Charles Krauthammer has a column in the Washington Post today. In it, he deals with whether or not the killing of the family in Gaza was down to an Israeli shell – of course, he only mentions Israeli arguments for why it couldn't have been, and makes no mention of any counter-arguments, save that they exist.
"Why would Israel deliberately shell a peaceful family on a beach?" he asks. Well, firstly, there are possible motives - for instance to attempt to influence the result of the upcoming Palestinian referendum on the 'Prisoner's Document'. But anyway, who's accusing Israel of deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians? It's just that Israel doesn't care about Palestinian "collateral damage".
Krauthammer frames the tone of the article from the first paragraph, describing how PA President Abbas describes the act as "genocide". If this is true and in context – I can' tell because he didn't provide a source – then it is, of course, ridiculous. But what Abbas says or doesn't say makes no difference to the morality of killing a civilian family, which means he only mentioned it to immediately put the reader against the side of the Palestinians.
However, the article then gets more interesting. Krauthammer says, OK, let's assume for a second that we do not know who caused the shelling (no assumption necessary - that's the reality).
Even then, Krauthammer says, we must ask ourselves, "Who is to blame if Palestinians are setting up rocket launchers to attack Israel — and placing them 400 yards from a beach crowded with Palestinian families on the Muslim Sabbath?"
The answer? "This is another example of the Palestinians' classic and cowardly human-shield tactic — attacking innocent Israeli civilians while hiding behind innocent Palestinian civilians."
Well, at least he managed to bring himself to admit the Palestinian civilians the terrorists are "hiding behind" are innocent. Because, of course, it was innocents that were killed. To understand this concept of "collateral damage" properly, let's export it to a familiar environment. Imagine a gunman, heavily armed, has run into a block of flats. Police helicopters are outside, as are cop cars and policemen and the whole works. Is it justified for the army/police force to then bomb the block of flats in an attempt to get the gunman? Are the civilian casualties acceptable "collateral damage"?
Charles Krauthammer certainly appears to think so. After all, it was the gunman's fault for hiding in the flats in the first place.
Also, note how the first sentence brands all Palestinians as terrorists - "the Palestinians' classic and cowardly human-shield tactic". Nice.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - emanuel appel
Sir/ Madam,
While crocodile tears are spilt for Arabs, nothing is said about innocent Israelis killed in suicide bombings. The implication, of course, is that all Jews are guilty and their death is deserved.
War, declared by the arabs, means that they will get killed, whether guerillas or civilians just like Israeli civilians and soldiers get killed.
2 - Dr Politico
Heatherlander,
While I'd like to offer a comprehensive critique of your entry, it will have to wait until tomorrow--it's late and I'm tired. However, I would likle to take a stab at your conclusion:
I find it troubling that you call on Israel to get serious without the slightest mention of Hamas' role in all this. Perhaps you ought to call on Hamas to get serious and renounce terrorism. Perhaps they can start by revising their Charter, which calls for Israel's destruction. And, by the way, you constantly "note" Krauthammer's generalization of the Palestinians. Read over the Charter and please "note" the constant reference to Jews, rather than Israel.
If you plan on accusing someone else of bias, try to lose your own.
Dr Politico
3 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
"While crocodile tears are spilt for Arabs, nothing is said about innocent Israelis killed in suicide bombings."
On the contrary; a lot is said about them. And rightly too, any death is terrible. Unfortunately, the same does not appear to apply for Palestinian deaths, which is wrong.
"War, declared by the arabs, means that they will get killed"
What war, declared by the arabs? I mean, firstly, its obviously not a war in the traditional sense of the word anyay, its far more complicated. But when did the Palestinians declare war?
"I find it troubling that you call on Israel to get serious without the slightest mention of Hamas' role in all this."
Yes, Hamas does have a role, unfortunately. I talk about Israel because 1) the Palestinians have made huge concessions already, 2) the Palestinians have previously attempted serious negotiations and Israel hasn't (see Taba) and 3) someone has to make the first move, and Israel is in a better position to make it and, as the occupying power, has the responsibility to make it.
"Read over the Charter and please "note" the constant reference to Jews, rather than Israel."
I'm sure you will not be surprised to learn that I am no fan of the Hamas Charter either.
But on that point - Israelis do that all the time. All this talk of the "demographic problem", the "Jewish state", etc. is patently racist, but its acceptable in Israeli society.
