Welcome back.
But you haven't yet addressed the most important issue of the last week: If the Billy Squier video wins the Editors' current poll, does that mean your post at Unfogged was the preemptive strike that won the war?
(It's up against some tough competition, but I think it's in the running.)

By the Zengerle standard, saying someone ought to be hanged is a death threat, yes?
(I almost said hung but thought better of it.)

I think the second-most-important question (behind the question about the Billy Squier video, which video is, in and of itself, a war crime) is: Why does Apostropher.com hate America?

The blame for Palestinians' suffering rests on the shoulders of the Palestinian terror groups whose actions necessitate Israeli responses.

It's been said before but it bears repeating: Palis lay down their guns: Peace. Israelis lay down their guns: They get pushed into the sea.

I don't think it's as simple as that, GB. Necessitating responses is one thing. *This* response, which could well amount to locking an entire people in a crowded ghetto and destroying all access to clean water, is an atrocity, no matter what other issues are at play.

Collective punishment is a violation of international law.

So if Hamas didn't exist, the Palestinians would be on easy street? Is that it?

Look, GB, the first rule of blame is that there's always enough to go around. I don't have any patience with people who say the Palestinians are all doe-eyed martyrs (if anyone actually still says that)--but I can't believe any intellectually serious person could say (or imply) that the suffering of the Palestinians is entirely their own fault.

I'm leaping on your possibly offhand but certainly indefensible remark because America's Hollywood-driven Messiah complex has made us all too eager to determine who is Good in the world and who is Evil. That's just not helpful. It makes it harder to rein in the excesses of our "friends" and harder to negotiate with our "enemies". Yitzhak Rabin is still quoted pointing out that "You don't make peace with your friends".

I'm not saying there's no such thing as evil, and don't you dare pretend I am; but by and large, people do things because it suits their advantage. And here's the real key: people act based on a finite range of options determined by circumstance. If the Palestinian territories had anything like an economy, people wouldn't depend on Hamas for things like basic education and health care. The payments made to the family of a 20-something suicide bomber likely provide more financial security to the extended family than they could otherwise find.

Maybe the 20-something is afire with an ideology; but as it stands, that ideology has no competition. What's the alternative to militancy? Living in the squalid refugee camp where your grandfather grew up, gazing off across the hills every day at the 1000-year-old olive groves your ancestors tended, now surrounded by tract houses full of people who treat you instinctively like a murderer by presumption?

We cannot allow either side in this conflict to fold their arms and say, "Look, we're just waiting for the other side to admit that we're right and they're wrong and there's nothing they can do about it." Here's the way it really is: Palestinians lay down their guns: monkeys fly out of your ass. Israelis lay down their guns: same thing.

Oh, please. Israel, you may forget, PULLED OUT of Gaza in an unprecedented, unilateral move. They were repaid for this kindness with... nothing. Unless you count rocket attacks and suicide bombings.

Until science invents a new bomb that only kills bad guys, any military response against groups like Hamas, which intermingles with civillians, cynically using them as de facto human shields, will unfortunately, yet unavoidably, impact on people who are not active combatants.

Hamas is like a guy who punches you in the face repeatedly but expects you not to hit him back because he's wearing glasses. Sorry, but no country on earth will play that game — and none is expected to, except Israel. Again, the blame for Pali suffering lies with Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, etc., etc...

And you know, the Palestinians could just give back the Israeli soldier they kidnapped and are still holding — which (along with rocket attacks on Israeli schools, etc.) is why Israel is doing what it's doing right now.

Don't like our response, Hamas? Give back our soldier. Simple. Don't want us to go after you in towns? Stop hiding in them and using civilians as cover. Simple. You want to play big boy games with bombs and rockets? Fine, but no crying to mommy when you start losing. And you ordinary Palestinians — if you don't like what the Hamas thugs are getting you into, stop idolizing them and cheering for martyrdom. Grow up. Start acting like a responsible society and elect sensible leaders who don't glorify death and call for pushing the Jews into the sea.

I'm sorry if I sound cranky, but I am thoroughly sick and freakin' tired of people pointing fingers at Israeli responses while ignoring the plain-as-day hostile acts of Palestinian terror groups that prompt them.

