How should Israel respond to the missiles from Gaza?

Israel enjoyed peace for nearly a decade under the Oslo Accords, and what did they do? They chopped the West Bank into a series of isolated enclaves, violated the Accords by moving thousands of settlers into the West Bank, and regularly murdered Palestinians.

Based on a century's worth of history, I doubt that your scenario has any validity.

using the media for public relations as well as possible (Hamas seems to have learned to do this pretty well, no reason why Israel cannot as well).

Puhlease. Every time there's a suicide bombing, it makes the front pages, but the IDF kills a Palestinian nearly every day and it goes unremarked. It disgusts me to see a bully pretending to be a victim.

Israel enjoyed peace for nearly a decade under the Oslo Accords

I guess they did, if you define "peace" as including hundreds of civilians being killed in suicide bombings and the like.

According to you, the progression went with Israel enjoying a decade of peace while Arafat fulfilled all of his obligations, and then Israel responding to this by murdering Palestinians. Maybe you had better check your history books. Israel offered Arafat almost all of the West Bank, and he turned it down and started a war.

regularly murdered Palestinians

Absolutely true. Though I think that "murder" is too weighted of a term. I applaud Israel for killing terrorists and those who aid them, and in so doing, helping protect Israeli citizens (Jews and Arabs alike). I am not happy (and neither is Israel) over civilian casualties on the other side. However, Israel tries its best to avoid these incidents (they do a much better job than the US). I couldn't say the same thing regarding Hamas and the PLO.

If you think that in the past 15 years, the Arabs have done no wrong, and Israel has done no right, it is no surprise that you would comment that way that you did.

You're right, the Oslo period wasn't as peaceful as I believed.

Maybe you had better check your history books. Israel offered Arafat almost all of the West Bank, and he turned it down and started a war.

Here's a map...I haven't seen the "final offer" from Camp David, but word is it left the West Bank cut to shreds, just like this one.

Though I think that "murder" is too weighted of a term. I applaud Israel for killing

Now there's a reasonable attitude. Can't say much more than that.

I found many links to Yaakov's chart of Israeli deaths, and to many similar ones, very quickly. They came up at the top of the Google searches. For some reason, I wasn't able to find anything similar for Palestinian deaths, even though they run about 3 times as high.

Strange, isn't it?

Jimmy, google "Dennis Ross maps", and you will find the Oslo maps fairly easily. There were no actual maps drawn up during negotiations. Ross's maps may be somewhat different from what others in the negotiations thought. However, they are nothing like the "bantustans" Arafat described. (Also, search for John Strawson, who helped organize boycotts against South Africa, for a cogent argument that inflammatory comparisons to South Africa, such as use of the word bantustan, are inaccurate and antisemitic.) Arafat was lying, plain and simple, and the offer really was pretty generous. At least enough to spur further negotiations rather than Arafat's offensive refusal to accept that there were ever before Jews in the Middle East.

Hey there, ignoblus.

I think an objective review of what Strawson says will reveal that his main objection is to calls for a full-on boycott of Israel as an "apartheid" nation, not with the quite relevant and accurate description of features of the Israeli occupation as "apartheid." Nowhere did I see Strawson say that the use of the word 'bantustan' is anti-semitic, and in some instances he specifically references the apartheid-like nature of Israeli restrictions on Palestinians, such as "the passes, the road system, checkpoints, closures and most dramatically, the wall." Furthermore, the use of the term "apartheid state" by anti-zionists/semites as applied to Israel should neither obscure nor delegitimize accurate descriptions of Israel's occupation as tending toward apartheid or resembling such.

From the definition of 'bantustan' as I understand it, and as it is used by the Columbia Encyclopedia (territory created from native reserves, and set aside for eventual independence, with limited rights for citizens as allowed by the controlling power), this term is fairly accurate. Israel has been fairly open about creating the Palestinian nation out of a portion of the Occupied Territories, while retaining control of water and mineral rights, airspace, borders, etc. Palestinians within the Occupied Territories have always had curtailed rights in comparison with Israeli citizens. It hardly seems inaccurate or anti-semitic to note this.

And finally, although we've probably had this conversation before, the whole mess comprised of the talks between Camp David and Taba are problematic in the extreme from the point of view of determining who caused them to fail. On the one hand, you state that Arafat was "lying, plain and simple," and on the other, I would note that Barak allowed no notes to be taken and no part of the Israeli offer to be written down, and additionally made the agreement contingent on his reelection. There were legitimate reasons on all sides to be cautious and try to leverage negotiations in their own favor. Claiming that one individual bears the brunt of the failure of those negotiations is neither helpful nor accurate.

He is a very serious critic of many of Israel's policies. He is opposed to the whole of the occupation of the West Bank and opposed to certain policies within Israel. (I agree with much of what he says on these matters.) But you haven't looked very hard at his pieces. He is absolutely opposed to a boycott of Israel.

The use of apartheid to describe Israel or Israeli policies has become common place in certain liberal and leftist circles. The wall in the West Bank has become an "apartheid wall", Israel an "apartheid regime" and Israel's "apartheid policies" are regularly denounced. The evocation of apartheid in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is thought to advance the cause of Palestinian in de-legitimizing the State of Israel and in linking Palestinians to the great triumph in South Africa over the racist regime in 1994. In this article (1), I (2) suggest that the use of the apartheid analogy is casual, unhistorical, and ultimately unhelpful.

and

On the whole Ant-Zionism is close to, or a mask for, Anti-Semitism

I may have overstated myself, a bit though. I would, however, take this second quote in the context of statements by others that attempts to deligitimize Israel are antisemitic and Strawson's statement that Zionism is no less legitimate than any other nationalism.

Unfortunately, the Dennis Ross site had some problems, but I did find a couple of maps...though one was credited to President Clinton, not Israel. A "non-paper" report on the talks stated

The Israeli side maintained that it is entitled to contiguity between and among their settlements. The Palestinian side stated that Palestinian needs take priority over settlements. The Israeli maps included plans for future development of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinian side did not agree to the principle of allowing further development of settlements in the West Bank. Any growth must occur inside Israel.