4 - emanuel appel
"What war, declared by the arabs? I mean, firstly, its obviously not a war in the traditional sense of the word anyay, its far more complicated. But when did the Palestinians declare war?"
Sir,
The Arabs declared war as far back as 1920.
Your comments show the grossest ignorance of the conflict.
The arabs have made no concessions at all. They have the nerve to be the weaker party and yet threaten to kill and de-nationalize those, Israel, who could crush them if they had the killer instinct. The arabs have elected Hamas who explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. If their Charter and what they say every day is not enough, then you are a biased and deluded partisan of the arabs.
Say that and don't pretend to be impartial.
5 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Well, firstly I don't knoe why you keep saying 'arabs' - we're talking about the Palestinians here, not all Arabs.
Secondly, yes there have been many wars involving Israel and Arabic countries. But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it is today is not war in the conventional sense - it is a military occupation.
As for the election of Hamas - yes, they do call for the destruction of Israel, although they have made it pretty clear that they'd settle for an Israel that sticks to the 1967 borders.
The opinion of the Palestinian people is very much in favour of a two-state solution - the election of Hamas was largely a protest vote at the innefficient and corrupt Fatah.
6 - Dr Politico
You need to review your facts of the Middle East. Jews have been effectively cleansed from most countries in the region. Palestinians won't allow a *single* Jew to live on their holy soil. Israelis can't even step foot in certain countries. Jews can never become citizens in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. etc. etc.
Still, 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab Muslims (approximately 2 million). You're singling out Israel, which happens to have the most tolerant policy in the *entire* Middle East.
You may want to rethink which countries you point to as being "patently racist."
7 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
"Palestinians won't allow a *single* Jew to live on their holy soil."
By 'holy soil' I presume you mean the West Bank? Because if you're talking about the whole of historical Palestine, then that's not true. The majority of Palestinians support a two state solution, with Israel existing inside the 1967 borders.
"Jews have been effectively cleansed from most countries in the region...Jews can never become citizens in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. etc. etc."
And is that acceptable? No, racism is unnacceptable and should be opposed everywhere, including in Israel.
"You're singling out Israel, which happens to have the most tolerant policy in the *entire* Middle East."
I'm singling out Israel in this discussion because of the reference to the racism present in the Hamas Charter.
But anyway, Israel is a democracy and it is supposedly part of the civilised world, and is treated as such by Western nations. It is therefore more important to point out the deep flaws in Israel than it is to point out those same flaws in undemocratic countries that aren't accepted as 'civilised' by the international community.
Although of course, as I have already said, racism should be condemned everywhere.
As to the Israeli Arabs - they are often discriminated against, and in some respects they are treated like second-class citizens. But anyway I don't think trying to show that Israel is less racist than other Middle Eastern countries is a good way of showing that they aren't racist. It will just show they are less racist.
8 - Dr Politico
"As to the Israeli Arabs - they are often discriminated against, and in some respects they are treated like second-class citizens."
Regurgitating unsupported rhetoric won't win an argument on this one. If what you say is true -- which it isn't -- then Israel would be the same as EVERY Western nation, where minorities are "in some respects treated like second-class citizens." Surely, you'd agree that minorities in this country often feel discriminated against.
"But anyway I don't think trying to show that Israel is less racist than other Middle Eastern countries is a good way of showing that they aren't racist. It will just show they are less racist."
You sure love throwing around the term "racist" without supporting it. To conclude that Israel is racist would require a highly prejudiced view of the world. Throughout the world, countries act in such a way that maximizes their own self-interest (read: safety). Israel is in a situation that other countries cannot relate to. That dozens of countries are sworn to Israel's destruction, and all are within a short distance, requires special considerations. I do not deny that some of Israel's policies are far less than aesthetically pleasing. HOWEVER, given the situation that they are in, I don't see a reasonable alternative.
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I've stayed away from commenting on this article because I did not want to spoil a relatively good mood. I've had two hours to consider the idiocy spouted by the author of the article and his supporters.
But let me make this crystal clear. In writing this, I do not defend Krauthammer who is not worth talking about. I defend the cause of my people against lies written on Blog Critics.
Let's start with the repetition of the Arab bullshit line about Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. This is in the article.
So when, in the last week of September 2000, Likud leader Ariel Sharon announced he would exercise his right to visit the Mount, the PA warned him the move could have terrible consequences.