As I said in the post, I don't have very strong feelings for or against either side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. But, withdrawing from an military occupation after four decades (while still controlling the borders and airspace) seems something less than "unprecedented [...] kindness". Just sayin'.

Anyhow, once again, quite apart from whatever other issues are at play, locking down borders and then destroying the ability to provide clean water is a different activity altogether than killing civilians with errant bombs. Plenty of countries on earth don't play that game.

If the Palestinian territories had anything like an economy, people wouldn't depend on Hamas for things like basic education and health care.

If Yasser Arafat had spend the BILLIONS of dollars in aid his people received over the years on building up infrastructure, instead of on foolish terror campaigns, the Palestinian territories WOULD have an economy. The crappy situation the Palis find themselves in now is the result of decades of their own bad choices and their own poor leadership, not a sinister Israeli plot.

But, withdrawing from an military occupation after four decades (while still controlling the borders and airspace) seems something less than "unprecedented [...] kindness".

Yeah, why bother controlling the borders? It's not like any suicide bombers are trying to sneak into the country or nuthin'.

Again, I'm not waving the Palestinian flag, GB, or excusing violence from either side. I'm simply distressed about what has a very real potential to turn into a mass die-off of children who have no culpability whatsoever in their elders' disputes.

I should perhaps make the point here (again) that I am not supporting Israel because I'm (very, very casually) Jewish; nor do I criticize the Palestinians because they're Muslim. We could be talking about Martians and Swedes for all I care. I'm simply looking at the actions of both sides and calling it as I see it.

Palestinians launch offensive attacks. Israelis defend and protect themselves. Israel has the firepower to wipe out the Palis any time it wants, but it doesn't. The Palis lack the firepower to wipe out Israel, but they never stop trying.

I'm sorry if I sound cranky

It's okay. This is an issue that always turns people cranky, no matter which side of the issue they stand. That's the reason I don't much discuss it; it's almost never fruitful.

I am thoroughly sick and freakin' tired of people pointing fingers at Israeli responses

I rarely do. It's this particular response that bothers me. It's completely disproportional.

Well, any time the Palestinian elders decide they care about their children as much as you do, they know how to get Israel to call off the attack. Hint: It's not by issuing blustery demands you have neither the right nor the leverage to be making.

I'm trying to ignore your insistence that Palestinians are wholly at fault for any reprisals against their community, because getting any recognition of moral ambiguity is clearly pointless and likely impossible without invoking Godwin's Law.

But I suspect your simplistic view has blinded you to the obvious. What on Earth makes you believe that "The Palestinians" are all acting from the same agenda? Like Britain before them, Israel has done everything possible to prevent any kind of effective organization among Palestinians. Guess what? It's succeeded.

The Palestinian territories have been a thugocracy for so long that I expect the actual guys holding the Israeli soldier are small-timers who don't take orders from anybody. The only way to gain personal power and influence in a thugocracy is by kicking ass; so every unemployed, testosterone-choked tough guy in the territories has incentive to make trouble regardless of what's politically smart.

Am I saying I know the way out of this? Hell, no. But apparently you're capable of dismissing report of an impending catastrophe (per apostropher's link) out of hand. How? Do you assume that it's all a lie, that Gaza has some secret water-purification system powered by hatred alone? Do you believe that suffering and death throughout the population of Gaza is acceptable, that it deserves no consideration? That there's no such thing as an innocent Palestinian? Wait, I promised myself I'd stay away from Godwin's law. Damn.

Israel has done everything possible to prevent any kind of effective organization among Palestinians.

No, no, no. That's an empty statement. Did Israel stop Yasser Arafat from leading his people to peace instead of war? No. Did Israel stop the current elected leaders from Hamas from calling a REAL cease-fire (not a hudna) and pursuing peace. No. And Palestinians seem to have no problem "organizing" whenever it's time to have a good ol' hate-on-Israel rally. Time to stop passing the buck.

Ask yourself: If someone like Gandhi had been the leader of the Palestinians, instead of Arafat, would they have peace with Israel right now? I thought so.

I don't think the report is a lie. But do I think Palestinian suffering is "acceptable"? I'm not the person you should be asking. That question is for the Palestinians to answer. Sure, there are innocent Palestinians. And innocent people suffer when their leaders make stupid decisions.

