First off:

Tell you what:  I’ll buy into your plan if you agree that at the VERY FIRST attack on Israel after its implementation, Israel and the US get to nuke the shit out of Gaza and give it back to Israel.

Wow that sounds like a humanitarian action.  GeekMom you know as well as I do that there will always be fundamentalists in the world.  There will always be attempts to attack Israel, but what do you think pisses of the Palestinians and makes new terrorists everyday?  I cannot guaruntee you that Hamas will stop their attacks, but their need to attack Israel would be lessened.  If Israel pulled completely out of Palestinian territory, and pulled out their settlements, and got rid of there roadways and checkpoints, the need for Palestinians to resort to violence to get their homes back would be lessened.  There are plenty of Palestinians that are calling for peace that you never hear about because you watch CNN and think you are getting an un-biased report.

In fact in 2003, I think that was the year, there was an Israeli group called Coalition for a Just Peace, run by Gila Svirsky, an Israeli woman.  They got together and rallied over 2000 Israeli and Palestinianj mothers, and other Israeli’s and Palestinians also joined in.  Together they marched through the streets of Israel with signs written in Hebrew, Arabic, and English.  They marched to protest Israel’s illegal occupation and to call for peace between the two nations in the hope they can live side by side.  Did you hear about this?  Of course not, CNN, NBC, FOX, ABC, CBS, and all the others chose not to report it.  Not even the New York Times reported it, and I think the New York Times is the least biased.  But I must have made this up huh?

Even Noam Chomsky has called for Israel to stop their actions, and is very outspoken about Israel.

It’s clear that you don’t give a shit about Israel’s security.  You just want Israel wiped off the face of the map and you’re too cowardly to come out and admit it, so you dance around the issue.

When you make a statement such as this it is clear that you don’t give a shit about hearing the other side of this issue.  It is clear you believe your opinion to be the correct one.  I have never called for the genocide of a race or ethnic group, and you can ask anyone that knows me (including DOF), I am strictly against that, so I would appreciate it if you could keep this conversation civil and stop putting words into my mouth (or fingers I guess).  And because I am against genocide, I will speak out against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, and you will hear me speak out against Hamas and their actions.  But you need to realize that your solution is not working, and will never lead to peace in the Middle East.  And you also need to realize that genocide of the Palestinians, sorry Elwed I meant Rag-heads, will not work either.  You can’t nuke your problems away.

Couldn’t we just give Israel Nevada or Utah or somewhere? If I lived in the Middle East I’d have a major complex, realizing every nearby nation was wanting to wipe us out.

I’m not Jewish, but if I were, I wouldn’t live in Israel. I don’t have a solution to the hostilities but I suspect it’s Israel’s Western leanings and sympathies that make it such a target.

It isn’t such a reach to imagine this is where the next world war will begin.

Webs, let’s cut to the chase:

Do you accept Israel’s right to exist or not?

Yes I do.  And my position does not come from some fundamentalists’ position but out of a deep concern of what is going on over there.  If you want to believe that fine if not fine.  But this issue is no longer between fundamentalist and rational people.  Because things have been going the same way over there for 30 years at least, and nothing has changed.

Your freindly scribe
Allan W Janssen

STOP THE PRESSES!!!
If Webs is a WTC conspiracist what the hell are we talking to him in the first place for! It’s like banging your head against the wall, the only good thing is when you stop, and with that I’m going for supper!
P.S. Great Idea about moving Israelies, we put them all in Utah - and ship the Mormons to the Middle East. (Multiple wives would be OK there as well!) GREAT IDEA who can we run it by?
Allan

If Webs is a WTC conspiracist what the hell are we talking to him in the first place for! It’s like banging your head against the wall, the only good thing is when you stop

It’s funny you say this, because I am more open on issues I feely strongly about than anyone else you’ll come across.  It’s just that all you have done is said that what I am saying is bullshit.  Which doesn’t make your position any stronger.

Okay, Webs, let’s get down to brass tacks here.  How do you propose to guarantee Israel’s security once they pull back to the official borders?

