I live in the Natanya area which is about an hour's drive away from Tel Aviv, as for my relatives being safe...no, my sister and her family live in Be'er Sheva (Be'er Sheva means the Seven Wells, its the biblical name), the last rocket hit only a couple of blocks away from where they live, my nieces have been having nightmares. Hell my heart still stops for a moment every time i hear that note the siren makes and i haven't had to sit in a bomb shelter since the first Gulf War.

Tycho you don't understand the Israeli psyche at all. No matter how much Israel wants peace two things are non negotiable, the right to return and Jerusalem being the Palestinian capital. It strikes at the heart of every Israeli and probably all Jews around the world, Israel has always been firm on those two points, the word never crosses my mind at the very thought.


Again about shaming a dead man, you really don't understand us, think about how Israel hunted down Nazi's, how Eichmann was captured and you might start to understand, Israel is not the lamb being led to slaughter, we learnt that lesson only to well. Arafats's family have over 200 million dollars that should belong to the Palestinian people, freeze their bank accounts and pass a ruling giving it back to the people. Arafat's memory should be shamed, I truly think that there would be peace now if he had agreed, there was so much hope in Israel at that time and in Palestine as well and when he turned the deal down he crushed that hope and made many people think that there was no point in even trying for peace.



Well there’s a politian’s response, i'm wondering if it could have been more wishy washy... America wants the world to think it's a world leader, that is until it has to make hard discussions then you waffle about making up excuses why something can't be done. I firmly believe that America could bring pressure to bear and get Gilad back home, if not on the people holding him then on people who can put pressure on Gilad's captors, do the whole stick and carrot deal that America has done so often in the past.

Now about reparations, I don't completely disagree but i believe that reparations should only be paid out if there is proof that the people were forced out, and only then. And if Palestine has a problem with that tell them they'll get their money once complete reparations are made by Europe for property stolen from the Jews after WWII.

Tycho where is the Israeli victory you talk about? All Israel does is compromise, we're willing to give them almost everything they want, what is that but for compromise?? Are you forgetting why Rabin was murdered? Shall i remind you? Because he was willing to compromise, we've already bent over backwards, now your telling us that we need to become a pretzel to accommodate the Palestinians.

Oh and once last factoid for you, since Sunday till Wednesday 61 rockets have been fired at south Israel.

In reply to Tycho (msg #269):

Your plan and mine differ in that I rid Palestinian territories of the same tired actors that have plagued negotiations in the past.  Terrorists and kleptocrats who feed off the Palestinian people.  You may say I am overly heavy-handed and I will say that you are too soft.  That seems to be where we currently stand.

I should also state, as I have before, that even if Israel and a nation of Palestinians engaged in a hug-fest the Middle East would not see the end of any of the current hostilities we currently see.  Only a purging of the tyrants and establishment of democracy will bring that about.

But let me address this:



The Arabs left Israel on request from the massing Arab armies and were promised the lands of the Jews when their eradication was complete and total.  They were not running scared, they were clearing the battlefield for the conquerors.  The problem was that those pesky Jews had a little more fight in them than they bargained for.  Their property is forfeit.

You like compromise and so do I.  What you don't seem to see is that you cannot compromise with unreasoning hate.  Nor should you compromise to solve problems of another's making.

I'm very sorry to hear that.  I hope they stay safe.


That is your (Israel's) choice, though its not how I would make it.  When you say "never" to sharing Jerusalem, you are saying "forever" to rockets.  That's more or less the choice you're faced with: continuing the current situation forever, or giving up something important to you.  It's not right, and it's not fair that you (Israel) have to make that decision, but unfortunately it is the choice you get to make.  You don't get to make the choice of "the palestinians give up, and leave us alone" because that's not within your control.  You don't get to chose "the world sees we're the good guys, and forces the palestinians to stop," because again, that's not within your control.  The thing you have control of, is what you're willing to give up in exchange for peace.  If Jerusalem is more important than the safety of your (Elana) family, then so be it.  It is not how I would value things, but this decision isn't within my control, so its not up to me.  I'll continue to try to change your mind, and the minds of other Israelis, and encourage you to value peace more, but that's the only influence I have.  If your (Israel and Elana) mind is made up, then I am wasting my breath; you've chosen rockets.  If you (Elana) change your mind on that in the future, though, don't forget that you have more influence on making the change than most people in the world.  You can make a difference, if you want to.


Yes, it is very sad and depressing.  There is a path to making it stop, but it is not a path without cost.  Right now it sounds like you consider the cost too high, so the rockets will keep firing perpetually.