From the report:

Finally, people can't leave. Palestinians in Gaza can't seek sanctuary with their relatives in the West Bank, because they can't leave Gaza to get there. ...In any case, a cordon of Palestinian police are blocking people from trying to scramble over the Egyptian border — and war refugees have tried, through a hole blown open by militants, clutching packages and children.

Why are Pali police blocking their own people from leaving Gaza? Why aren't the Egyptians rushing to the aid of their Arab brothers? Beats me.

Why aren't the Egyptians rushing to the aid of their Arab brothers?

The other Arab countries have a long and undistinguished history of shitting on the Palestinians any time they aren't using them as pawns. Nothing new there. As for the police cordon, I haven't a clue what that's all about.

The other Arab countries have a long and undistinguished history of shitting on the Palestinians any time they aren't using them as pawns. Nothing new there.

I know. Palestinians only matter to the rest of the world when they can be used to criticize Israel.

Through much of the Arab world, they matter as underpaid, poorly treated migrant labor, too.

I meant "matter" in the sense of "matter as human beings", not production inputs.

Would it be too cynical of me to speculate that the Pali police are trapping their own people in Gaza to deliberately increase the suffering, and hence make Israel look bad? It sounds crazy, but I really can't think of any other reason.

I meant "matter" in the sense

I know. I was agreeing with you in a roundabout way.

I really can't think of any other reason.

I can't think of any other good reasons, but I also haven't seen that bit reported elsewhere, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I have seen some other stories about Palestinians stuck on the Egypt side of the border unable to re-enter Gaza. A couple or three had died waiting.

You know, the more I read that "Independent Catholic News" article you linked, the more it sounds like it contains large helpings of BS.

Compare its tale of "old people collapsing with heart failure, pregnant women collapsing with spontaneous abortions" (Abortions! Can there be anything more appalling to a good Catholic?) to this report of conditions in Gaza from the BBC, not known for its love of Israel:

Abu Heni and his friends have seen it all before.

Perhaps that is why, as they sit playing cards, they do not appear overly-concerned with the Israeli incursion that is happening less than three miles from where we are sitting.

Four men, sitting round a small white table, at the Al Karawan cafe in downtown Gaza. Of course, as Muslims, they do not play for money, just points.

That does not mean the game is not important. Abu Heni gets agitated and shouts at his playing partner when he puts down the wrong card. As far as I can make out what they are playing is a kind of "trumps".

...Now I am usually a committed non-smoker but in this noisy, crowded cafe full of agitated card players I sit back and enjoy a Shisha [or hubbly-bubbly as it is known in English].

The double-apple flavour is particularly good and goes down really well with a glass of sweet mint tea.

More evidence of twisted Pali depravity, from the other article you linked:

Acknowledging the potential for a crisis in Gaza, Israel opened Karni for three days last week to let in food and medicine. It also opened a pipeline to replenish Gaza's dwindling fuel stocks.

But Col. Nir Press, head of Israel's liaison team at the Erez border crossing, said the Palestinians have at times refused to allow goods to enter Gaza, including five truckloads of dairy products headed for the coastal area on Tuesday.

"They are trying to create a crisis or make it look like a crisis," Press said. "I don't think we are moving toward a humanitarian crisis."

So the Pali authorities' plan appears to be to keep the people in and the food out, then blame Israel. That is just sick.

It's in the nature of decent people to assume that other people are just as decent. But we are dealing with some seriously messed-up characters here.

GB, I agree with you that there are some seriously messed-up characters among the Palestinian leadership. Lots. How does that justify cutting off electricity and water to every person within Gaza?

And I don't know how much history of the region and the conflict you're familiar with, but do you honestly think that the Israeli government has, at any point since it came into existence, acted in such a way as to foster responsible Palestinian self-government? (please note, this is in no way saying that it's all the Israeli government's fault, or that Palestinians have no responsibility for their own government). If you do think so, I'd appreciate some examples and cites.

Israel, you may forget, PULLED OUT of Gaza in an unprecedented, unilateral move.

I have to ask, what sort of peace and prosperity do you think would obtain were the US to unilaterally pull out of Iraq?

Well, nobody's going to accuse the Palestinians of having been blessed with good government over the years. One more source of suffering for some of the most miserable people on the planet. The current crisis helps distract from the reality of Palestine teetering between anarchy and civil war.