If Israel pulled completely out of Palestinian territory, and pulled out their settlements, and got rid of there roadways and checkpoints, the need for Palestinians to resort to violence to get their homes back would be lessened.

Do you really think this is about land, Webs?  What land of Iran’s did Israel take away?  What land of Syria’s is Israel sitting on?  What land of Egypt’s? 

Yes, some Palestinians want peace, as do most Israelis.  Tell me how they’re supposed to achieve that with the rest of the fundamentalists who are still trying to destroy Israel.  (And when do you stop calling them “fundamentalists” as if they were on the margins, when it’s the official government that’s calling for Israel’s destruction, hmm?)

Daniel Gordis says it best (I’m quoting a lot because I really want you to read this, Webs):

This is not about the “occupation.” This is not about creating a
Palestinian State. This is about whether there will be a state called
Israel. Sixty years after Arab nations greeted the UN resolution on
November 29 1947 with a declaration of war, nothing much has changed.
They attacked this time for the same reason that they did sixty years
ago.

At first, it was the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians. We put a stop
to that in 1949, 1956, 1967 and 1973.

Then it was the Palestinians, who bamboozled the world (and many of us
Israelis) into believing that they just wanted a State, and that their
terror was simply a way of forcing us to make one possible. We fought
the terror in 1982 (Lebanon), 1987 (Intifada) and even after Camp David
and Oslo, once again in 2000-2005 (the Terror War). And then, we
actually tried to make the State happen. We got out of Lebanon to put
an end to that conflict. And even more momentous, we got out of Gaza,
hoping that they’d start to build something.

And now, it’s Hezbollah. Or more accurately, Syria. Or to be more
precise, Iran. What’s Iran’s beef with Israel? Territory it lost? It
didn’t lose any. And does anyone really believe that Iran cares one
whit about the Palestinians and their state? That’s not the reason. We
know it, and so do they.

Now, the bitter reality of which Israel’s right wing had warned about
all along is beginning to settle in. It is not lost on virtually any
Israelis that the two primary fronts on which this war is being
conducted are precisely the two fronts from which we withdrew to
internationally recognized borders. We withdrew from Gaza, despite all
the internal objections, hoping to move Palestinian statehood—and
peace—one step closer. But all we got in return was the election of
Hamas, and a barrage of more than 800 Qassams that they refused to end.
And then they stole Gilad Shalit. Not from Gaza. Not from some
contested no man’s land. From inside the internationally recognized
borders of Israel. As if to make sure that we got the point—“There
is no place that you’re safe. There is no place to which we won’t take
this war. You can’t stay here.”

Because as much as we have wanted to believe otherwise, they have no
interest in building their homeland. They only care about destroying
ours.

Six years ago we pulled out of Lebanon. Same story. In defiance of the
UN’s resolution 1559, Hizbollah armed itself to the teeth, and as we
watched and did nothing, accumulated more than 10,000 rockets. And dug
itself into the mountains. And established itself in Beirut,
effectively using the entire Lebanese population as human shields. And,
assuming that there was little that we could or would do, it attacked on
June 12, killing eight soldiers, and stealing Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad
Regev. Not from Southern Lebanon. Not from Har Dov, a tiny hilltop
that’s still contested. But from inside Israel. Inside a line that no
one contests.

Unless, of course, they contest the idea of the whole enterprise. Which
they do. And which is precisely the point.

Are the Palestinians and Islamic fundamentalists attacking Israel because the US is sending money and weapons to Israel?  No.  So what good would cutting off that support do, except to weaken Israel?

Your idiotic proposal is that Israel take down all its defenses and then wait for the inevitable terrorist strike.  Even you yourself admit that that will never stop, no matter how happy parts of the Palestinian population become in their own state.  I’m just proposing that we even the stakes:  that if Israel has to wait for the next fight to start, it gets to finish it, and not with one hand tied behind its back, either.  What’s wrong with that?

Look back at history and tell me when the longest periods of peace have occurred.  Tell me they didn’t coincide with times when Israel was attacked, and then definitively kicked ass in return.  Tell me which works better for peace:  withdrawal or deterrence.  (Better yet, go live in Israel and tell me how it works out.)