It seems that the Israelis were adamant about maintaining their settlements, something that was only reflected in the Clinton map as areas contiguous to the '67 border.

Jimmy, the maps page worked for me, linked from the site you link to. If it still doesn't work for you, go to the library. The maps are also in Ross's book. Seriously, the disagreements between the maps are amazing. Arafat (and his negotiators under him) were simply lying.

The Israelis did insist on maintaining about 80% of their settlements, and one "no man's land". This amounted to only about 6% of the West Bank (according to your own links) and the Israelis were willing to swap other land in exchange. Why did Arafat then walk out insisting that there had never been Jews in the Middle East?

Gee, you completely missed the one response that would work: return to their '67 borders and quit killing Palestinians.

Jimmy, do you actually think that if Israel pulled back to the 1967 borders, that all of the Arabs would be satisfied with that. Hamas is not after a two-state solution. They are after a one-state solution (and the one state does not include Israel). They have been up front regarding their goals of destroying Israel since their founding, as have all the other terrorist groups (including the PLO). Every time Israel withdraws from territories, it has been one more notch in their belts, one more "proof" that violence against Israeli civilians causes Israel to retreat.

Israel does try to avoid civilians. When civilians are injured, it is not because they were targets. It is because they were in the wrong place or hanging around with the wrong people (or because they were attacking Israeli soldiers and civilians). In the past, the IDF has taken more risk upon itself and its soldiers in order to avoid civilian casualties (where the US would have just sent in the bombers, the IDF has gone door-to-door).

People forget that this problem is not a new one! remember under British control it was the Israeli immigrants that were the terrorists. Prior to the European/USA immigrants post second world war and since, middle east Jews and Arabs lived together without constant confrontation. The reality is that until the Extremists on both sides are removed from the equation we will never see peace.

that all of the Arabs would be satisfied with that.

"All" is an impossibly high bar. Nice of you to be so reasonable.

The majority of Palestinians supported negotiations during the Oslo period, even though they weren't optimistic about the results. If Israel was satisfied with the territory it stole prior to '67, I believe most Palestinians would be satisfied with not being prisoners in their own country.

I think the US ought to sweeten the pot by paying reparations to anyone who suffered losses from the ethnic cleansing, since our money made it possible.

If Israel was satisfied with the territory it stole prior to '67

Oh, I get it. You seem to think that all of Israel is "stolen territory". So I guess you must also be a supporter of the one-state solution (ie: no Israel).

On another website, now apparently dead, that Havoc and I frequented, I came to this conclusion long ago. This is not a topic you can have a reasonable discussion with him on, I am afraid.

Never mind that he is sitting on stolen territory in Hawaii as I recall, unless he has moved recently. Me, I've got a tiny amount of Native American blood supposedly, so all you carpetbaggers can Go Home, for all I care! ;)

It was my user name at Plastic.com when that site was still live. I contracted for a while at DuPont and thought it just enough of an offbeat Plastic reference for a handle. I've been using it for years now, so I've registered it in a few other places so my fellow plasticians can recognize me. The same is true of Jimmy and most of the others on my friends list here.

Never mind that he is sitting on stolen territory in Hawaii

The Hawaiian people suffered an 80% extinction due to Western disease, so the land was essentially empty. Their royalty invited immigration. The current land distribution is the result of ddistributions made by the Hawaiian monarch in the Great Mahele, not theft. While there was a period where the Hawaiian people were oppressed, that time is now over. One of our former governors and our present lieutenant governor are Hawaiian, as are many of our legislators.

If the Hawaiian people were as badly treated as the Palestinians are, I would expect them to fight back, and I would support the struggle. However, that isn't the case.

So I guess you must also be a supporter of the one-state solution (ie: no Israel).

You are a very poor guesser. Perhaps if you read what I wrote instead of knee-jerking at an unpleasant fact, you could guess better.

Hey, I get it now! The Palestinians are having such a hard time because they are filthy animals who brought the whole thing on themselves!

I'd never thought of it that way before! Thanks!

Israelis don't give the Palestinians a hard time for the fun of it, whatever you may think.

Israelis give Palestinians a hard time because the Israelis are engaged in a program of ethnic cleansing. It has nothing to do with fun, it has to do with theft.

Interesting that you didn't think your own comment was a gratuitous insult. I guess different people have different standards.

I've got standards, I've got two,
One for me, and one for you.

I don't know if I'm just from another part of the country (New York) or read the wrong stuff, but the news here is not heavily pro-palestinian and without a doubt not anti-israel. The newspapers have for years given smaller numbers of Palestinian deaths and more Israeli. I do think the tide in the US is changing though, with people at least looking at the situation a little closer.

And lets remember terrorist is subjective. I'm sure we could all make a case for either side that they could be defined as such.

I would disagree, cleareyes. I don't think who the terrorists are in this particular conflict is subjective.

I would disagree, cleareyes, Who the terrorists are in this particular conflict is totally subjective. For people displaced from there homeland and denied basic human rights, most see these people as freedom fighters, just as the Jews claimed to be freedom fighters under British occupation! The IRA were terrorists to most people in the UK but many in the USA and Republic of Ireland claimed they were freedom fighters.

In complex conflicts like this whether your a freedom fighter or a terrorist always depends on which side of the conflict you find your self. Even the early American independence moment people were classed as terrorists by the British!

so you would agree then...?

So if by the definition of terrorists, the Israelis were terrorists until they stopped bulldozing homes with people (civilians) in them and other such acts and now are not?

The thing that has always puzzled me is why the only thing we see on the news is pictures of Palestinian civilians that have been injured in retaliatory strikes.

Because you have very selective memory.

Google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 487,000 for idf kills child. (0.34 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 9,620,000 for palestinian suicide bombing. (0.41 seconds)

Google news:
Results 1 - 2 of 2 for idf kills child. (0.17 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,560 for palestinian suicide bombing. (0.54 seconds)

And yet, the number of children killed by the IDF dwarfs the number of suicide bombings. Go figure.

