have no problem to say goodbye to that wall also and frankly i know very few people in Tel Aviv who have been to it even once.

Theoretically i would like the palestinians to take their damn west bank and leave us in peace on the other side of the fence which route can be corrected if it s neccesary for the success of the negotiations. But I am not optimistic that anything like this going to happen any time soon

The right of return inside Israel proper is a big no no for the absolute majority of people here, left or right. If anything most israelis want peace to see less of the arabs and not more of them. But i bet the majority would be ready to accept additional taxes to pay the palestinians if they would be ready to compromise on that.

nobody,

Be careful, or they might accuse you of "moral obscenity" and put words in your mouth. :)

Thank you for the reasonable comment.

I know they will, vilbel.

But i dont care. Also very often after i do something like this there comes some israeli leftist who starts apologizing all over the place until he ends up by cluttering the whole of the forum with his nonsense

it goes of course without saying that when i say "The right of return inside Israel proper is a big no no" that means that in the west bank/gaza the pals would carry out their own immigration policies. They can bring there all of their refugees and one billion of chinese, if they want, in case of course the palestinian state is established.

I understand that at the last stages of Oslo the yunkees were trying to entice Arafat into signing agreement with a promise of huge sums of the annual aid. I read that at one point as much as 4 billions annually was in the air, twice as much as Egypt gets after camp david. But the pals are too proud of course to compromise on any inch of the sacred palestinian land or right of return and the result is well known

Yup.

And that goes towards my earlier comments about having to let go of the past. The Palestinians need to understand pragmatism, and understand that the right of return is a pipe dream, and that fighting for this "pride" you speak of, is not going to do them any good.

well.. i think most israelis are practical enough to accept the idea of giving up on west bank/jerusalem .. the problem is not territory as such .. its because of security preoccupations or call it existential fears ... for some reason we are still struggling to get convinced in the goodwill of our neighbors

I was posting a few days ago on one amazing lebanese blog... one of the articles there dealt with zionism as a combination of stalinism and national socialism ... when i expressed my doubts that we are that bad the author also informed me about the secret zionist plan to dominate the world ...

but he was a cool guy and against violence .. he was trying to reassure me that all the arabs have in their minds is our good and well being .. but i still have my doubts

Link?

That seems like it would be an interesting read. :)

At this point (and this is me putting myself in an Israeli's shoes) I can't say I blame you and Israel in general for having these security concerns and fears. Your neighbours have not done anything to prove their goodwill. That much is a fact.

My hope is that this will change. But we'll see. Until then, though, there really is not much that is going to change on the ground. (Unfortunately)

http://blacksmithsoflebanon.blogspot.com/2006/08/know-thy-enemy-part-i-pref_115664518595853390.html

nobody,

Wow. I just wish I had the past 10 minutes of my life back. Reading that thread gave me a headache.
Makes you appreciate the comment section on this blog a bit more when you read all that namecalling. Some of those people sound like they're 5 years old, both in their maturity and in their grasp of politics and history.

i was under impression that its a normal stuff on the arab blogs ... i dont read arabic .. but i can imagine that it should be much worse than these english blogs ...

here it just comes in a very concentrated form but i see this stuff all over in comments and articles ... i was actually thinking that this kind of chomsky style analysis or paranoias of the elders is now an integral part of the intelectual debate in arab countries

In fact i was so impressed by that thread that from there i went straight to the blissstreetjournal to complain to the caveman. And he of course was as always cool and unshakeable, like - who cares for this shit , i dont have time for this nonsense...

you can see our conversation in the comments of his last post

anyway .. got to split with you .. take care .. thanks for good talk

To correct the poster known as "nobody" the majority of Israelis are not secular but traditional. That means the majority does not observe the sabbath but does follow/engage in most of the Jewish customs. And being one of those traditional Israelis, I would assume that the majority of Israelis would be very much against giving up the "wall" as you've suggested, being that it is Judaism's most holy site.

nobody,

There are plenty of more mature arab or Lebanese blogs. Links to most of those can be found right here off Michael's links to the left.
Every blog, even the better ones, have their share of immature ninconpoops and childish imbeciles, but I find that there are a lot of well-spoken, smart and interesting people, with varied opinions (some with which I agree, and some with which I disagree) with whom you can conduct reasonable debate and logical argument.

Again, you have to look past the immature comments that crop up here and there, both from Arabs and Israelis alike.

well sarit

the statistics that i hear repeatedly are the following:

20% of the israeli jews are orthodox and i am not sure that many ortodox would even call themselves israelis

slightly more than half consider themslves secular .. which leaves us with less than 30% traditionals ..

the traditionals incude so many shades of greay and some of them so slight that i dont know if anybody can claim to represent them

a considerable part of them would be accomodated by a compromise over sacred places involving UN or something as long as free access is guaranteed to every side ...

so i am not sure that you represent a majority

it may be true that right now most people would oppose any deal with the plaestinians .. but it has less to do with some principles, like we ll never give up on our wall, and more with hamas, palestinian terror and kassam attacks..

debil

The best figures I have seen for the population of the area prior to the British Mandate is 200,000 Arabs and 80,000 Jews. This was based on the Ottoman Empire census done around 1902 and the figures are considered low for both populations. The population shot up for both groups during the British Mandate and the 1946 Census was approx. 1.2 million Arabs and 400,000 Jews, this despite restrictions on the immigration of Jews by the British.