They tried Webs way once before - It was called “Appeasement” and led to the second world war. I’m German remember!

Moses, since one cartoon usually says more than plenty of words:

I know that this post will just go to an effort in futility, but I think my ideas on how to help the situation over there are being misrepresented.

I do feel that Israel should be recognized as a true state, one simple reason for this is because Israel is going nowhere, and they have the fourth strongest military in the world, so they certainly aren’t going to get kicked out anytime soon.  My plan for peace is for Israel to make concessions.  Arabs alike will make no strides to consider a relationship with Israel, unless Israel is willing to make concessions.  My concession are simple, tear down the illegal wall they built with US tax dollars, remove all of the illegal settlements and roadways, and pull their military out of Palestinian land.

If these actions are taken, then the legitimacy of Hamas will be shattered.  Why?  Because their attacks will be without reason, where as right now everyday more and more terrorists are being created.  Every time Israel bulldozes a Palestinian house, they have just created another terrorist.  Every time Israeli soldiers refuse to let an ambulance through carrying a Palestinian mother about to give birth causing her to give birth in the ambulance, they have created another terrorist.  Every time Israeli soldiers stop a Palestinian at a checkpoint and beat them with blatant disregard for humanity they have created another terrorist. 

What I am proposing is to take away the power of the terrorists.  Will it solve the problem 100%, no.  But it is idiotic to think that any solution can work with 100% accuracy.  What the three of you are proposing is to keep things the way they are.  Why?  Is your method working any better?  What strides have been made in the last 35 some years that prove that the current way of handling things is working?  That data suggests that the current method of operating are failing.  Childhood deaths have increased and death rates in general have increased.  You call me a fundamentalist and a conspirator for wanting peace in the middle east.  Wow that is pretty noble of you all indeed.  It’s great to see more examples of American ethnocentricity.

As far as that article is concerned, there are so many holes in it and no sources listed what so ever, that I don’t know where to begin.

And now, it’s Hezbollah. Or more accurately, Syria. Or to be more
precise, Iran.

There is actually not a shred of proof to make this statement, which is why he listed no source for it.

We withdrew from Gaza, despite all
the internal objections, hoping to move Palestinian statehood—and
peace—one step closer. But all we got in return was the election of
Hamas, and a barrage of more than 800 Qassams that they refused to end.

What he failed to mention here is that the pullout of Gaza left Palestine in just the same condition they were already in.  Why?  Because Israel still controls the Palestinian economy, they still have the walls up, and they still have the checkpoints.  What good is it to give someone control of their house, but no control of their electricity, water, gas, and imports and exports.  This is exactly what happened.  He also failed to mention that after Israel pulled out they still continued to capture innocent civilians and hold them indefinitely.  Just as a side note Israle has captured over 10,000 Palestinians, but they get pretty defensive when one of theirs is captured.

Now I am not so naive to say that no one in the middle east thinks Israel should not be a state, but that is no reason to not attempt peace.

Webs and all

Ran across this article by Daniel Gordis that I would like to share from my blog at; http://groups.msn.com/God-101

This is not about the “occupation.� This is not about creating a
Palestinian State. This is about whether there will be a state called
Israel. Sixty years after Arab nations greeted the UN resolution on
November 29 1947 with a declaration of war, nothing much has changed.
They attacked this time for the same reason that they did sixty years
ago.

Six years ago we pulled out of Lebanon. Same story. In defiance of the
UN’s resolution 1559, Hizbollah armed itself to the teeth, and as we
watched and did nothing, accumulated more than 10,000 rockets. And dug itself into the mountains. And established itself in Beirut,
effectively using the entire Lebanese population as human shields. And,
assuming that there was little that we could or would do, it attacked on
June 12, killing eight soldiers, and stealing Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad
Regev. Not from Southern Lebanon. Not from Har Dov, a tiny hilltop
that’s still contested. But from inside Israel. Inside a line that no
one contests.
Unless, of course, they contest the idea of the whole enterprise. (Israel)
Which they do. And which is precisely the point.
Your Scribe

Allan W Janssen
http://www.God,101-com

Forget that last post, I was pre-occupied and didn’t relize that it was here that I originaly got it!! 
Allan

I know that this post will just go to an effort in futility, but I think my ideas on how to help the situation over there are being misrepresented.