It is a great website, thanks for showing it to me. Did you also read the reviews on the website? Did you read their history? Just about my whole point on Terrorism was that once the media took the side of the Terrorists, the Terrorists win. Thanks for helping me with my argument.
If you want more reading, type in Scholars for Terror into Google. It gives a great review of your website.

As for labelling Israel security counter-measures as terrorism, well that's just Palestinian spin and sound-bytes. Sometimes civilians do get caught in IDF counter-terrorism operations but they are never the target. Sure, Dennis.

From the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from 1988 to 1991: "Many avoidable deaths and injuries' were caused because Israeli soldiers frequently used gunfire in situations that did not present mortal danger to troops...IDF troops used clubs to break limbs and beat Palestinians who were not directly involved in disturbances or resisting arrest..At least thirteen Palestinians have been reported to have died from beatings..."

More Palestinian spin from Amnesty International: "While Israeli officials contend that soldiers only open fire when their lives are at risk and only respond to the source of Palestinian fire, the large number of unarmed Palestinians, including more than 600 children, killed by Israeli forces in the past five and a half years indicates otherwise."

"Amnesty International delegates have themselves witnessed unprovoked, random and reckless shooting and shelling by the Israeli army into Palestinian residential and crowed areas. Such practices, which have also been witnessed by representatives of the United Nations, European Union, members of parliaments, journalists and other foreign visitors to the Occupied Territories, have resulted in the killings of hundreds of Palestinian children and hundreds of unarmed adults... Such killings have been part of widespread, as well as systematic, acts against Palestinian civilians. They have been carried out by Israeli armed forces pursuant to government policy, evidenced by the knowledge and approval of government authorities who are fully aware that for over four years such practices have consistently resulted in the killing or injury of civilians and who have declined to take effective steps to prevent such killings of civilians."

Israeli military analyst Zeer Schiff on the indiscriminate use of weapons against civilian targets: "In South Lebanon we struck the civilian populations consciously, because they deserved it... the importance of [General] Gur's remarks is the admission that the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations purposely and consciously... the Army, he said, has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets... [but] purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israel's settlements had not been struck"

Hmmm... the US government, independent NGOs, and the Israelis themselves all admit that Israel targets civilians, but to you these acts are "accidental"?

Neither side has clean hands in this conflict, and the sooner America realizes that nothing is gained by the blindly preferential treatment we give Israel or by the continual refusal to broker honest resolution to the conflict, the better off everyone will be.

once the media took the side of the Terrorists, the Terrorists win.

Thus, Israeli terrorists are branded victims by the media, and they win the public relations war.

How about many Palestinians are dying frequently from shelling.

I see you don't value life as much.

Those numbers represent lives. A million atoms in the universe is not a lot, we are talking about value. What else would we be base "few", "from time to time", and "many" on?

ajzzz: To Dennis, any number of Palestinian deaths below "all" is too few.

Jallahbad - I have come to expect to see nothing but anti-Israel rhetoric when seeing your name at the top of a comment. I am pleased to now see a comment that appears to be well thought-out (not that I agree with everything you said, of course):

They should give up their claim for a "greater Israel" which conisist of Jordan, Arabia and Lebanon etc

When has the State of Israel claimed Jordan, Arabia and Lebanon?

pull back to the 1967 border. Olmert's claim that those borders are indefensible is laughable since Isreal dedicedly, with the help of the US, defeated all attempts in at least 3 different occassions.

I don't see why there is something so magical about the 1967 border. Each time a border was drawn, it was done so based on the reality of the time. That is what happened in 1948 when Israel was attacked from all sides, and lived out an uneasy truce for 19 years. Today, reality is different. Drawing back to the 1967 border would mean that Israel gives up half of Jerusalem, including the old city, along with other areas that have now become industrial and population centers.

Israel was able to defend itself when attacked either through a real miracle, or pure luck (depending on your religious outlook). They were outnumbered on all ocassions, and their opponents were supplied with weapons by the Soviets. "Defensible borders" does not mean borders where your army might just eke out a victory every time. It means borders where you feel secure about your defenses to the point where an opponent would be at an extreme disadvantage when attacking. Withdrawing to the 1967 borders would put Israel back int he low country. It would remove a presence from hgiher grounds on all fronts that would give an attacker a very large advantage. That is why the 1967 borders are not "defensible".

Israel should train the Palestinina Police force to deal with the threat to Israel inside the occupied territories.

This sounds like a good idea. But it has been tried before. In the years immediately following Oslo, Israel supplied the PLO with weapons, ammunition and training. They ran joint police patrols inside the territories. This came to an end after an Arab policeman mudered an Israeli policeman on joint patrol in late September 2000 (the first casualty of the Oslo war, if I am not mistaken). What has changed on the PLO side that would ensure that this would not happen again?

I know that if the Israeli's, the more powerful, resourceful, entitity in the area really took care of their Semitic brothers the Palestininas there would be much less bloodshed.

I agree and I am all for this type of cooperation. However (there is always a "however" with me, so it seems), once again, Israel must not attempt any of this until the reality has changed so that history will not be repeated. After the Oslo agreement, the PLO got billions of dollars in cash and economic incentives from the world and from Israel. Yet the educational system and television/radio (in Arabic, not in English) never stopped its anti-Israel rhetoric, contributing to the radicalization of another generation of Arab youth. Until this incitement (from within the Arab commuinities) stops, Israel makes the first move at its own folly.

Oh for God's sake. Look, I can understand why you might be pro-Israel, but let's dispense with the notion that no one is able to look up the history of the region for themselves, and please stop promoting the readily debunked myth of Israeli exceptionalism (See Political Science Quarterly's Israel's National Security and the Myth of Exceptionalism By Gil Merom, available online).

For the record, the incursion of the numerically inferior Arab forces into "Israel" generally occured for the purpose of securing sections of Palestine that were ceded to the Palestinians by the UN Partition Plan. There was little concerted effort to "destroy" Israel except in rhetoric, and the one sided provision of military aid to the Israeli side pretty much made the defeat of arab forces a done deal. The result of the "massive invasion" of Israel was that Israel retained all of the land it was granted under the US plan, and most of the land granted to the Palestinians under the plan. And this is in accordance with the detailed plans that Ben Gurion, et al, made well prior to 1948. Israel didn't defend itself by luck or miracle, it "defended" itself by planning and well-trained manpower. And help.