Let's set aside who is right/wrong/good/bad and who should be obligated to do what for a minute and just look at the currently existing, must-be-considered facts. Here is the situation on the ground, as I understand it (which may be a good or poor understanding):

-The Palestinian Authority, always highly corrupt and inefficient, was systematically destroyed over the previous five years by Sharon.

-In the vacuum created by the Arafat government's inability to deliver either security or services effectively, Hamas was able to establish a considerable base by actually providing services and being markedly less corrupt than the gov't.

-Arafat and the PA was still, nevertheless, the conduit for most of the actual capital entering the territories.

-Hamas took control of the government and Israel froze much of the capital stream that had previously run through the PA/Arafat/Fatah, and arrested many members of the Hamas government.

-As a result, nobody is quite sure who (if anybody) is in charge anymore and, even amidst a major military operation by the Israelis, Fatah and Hamas are staring at each other with their fingers on their triggers.

-It's almost certainly a gross oversimplification to view Palestinian society as two basic camps, as I've done above, rather than a quasi-Hobbesian wasteland made up of dozens or hundreds of competing and intersecting groups, disturbingly like Iraq.

Arguments can be made for any of the above as either good or bad developments (except the last two) but all that isn't really germane. Whether good or bad, it's the hand everybody is currently holding. Given those starting parameters, how do we keep the biggest number of people from being killed? That's priority #1.

acted in such a way as to foster

Man, that's one twisted bit of phrasing.

Why does Israel have to "foster" good Pali gov't, anyway? If these guys can't do it on their own, do they really deserve to be a sovereign state?

"Waaaaah!!! Our sworn enemy didn't help us figure out how to govern ourselves!" is not exactly a national motto to stir the spirit.

Why does Israel have to "foster" good Pali gov't, anyway?
You mean, besides the fact that they're historically responsible for the lack of a government there? Or the fact that it directly affects their national security? Or the fact that it would just be a good neighborly thing to do?

BTW, what's with this "Pali" business? Has this become a normal way to refer to Palestinians, or is it just an Izzy thing?

It's just an abbeviation that's easier for me to type.

Um, GB, how is it that you think all those Europeans and descendants of Europeans ended up in the country that is now called Israel? Did they just run a better GOTV effort than the Palestinians?

Why does Israel have to "foster" good Pali gov't, anyway? If these guys can't do it on their own, do they really deserve to be a sovereign state?

Israel is the controlling government. If it doesn't want to grant Palestinians citizenship rights within Israel, it would seem to be in its interests, not to mention the right thing to do, to help a Palestinian state succeed.

And I would love to hear how your analysis of who deserves to be a sovereign state applies to Iraq.

I don't have a cite readily at hand, but isn't civil government the responsibility of an occupying power under international law?

Occupying what?

GB, does the term "occupied territories" ring any bells with you? We are still discussing Israel, right?

Israel would love to help a Pali state succeed. However, it's not all up to Israel. The Palis have to chip in a few things, too. Like:

(1) Leaders who actually represent and govern their people. The Palis have finally gotten around to electing some leaders-in-name, but none of them appears to actually control what happens. Kinda hard for Israel to work with someone when there's no credible representative on the other side of the table. When Israel decided to pull out of Gaza, its forces physically dragged out the few die-hard Jews who wouldn't leave on their own. Would any Pali leader be able to similarly handle die-hards on his side who'll stop at nothing to sabotage a peace deal? Didn't think so.

(2) After the Palis get a real leader who can actually lead his people, that leader must be realistic. No dreams of pushing Israel into the sea. No illusions about flooding Israel with Arabs under a supposed "right of return" and destroying it demographically. Just a real, honest desire to create a functioning, stable Palestinian state next to Israel.

Finally, (3) while this leader is negotiating the foundations of a future Palestinian state, he must use his authority to GET HIS BOYZ TO CHILL. No suicide bombings while the talks are going on. (Or ever, really). No Qassam rockets launched into Israel. No nothing. There cannot be peace talks while one side persists in acts of terrorism. In fact, the leader should also gradually wean his people off the whole martyrdom-is-cool death cult thing. It doesn't help.

If these exceedingly minor steps were ever to be taken, the Palis would have their state. But I'm not holding my breath.