Yes, it’s an effort in futility. No, your ideas are not misrepresented. They are called for what they are: asinine.

The Webses are under the profound misapprehension that the Palestinians and whoever uses them as pawns can be appeased. To highlight another quote from Gordis:

Then it was the Palestinians, who bamboozled the world (and many of us Israelis) into believing that they just wanted a State, and that their terror was simply a way of forcing us to make one possible.

And one from Krauthammer:

As the Palestinian excuses for continuing their war disappear one by one, the rhetoric is becoming more bold and honest. Just last Tuesday, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, writing in The Washington Post, referred to Israel as “a supposedly ‘legitimate’ state.’’

He made clear what he wants done with this bastard entity. “Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media,’’ he writes, “the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank.’’ It is about “a wider national conflict’’ that requires the vindication of “Palestinian national rights.’’

That, of course, means the right to all of Palestine, with no Jewish state. In the end, the fighting is about “the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967.’’

Just out of curiosity what is your solution for peace?

Webs, I have already answered this question up-thread: No clue. To be more precise, I have no clue about a workable peaceful solution.

Israel is content to exist, the Arabs want the destruction of Israel. Given these premises, all I know is what won’t work. You may be sincere in your belief that all it takes for Israel to make concession after concession without getting anything in return and eventually peace will come to the region. You are also dead wrong, unless your objective is the eventual destruction of Israel.

What is Israel supposed to get in return but peace.  The land they are occupying is not theirs.  How is it possible for them to defend themselves on Palestinian land?

You and others in this thread are making the assumption that all Arabs want the destruction of Israel, but this is simply not true.  Leaving Iran, Syria, and Egypt out of the picture, there are few Arabs in Palestine that do not want peace. 

You are assuming that the Arab culture stands for terrorism and the death of Jews, but this is simply not so.  Their prophet Muhammad has said that killing someone for no reason or without cause is wrong.  If Israel pulls out and makes concessions, Hamas’ reasons for using terrorism will be unqualified, and Palestinians will work to root it out, because Arabs are against killing innocent people, despite what a few fundamentalists will make you think.  Just because CNN does a story on how Palestinian children are brought into a society of terrorism.  And are trained at a young age to respect those that have committed suicide bombings in the past and consider them martyrs, doesn’t make it true.

If you’ve ever talked to an American Muslim they will likely say that they are against killing innocent civilians.  Surprisingly those I have talked to, 3 of them being Palestinians, and actually witnessing Israeli soldiers beating on Palestinians, only one of them is against there being an Israeli state.  One of them, Issam Raji Nassar, is consider one of the best teachers at ISU (the university I attend), and everyone that comes to ISU tries to take his classes.  He teaches a History of the Middle East class that, un-surprisingly, paints a different picture than your Arab=terrorist belief.

I’ve stayed out of this so far because I have no solutions to the problem myself, but I do have to address this latest comment from Webs…

What is Israel supposed to get in return but peace.  The land they are occupying is not theirs.  How is it possible for them to defend themselves on Palestinian land?

My knowledge of the history of that region isn’t complete to any degree, but I still have to question the above statement. From what I’ve learned the Israelis could be said to have a claim to the land predating the arrival of the Palestinians. In fact, at various times, the land has been “owned” by a number of different people including the Egyptians and the Romans. As has also been pointed out already, there has never been a “State Palestine.” Here’s a brief excerpt from Wikipedia on the subject:

Roman times

As a result of the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73), Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple, leaving only the Western Wall. In 135, following the fall of a Jewish revolt led by Bar Kokhba in 132–135, the Roman emperor Hadrian expelled most Jews from Judea, leaving large Jewish populations in Samaria and the Galilee. He also changed the name of the Roman province of Judea (Israel) to Syria Palaestina named after the Philistines as an insult to the now conquered Jews. In what was considered a form of psychological warfare, the Romans also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had less staying power. Over time the name Syria Palaestina was shortened to Palaestina, which by then had become an administrative political unit within the Roman Empire.

Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) period

In approximately 390, Palaestina was further organised into three units: Palaestina Prima, Secunda, and Tertia (First, Second, and Third Palestine). Palaestina Prima consisted of Judea, Samaria, the coast, and Peraea with the governor residing in Caesarea. Palaestina Secunda consisted of the Galilee, the lower Jezreel Valley, the regions east of Galilee, and the western part of the former Decapolis with the seat of government at Scythopolis. Palaestina Tertia included the Negev, southern Jordan — once part of Arabia — and most of Sinai with Petra the usual residence of the governor. Palestina Tertia was also known as Palaestina Salutaris. This reorganization reduced Arabia to the northern Jordan east of Peraea. Byzantine administration of Palestine ended temporarily during the Persian occupation of 614–28, then permanently after the Arabs conquered the region beginning in 635.

It continues on from there with the Crusader period, Mamluk period, Ottoman period, and the 19th and 20th centuries, but the point I’m getting at is clear: The Jews can make a legitimate claim to having been there first long before the Arabs took control.

If you accept the idea that it’s Palestinian land by virtue of the fact that the Jews were conquered and driven out quite some time previously then there’s no reason why Israel’s reconquering of the land should disqualify them from claiming it as their own now. Considering that there has never been a formal independent national Palestinian State (the region has been in dispute for centuries) any claims they have to the land is entirely debatable.

In short, I find the question of “how is it possible for them to defend themselves on Palestinian land” to be a moot point. You may as well ask how it is possible for the United States to defend themselves on Native American land. The answer is it’s possible because we maintain a large and effective military.

You and others in this thread are making the assumption that all Arabs want the destruction of Israel, but this is simply not true.  Leaving Iran, Syria, and Egypt out of the picture, there are few Arabs in Palestine that do not want peace.

I’m curious how you know this for a fact. Certainly there are plenty of Palestinians who would like to see peace in their time. Many of them think that peace will be achieved once they’ve wiped Israel from the map.

Even if we accept your claim that most Palestinians want peace with Israel that doesn’t change the fact that those same people voted Hamas, an organization that has the destruction of Israel as one of its core goals, into their government. If the leaders are intent on a goal of destruction and the people who supposedly want peace vote those leaders into office anyway then it doesn’t really matter if the majority of Palestinians want peace.

Additionally their actions undermine any claims that they want peace with Israel as the abduction of the Israeli soldier occurred well after Israel had pulled back out of the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank. This directly contradicts your claim that if Israel were to just give back the land the Palestinians would happily coexist with them.

You are assuming that the Arab culture stands for terrorism and the death of Jews, but this is simply not so.  Their prophet Muhammad has said that killing someone for no reason or without cause is wrong.  If Israel pulls out and makes concessions, Hamas’ reasons for using terrorism will be unqualified, and Palestinians will work to root it out, because Arabs are against killing innocent people, despite what a few fundamentalists will make you think.  Just because CNN does a story on how Palestinian children are brought into a society of terrorism.  And are trained at a young age to respect those that have committed suicide bombings in the past and consider them martyrs, doesn’t make it true.

Again, the problem with the above claim is that the Muslim view of “innocence” is quite a bit different from the western view. I don’t know how much you’re read the Qur’an, but anyone who’s not a Muslim is an infidel and far from being innocent and therefore fair game for being lied to or any other tactic that will give the faithful the upper hand to destroy them. As long as the Israelis continue to be anything other than Muslim they will never be innocent.

And it’s not just CNN filing the reports you mentioned.

If you’ve ever talked to an American Muslim they will likely say that they are against killing innocent civilians.  Surprisingly those I have talked to, 3 of them being Palestinians, and actually witnessing Israeli soldiers beating on Palestinians, only one of them is against there being an Israeli state.  One of them, Issam Raji Nassar, is consider one of the best teachers at ISU (the university I attend), and everyone that comes to ISU tries to take his classes.  He teaches a History of the Middle East class that, un-surprisingly, paints a different picture than your Arab=terrorist belief.

Being an Arab-American I wouldn’t be surprised that he paints a different picture, but the question is: Does he paint an accurate picture?