And here's the rub, Israel never intended to abide by the UN plan. Ben Gurion said so himself. Why is the 1967 border so magical? Because anything less that the 1967 borders make a Palestinian state not defensible or viable. You're talking about giving Palestinians roughly 40% of the territory they were supposed to have according to the UN.

Moreover, a lot of progress was made under Oslo, but it was doomed from the start because it didn't tie a building of trust and mutual respect for each other into any resulting Palestinian state. And as time wore on, this became increasingly obvious.

And while we're talking about how Arafat was offered the world, but turned it down in favor of violence, please include the parts where negotiations continued for another six months, culminating at Taba, but that the "agreement" was not binding on future Israeli administrations beyond Barak. Not unexpectedly, the truth about the Camp David negotiations turns out to be far more complex than the cartoon offered by most opiners on the subject. (See the New York Review of Books-- Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors By Hussein Agha, Robert Malley, also available online.)

iarnuocon - For references that are available online, please provide links so that other people can see what you are talking about.

For the record, the incursion of the numerically inferior Arab forces into "Israel" generally occured for the purpose of securing sections of Palestine that were ceded to the Palestinians by the UN Partition Plan.

By your use of quotation marks around the word Israel, you seem to be implying that all of Israel belongs to the Arabs. Interesting. Thanks for letting us know your stance on the matter.

Incursion of Arab forces (ie: suicide bombers and other terrorists) into Israel generally occur for the purpose of killing Israeli civilians and soldiers. If you want me to provide you with a list of the different attacks (an incomplete list, as no complete one exists, to the best of my knowledge), please let me know.

No land was ceded to the Palestinians in the UN Partition Plan, because the "Palestinians" did not yet exist. There was one country that was created by the UN for the group of people who later became known as Palestinians. It is called Jordan.

There was little concerted effort to "destroy" Israel except in rhetoric

Ummm, did you ever hear of any of the following:

• War of Independence (or "The Catastrophe", if you prefer) in 1948
• Sinai War, 1952
• Border incursions from Egypt and Jordan throughout the 50s and 60s
• Six Day War, June 1967
• Yom Kippur War, 1972

Or do you think that these were only "rhetorical" wars?

For references that are available online, please provide links so that other people can see what you are talking about. I'd love to, Yaakov, but as a new user, Newsvine sees fit to prevent me from providing links, or even references to those links. Which is why I present the titles and authors of the articles. Anybody with a few seconds and access to Google should be able to find them on their own, toute suite. Have at it.

By your use of quotation marks around the word Israel, you seem to be implying that all of Israel belongs to the Arabs. Yaakov, don't be an ass. Your bias is showing. By the use of quotation marks around the word "Israel", I mean that the arab forces largely constrained themselves to the territory given them under the UN partition plan. Their incursions into Israeli territory were'nt efforts at "eradication", but efforts to get quickly to areas under threat of attack by Israeli forces. But, you know, figuring that out requires that you actually... I don't know... read my post without jumping to conclusions.

Incursion of Arab forces (ie: suicide bombers and other terrorists) into Israel generally occur for the purpose of killing Israeli civilians and soldiers. Boy, you are just right on the ball, aren't you? I was referencing the 1948 War, not ongoing conflicts between Israel and apparently (should we choose to believe you) everyone else. Nice straw man. Flog it somewhere else.

No land was ceded to the Palestinians in the UN Partition Plan, because the "Palestinians" did not yet exist. There was one country that was created by the UN for the group of people who later became known as Palestinians. It is called Jordan. Ahhh, I see. Nice. Like this doesn't let us "know your stance on the matter", does it? There were never any Palestinians, the folks who lived in Palestine who were not jewish should have simply moved to Jordan and left the country to the civilized folks, the UN never gave them any rights, blah blah blah. It might be informative to read the actual UN resolution on Partition, which is available in the book "The Israel-Arab Reader : Documentary hist Middle East Conflict 6TH rev Updated Edition" through Amazon. Regardless of what you choose to label the arab residents of Palestine prior to partition, the UN plan divided Palestine roughly in half, and award one side to the Jews of Palestine, and the other to the Arabs. What it expressly didn't do was "create" a country called Jordan for the Palestinian arabs. The British split the Palestine Mandate in 1922 into Palestine and Transjordan. Transjordan achieved its independence on May 25, 1946. the UN partition plan for Palestine is a separate consideration. I won't speculate on your motivation for trying to conflate the two issues.

And as far as the wars and incursions which you bring up, yes, not only am I familiar with the titles of those conflicts, but I daresay (given your previous post) I probably understand their origins, nature, and events far better than you do.

By the way, although the Egyptian army overthrew the monarchy of King Farouk in 1952, the actual Sinai War with Egypt didn't occur until 1956, and the Yom Kippur War occured between October 6th and 26th of 1973.

So I suppose you could say that at least the 1952 Sinai War and the 1972 Yom Kippur War are "rhetorical".

iarnuocon

References - I was not aware of a policy on Newsvine that new users cannot post links. I posted that first sentence as some friendly advice. That is all.

Yaakov, don't be an ass.

Since you are new here, let me be the first to let you know: although discussions can get heated, especially regarding topics with which people are very passionate (like this one), this type of language is not appropriate. Please see the Code of Honor for more info on this. If people here started calling each other names whenever they did not agree with the other person's viewpoint, this place would deteriorate very quickly. If you have any questions about this, please talk with Calvin or anyone else on the Newsvine staff.

Their incursions into Israeli territory were'nt efforts at "eradication", but efforts to get quickly to areas under threat of attack by Israeli forces. But, you know, figuring that out requires that you actually... I don't know... read my post without jumping to conclusions.