Its not the heavy-handedness of your method that I object to, but rather the fact that it won't do what you say.  You might eliminate some of the current baddies, but others will pop up to replace them.  To a degree, they are just a symptom, rather than the disease itself.  Hatred is the disease which causes them to gain power, and your method will only increase hatred of Israel.  If I thought your method could work, I wouldn't mind its heavy-handedness.


I agree that it wouldn't solve all our problems (even establishing democracy wouldn't do that), but I still think it's worth doing on its own.


No, that's what I realize all too well.  You are exactly right that you cannot compromise with unreasoning hate.  That is why any action that increases the hate is counter productive.  You need to convince people not to hate you before you can compromise with them.  That is what makes the situation so difficult.  Because all the seemingly reasonable actions just lead to increased hatred, and thus push a solution further off.

As to whether you should compromise to solve problems that someone else has made, that depends on what you care about, I guess.  I care about the results, you seem to care more about principles.  It seems to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face.  You seem to think it's better to have violence and injustice than to accept peace and injustice.  We can all agree that peace with justice would be the best option, but unfortunately, that's not on the menu.  We only have two choices: peace and injustice, or violence and injustice.  Picking the violent option because the other is worse than one that's not on the menu isn't rational, in my opinion.  Human nature, probably, but not rational.  We have two unpleasant options, why not take the better one, even if it's far from perfect?

So you would like a permanent solution?  As I said before, there will never be permanent peace in the Middle East with all the tyrants and Islamofascists running around.  What my plan will do is create a Palestinian state.  What they do with it is up to them after the training wheels come off.



You neocon!  But hey, everyone's a neocon these days.  Even Obama.  Regime change, spreading democracy... it's all good now.



Exactly where in your plan do you convince people not to hate Israel?  And you say my plan is unreasonable.  That is where victory works over compromise.  You want Palestinian statehood?  You're going to have to force it upon them.



You seem more preoccupied with principles.  My way will get results without worrying about reforming Jew-haters and bending over backwards to get them to like Israel.  You want results you go my way.



Don't know where this is coming from.  My plan secures the peace.  Break the peace and the hammer falls.  Done.  Otherwise your statement doesn't make much sense.



So half-assed is a better solution as long as you compromise and feel good about it?  I like that solution that secures the lives of civilians and roots out those who believe in the right to commit genocide.

But again, your solution doesn't create a Palestinian state.  You explicitly said as much.  You made a point of not giving them sovereignty.  No state is created.



I think there might have been some confusion there.  What I think is worth doing, is establishing peace between Israel and Palestine.  I didn't call for regime change (that was you, I think), nor for establishing democracy (though I'm not necessarily opposed to it).  If that makes me a neo-con, fair enough.


What I want is peace.  Palestinian statehood is a means to an end, rather than an end unto itself.  Forcing "statehood" on them, when it doesn't come with sovereignty, doesn't let them choose their own leaders, doesn't let them teach their own schools, isn't going to make them not hate Israel, in my estimation.  What will, over the long run, is not blowing them up, not taking their property, not preventing them from re-building their homes, etc.  It's giving them a chance to build a relatively normal life.  That won't convince the current hardliner.  They're never going to be convinced, in my estimation.  But when you kill them, that makes more people become what they were, so it's not all that beneficial in the long run.  You need to convince the people who currently aren't terrorists that they have a chance to make a better life for themselves by being peaceful than by being violent.  It's a long term strategy, that involves putting up with a good deal of pain and suffering in the short and medium term in order to get it.  The thing is, though, even if you do go on killing the terrorists, you still get the pain and suffering in the short and medium term as well.  Which is sort of the point.  Blowing up terrorists doesn't make terrorists go away, it just changes who the terrorists are.  Giving non-terrorists a better option (in their eyes, not yours) can, over the long run, lead to less terrorists.  I don't pretend it will be easy, or painless, or fun, or anything else.  There will be bad guys that get away with being bad guys.  But in the long run, it's the only way I see to peace.


This seems to be where we disagree.  I don't see your method fixing the problem of violence.  I don't see the terrorists stopping under your plan.  I don't see the hatred going away.  I don't see why you expect the situation to change under your plan.


Fear of reprisal is clearly not working to secure the peace.  That's been the method for years and years now, and it's not working.  Because the people who are launching rockets don't consider dying much worse than their current living situation.  Some of them thinks its better.  Being killed isn't working as a deterrent.  In fact, it just encourages more violence, by causing more hate.  It might satisfy our desire for justice, but it just continues the situation in the long wrong.


Again, if I thought your solution would secure the lives of civilians, I'd be all for it.  But I don't think it will.  I don't see what stops the rockets and bombs in your solution.  I just see more of the same.  Feeling good about the half assed solution isn't the issue, it's getting a long term result.  Your solution is, basically, "keep fighting until they give up."  It's been the plan for years and years, and it isn't working.