Now I have yet to see any evidence of the Palestinian resistance to the Ottoman Empire, surely their Nationalistic desires predate 1948? Anyone care to point me in the right direction?

To Nobody:

I'd like to see the sources of these stastics you quoted. They sound more like Meretz rhetoric than the truth on the ground. I'd bet my house that 50% of Israelis are not completely secular.

If security concerns were not an issue, I'm sure you could secure a majority to split Jerusalem, but I highly doubt you would be able to secure a majority to give away control of the Wall.

To Nobody:

I'd like to see the sources of these stastics you quoted. They sound more like Meretz rhetoric than the truth on the ground. I'd bet my house that 50% of Israelis are not completely secular.

If security concerns were not an issue, I'm sure you could secure a majority to split Jerusalem, but I highly doubt you would be able to secure a majority to give away control of the Wall.

You guys are kinda preaching to the choir here. I said that both sides will have to co-exist for this conflict to be resolved (which is what you 2 are saying as well). Obviously, one side wiping out the other would solve the problem. But I think we all agree that is not HOW this should be solved.

It's not my first choice, or even my second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh. Hell, it's not even my hundredeth.

The problem is that Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, as someone once said. I'm starting to think that the real nutjobs over there are going to have to face an utterly stark choice of 'live in peace or die' before some of them come to their senses- and I think a lot of them won't.

I'd like to solve this some other way, but what hasn't been tried? At what point does resorting to that stop being inappropriate? There's an answer to that question, and it's not 'never'.

I hope they choose 'live in peace'. Really. But I don't think all of them will. We have to recognize that there are people who will choose death over living peacefully, and they are the reason there is a problem. There is no reasoning with such people, no accomidation is possible, you have no choice but to endure their attacks or kill them.

After watching this mess drag on for decades, I'm getting to the point where I care less about how it gets solved and more about it getting solved, because quite franky, the US has much bigger problems to deal with, and a bunch of intransigent idiots who aren't smart enough to know when they're defeated are a waste of our time.

Being civilized does not mean you have to allow barbarians to kill you.

(Lest we forget the horrors of the Holocaust, Pol Pot's Cambodia or Saddam's idea of solving the Kurdish problem in Iraq)

I wish I did not understand those people as well as I do.

I think any reasonable person knows that the ultimate solution will involve 2 states, side by side.

Ultimately, there will be two states, yes.

They don't have to like each other, as you guys said, they just need to respect each other's sovereignty and, as Rosignol pointed out, need to realize that they gain more by being at peace than they do by trying to wipe each other out.

How can you make a deal with someone who does not understand what is in their own best interest?

From where I am sitting, they look irrational. What am I missing? Or am I making an error by thinking that there is some information which, once I am aware of it, will make what they are doing seem rational? Are they really, truly, irrational?

All this is well and good. However, you have a segment of the Arab population who thinks that, due to some divine rights of their own, they're entitled to ALL of a Palestine/Israel (this would be the Hamas types).

That would be an example of the people I was referring to earlier- the ones you can't negotiate with, all you can do is endure their attacks or kill them.

It is amazing to me that Hamas has been elected as the government of the gaza strip. If the Israelis had know this is where 'land-for-peace' would lead...

You also have, on the other side, guys like this Israeli, depicted in the article, who's convinced the jews are entitled to ALL of Israel, again because of some divine right.

I'm not worried about them. The Israelis have shown that they can keep those guys on a pretty tight leash.

[snip]

The palestinians need to recognize that Israel is not going away, and that terrorism, guerilla resistance, and whatever else means are NOT gonna suddenly cause all jews to pack up and leave for the US.

I agree completely.

Conversely, Israelis need to realize that they are not going to get to keep the West Bank, biblical land or not, and that they need to get over it. They are going to have to allow the palestinians a state that's viable (And gaza all by itself isn't).

I agree completely.

That's all I'm saying. As long as a significant enough portion of the 2 populations continue to feel entitlement (based on divine rights or whatever else), the solution will remain ellusive.

Not elusive. Impossible.

There is nothing worse than someone feeling entitled. It makes them impossible to negotiate with, because, by definition, they don't believe there is anything to negotiate.

I agree completely.

This guy Michael interviewed displays that intransigeance with his "But it's our land" comments. And I was merely commenting no that, nothing else.

All that guy is doing is talking. So long as all he does is talk, he can say whatever he wants.

His counterparts on the other side of the issue aren't just talking- they're trying to kill people.

[snip]

bad vilbel,
I agree that you are right to fear Jews who insist on having the whole enchilada. I can promise you though, as a religious right-wing Israeli, that there are very few of those. It is very rare for someone to say that he would oppose giving up land for peace even if he were sure it was real peace (I have heard maybe 2 people ever say that). And my acquaintances are far more right-wing than the average for Israel. It is more common to hear people assume that the Palestinians will never want peace, so the whol