So what did Barak do? He not only allowed it, but ordered a huge military and police presence to accompany Sharon. The visit was an obvious provocation, justified by the flimsiest of excuses (he 'went to check whether or not archaeological remains had been vandalised').
The Temple Mount is ours, and we are kind enough to allow the Waqf to administer it. They've abused their rights on OUR Temple Mount. The day will come when because of this abuse, the entire Temple Mount will collapse in an earthquake, bringing down their mosques along with it, but I digress.
I have it on good authority from reliable people who back the Arab cause here that Arafat was peparing for a war against Israel in July, 2000. Ariel Sharon's "visit" to the Temple Mount was an excuse to begin the this war.
I've dealt in detail with the illegal expulsion of Israeli citizens from their homes in Gaza and the destruction of their livelihoods elsewhere. But now let us look at what appeasement strategies by the traitors on government hill in Jerusalem get us. Again from the article.
"To get Israel to remove its settlers, end the occupation and let the Palestinians achieve dignity and independence? But Israel did exactly that in Gaza last year. It completely evacuated Gaza, dismantled all its military installations, removed its soldiers, destroyed all Israeli settlements and expelled all 7,000 Israeli settlers."
This is very interesting. Yes, settlements were dismantled and military force was re-deployed. Does this mean withdrawal? Does it mean Gaza is independent? Gaza still depends completely on Israel for supply of electricity, water, gas and petrol, and the Israeli Shekel is still the local currency. Israel retains complete control over Gazan airspace and territorial waters, meaning Israel effectively controls what goes in and out of Gaza. Gazans don't have control over their seaport or airport. Israel also still occupies what is called the Philadelphi Corridor - a strip of land on the Egypt-Gaza border.
First of all, Israel neither occupies nor controls the Philadelphi Corridor. Egypt and the PA do - which means that Egypt really does.
Second of all, Israel controls what goes into Gaza from Israel.
Thirdly, since there is no sovereign country called "Palestine," thank G-d, the territorial waters around Gaza remain Israeli territorial waters.
Finally, it is not the fault of the State of Israel if the pathetic thugocracy in Ramallah has been too busy stealing money from all and sundry to figure out an Arab substitute for the shekel, and an independent Arab link to Egypt for electricity or water.
It is not the fault of the State of Israel if the Gazans were too stupid a mob to restrain themselves from destroying their source of future income, the stolen greenhouses of the Gush Katif enterprise. The Israeli government stole it from the legitimate owners, performed a lot of financial maneuvers to get them out of "their" hands, but the mobs in Gaza were so filled with Jew hatred that they could not restrain themselves from destroying the greenhouses! The Arab bastards and all the European and American bastards who support them are lucky that we Jews are a more restrained people. If we were as restrained as the Arab mobs, all the Arabs in this country would be dead.
Terrorists - and the thugocracy in Ramallah and Gaza is nothing but a bunch of terrorists - are incapable of thinking in terms of running a nation in peace, and growing an economy. THAT is the essential AND SUBTLE difference between a freedom fighter who has to resort to terrorism to win freedom, like Menahem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir, and a terrorist like the late unlamented Arafat and the present crew of pigs who "run" the PA.
But the preceding six paragraphs are a mere critique of the faults of the bullshit tossed about above.
Ther big point is that after ruining the lives of its own citizens, the Israeli government is still viewed as an illegal occupier, constantly being dragged over the coals for the purported "sins" of existing by this author while the "poor Palestinians" seem to have enough water and enough electricity and enough food to launch Qassam after Qassam at Israel, constantly trying to achieve their real goal - killing Jews. And not a word is said.
A true patriotic policy that would deal with Gaza in short order would be to cut off the water, cut off the electricity, block all foostuffs from coming into its territory until the rebels in Gaza - and that is what they are - rebels - lay down their arms or die of starvation. An entity that seeks war should get war, not this crappy substitute of an appeasement policy by traitors on government hill in Jerusalem.
Then the Heatherlander will have something to complain about.
10 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
"You sure love throwing around the term "racist" without supporting it. To conclude that Israel is racist would require a highly prejudiced view of the world."
Firstly, I didn't brand Israel as a country racist. I mentioned that racism, for example in talk of the 'demographic character' of the state, is acceptable in Israeli society. I can't understand how you can disagree with this, especially if the reason for your disagreement is simply that racism is also present in other Middle Eastern countries.