Wrong.  I don't know how you missed it when I said you establish borders, wipe out Fatah and Hamas, and allow new leadership to step forward.  I also say this:



In the beginning... is the important part.  The new Palestinian nation will not be independent the same way Germany and Japan weren't at the end of WWII.  As I said, major housecleaning needs to occur.



I am just cutting this off since I see a problem here.  You want peace yet you won't get rid of the ones who want violence.  You want peace yet you won't allow for killing off those who target civilians because that will generate more terrorists.  You want peace yet you won't allow another nation being attacked to defend itself.

Your problem, as I see it, is that you believe that Israel taking actions to protect it's citizens is what is generating the hate.  But that hate has been there for a very long time, even before the establishment of Israel.  What you want is to hand victory over to those who profit from Palestinian misery and who push a doctrine of hate.

You are correct that a war against terrorism is not won by blowing up terrorists.  New ones always pop up.  But Israel has no choice but to do just that.  Terrorisim is a battle of ideas and can only be won from inside the Palestinian culture.  Israel can do nothing to change it.  The situation changes when Palestinians and Muslims decide that Jews should be allowed to live and that terrorism and martyrdom are atrocities.  The change comes from inside.



I would say it is working very well.  Along with the security barrier and naval blockade check out the stats on actual terrorist acts within Israel.



I don't see how working with the same old terrorists (Fatah and the PA), giving back land, and uprooting settlers has done anything either.  Your plan is just the same as what has been done time and again.  Mine is a complete sweeping of the playing field.  Something that has yet to be tried.

Buying peace by giving Fatah and Hamas everything they want wont be peace, this is something many people in the west dont understand, they will simply change the gole posts once more. They'll wave some paper aroung saying something about their forefathers owning the land in Tel Aviv or some such and insist that that land be given to them as well. Or maybe they'll decide they want the gas deposits, the one that was recently found, scientists say it looks like one of the richest in the world. You think that if Israel makes a reasonable offer that gives them to a degree everthing they have said they want that there will be peace but there wont, maybe the Palestinian people as a whole want that but not the fanatics leading Palestine, because they don't really care about they're people, they've shown that over and over again, they build their bunkers in highly populated areas, they're teaching a whole generation that it's better to die for your people then it is to live and work for it, they don't understand the give and take of the art of compromise, and what peace will mean in that regard, all they understand is strength and weakness, and that if someone compromises then they are weak, which means that they should be crushed.

well obviously they should own the gas deposits, Israel has to be the only place in the middle east without rich fossil fuel deposits... it has been ordained.

Seriously this whole problem began due to US policy to rely on foreign oil and preserve our own reserves until the international oil sources were depleted...

In reply to silveroak (msg #278):

I would actually like to read an explanation of this.

Peace isn't about giving Hamas and Fatah everything they want.  Certainly in the case of Hamas and possibly (though I don't know for certain) in the case of Fatah, everything they want is the total destruction of Israel as a state.  Finding peace is about giving both sides just enough that they can't get the popular motivation to continue fighting that they need, so that Israel can, in fact, continue to exist.



Israel can do something about its own "terrorism", though (I put that in quotes for a reason, so please don't chew my head off about choice of words).  That would go a long way to helping both the peacemakers among the Palestinians and the international community feel they can support Israel.  It doesn't take an anti-semite to think that burning civilians with white phosphorus, broken settlement agreements, legal and accepted discrimination against Israeli Arab citizens and breaking up of Arab families is wrong.  So Israel can certainly, to borrow your phrase, decide that Muslims and Arabs should be allowed to live and murder, illegal detention and forcible theft of land are atrocities.



Abbas seems to have tried.  It would be helpful if Israel showed a little good faith in response to his efforts, like stopping the settlements.  Maybe then he could get the popular support to actually curb the violence.

Don't use the word terrorism when you are not speaking of terrorism.  Otherwise you're just looking for fight.  Biting off your head would be quite justified but I won't be the one to do it.



In other words, if Israel responded to every piece of propaganda, like your following statements, and attempted to address them as though they were truth then they might get all those Palestinian and UN "peacemakers" on there side?  Interesting concept.



Exactly the kind of wholesale lie I am speaking of.  This never occurred outside of the fantasies created by Pallywood and spread by the useful idiot media.  Harsh?  You bet.



By all means, provide me those agreements which were broken.  I guess Israel's return of massive areas of land and the removal of rogue settlers means nothing.  Or perhaps you just haven't head about it?  The settlements are legal according to international law.  Israel could have just claimed all the land it took in the Arab wars of aggression if they wished but they only want the land that was legally given them.