Occupied, how?

There were a few settlers in a tiny part of Gaza (and now they're gone). There are other Israelis in specific areas in the West Bank. There are border guards to keep suicide bombers from sneaking into Israel, but defending your borders is not what it means to "occupy" a territory.

It's not like the Israelis are or were patrolling every streetcorner. "Occupied" is a loaded term of rhetoric, not a factual description.

Those "exceedingly minor steps" are the same ones proving impossible in Iraq. And under the circumstances, they really aren't minor at all.

Would any Pali leader be able to similarly handle die-hards on his side

Israel has an army to perform that sort of task. Palestine doesn't.

There cannot be peace talks while one side persists in acts of terrorism.

Except there is way more than one side here. This is like saying that the current PM of Iraq needs to get his boyz to stop planting IEDs or we just won't have anything to do with the Baghdad gov't.

Look, I'm sympathetic to Israel's security issues. I really am. They are surrounded by hostile neighbors and religious lunatics and have a crappy geography to try to defend. But, when comparing Israel and Palestine, the former is an established, autonomous, contiguous state with a developed economy, a modern, powerful military, huge amounts of foreign aid, etc. The Palestinians haven't had the chance to develop any of that. They are a deeply divided (ideologically and physically), dirt-poor not-quite-a-country. That doesn't excuse the bomb belts and rockets, but it does mean that you simply can't expect any Palestinian "leader" to exercise the sort of control a normal head of state can. They don't have a state apparatus to control.

What apostropher said.

Plus, regarding occupation, I wasn't only referring to the present moment, but to the history of control there.

Also:

No illusions about flooding Israel with Arabs under a supposed "right of return" and destroying it demographically.

What about flooding Israel with Russians? How does that sit with you?

Sigh. The Israelis absolutely occupied the West Bank and Gaza from '67 'til '93 or so. We aren't patrolling every corner in Iraq either, but we're clearly occupying the country. I'm aware that the Israeli government has preferred to use the word "disputed" territory rather than "occupied" territory, but that's more a semantic nitpick than a meaningful distinction. Since '93, they have still moved in and militarily occupied sections of both at various times, controlled the roads, airspace, and borders, etc.

Since '93, they have still moved in and militarily occupied sections of both at various times, controlled the roads, airspace, and borders, etc.

Just for the hell of it, I guess.

What about flooding Israel with Russians? How does that sit with you?

Depends on whether the Russians in question want to abolish Israel and replace it with Palestine.

GB, excuse me for thinking that, for good reason, you're rather emotionally invested in this. On one side.

That means you end up seeing things in tribal, us v. them terms. You've got very valid criticisms of the Palis and very valid defenses of the Izzys, but you refuse to see shades of gray. Conflicts often make us choose sides and that just leads to a continuing cycle of violence. It may satisfy us emotionally - we're supporting our side - but it's as manipulable as hell by politicians and isn't constructive. Iraq anyone? Rwanda, Yugoslavia? Conservatives v. Dems?

I have yet to see from you any peep of a constructive thought about how to de-escalate this conflict. On your own blog you're sure to post whatever news item that comes up the confirms your view that its the evil Palis who are solely at fault, and you mock any suggestion that "we" should try to do anything to break the cycle of violence, despite the billions we poor into defending the Izzys against the Palis.

We can acknowledge, human nature being as it is, that certain dynamics are involved in conflicts. Unless we prefer to allow ourselves simply to flow with these dynamics until the conflicts they play into burn fully and exhaust themselves, then we should pay attention and try to steer the situation. Can you try to take your helmet off, and put your creative thinking cap on?

Israel provides the chaos required by America to keep the region destabilised.
Seymour Hersh is an exceptional journalist. If he says Bushco is trying to start a war with Iran, it's true. They're certainly moronic enough and they ARE war criminals.

Depends on whether the Russians in question want to abolish Israel and replace it with Palestine.

(a) So have you polled all the Palestinians who themselves once lived in what is now Israel or whose parents or grandparents did, and who have ancestral ties to the area going pack generations upon generations, and who would be interested in returning, to see whether every single one of them wants to abolish Israel, or are you just assuming this is so because, you know, Palestinians are evil?