"The Temple Mount is ours, and we are kind enough to allow the Waqf to administer it. They've abused their rights on OUR Temple Mount. The day will come when because of this abuse, the entire Temple Mount will collapse in an earthquake, bringing down their mosques along with it, but I digress."
Well, both sides claim exclusivity to the Mount. Israel took control of the area in the Six Day War - they also took control of the West Bank. Is the West Bank "ours"? The point was that, especially coming after the disappointment of the Camp David talks, Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount accompanied by so many armed personnel was clearly provocative, and did spark rioting and dmeonstrations and killings and all the rest of it.
"First of all, Israel neither occupies nor controls the Philadelphi Corridor. Egypt and the PA do - which means that Egypt really does."
Erp. OK sorry for that, it appears my source on that was a bit out of date.
"It is not the fault of the State of Israel if the Gazans were too stupid a mob to restrain themselves from destroying their source of future income, the stolen greenhouses of the Gush Katif enterprise."
No. It is largely the fault of Israel for reducing Gaza to the state it is now in. When one a complete economic veto of an area's economy and use it as often as Israel does, when for years Israel has destroyed houses, fields, hospitals and infrastructure and when for years a few thousand settlers have occupied a third of the land leaving the million Palestinians the other two-thirds, it isn't surprising (or shouldn't be) that when you leave, the place is going to be in a bit of a mess.
"Terrorists - and the thugocracy in Ramallah and Gaza is nothing but a bunch of terrorists - are incapable of thinking in terms of running a nation in peace, and growing an economy."
Before you can think of running a nation, you have to first have a nation. You have your powerful neighbour's acceptance of your right to exist as a nation (not mere words, but actual acceptance). I find it amazing that anyone can possibly blame the people who have been occupied for decades for the mess they are in ('though of course, the succesive governments of Palestine have been about as helpful to the Palestinian cause as the successive Israeli governments - but it's not really about them).
"Ther big point is that after ruining the lives of its own citizens, the Israeli government is still viewed as an illegal occupier, constantly being dragged over the coals for the purported "sins" of existing by this author while the "poor Palestinians" seem to have enough water and enough electricity and enough food to launch Qassam after Qassam at Israel"
In the long run, the Israeli government is ruining the lives of its own citizens. A peaceful, stable Palestinian state is good for both Israel and the Palestinians, and the world, and the Israeli governments' continued policy of either unilateralism or not engaging in serious negotiations is harmful to all parties.
And it is not the Palestinians that launch rockets at Israel, it is Palestinian terrorists. And, like all criminals, they should be dealt with.
But if you want to talk about deaths on both sides, then there really is no symmetry.
"constantly trying to achieve their real goal - killing Jews."
Well, I can't speak for the terrorists, but that wouldn't be surprising. I do know that the majority of the Palestinian people want a two state solution, not death to all Jews.
"A true patriotic policy that would deal with Gaza in short order would be to cut off the water, cut off the electricity, block all foostuffs from coming into its territory until the rebels in Gaza - and that is what they are - rebels - lay down their arms or die of starvation."
Well, I don't know what you mean by a "patriotic policy". I know that when you say they would die of starvation, you're right. That's exactly what would happen, the terrorist aswell as civilians, chilren and the elderly in particular.
The "entity", as you put it, does not seek war, unless by "entity" you are talking solely about groups like Islamic Jihad. The Palestinian people want peace.
The real solution will not come from this hatred of Palestinians, or from Palestinian hatred of Israel. There WILL have to be a two-state solution, and the Palestinians will have to be given a viable state. Viable means contiguous, with an East Jerusalem capital and occupying all of the West Bank and Gaza (sensible negotiations could result in land swaps, which would be sensible).
How can there be any other solution?
11 - troll
if the Palestinian Arabs want a country to call home they should focus on replacing the Hashemite dynasty in Amman with a government of their own and claim the land east of the River
everyone talks of going back to the '67 borders...why not the '22 borders
this is not to excuse the Zionists and Palestinian Jews of the ethnic cleansing and racist governance that has occurred on their internationally assigned patch of sand - a problem that belongs before a world court judging crimes against humanity IMO
troll
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Comment #10 - outsiders who do not know the facts on the ground here trying to tell us folk who live here how to stuff falafel into pita... Uh huh... And we're supposed to listen to your delusions. Yeah, right.