I did read your post. Every word. Only then did I come to my conclusions about what you had said. You may claim that "incursions" into Israeli territory were defensive in measure. However, taking into account that Israel was being attacked by armies belonging to six countries, plus the locals who would later become known as Palestinians, with the declared goal of pushing them into the sea, I would call it an effort at erradication. You are entitled to your opinion though.

I was referencing the 1948 War,

I didn't catch this reference, it did not seem so clear in your original comment. Be that as it may, see my previous paragraph.

Like this doesn't let us "know your stance on the matter", does it?

Why don't you go and read some of my old articles and seeds in my column. I make no effort to disguise that I am Jewish, live in Israel, and in general am biased towards the Israeli side of things. However, that does not mean that we cannot still engage in discussion regarding the matters at hand.

The British split the Palestine Mandate in 1922 into Palestine and Transjordan. Transjordan achieved its independence on May 25, 1946. the UN partition plan for Palestine is a separate consideration. I won't speculate on your motivation for trying to conflate the two issues.

Thanks for clearing that up. No sinister motivations here, I just got my facts a little mixed up.

Question for you though: If the UN set aside the West Bank, etc for a Palestinian state, then why wasn't one established there, using what would later become the 1967 borders? Jordan was in charge of that area until they foolishly attacked Israel during the Six Day War (and if I am not mistaken, their rule was not really recognized by anyone). So why didn't they make a Palestinian state there, sometime between 1948 and 1967?

And as far as the wars and incursions which you bring up...I probably understand their origins, nature, and events far better than you do.

I am sure that you have very superior knowledge on the subject. Puzzling though how with that knowledge you can make a statement like "There was little concerted effort to "destroy" Israel except in rhetoric". These were not rhetorical attempts.

By the way, although the Egyptian army overthrew the monarchy of King Farouk in 1952, the actual Sinai War with Egypt didn't occur until 1956, and the Yom Kippur War occured between October 6th and 26th of 1973.

My bad for not looking up the exact dates before posting the comment. Your corrections are noted.

Dammit! I just had the work of about an hour in responding to you eaten by a newsvine "error". Rather than slog back through previously covered ground, let me say this in response to your comment "these were not rhetorical attempts":

You are correct, they were not rhetorical. Nor were they attempts. This may seem puzzling to you, that someone can claim, contrary to the myth that the surrounding nations have always tried to "push the jews into the sea", that they have done no such thing, but I base my conclusion upon facts, not emotion.

The vast majority of the 1948 war occured on territory awarded to the arabs, not that awarded to the jews. The arabs of that war had no numerical superiority. Golda Meier met with Abdullah in November of 1947 and reached an agreement that limited any attacks by Abdullah in return for territory that he could take for himself from the land the UN awarded to the Palestinians (an agreement that he actually held to.) Fawzi al-Qawuqji met with Yehoshua Palmon in April of 1948 in the village of Nur al-Shams and reached an agreement not to support the mufti's troops. All these things mitigate against a claim that "six armies" tried to destroy Israel. The historical facts and context of the event simply render such a claim so much hot air.

The '56 Sinai War was an invasion of Egypt by Israel, Britain and France. There may have been some rational justification for it (indeed, it was meant to serve in the interests of all three parties), but what it most assuredly wasn't was an attempt by the arabs to destroy Israel. See the Wikipedia article for more information.

The '67 War also was not an attempt to destroy Israel. Not even the Israeli government believed that, despite what many people claim today. I would direct you to their own claims: General Ezer Weitzman claimed that there was "no threat od destruction" of Israel, but that Israel's attack on Egypt was justified to ensure, essentially, the 'glory' of Israel. Menachem Begin stated specifically, "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, said, "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Other Israeli leaders make similar claims.

The Yom Kippur War was more about Sadat securing political capital within Egypt than it ever was about "destroying Israel". Again, reviewing the Wikipedia article on this conflict would be informative. There are also numerous biographies of Sadat that reveal this. Nor do you bother to allude to the fact that Sadat had attempted in 1971 to get a peace agreement with Israel, and that it was Israel that refused. You elide the fact that the other arab nations wanted no part in such a war, or that Iraq and Jordan only entered toward the end, for the purpose of limiting any additional Israeli expansion, or that the Israeli view of such a conflict prior to its start was that it would be easily repelled (as it was).

What's lacking from your view of this issue (indeed what seems to always be lacking from such views) is historical context and reliance on facts, rather than emotions. We could look only to the rhetoric of the arabs-- "let's push the jews into the sea"-- or we could look to the rhetoric of the jews-- "The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews...is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle... A Jew who killed a non-Jew is exempt from human judgement and has not violated the [religious] prohibition of murder".

Personally, I prefer avoiding both, and looking at the facts. Israel's security position is not exceptional, it is not the victim, and the resolution of this conflict doesn't require the debasement of arabs nor the distortion of their legitimate complaints. Neither side of the conflict has clean hands, and until that is widely recognized, headway is not possible.

In the past, the IDF has taken more risk upon itself and its soldiers in order to avoid civilian casualties (where the US would have just sent in the bombers, the IDF has gone door-to-door).

Like this.

(A) The terrorists be left at large to coordinate suicide bombings that murder many civilians?
(B) Israelis go in with tanks, end up in a gunfight, kill even more Palestinians, destroy many homes?

False dilemma. The Israelis should have ordered the IDF to follow Geneva Convention rules in regard to occupied territory, evacuated the settlements, then turned over all sovereignty in the West Bank to the PA.

The Palestinians are not terrorists, they are defending their territory from invaders with whatever methods they have available to them. If the US was invaded and occupied, I would be doing the same thing they are doing, so I find it hard to fault them. On the other hand, if the US invaded and occupied another country, I'd do whatever I could to oppose it.

The Palestinians are fighting an invading force. None of their people, male or female, adult or child, are safe from murder by the IDF, and yet you think that the land already stolen by the Israelis should be a safe haven.

The irony is magnificent.

So far as I could find, resistance fighters aren't restricted under the Geneva Conventions. My suggestion that the IDF follow the conventions was part of a program of unilateral disengagement. The Israelis are the only people who are in a position to end this fight, following the commonly accepted rules of engagement would be part of that. I don't expect them to take the suggestion, of course, they seem to have the idea the the Holocaust was meant as a how-to lesson.