(b) What basis do you have for feeling that, for example, Russian Jews (at least those with the correct political view according to you), who have no historical or family ties in the region, should have superior claim to rights, land, water, etc. there over Palestinians who themselves once lived in what is now Israel or whose parents or grandparents did, and who have ancestral ties to the area going pack generations upon generations, and who would be interested in returning?

Back to Gaza, do you think actions such as destroying power stations and other infrastructure will really help the Palestinians get their shit together to take the steps you outlined above?

The Israelis' concerns are absolutely legitimate, and it's a fucked-up situation, no two ways about it, and Hamas are a bunch of motherfuckers, so I can see how kicking ass like that feels like it's accomplishing something, but I honestly don't think it's productive, in fact probably just the opposite. And criticizing Israeli tactics does not make one anti-Israel.

Honestly, M/tch, some of your questions seem pretty silly and disingenuous. But here goes:

Pali views of Israel
The dominant Palestinian view of Israel is quite clear, and the position of the Hamas leadership, elected by Palestinians, explicitly calls for Israel's destruction. If there are so many nice and friendly Palestinians who just loooove Israel, they should kick out Hamas and make peace with Israel. Until that happens, I'm going with my gut on this one.

Russian rights vs. Pali rights
Anyone admitted as a new citizen into a state by its government should in general have the same basic rights as other citizens in the state. But it's up to the government to decide who to admit. If Israel admits Palis, then Palis would have the same basic right to be there as Russian Jews.

Destroying infrastructure
A people infused with an irrational martyrdom ethic will just keep on fighting, even if they're ultimately hurting themselves more than the enemy. They will never choose to make peace if there's an ounce of fight left in them. Rather, they must be shown beyond any doubt that they literally have no other choice but to make peace. As we saw in WWII, it can take some pretty devastating actions to get to that point. Israel is trying to do it as humanely as possible. Unless you feel that killing all the Palis would be more humane than destroying their infrastructure to demonstrate that their cause is lost.

Tokyo Tom, I find it pathetic and offensive that you appear congenitally unable to discuss Israel without claiming that I only feel the way I do because I was born Jewish. I've addressed this insulting claim of yours before, but I won't do so again. I will not be dignifying your bigotry with any response beyond this one.

Anyone admitted as a new citizen into a state by its government should in general have the same basic rights as other citizens in the state. But it's up to the government to decide who to admit. If Israel admits Palis, then Palis would have the same basic right to be there as Russian Jews.

So it's alright for Israel to (to use your terms) "destroy Palestine demographically", but not for Palestine to "destroy Israel demographically"?

Huh?

I'm just trying to figure out your logic:

No illusions about flooding Israel with Arabs under a supposed "right of return" and destroying it demographically.

Anyone admitted as a new citizen into a state by its government should in general have the same basic rights as other citizens in the state. But it's up to the government to decide who to admit.

Here are some links to reading I've found useful in trying to figure out how I feel about the current situation in Israel:

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings

Jonathan Edelstein at Head Heeb

The Jerusalem Post on condition in Gaza

Haaretz on Mubarak's role

Man, what a clusterfuck.

Oh, this Haaretz article too.

I have no idea what you are confused about.

Everybody's confused! Comity!

All: On GB's allegation of my so-called "bigotry", perhaps it is useful to direct you to the discussion that GB alludes to at the "Gaijin Biker is a tool" thread.

Let me just summarize the concluding remarks on that thread:

GB: "Yeah, I support Israel, but NOT because I share some sort of primal "tribal identity" with the Jewish people.

"But even if I did have that sort of an emotional tie to Israel, it is in fact anti-Semtic (although relatively mildly so) to dismiss someone's logical, fact-based opinions on the Middle East out of hand because he's Jewish."

TT: "You say that "it is in fact anti-Semtic (although relatively mildly so) to dismiss someone's logical, fact-based opinions on the Middle East out of hand because he's Jewish". I agree with you - I would just reply that this statement is a strawman, since I haven't in fact dismissed your opinions on the Middle East out of hand because of your Jewish background; in fact, I haven't dismissed your opinions on the ME at all.