Nation-building does not mean building an army - unless you need one. It does not mean diverting billions of dollars of international aid to a personal bank accunt in Switzerland or Paris. It does not mean engaging in terror when engaging in terror is not necessary.
The bald facts of the matter are these. The Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza had it better under Israeli rule than under the thug Israel imported to control them, and to get the western powers off its back for a little while.
Even if they were underpaid in the work they did for Israelis, and they were, the wages were steady. The work was there. Food was on the table. For the most part, problem free travel to and from Israel, as well as to much of the Arab world was not merely a possibility, but reality.
Had the fellow who ran Orient House (I forget his name) been the Arab leader of the PA, it is likely that a substitute currency would have been developed and implemented bit by bit, that infrastructure would have been improved, that there would have been little if any terror and that some base of prosperity for the Arab controlled areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza would hve been developed, so that wages in the Arab territories could go up. It is possible that a native born coterie of leaders would have developed and a country would have been in the making.
It would have been very hard for Israelis to oppose the kind of settlement you suggest in your comment. I certainly would not have.
That is not what occurred at all. In fact, it probably was not even meant to occur at all.
The Israeli government wanted a dictatorship to ride rough shod over the Arabs so that they could pull troops out and not spend money trying to police Judea and Samaria. The idea was to shut down the Civil Administration, which was how Israel governed the Arab towns and villages, and hand it over to Arafat and his deputies. Supposedly, there was going to be as "peace dividend".
The Israeli government (Rabin, Beilin, Peres, etc.) did not care what Arafat did or didn't do, so long as there was no rebellion (intifada) or terror. They armed the bastard to the teeth so that he could run his little dictatorship without having to rely on Israel. He eliminated the native cadre of leadership that had developed and put his thieves in charge.
In addition, Jewish ownership of land in the territory controlled by the PA was a crime punishable by death, and a steady campaign of anti-Jewish literature was produced, often through the good offices of UNESCO, and other UN organizations. "Palestinian" TV had a hate Israel and hate Jew slant, but in the prosperous nineties, Israelis didn't pay attention. They were too busy making money in the dot.com boom to care.
This bunch of thieves concentrated on buying arms, stealing money from legitimate businessmen, abusing the rights of the Christians living under their rule, and in cooperation with Israeli authorities, engaging in selective terror designed to pick off and kill the leaders of the Jewish community in Judea and Samaria, largely rabbis.
In addition, the Israeli leaders decided that if Arafat could make a fortune, so could they. So Israeli politicians developed backdoor avenues to Arafat and his henchmen and cut business deals to make money. The big shots involved in setting all this up was a fellow who has since died, named Ginossar, and Dov Weissglass. One result of all these machinations was the granting to Martin Schlaf, an Austrian Jew, the exclusive right to build gasmbling establishments in the territory of the PA. The now defunct establishment in Jericho developed from this deal.
When the PA and the Israeli gov't didn't quite get along, suicide bombers were sent in by Arafat. That was the "peace dividend" Israelis got from Oslo - funerals, tears and terror.
That is what really happened. When Arafat decided he could not get anything else from Israel through empty promises, he decided to go to war.
This is why any "two state" solution is just so much bunkum. This is why there is no Arab infrastructure or planning to develop a country. This is why the territory under the rule of the PA is degenerating into chaos, and why the living standard of the Arabs has dropped so much. This is why any Arab with brains or money wants to get the hell out of the country.
This is why in the Arab elections last January, the Arabs voted for Hamas, even though they know that Hamas had been nurtured by the Shabak (Israel Secret Police) in the '80's and why they were so pissed off at Israelis, who created this nightmare for them.
If you want to blame the State of Israel for anything, blame it for bringing in Arafat and creating a criminal régime in Ramallah. Blame the leadership of the State for not having the guts or the brains to figure out a way to partner with the Arabs instead of sucking at the nipple of the EU and the USA. Blame the leaders of the State of Israel for being nothing but criminals and for bringing a mafiacracy first to the Arab territories here, and now to Israel itself.
13 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
The "poor Palestinians" get more of their needs fulfilled - no, not money to develop businesses, not medicine, not food. From the United state, one million rounds of ammo and 1,000 M16's for Force 17. From
World Net Daily.