Breaking up Arab families?  Where?  Show me the legal discrimination.  Arabs have more rights in Israel than in Arab countries.  Wave a bible on a street corner in Riyadh and tell me what happens.  Denounce Israel in downtown Tel Aviv and you will have more than a few Jews agree with you.



So you are saying that all your debunked propaganda is reason to conduct terrorism?  Which came first?  Arab aggression or Israeli defense?  The way history records it there was a declaration of Israel as a state and an immediate response by the Arab nations to wipe out the Jews.



Abbas is a figurehead.  He says one thing to the world press and quite another when surrounded by his peers.  His government is staffed with anti-Semites and Islamofascists.  Look at the books school children read with his stamp of approval.  Here is what Abbas (Abu Mazen) ratified at Fatah's 6th General Conference on August 13, 2009:



Gee, all he is asking for is the elimination of Israel.  Why, oh why, can't those Israeli bullies work with this "peacemaker"?

You seem well-versed in repeating the usual lies and historical revisions of the conflict but it doesn't hold up to reality and historical fact.

I'm happy to have a separate discussion concerning the semantics of who is committing terrorism and what constitutes terrorism, but it doesn't have any bearing on the discussion we're having here.  I only used it to draw a parallel to violence on both sides, neither of which is "clean".  I did that as a lead into my discussion of compromise for peace.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...and_immigration_laws  I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe these are lies; and comparative human rights doesn't strike me as a justifiable position for defending human rights abuses.  After 1865, blacks weren't held in slavery.  Does that mean that Jim Crow laws were therefore acceptable?



This has been reported by numerous media outlets and NGOs.  Again, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe those are lies.  Maybe they are lies, but I could use some support for this.  Its not like I claimed Israelis were eating Palestinian babies, a debunked lie.



Um, no.  I pretty clearly was talking about peace.  Terrorism committed by Palestinians is not peace.  I'm talking about solutions; most of which involve compromise, whether or not anyone likes it.  You mentioned that terrorism can only be defeated within Palestine.  I'd be incredibly surprised if external stimuli and incentives had no influence over that culture shift.  And Israel has more ability to adjust those external stimuli and incentives than any other group; perhaps even the Palestinians themselves.



I did actually address that exact point in my response to Elana.  Abbas is a politician in a society obsessed with its own security.  Exactly like Netanyahu, in fact.  Abbas has to be a politician and cater to his people, many of whom want Israel destroyed just like I mentioned in my reply to Elana.  I would be very surprised if external stimuli and incentives didn't do something to change the behavior and beliefs of Palestinians, however.  Just like stimuli and incentives change every other human being's behavior everywhere else in the world.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:31, Mon 28 Mar 2011.

Strange that you would consider a government defending citizens to people seeking the extermination of an entire nation to be comparable.  Curious that.



So Jim Crow laws stated this?



That is the first part of your information.  Gotta love Wikipedia for factual documentation.  But if you actually look at the supposed discriminiation cited it reads like any other country.  I wonder how France and Britian stack up when it comes to studies about how they treat their Arab citizens?  You even have the government of Israel enforcing its own laws for the benefit of Arabs.  It almost seems as if Arabs have legal recourse if they believe they are being discriminated against.  Crazy!

To compare the outright racist standing of Jim Crow to the perception of discriminiation in Israel is quite the leap of faith and just a little bit offensive.  Israel is a free democracy, and although it is not right, there is discrimination on a personal level, not on a governmental level.  Human nature.  What Israelis are not doing is stabbing 3 month old babies or blowing people up in pizza palors due to their religion and celebrating the perpetrators.



And I have seen the reports that the evidence consisted of second hand reports (all from Palestinians) and that the material evidence was phosphorus flares used to light up the area.  There were not phosphorus shells targetted at Palestinians.  That is a blatant lie.  If you are curious you can look it up.  Try to find the evidence for this act if you can.  It doesn't exist.  While you are at it, look up the term "Pallywood".  There is quite an industry around fabricating Israeli "atrocity".  The Al-Durra affair comes to mind as a good example.



You know, I am going to have to agree with you on that point, external stimuli can have an influence.  How about cutting off all aid and funding to the Palestinians until they stop voting in terrorists into their leadership?  Or until they recognize Israel's right to exist?  I believe that is an excellent point.

But what can Israel do to stop Arabs from believe they are the spawn of apes and pigs?  What can Israel do to stop Mein Kampf from being a best seller amongst Palestinians?  Hmmmm... I think I am going to go with that being a function of Palestinian culture.



So Abbas is useless considering he has no ability to stand up to some of his people's genocidal tendencies.  Understood.  Like you suggest, perhaps cutting off the money he uses to maintain his position might be a grand motivator.