I went looking for the source of iarnuocon's quote about Jewish and non-Jewish souls...appropriattely, it came from a Rabbi Kook. A search for his name indicates that rather than being a kook, he's a well-respected early Zionist.

The search led to this page, a discussion of the way rabbinical law is used to justify Zionism, and this, a eulogy for Israel Shahak, an Israeli who worked against the oppressive practices of the Israeli state.

Both of them ought to be disquieting to those who support Zionism...unless they hold the same opinion as Rabbi Kook about the soul of the non-Jew.

Dennis, the irony of your accusations shines as a beacon to the world. You blame the Palestinians for the actions of their oppressors, you use euphemisms like "cleanup" to refer to massacre, you shed crocodile tears over the deaths of innocents, and your only defense is to accuse me of hatred and anti-semitism. Were I a crybaby, I would report you to the moderators for that slur, however, I take it for exactly what it is worth, nothing but a rhetorical reflex designed to protect you from rationality.

I have stated in this thread that Israel should be left at peace within the '67 borders, despite the fact that it is stolen land. Somehow, that makes me antisemitic...I guess if you don't believe that Jews have the inherent right to take anything they want, you're a hater.

There are no oppressors

There's the problem, you live on a different planet.

That line makes the rest of your claims moot.

Likewise you will never get me to accept that there is any cause worth murdering a civilian in cold blood for, let alone a dispute over who controls a patch of land.

You seem to have no problem with the way Israel took control of that patch of land, so your pose on the moral high ground is unconvincing.

I never said no problem.

More crocodile tears.

Arab rights only go as far as local property rights.

What's lacking from your view of this issue (indeed what seems to always be lacking from such views) is historical context and reliance on facts

iarnuocon: I assume your referring to works by the new historians, as they've been the ones achieving such notoriety for challenging the vulgar historiography.

You should be aware that many of their claims have been challenged. The Israeli historiography (though perhaps not it's most vulgar - meaning common - versions) is probably more accurate in my view than what you describe, but in any case you overreach. These revisionists have been challenged on many grounds, and those who have appropriated their work in support of the Palestinians are much more easily challenged. I don't particularly want to get into a debate over which elements of what are accurate, as this would really require a stable funding stream, but please note the disagreements.

The loudest critic of this revisionism is Ephraim Karsch, but there are others you can find online. A few points by the challengers seem particularly noteworthy and a few others are worth mentioning: 1) the new historians have exaggerated many events that were already part of the Israeli historiography by claiming they were uncovered from recently revealed documents. So, something like Deir Yassan was treated as if no one had ever heard of it before. 2) the information they had access to and focused on is inherently one-sided. A great deal of Israeli records are available for researchers, so every passing thought found its way into the record. The narrative of the new historians is built largely on these errata while the actual diplomatic record of zionists and Israel are ignored. (At one point, the zionists agreed to a deal where they got only about 20%, IIRC, but maybe less, of the land and were expected to share it as only a slight majority while the rest was to exclude Jews.) By contrast, Arab actions and intentions are either ignored or based on the later, filtered recollections of the leaders in fawning, self-serving interviews. 3) some have accused them of being very sloppy. One example is the Golda Meir quote that there was no such thing as a Palestinian. Very rarely is the full quote given, which almost completely inverts her meaning. (It becomes clear that she is denying the historic existence of a Palestinian people, which is veridical, to build to a recognition of the Palestinian refugee problem.) In fact, she publicly proclaimed that she had been misquoted, but still gets misquoted. To be fair, though, among those who have misquoted her is Ariel Sharon. 4) Even the new historians are mostly zionists. Segev, in particular has been quite the hawk. Also, Benny Morris has lambasted Palestinian supporters for misrepresenting his work. Four years ago he wrote this:

Arafat is the symbol of the movement, accurately reflecting his people's miseries and collective aspirations. Unfortunately, he has proven himself a worthy successor to Haj Muhammad Amin al Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, who led the Palestinians during the 1930s into their (abortive) rebellion against the British mandate government and during the 1940s into their (again abortive) attempt to prevent the emergence of the Jewish state in 1948, resulting in their catastrophic defeat and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. Husseini had been implacable and incompetent (a dangerous mix) - but also a trickster and liar. Nobody had trusted him, neither his Arab colleagues nor the British nor the Zionists. Above all, Husseini had embodied rejectionism - a rejection of any compromise with the Zionist movement. He had rejected two international proposals to partition the country into Jewish and Arab polities, by the British Peel commission in 1937 and by the UN general assembly in November 1947. In between, he spent the war years (1941-45) in Berlin, working for the Nazi foreign ministry and recruiting Bosnian Muslims for the Wehrmacht...

Unfortunately, the Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has denied the Zionist movement any legitimacy and stuck fast to the vision of a "Greater Palestine", meaning a Muslim-Arab-populated and Arab-controlled state in all of Palestine, perhaps with some Jews being allowed to stay on as a religious minority.

1) the new historians have exaggerated many events that were already part of the Israeli historiography by claiming they were uncovered from recently revealed documents. So, something like Deir Yassan was treated as if no one had ever heard of it before. From the point of view of popular commentators in America, no one has. When confronted with the common myths of Israeli purity of motives and behavior and arab perfidy, bringing up "previously known" events such as at Deir Yassin is essential.

2) ...every passing thought found its way into the record. The narrative of the new historians is built largely on these errata while the actual diplomatic record of zionists and Israel are ignored. (At one point, the zionists agreed to a deal where they got only about 20%, IIRC, but maybe less, of the land and were expected to share it as only a slight majority while the rest was to exclude Jews.) By contrast, Arab actions and intentions are either ignored or based on the later, filtered recollections of the leaders in fawning, self-serving interviews. So your position is that every aspect of arab thought on the issue is fair game, but the personal and/or private comments of any Israeli player is "errata"? That's not one-sided, is it? I think we can agree that neither side's position on the subject of partition is particularly accurately portrayed in the media. Should I give long consideration to zionist diplomacy while completely ignoring the other side of the equation?