"Your concern in part proves my point about how group identities play with our perceptions. You are concerned that some may view a particular group identity as a reason for dismissing the views of a person from that group; I understand that concern and think it happens all too frequently (and of course there is a horrible historical record of it). My point is instead that our perceptions are colored by our group identities, so ignoring group indentities makes it harder for us to understand ourselves and each other."

I am happy to submit to collective judgment on the charge.

GB: I'm not expecting any responses, since you have already indicated you won't provide them. Pretty irresponsible for someone who hurls a bigotry charge.

You are the one who introduced your ethnic connection into this discussion, not me, when you said this: "I should perhaps make the point here (again) that I am not supporting Israel because I'm (very, very casually) Jewish; nor do I criticize the Palestinians because they're Muslim. We could be talking about Martians and Swedes for all I care. I'm simply looking at the actions of both sides and calling it as I see it." Why did you feel the need to do that? Were you afraid that "your calling as you see it" might perhaps be seen as a little imbalanced?

If the emotional/ethnic connection to the Izzys is so minor, why did you then feel the need to trot out this bigotry claim? Why could't you simply respond to my substantive points about how to deal with the conflict?

Your reaction again indicates a concern that your views will be dismissed if you are pegged into some category. Well, as I said before, I understand that concern - pegging people into categories (gender, race, nationality, native language, eye/hair color, height, weight, marital status, preferred mode of transport) is what we do naturally as part of our cognitive functions. I think it's important that we pay attention to this, because it's tied into our group identities and thus into our conflicts (and our perceptions of them).

I am trying to have a conversation about the metalevels of our conflicts; you resist and take offense at the attempt to understand or to be understood. (I acknowledge that I can be similarly pegged, but am careful to try to test my perceptions.)

I'd like to say that I am outraged by your claim that I'm a bigot, but I'm not. Perhaps it will bother you even more if I say that, even though I reject your claim as wholly unfounded, I can understand why you make it. But just for form, I will demand a retraction anyway.

BTW, I noted in my initial comment "that certain dynamics are involved in conflicts. Unless we prefer to allow ourselves simply to flow with these dynamics until the conflicts they play into burn fully and exhaust themselves, then we should pay attention and try to steer the situation."

You make a similar point in your response to M/tch, but it's totally one-sided and I disagree with the conclusion. You state that "A people infused with an irrational martyrdom ethic will just keep on fighting, even if they're ultimately hurting themselves more than the enemy. They will never choose to make peace if there's an ounce of fight left in them. Rather, they must be shown beyond any doubt that they literally have no other choice but to make peace. As we saw in WWII, it can take some pretty devastating actions to get to that point. Israel is trying to do it as humanely as possible."

Where this misses the mark is that in WWII the countries defeated were modern states with imperial armies that were defeated. Once the defeat was acknowledged there was no civilian resistance and people just tried to get on with their lives, the chief occupying force was the distant US, and the defeated nations were able, with significant US aid, to quickly regain their feet and to join the Western alliance and the Western economic bloc. This is not at all applicable to the Pali/Izzy conflict - the Palis, through misrule, Izzy policy and the self-interest of surrounding Arab regimes, have never established a state (much less an empire), a vibrant economy or even an army to be defeated.

Yes, the Izzys are doing a great job of strangling them and trying to utterly exhaust them, with plenty of US funding, with little hope being offered for a future state or even economic prospects. You might be right, but I am afraid that all that the Izzys are doing is to continue to sow the dragon's teeth of hatred in Palestine and throughout the region - at real rsik to the region and US interests - and that there will be no chance for real peace between Izzys and Palis under this course until BOTH sides are exhausted.

Quite grim prospect, and one fraught with risk. Tell me again why this is such a good hole for the US to be pouring our tax dollars into?

I am happy to submit to collective judgment on the charge.

Um, no thanks. Not my fight. I'll just say that in America, strong backing of Israel is hardly specific to the Jewish community. Numerically, probably more non-Jews than Jews in that category.

I have no idea what you are confused about.

I'm wondering about your justification for your assertion that it's fine for Israel to bring anyone into Israel that they want to, but it's verboten for Palestine to bring people into Palestine that have a much stronger historical and cultural connection to the place.

Ooh! Come on guys, collective judgment time!

Okay, Clown: We all think you're like a total tool.

M/lls,

The Palis can bring whoever they want into a Palestinian state. But they can't bring them into Israel.

Whomever?