I would say that if you give them "statehood" on terms they don't accept (note that germany and japan both formally surrendered, and thus formally accepted the terms put upon them), you won't get the change in behavior you're looking for.  If they don't accept it willingly, they're not going to stop firing rockets, committing acts of terrorism, because what are you going to do in return?  Take away the version of statehood that they don't accept as valid?  That's the trouble with your solution, in my opinion--forcing conditions on people that they don't want makes them want to hate you more.  If they don't feel in control of their own destiny, if they feel like the "other side" is going to treat them however they please no matter what, the hate is going to grow, reformers are going to be shouted down, and the violent will gain more followers.  And yes, this is more less what is happening now, because the current situation is basically along the lines of your ideas (i.e., Israel tells palestine how it's gonna be, and they just have to accept it).


To a degree, yes.  Because "getting rid" of those who want violence is justice, not peace.  I would love to get both, but if I have to pick one, I'll take peace.  In this situation, if you "get rid" of those who want violence, that will make other people hate israel, and make them violent, and you've made no real progress towards peace.  Yes, it's horrible to accept that in order to get peace we may have to let a whole lot of evil people go unpunished.  But until I see a way to do both that looks like it will work, peace is more important to me than justice.  Let me stress that I'm not saying that justice is unimportant, just that peace is more important to me.


Yes, hate has been there for ages, but at the same time, when Israel "defends" its citizens, it increases hate.  When teenage kids playing soccer in their yard get killed when Israel bombs those launch rockets, it creates hate.  It may not be logical, its definitely not fair, but its the situation that exists.  And it's largely why Hamas launches the rockets in the first place.  They want the Israeli reaction, because it benefits their cause in the long run.  So you think I'm handing victory over to the bad guys by pushing for peace, but I think that it's actually the other way around.  Those who want to destroy Israel lose if we achieve a peace agreement.  Every time we do the opposite, and get justice, we're actually helping their cause.


This is key, I think.  We agree on the situation, but we seem to disagree on the implications.  You agree that change has to come from the inside, but then your plan is to force change on them, from the outside, against their will.  I just don't think that will work.  Forcing them takes away power from people who want to make a change.  Giving them the option to push for peace, giving them something to hold up and say "look, if we stop firing rockets we can have these things they've offered, and we can have peace!" It gives them something to use to change minds.  But if they don't have that power, if they aren't the ones making the case, that change isn't going to happen.



I think we have a different idea of what "working well" means.  There is still far too much violence for my tastes.  Israelis are still living in fear or rockets, just as Elena told us.


I don't really see your plan as something that hasn't been tried.  It's the same old "kill the bad guys" plan that's been tried over and over.  We managed to get peace in Northern Ireland by working with the "same old terrorists."  The situations are very different, but I think Northern Ireland shows that even people willing to kill innocents, people who have strong hatreds, people who are willing to use violence to get their way, can be brought around to peace eventually if they feel they are doing it of their own volition.


This was from your discussion with habsin4, but I wanted to reply:

People tend not to like people who cause them hardship, even if they, in theory, deserve it.  They particularly don't like being punished for the actions of others.  What you're saying is punishing every palestinian, even those who've been opposed to Hamas and trying to stop the violence, on the grounds that most people voted for Hamas in the last election.  That's going to kill the will of those reformers to keep trying to make a difference.  If people feel they are going to be treated as a terrorists no matter what they do, they'll often start acting like one even if they're not.  Collective punishment doesn't help achieve the internal change you've said is necessary.  On the contrary, it makes it less likely by punishing the good along with the bad.  Rare is the person who will turn on a friend when they're in the wrong, and support an enemy in the right.  Even if it "makes more sense" in some sense for them to turn on the people shooting rockets, most people will feel the hatred towards the people shooting bombs back at them in retaliation, rather than at the neighbor who "started it."  It's not a good thing, and I'm not defending it, but it's part of human nature and we have to deal with it.  Humans are naturally tribalistic.  We view the world through the lens of "us and them."  We have a horrible tendency to judge the actions based on the actor, rather than the other way around.  If Israel makes life harder on all palestinians to punish Hamas, almost all palestinians will get more made at Israel than they will at Hamas.