3) some have accused them of being very sloppy. One example is the Golda Meir quote... I see. First "They're not saying anything new...", then "they're totally one-sided...", followed by "...and they're sloppy." If I parse your sentence correctly, you are saying that Golda Meier denies the historic existence of a Palestinian people in order to build recognition of the Palestinian refugee problem (?). The essence of our disagreement is what constitutes the "problem". For Meier, it evidently is a problem that the surrounding countries have refused to assimilate the refugees, and the denial of an existence of a "Palestinian" people (veridical, as you say) is an attempt to lay the burden of doing so on the surrounding nations, i.e. the refugees should just "get over it" rather than Israel stepping up to its obligation to redress the refugee problem. Now we can certainly agree that there are segments, maybe even large ones, of "Palestinian" society that put the call for a Palestinian state forward as a means of fighting against the existence of Israel, but their motivation does absolutely nothing to obviate the legitimate claim of those unhomed by the creation of Israel. Meier, et al, can talk all day long about the non-existence of an historical Palestinian people, just as Palestinians can palaver about how there were no jews in 93% of historical Palestine, going back to the days of the Bible. The point is that there was a call for self-determination by the inhabitants of the Palestinian Mandate that was denied first by the UN, and later by the Israelis. Pretending that their claim is illegitimate because they weren't sufficiently organized does no one any favors. Far from being misquoted, Golda Meier's intention were pretty plain, and supported by her comments in other documents-- e.g. ""How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."

Maybe you have some other example that more closely supports your idea?

4) Even the new historians are mostly zionists. I'm not remotely surprised. At this point, eliminating Israel through policy or war would be as great an injustice (or greater) as that done to the arabs of the Palestine Mandate. But I didn't find anything in the Morris quote you provided that "lambasted Palestinian supporters for misrepresenting his work." Maybe you can clarify for me.

From the point of view of popular commentators in America, no one has.

Quite right. There are many Americans who are unaware of such things. This is not true of Israelis, however. The new historians are Israelis and are often writing for an academic audience. The emphasis put on such events in the works of the revisionists is undeserved in that context, and misunderstood when their works are available for broader audiences. In the US, more people should know about the relatively few events such as Deir Yassan, but they should not be made to characterize the War for Independence.

So your position is that every aspect of arab thought on the issue is fair game, but the personal and/or private comments of any Israeli player is "errata"? That's not one-sided, is it?

No, my position is that the data available for revisionist historiographies is relatively complete on the Israeli side and terribly incomplete on the Arab side. This creates a natural bias. It would be good if the data were complete on both sides, but there isn't, and we must recognize that.

If I parse your sentence correctly, you are saying that Golda Meier denies the historic existence of a Palestinian people in order to build recognition of the Palestinian refugee problem

The Palestinians were not previously recognized as a people, nor did they previously argue for such recognition. (Though their inaction may have been due to the repressiveness of previous occupations.) That is the first half, often repeated, of Meir's quote. In complaining about being misquoted, here is what she said:

My statement was based on a lifetime of debates with Arab nationalists who vehemently excluded a separatist Palestinian Arab nationalism from their formulations.

So her point was exactly the same as yours, even if she preferred a different resolution.

But, in arguing this, we only get into my previous point. This stuff is here for us to argue! We wind up using this stuff to characterize the mind of someone neither of us knew, and then to characterize and entire nation. It becomes so that any mistake, misspeech, or misquote of the Israelis is reason to damn them all for all time. A much more careful argument has to be made in order to create a narrative. The zionists accepted numerous compromise plans, including one where they hardly got anything and yet still had to share it - that is the overall context we should view the debate in, not one fabricated from a quote here and a quote there.

Even the new historians are mostly zionists.

I'm not remotely surprised. At this point, eliminating Israel through policy or war would be as great an injustice (or greater) as that done to the arabs of the Palestine Mandate.

I'm glad you think so. However, that is not why the New Historians are zionists. Segev, when he isn't being academic, defends the actions of nascent Israel. Morris, admits that his work is not the whole story. Since I can now link, here is the full article from which I excerpted.

I spent the mid-1980s investigating what led to the creation of the refugee problem, publishing The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 in 1988. My conclusion, which angered many Israelis and undermined Zionist historiography, was that most of the refugees were a product of Zionist military action and, in smaller measure, of Israeli expulsion orders and Arab local leaders' urgings or orders to move out. Critics of Israel subsequently latched on to those findings that highlighted Israeli responsibility while ignoring the fact that the problem was a direct consequence of the war that the Palestinians - and, in their wake, the surrounding Arab states - had launched.

:) Not unexpectedly, we agree on some points, and disagree on others.

This stuff is here for us to argue! We wind up using this stuff to characterize the mind of someone neither of us knew, and then to characterize and entire nation. It becomes so that any mistake, misspeech, or misquote of the Israelis is reason to damn them all for all time. A much more careful argument has to be made in order to create a narrative. My purpose is not to damn the Israelis, I simply take exception to the oft repeated myths about the creation of Israel and its subsequent pursuit of more land. The actions taken in the establishment of Israel weren't accidental, nor entirely forced upon Israel from the outside. No one made them take up terrorism in the 30s and 40s, and suggestions that they're perpetually victimised by their neighbors ignores the provocations that they've historically engaged in, nor is their situation as precarious and exceptional security-wise as its defenders consistently imply or declare. For that reason, their speeches and quotes (or misspeeches and misquotes, if you'd rather) put their actions in a clearer light. And I say this not as someone who would see Israel destroyed, but as someone who sees this situation as one in which it is critical to understand the grounding of the conflict in order to resolve it. Ultimately that should be the goal of anyone in respect to this subject-- resolution of the conflict. But as long as we consistently shift responsibility to the arab side of the equation, both for creating the refugee situation and for continuing the conflict, without regard to Israel's part in both, no resolution is possible. It's not as though there are not still people alive in that area of the world who remember 1948.