It was the United States that coordinated the transfer of 3,000
American-made M-16 assault rifles and over one million rounds of
ammunition last week by Israel to Force 17, the presidential guard
units of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, WorldNetDaily
has learned. And a senior member of Force 17, in an exclusive
interview with WND, says the weapons will be shared with the Al Aqsa
Martyrs Brigades terror group and utilized for attacks against Jews.
Read the latest now on WND.com.
And this from Haaretz on-line.
Security sources: Weapons smuggling from Egypt into Gaza has ballooned
By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent 17 June 2006
Yup - just what the "poor Palestinians" need to develop peace, right?
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie,
You were born here and you still do not get it?
In order to accomplish all the nation building now, you need an "occupation on humanitarian grounds".
But by who? And why? You need to start asking "why?"
Why did the leadership of Israel choose such a bloody and destructive path in 1992? Why are more arms being shipped to what is nothing more than a criminal organization by the United States now? Why are effective measures not being taken to 1)provide Arabs with work and 2) insure the security of Israelis? Why does the government of Israel insist that it can withdraw from Judea and Samaria and get peace when every cession of our land has only brought war and death?
Instead of beating the dead horse of the illusions of Oslo and hoping it will miraculously arise, you should start asking questions - why?
Lama u'madúa? Nu?
15 - troll
Ruvy - I understand that you are more interested in the here and now and in problems that can be solved rather than in 'water under the bridge'...my questions here are more academic and concern the back story
would you say that the property rights of the Arabs living in what became Israel were respected as called for in all international agreements concerned with the disposition of the British mandate and the creation of a Jewish state - ?
consider this map which I snatched from somewhere on the web (sorry source - I can't remember who you are off hand)...it seems to show a dispersed Arab population and a different story than the one where Arabs came to the area looking for work as 'domestics'
you call it your land but how was this transfer of ownership accomplished - ?
as devil's advocate - can't the Israeli government be blamed for this theft (through forced sales at best - ?) which on paper at least was never intended by the international community
troll
16 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
"Yup - just what the "poor Palestinians" need to develop peace, right?"
No - for peace to develop the Palestinians need to be given a viable, indpependent state.
"In order to accomplish all the nation building now, you need an "occupation on humanitarian grounds". "
No, you don't. What's needed is to recignise the destructive forces in this situation, and stop them. The single largest destructive force is the ongoing, illegal occupation, and it is relatively simple to stop.
Once the Palestinians have a viable state comprising of a contiguous West Bank plus Gaza, then we can move on to other steps. Steps such as attempting to provide Palestinians with work, should they want it, or providing expertise or aid to help them get on their feet.
But the important thing is that the first step has to be a viable Palestinian state, and the first step towards that is engaging n serious negotiations. That means being willing to return East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
"Why does the government of Israel insist that it can withdraw from Judea and Samaria and get peace when every cession of our land has only brought war and death?"
Virtually every cession of land has a) looked good on paper but actually wasn;t much of an improvement (see Gaza) and b) been accompanied by expansions of settlements in the West Bank.
The truth is that Israel has a moral obligation to return the territories it is occupying. It should do this even if there is not terrorist threat.
But since firstly, among the Israeli religious extremists who hold way too much influence sensible morality doesn't appear to exist and secondly, there is a terrorist threat, withdrawing from the West Bank is also strategically sensible.
There will always be terrorists. Terrorists are criminals, and what they want or what their motives are are not important. WHat is important is why they are so popular. Why they arne't isolated and hated by the community. Why they are able to draw so much support from the people who's lives they are making miserable.
The answer to that is that Islamic Jihad and ordinary Palestinians share one thing - a hatred of Israeli interference in Palestine that often translates into hatred of Israel itself.
The hatred of Israeli policies is completely justified, although of course translating that into killing civilians is not. There are simple steps that can be taken to reduce or even eliminate such hatred. The obvious one is to withdraw from the Occupied Territories.
Whilst there will be still be terrorists, they will be much easier to deal with and will enjoy far less support amongst the Palestinian people, and so will pose much less a threat.