If they really want to change that way of thinking, they have change their actions.  Because a neutral observer has a much easier time seeing through propaganda than does a person who's neighborhood has been leveled.  When someone else has control over your life, and is making your life miserable, then its all too easy to believe absurd claims about.  Take that part away, and slowly, over time, things change.  It's very slowly.  People who are in their thirties now, and hate jews, will probably hate jews until the day they die.  It's probably too late to change most of them.  Because all it takes is one dead relative to set hate in stone for life.  At the same time, humans also have a natural tendency towards empathy.  It tends to lose out when it butts up against tribalism, but it can win out over time.  I've heard it convincingly argued that hatred is more easily defeated by having people interact with those they hate in a non-confrontational manner, than the other way around.  For example, if you have a racist friend, you're more likely to change their mind by having them hangout with a person of a different race, rather than change their mind with words and then see them hangout with that person by their own choice.  To convince palestinians that all the crazy propaganda they're handed is just that, they need to deal with Israelis in a way that shows them just how crazy it is.  If the only Jews they ever see are soldiers on patrol, cops at check points, and settlers taking landing, they're not likely to realize that the propaganda is just made up.  If their main experience of Israel is airstrikes and power outages, they're not going to be doing much critical thinking of the anti-israeli books people hand them.  It's extremely hard to root out hatred.  It takes decades at least.  But you simply can't do it at gun point.  It just doesn't work that way.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:36, Mon 28 Mar 2011.

Yes, perhaps peace is impossible and we should all give up and accept the rockets as inevitable.  I'm not there yet (though sometimes I'm close), but if you are, that's your call to make.


Hmm...you mean they have things over which they will never, ever compromise, even for peace?  Concessions which, when they hear them, the word "never" crosses their mind?

No, thats apples and oranges.  I would compare the violent theft of land, human rights abuses and discriminatory practices to people seeking the extermination of an entire nation.  If we're going to compare apples to apples, then why not compare Israelis' right to defend their home to the Palestinians' right to defend their home?  Any sane person with a conscience sympathizes with the Jews' need to have a home of their own, after all they've been through.  Feeling the same way about the Palestinians' right to a home and some security is hardly supporting terrorism.



Sure it reads like any other country.  Even our own country, right here in the good ol' US of A.  And I object to those problems, too.  I'm pretty sure I haven't been on the Zimbabwe thread defending Robert Mugabe or the Qaddafi thread demanding an end to "US Imperialism"!!!!!  That also doesn't make what I said about human rights abuses a "lie" or "propaganda"; because, I'm not saying Israel's action are as bad as Jim Crow.  Human rights abuses stand on their own.  They aren't made acceptable because you can point to a worse case.  China's suppression of free speech doesn't mean its okay when it happens here in the US only as long as its just a little.  And when you're talking about what drives violence in Israel, those human rights abuses are a part of the equation.  Just like the cartoons you mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood



I'm smart enough not to buy something just because it comes from a pro-Israel source.  If the only source I had for the white phosphorus is Hamas, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't believe it.  But when Ha'aretz reports on it, I might be inclined to consider it more likely.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/hu...ons-in-gaza-1.267854

http://www.haaretz.com/news/is...-in-lebanon-1.203078

As for killing Palestinian babies: the settlers in the West Bank have responded to the murder of a Settler family with random violence against Palestinians; and, according to witnesses, Israeli security let the violence happen.  That's not killing babies, but it is random violence with state support.

This doesn't excuse the Palestinians from their human rights responsibilities.  But Israel, as a legitimate state, has more ability to compromise than the fractured Palestinian government.  Asking Israel not to build settlements on land occupied by human beings trying to have some security, economic opportunity and a home isn't the same as saying "Israel has no right to exist".  Of course, the killing has to end.  If I lived in Israel, I would want some security.  So, whats the best way?



Can you think of a situation where people were simply beaten into submission with no regard for reward and it resulted in an end to the violence?  A reward like a legitimate sense of security?  A more sensible approach would use both punishment and reward.

The way you write you give the impression that Israel is completely unwilling to compromise, which is untrue, Israel acknowledge Palestine, Gaza and the West Bank are Palestinine territiory. Israel made concessions and followed through on them, out of the numerous topics descussed various compromises were agreed to only two thing were not and both of those are due to security. The fact is that Israel is surrounded on all sides by unfriendly states, are we to open our arms to allow vipers to attack us from within during a war? because that is what the Palestinian right to return would be. As for Jerusalem the security situation would be impossible if it was a shared capitol, as it is, it is hard enough already as there are many Palestinian towns and villages close to Jerusalem, maybe you should read about what happened to Jerusalem during the War of Independence in 48 and you might start to understand. You should turn the question around why are they so intent on having Jerusalem as their state capitol? Because frankly the main reason why to my mind is a petty one, a way to show their victory over Israel.