I’ve been told flat out by at least one Muslim coworker in the past that it’s a good thing we were in America because if we were in Saudi Arabia (where he was from) he’d have no choice but to slit my throat for being an atheist. I have no doubts he meant it.

It’s quite simple. Here he can’t get away with that sort of thing, but over there he could. And if he could then he would because it’s what he believes is the right way to deal with the likes of myself.

Is he representative of all Muslims? I don’t think so, but there are too many who believe as he does out there for me to be comfortable with.

What Les said.

Leaving Iran, Syria, and Egypt out of the picture, ...

Excuse me?

You are assuming that the Arab culture stands for terrorism and the death of Jews

You really shouldn’t presume too much. Since the topic of Germany came up previously, not all Germans supported the Nazis and it’s well know how it ended for all of them. It doesn’t matter how many Arabs want an honest peace with Israel, whatever their number is they acquiesce with the status quo - destroy Israel.

If Israel pulls out and makes concessions, Hamas’ reasons for using terrorism will be unqualified, and Palestinians will work to root it out,

Like Gaza and Lebanon? Krauthammer:

But you don’t have to be a historian to understand the intention of Israel’s enemies. You only have to read today’s newspapers.

Exhibit A: Gaza. Just last September, Israel evacuated Gaza completely. It declared the border between Israel and Gaza an international frontier, renouncing any claim to the territory. Gaza became the first independent Palestinian territory in history. Yet the Gazans continued the war. They turned Gaza into a base for launching rocket attacks against Israel and for digging tunnels under the border to conduct attacks like the one that killed two Israeli soldiers on June 25 and yielded a wounded hostage brought back to Gaza. Israeli tanks have now had to return to Gaza to try to rescue the hostage and suppress the rocket fire.

The ball was squarely in the Palestinian court to tell Hamas to go to Hell. Instead they democratically voted that very terrorist organization into power.

Oh, wait, Israel didn’t make enough concessions yet. They should have done away with the checkpoints in a suicidal act of good faith and bankroll Hamas to assist in Israel’s destruction.

Exhibit B: South Lebanon. Two weeks later, on July 12, the Lebanese terror organization, Hezbollah, which has representation in the Lebanese parliament and in the Cabinet, launched an attack into Israel that killed eight soldiers and wounded two, who were brought back to Lebanon as hostages.

What’s the grievance here?

Krauthammer answers his own question:

Israel withdrew from Lebanon completely in 2000. It was so scrupulous in making sure that not one square inch of Lebanon was left inadvertently occupied that it asked the U.N. to verify the exact frontier defining Lebanon’s southern border and retreated behind it. This “blue line’’ was approved by the Security Council, which declared that Israel had fully complied with resolutions demanding its withdrawal from Lebanon.

Grievance satisfied. Yet what happens? Hezbollah has done to South Lebanon exactly what Hamas has done to Gaza: turn it into a military base and terrorist operations center from which to continue the war against Israel.

What other concessions should Israel have given to appease Hezbollah?

Webs, your cognitive bias is appalling.

The peace-loving Palestinians, if any, face a conundrum. Either be ground to dust for the sake of the terrorists among them or to face a bloody civil war to put an end to the terrorists and rehabilite the Palestinians. Israel faces the conundrum that it cannot strengthen the hands of the peace-loving Palestinians, if any, until the Palestinian terrorists are neutralized and the self-defense forced upon Israel by the Palestinian terrorists weakens the hands of the moderate Palestinians.

You’ll have to excuse me if I file your ideas about Middle-Eastern peace in the same drawer as your 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Les: I’ve been told flat out by at least one Muslim co-worker in the past that it’s a good thing we were in America because if we were in Saudi Arabia (where he was from) he’d have no choice but to slit my throat for being an atheist. I have no doubts he meant it.

Just ‘for being an atheist’? Far-out.
They are so insecure, in their house-of-cards elitism, to think they need to kill non-believers?
Real American Americans aren’t that bad.
They just think atheists shouldn’t have any rights.