Regarding Morris' rebirth as a zionist, I can only note that, as you said earlier, people can be sloppy. On perusing Morris' characterization of the negotiations that began at Camp David and ended at Taba, I can only say that Morris' version-- while echoing popular versions, and laying sole blame for the failure on Arafat-- lies at odds with the comments of many of the players who took part, with perhaps the exception of Barak. Indeed, probably the most damaging assertion Morris makes is that the arabs will "never give up a right of return", a right which they, in fact, were willing to negotiate on. Ultimately, though, Morris' new position-- rife with provably incorrect supposition/assertion and "common wisdom" writ large-- stirkes me as less honest or compelling than his previous scholarship, which at least stuck to facts. And, try as I might, I still didn't locate a section which could be construed as "lambasting" anyone for misuse of Morris' scholarship.

Sadly, I don't think we're even at a point where the road to peace has a beginning. Certainly the refusal to engage the situation that the Bush administration has repeatedly invoked hasn't helped matters in any manner. What's really needed is for an interested and powerful third party to learn from the mistakes of Taba, and attempt to force both sides back to the bargaining table until an agreement both sides can live with is hammered out. What's not helpful is the pretense that Israel has no bargaining partner. Of course, the more time passes with no progress toward peace, the more radicalized the Palestinians. And the current set of transgressions on both sides simply fuel the apparently endless cycle of reprisals coming from both sides.

My purpose is not to damn the Israelis, I simply take exception to the oft repeated myths about the creation of Israel and its subsequent pursuit of more land.

But these myths are not necessarily in need of major revision. There are problems with them, but to address these problems, one ought not to fabricate a new historiography out of only the missing pieces. Security has been a major concern of Israel and a prime motivator, but the revised historiographies attempt to completely erase it. (I've even seen the claim that everyone in the world knew Israel was the far stronger military power from time before the '48 war, which is absurd). I'm not attempting to preclude any revision whatsoever. Neither am I trying to shift responsibility solely to the Arab side. (In fact, I think that, going forward, Israel must bear somewhat more of the burden to create the conditions for peace - though I also think they've typically come much closer to meeting their responsibility.) But the old, vulgar historiography contains a lot of truths that can't be erased in the process of revision for the simple reason that they are from the old historiography. In fact, I think that if you look at the vulgar historiography, you will find that it's mostly accurate but incomplete. Security cannot be erased as a motivator for Israel. The fact that Israel repeatedly agreed to compromise plans cannot be erased. Arab hostilities cannot be erased. And so the responsibility for making peace cannot either be placed solely on Israel while all of the Arab injustices are forgiven.

The attempt at revising the historiography has gone way, way overboard. The discourse in some circles has come to routinely argue that if Israel voted for X but a single Israeli leader said 'not X' then 'not X' is the context which Israeli actions must be understood. That is absurd. Zionism was always a spectrum of ideas, and Israeli thought has never been uniform. To favor what one person said (or in fact, what any number of people said) over the actions that are already in the vulgar historiography is absurd.

And when you talk about Israel's "pursuit of more land" isn't that what you are doing - favoring what some said while ignoring the fact that they repeatedly accepted compromises? Then, when they do take land, you favor what was once said, while still ignoring that they compromised, ignoring the circumstances in which the land ws taken, and ignoring how other people spoke of it at the time the land was taken. You favor the neglected part of the historiography over all the parts of the historiography that are still true.

I feel like this is bait

next suicide bomb goes off in Israel we come after you personally Mr Haniyeh."

Hm. Definite possibilities.

Particularly for those in Fatah who don't like Mr. Haniyeh. Send in your people to stage the bombing, make it look like Hamas and let Israel do your dirty work for you. The problem with gross overreaction is that it is easily manipulated, c.f. Zarqawi's plan to embroil the US in a war with Iran to help dispose of the Shiite power centers in Iraq.

It's so irritating having to face contrary opinions, isn't it? I feel your pain.

The definition of terrorism is not conditional on cause, whether you agree with it or not. If it deliberately targets civilians it's terrorism. Great! Then we both agree that what Israel engages in is terrorism, because the Israelis themselves have admitted that their similar attacks on Lebanon in the past deliberately struck civilians, just as this one is doing, and for exactly the same reason that Hezbollah terrorists give for shelling Israeli civilians-- to pressure the non-combatant population to force a change in the status quo.

A small glimpse into the reality was given by Prime Minister Menahem Begin in a letter published in the Israeli press in August 1981, written in response to what he regarded as hypocritical criticism of the Israeli bombing of Beirut, which killed hundreds of civilians Begin offered a "partial list" of military attacks on Arab civilians under the Labor governments, which included over 30 separate episodes that left many civilians dead. He concluded that "under the Alignment government, there were regular retaliatory actions against civilian Arab populations; the air force operated against them; the damage was directed against such structures as the canal, bridges and transport." "The picture that emerges," former UN Ambassador and Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in response, "is of an Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death and anguish on civilian populations in a mood reminiscent of regimes which neither Mr. Begin nor I would dare to mention by name." Eban is harshly critical of Begin's letter because of the support it gives to Arab propaganda; he does not contest the facts. He even defends the earlier Israeli attacks on civilians with the exact logic which orthodox analysts of terrorism attribute to-and use to condemn-retail terrorists namely, that deliberate attacks may properly be made on innocent parties in order to achieve higher ends. Eban writes that "there was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that afflicted populations [i.e., innocent civilians deliberately bombed] would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities."

Begin's list is indeed "partial." It is supplemented by former Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur, who stated that "For 30 years, from the War of Independence until today, we have been fighting against a population that lives in villages and cities," offering as examples the bombardments that cleared the Jordan Valley of all inhabitants and that drove a million and a half civilians from the Suez Canal area in 1970, among others. The Israeli military analyst Zeev Schiff summarized General Gur's comments as follows: "In South Lebanon we struck the civilian population consciously, because they deserved it...the importance of Gur's remarks is the admission that the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously...the Army, he said, has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets... [but] purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israeli settlements had not been struck." [ Ha'aretz, 15 May 1978]

The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda

Try also, The "Terrorism" Industry