You told me that Israel is completely unwilling to compromise one some issues.  I'm the one trying to convince people there's still hope for, and reason to, compromise.  I just find it somewhat unfair to say that Palestinians don't "understand the give and take of compromise" just a few posts after you tell us that there are things that are completely off the table for Israel.  Particularly when it is the Palestinians unwillingness to compromise on those same things that you base your assertion on.  It seems somewhat unreasonable to me say that the palestinians were entirely off base to walk away from a deal because just two points didn't go their way, when you've stated that Israel is also entirely unwilling to compromise on those same two points.


In my solution, I had the palestinians giving up the right of return in exchange for fair compensation for property lost.  But you wanted to make sure that Israel was compensated for all property lost in WWII first.  That's not a security thing.  That's putting fairness ahead of peace.  A lot of people feel the same way, that fairness, justice, etc., are more important than peace.  I tend to think that peace is more important, especially if you're just choosing between "one" and "neither."  Picking "neither" because "both" wasn't on the menu seems like a bad idea to me.  I'm all for the return of jewish property taken during WWII.  I think it's a great idea.  But it's also a completely separate issue from palestine, and shouldn't get in the way of peace.  I think we might be able to get the palestinians to give up the right of return if they were compensated fairly.  I'd like to think Israel would be willing to compromise on that too.  Again, maybe I'm too idealistic, but that's my hope.


If it's only a matter of security, here's an option: an undivided capital, controlled by Palestine.  Israel moves its capital elsewhere, and Jerusalem goes entirely to the Palestinians.  The problem of security is taken care of.

Now, I want you to remember your reaction to what I just said.  I'm not sure what it was.  Maybe you laughed at it.  Maybe it made your blood boil.  Maybe you just groaned and rolled your eyes at how ignorant I could be.  Whatever the reaction was, think about how you felt reading that, and remember it.  I'll come back to it in a second.

The first point I want to make, is that (assuming my proposal above didn't seem reasonable to you) the issue of Jerusalem isn't just about security.  There's much more to it than that.  Saying the unwillingness to compromise is purely about security is ignoring some of the important factors involved.  Ask yourself, would Israel accept a shared Jerusalem if security could be guaranteed?  If we could some how ensure that it wouldn't lead to a security problem, would Israel be willing to give up part of their capital?  I'm not sure.  I'd really like to think so, but I don't know.


Perhaps so.  But I think there's more to it than that.  I think some of the non-security reasons that Israel doesn't want a divided Jerusalem are the same reasons that Palestine doesn't want to give it up entirely.

Go back to how you felt when I made that ridiculous suggestion above.  Now put yourself in the shoes of the palestinians.  What you're saying Israel won't compromise on, is the fact that the palestinians have to do exactly what I suggested Israel do: get out of Jerusalem and let the other side have the whole thing.  The way you felt when I made that suggestion is probably fairly close to how palestinians feel when you say they can't have a capital in Jerusalem.  There are three obvious ways Jerusalem can go:  Israel gets it all, Palestine gets it all, or they both share it.  You tell me which of those sounds like a compromise.

You mentioned palestinians "showing their victory."  How much does it matter to you, and Israel in general, that palestinians not feel like they "won" after any settlement is agreed to?  Is it crucial to you that they not feel like the agreement was a victory for their side?  Is it important that they not express their feeling of having won for others to see?  If them feeling like they've won is important, tell me why.  Why do you care if palestinians feel like they've won, and let others know?  Do you think any agreement is possible in which both sides don't feel like they've won?  To the degree that I think Israel should care at all about whether palestinians think they've won, I'd say I think it's better to make them feel like they have, than that they haven't.  A feeling of victory will make them happier with the agreement, and more likely to stick to it and not escalate things.  Expecting them to agree to any compromise in which they feel like they've lost is unrealistic, in my opinion.  Any compromise that's going to work needs to make both sides feel like they've come out ahead.  If you place importance on the other side not feeling that way, its going to be very, very difficult to reach any agreement.

I was thinking about this question a bit more last night, and had an idea I thought I'd run by people here to see if it could generate some new thinking.  It's not a good solution to the problem above, but I'm hoping it might jog an idea in someone else and turn into one.

Anyway, a while back I read a book called "the moon is down," by Steinbeck.  He wrote it as propaganda during WWII, to be distributed to europeans in areas occupied by the nazis, to keep the resisting however they could.  When he wrote it, he was told it would be horrible propaganda, it would never work, and might perhaps even be counter productive, because unlike pretty much all other propaganda been written at the time, it didn't make the nazi soldiers out to be purely evil inhuman creatures.  Instead it made them seem like more or less normal people, with all the fears, desires, insecurities, loves, etc. that people everywhere had.  It turned out to be hugely successful, was distributed widely through underground networks in occupied europe, translated into numerous different languages, and printed clandestinely in hideouts, etc.  The reason it struck such a chord seems to be that it gave people hope.  Propaganda that made the german soldiers seem like alien beings might have been good at getting people to hate the nazis, but it didn't give them any hope of prevailing?  How can you win against people who are more like machines than human, afterall?  What "the moon is down" did was portray them as normal human beings, and that made it seem more possible to beat them.  It gave people hope that they could hold out and resist, because they were fighting against another person that was more or less like them.  For what it's worth, it's a good read, fairly quick, and worth checking out.