Les as usual your thoughts are right on and I enjoy reading them.
Now, rather than expand on anything said so far let me just ad this.
Over the last 6 to 7 years I have worked with and for quite a few Arabs - and my wife spent 3 years in Saudi Arabia. (Her first husband worked in the oil fields)
I have a pretty good insight into the Arab pysche and I can tell you unequivocally that they do not think the same way as we in the West do.
They operate by a different set of standards and value system than we do and I have learned to be cautious when dealing with them.
You can call this racists all you want, I don’t care! I am speaking with an objective, first hand knowledge of this and don’t believe I am too far wrong.
I don’t go around saying bad things or hate monger or anything of the sort, all I do is watch myself when I do business with them. (And I have been doing this a lot, there is a very large Arab population here the same as in Detroit)
Arabs are also much like the old folklore about the Gypsies; “No matter how well you think you know them - and are friends with them, you are, deep down, always an outsider.”
The old Arab expression “Me against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against an outsider:” is not just an idle expression but is routed deep down in their cultural mentality.

Just so you know
Your Scribe
Allan W Janssen

Moses: Arabs are also much like the old folklore about the Gypsies; “No matter how well you think you know them - and are friends with them, you are, deep down, always an outsider.�
The old Arab expression “Me against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against an outsider:� is not just an idle expression but is routed deep down in their cultural mentality.

I perhaps don’t understand the depth of either of those sayings, but they show me a completly different view of the tribal mentality.
I like: Trust in Allah, but tie your camel.

The politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict aren’t something I’ve followed very closely, and perhaps that’s because I do consider it to be, at its root, the same tribal warmongering that’s gone on in the Middle East for thousands of years.  I have no “solution” beyond what Brock suggested, which we all know is unacceptable.

I accept Israel’s right to exist and to defend themselves, but I also know that the Arabs’ wish to “wipe it off the map” is so deeply ingrained in their culture that I don’t expect Israel will ever be left in peace.

Can anyone provide some links to help educate me on the history of this conflict?  My husband and I were discussing it the other day and the gaps in my knowledge made it very difficult to address any of his questions or points.  He’s of a mind that the US is entirely too involved in a tribal war over land (on the other side of the world, no less), and says that if we’re in such a rush to support giving a territory and statehood to those once driven out of their native land, we should start in our own backyard and right the wrongs WE perpetrated against Native Americans. I see his point, but I’m sure we have some compelling reasons for our policies that support Israel.

Not that “Because their neighbors are crazy-ass, hateful tribalists that want them wiped off the map because Allah said so,” isn’t reason enough for ME personally. 

OB,
I was just doing that research myself, and while I am certainly not an expert on the subject, here are some good links that I found:

Wikipedia entry on the history of Israel- pretty good overview, but I was left wanting more information:
Wikipedia- History of Israel

UN history page

More history pages:
Israel history 1
Israel history 2

Heavily biased pro-Israel presentation (I wouldn’t trust this too much, and am hesitant to list it, but it does show the history from an Israeli’s viewpoint).

An archive of maps of the Middle East and Europe

A good short film about the effects of Israeli propaganda in the US media (note especially the maps of the Palestinian territories and the Israeli settlements): movie

Elwed,
I must say that I am very disappointed with your responses to Webs.  You switched the topic from “what was the root cause of the war” to “give me a solution to Israel’s problems”.  When Webs gave a good but flawed answer, you have offered no rebuttals of his arguments, instead attacking him ad hominem and giving your opinion that the Arabs will not settle for anything less than the destruction of Israel.  Time to pony up on why Webs solution is “asinine”.

either you evenhandedly lambast both sides or simply regret the casualties

Now it’s my turn to call a comment asinine: are you really suggesting that all war crimes are equal in degree?  Is bombing an UN outpost, at least two clearly marked ambulances, fleeing civilian cars, and civilian apartment buildings (all with precision guided bombs) equivalent to launching unguided missiles into populated areas?  They are both war crimes, but they are not even on the same scale… And before you say that the civilians are being used as human shields, read up on Juan Cole’s blog about how it appears Hizbollah mostly avoids mingling with civilians.