17 - troll
Jamie Stern-Weiner - *There are simple steps that can be taken to reduce or even eliminate such hatred. The obvious one is to withdraw from the Occupied Territories.*
why should anyone think that this is more than deceptive rhetoric and that the desire of the Palestinian Arabs is other than to drive the Palestinian Jews back into compounds around the coastal cities and eventually into the sea - ?
troll
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Troll,
The first thing I did was to look at the map. It is a fairly good map, though carefully skewed in its terminology (Zionist colony vs Palestinian village) to infer that Jews had never been here previously and that the term 'Palestinian' referred only to Arabs. Also it shows the 1922 borders with 1920 data. This is because if it had shown the 1920 borders, the mandate of "Palestine" would have included BOTH banks of the Jordan, something this group desperately wanted to avoid doing. Now that I think about it, the map was carefully skewed in other ways too. The dots were somewhat oversized, to give the impression of a dispersed Arab population.
This situation on the ground changed radically between 1922 and 1947. Most of the land that Jews acquired was obtained up until 1947 was either purchased or reclaimed with no owners on it, or in a number of instances, consisted of villages built over-night. Ottoman real estate law, which still pertains in Judea and Samaria and governed the entire British Mandate, allowed for such things.
Once war broke out in late 1947, all the neat landowning lines became blurred by fighting. In some instances, attempts were made to persuade Arabs to remain where they were. In the majority of cases this did not occur. When Arab armies invaded the country from outside the country in 1948, they told the villagers to leave, promising a victory. But, save for the Arab Legion, they were unable to deliver on the promise.
For the most part, the new government of Israel did not want the Arabs to stay.
Property rights were not respected. The property rights of Arabs here were not "respected" as they had effectively abandoned their homes. The government of Israel was not going to welcome a fifth column of potential terrorists into the country after fighting them in Jaffa, Haifa, Tzfat and Lod.
This, particularly in light of the fact that Arab states refused to even recognize the existence of Israel, let alone negotiate peace. If you wish to understand the back story, this is a very salient fact that cannot be allowed to slip the mind. No peace, no negotiations, no recognition. It was the basic fact of life then, and in many ways is still the basic fact of life now.
IN ADDITION, the property rights of Jews in Iraq and other Arab countries ceased to exist and they had to be rescued from those countries and bought home. The international agreements did not contemplate the Arab pogroms against Jews in Arab countries, nor did they contemplate the changes in international borders due to the fighting here.
IN ADDITION TO ALL THIS, the king of Jordan tried to style himself King of the Palestinians, and the Egytians ran Gaza nearly as a prison camp. So the Arab state that should have come into existence in 1948 never did. This too is a big part of the back story.
Disregarding religious considerations, this entire country is ours by right of conquest in defensive wars.
The Israel government is guilty of the same theft that other nations have been guilty of by virtue of war and conquest. Check out a map of Europe and its changes over the last 100 years.
19 - Jet in Columbus
Oh Ruvy, where did I fail?
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie,
You repeat all the same crap over and over like a broken record. "Illegal occupation," "viable state," etc. etc.
You act as if Oslo never occurred and a Jew like me is supposed to be stupid enough to buy bricks of shit packaged as bricks of gold - as though the last 14 years never happened.
Sorry. The last 14 years did happen, and due to the treason of our own leaders our nation is much weaker. Due to the theft of the Arab terrorists, the Arabs are much poorer.
The rich shits in North Tel Aviv talk like you do. When a Qassam missile hits the Ashkelon electric plant and they can't turn their computers or electric coffee grinders for a few days, they will just begin to wake up. You, on the other hand, from your perch outside of this country, will never awaken.
Doze on, Jamie. I do not wish to disturb yur dreams or fantasies.
21 - troll
(in fairness [and with a little history search] these are the guys who produced the map - definately from an Arab POV explaining its skewed nature but not undermining the underlying questions of land ownership and the ethnic cleansing of what became Israel - the history of which Ruvy laid out in #18)
22 - Jet in Columbus
Ruvy #20 much much better, consise and to the point, and I'm afraid I even agree!
23 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Nice job, Troll. I've heard of these guys and read some of their literature. The map that PASSIA has on its web-site seems to indicate a willingness for a "two-state" solution.
I tried tracing the "dtaos" site further and it was one greasy pig to handle.
24 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jet,
Analysis and explanation take time and need to be precise. That's the trouble wirh reading a contract, too.
Once somebody starts repeating himself endlessly, it ain't hard to tell him so in a couple of words.
25 - troll
(actually I make no secret of my identity - it's easy to tract through dtaos and old comments...I picked up this moniker at a time when I figured
1 - I don't write well enough to produce posts in any timely fashion
and
2 - BC was desperately in need of a old school troll)