What I'm wondering is, if there's anyway to apply this kind of thing to the palestinian situation.  Could propaganda that made the Israelis out to be normal people, rather than inhuman monsters reduce the levels of hatred?  The obvious problem is that the book actually worked to encourage just the kind of activities we're trying to stop (i.e., acts of terrorism against the occupiers--nazis in the book, but Israelis in the current conflict).  We don't want to encourage the belief that if we blow up enough Israelis their will would break and eventually they'd lose their stomachs for the fight and give up, even though we did want people to believe that about the Nazis during WWII.  But is there some way to get the one without the other?  Could we replace hate-causing propaganda with hope-giving propaganda somehow?  But at the same time not undermine the peace process?

Like I said, it's a not a solution yet, but maybe with more heads noodling on it, we could come up with something?  Is there a way to portray Israelis as normal human beings, even sympathetic characters, that palestinians will still read, without encouraging them to commit more acts of terrorism?

My reaction to your suggestion was laughter, never going to happen. You need to understand even if there was a minority that agreed with your possible sulotion it would never pass, remember Shas? they would never allow it. I would say that there would be more votes for carpet bombing Gaza then there would be for giving up Jerusalem. So this is how it stands, and how it will probably stand for a long time, Israel has offered all it considers reasonable for peace and will continue building up it's security and Palestine will continue attacking Israel. I see no change happening unless theres regime change in Palestine, for peace i could see reparations being payed instead of the right to return though you do understand that your talking billions of dollars, i doubt Israel has that type of money to give away.

Tycho did you ever watch a program called The West Wing? if not then you should, as a possible peace plan was discussed at the end of season Five and the beginning of Season Six. I always did think that the selution they discusses as interesting.

Exactly, it's an absurd idea.  Now just realize that it's exactly what you/Israel are demanding of the palestinians.



I don't have a TV, so don't watch many shows.  What was the solution suggested in this one?

Wow no TV that's pretty extreme, but then i don't have one either i have a TV card in my computer, the only other people i know of that don't watch TV are the orthodox...

Well obviously it was a multi stage plan, but the two main issues went as follows partial reparations and partial right of return in the belief voiced in the show that only 8% would want to return. As for Jerusalem the solution they came up with was a flash back to after the Six Day War, they said that Israel offered diplomatic status and immunity over the religious sites in Jerusalem, thus the Muslim holy sites would become like diplomatic missions. So Israel would keep sovereignty over Jerusalem but the Palestinians would control their holy site, with conditions about not excavating under them and such. That way the Palestinian's would have a sovereign like state in Jerusalem, the holy sites would be like an embassy. The added bit which i personally don’t see happening is in the show they said Israel had wanted UN peacekeepers ie American troops, i don't see present day Israel wanting that, but i might be mistaken.

Quick note: Goldstone wrote an op-ed on Friday which basically completely undermines the "findings" of the much reported Goldstone Report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...l?wprss=rss_opinions

If you don't know what the Goldstone Report is it was a report written on the Gaza War of 2008-2009 by Richard Goldstone, the former South African judge, who wrote a report for the U.N. Human Rights Council and their Hamas allies.

It is used as "proof" of Israeli war crimes as they responded to over 10,000 rockets being fired from Palestinian positions.  The media blasted these "findings" across the world.

And now Goldstone has regrets because he has come to the conclusion that perhaps his "investigation" was not really an exercise in impartiality.  He even has the balls to complain that his report is flawed because Israel wouldn't assist in a process designed to demonize Israel.  How rude!  I could see those flaws when it first appeared and I am amazed that this useful idiot did not.  This is an excellent example of anti-Israeli bias in the UN and the media.

Ya I remember the report and i remember how i felt when it came out so incredibly disgusted but not surprised. What most people here didn't like was his name, I don't know if Goldstone is jewish or not it doesn't really matter but his name is very jewish sounding so it sounded like a jew was denouncing Israel worldwide.

People who don't like Israel love saying how the UN has filed many resolutions against Israel, I admit some have foundation in that as a sovereign nation Israel did something that the UN didn't like but many of the resolutions are for ridiculous things like parades in Jerusalem and such, I know because a had a look once after a particularly virilent bit of tripe hurled in Israe's direction.