How do you feel about telling another nation’s civilians to clear out of homes but then bombing their cars, destroying their roads and bridges, and denying other evacuation transportation (such as boats and aircraft)?  I was originally ambivalent on the Israel/Hezbollah/Hamas conflict until Israel responded with some over-the-top atrocities.  I can no longer see their actions as being defensive in nature.

Here are some counter questions: does Israel have the right to assert control over populated territory it does not legally own?  What is the threshold of evidence (or suspicion) of the presence of an enemy fighter required to justify killing civilians?

Geekmom,
You really need to calm down and re-read what you wrote.  You sound like one of the crazy fundies with what you’re suggesting is reasonable.

Les,
I believe that Webs was referring to the West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian land, and the Israeli settlements are there illegally according to the UN.

DWangerin,

I apologize if I sounded serious in my proposal.  It was actually quite tongue-in-cheek and was meant to show how one-sided Webs’ proposal is.  ("The Israelis give up this, this, this and this, and then we’ll all be happy!")

However, your list is pretty one-sided too.  How about listing some links you describe as “heavily biased pro-Arab” and some “effects of Palestinian propaganda on US media”?  You see, any time I see these words, together with a diatribe about Israel without any attempt even to mention their view, much less trying to understand it, my alarm goes off.

For those people who say, “On the other hand, there’s this problem ... on the other hand, there’s that ... both sides are partially to blame,” I’d be much more likely to listen to their proposals.  When you start using words like “propaganda” and “media,” though, I just roll my eyes and think, how many times have I seen this before with connection to the so-called Jewish media conspiracy?

DWangerin, you really need to re-read what YOU wrote.  Either you really believe you’re being fair, in which case you’ve got a mote problem, or you’re not that good at hiding your bias.

DWangerin writes…

Now it’s my turn to call a comment asinine: are you really suggesting that all war crimes are equal in degree?  Is bombing an UN outpost, at least two clearly marked ambulances, fleeing civilian cars, and civilian apartment buildings (all with precision guided bombs) equivalent to launching unguided missiles into populated areas?  They are both war crimes, but they are not even on the same scale…

I agree that they are not on the same scale.

The actions of Hezbollah in randomly launching rockets into Israel are far worse in my mind and here’s why: Israel claims they are not intentionally targeting civilians and, by and large, it appears they’re trying not to whereas Hezbollah’s only goal is to kill as many Israelis, civilian or otherwise, that they can. If the Israelis were to take the same approach to their enemy the death toll would be astronomical.

And before you say that the civilians are being used as human shields, read up on Juan Cole’s blog about how it appears Hizbollah mostly avoids mingling with civilians.

That’s not what I’ve been hearing from the Lebanese themselves in various news reports. NPR had this news report yesterday on Christians in the southern Lebanese village of Ein Abel that are caught in the crossfire as Hezbollah launches rockets from the hillsides within a few dozen feet of non-combatants homes which naturally draws Israeli return fire.

The truth is the Hezbollah guerrillas are using the Lebanese people as a means to an end. Alive they make for great camouflage and dead they make great PR for turning Arab sentiment against the Israelis. 

Here are some counter questions: does Israel have the right to assert control over populated territory it does not legally own?  What is the threshold of evidence (or suspicion) of the presence of an enemy fighter required to justify killing civilians?

Are you asking what the actual international laws about this are or what our personal opinions are? I have no idea what the international laws say about either question, but I’m willing to bet they’re rather fuzzy.

As to the first question, if asserting said control is the only means to stop the attacks then I’d say that they have that right. As to the second question I’d say that taking fire would be sufficient evidence for them to return an attack.

Les,
I believe that Webs was referring to the West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian land, and the Israeli settlements are there illegally according to the UN.

If he was he didn’t make that very clear. Again I point out that the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier occurred well after the Israelis had pulled out of Gaza and four West Bank settlements. True they hadn’t pulled out of all West Bank areas, but they had given up land they were holding as Webs has suggested they should. The result of that gesture was a direct attack by Hamas into Israeli territory.

The point still stands that Web’s solution to the problem is undermined by the actions of Hamas and the fact that the Hezbollah group had no good reason to get involved as Israel had long since left Lebanon, but did anyway.

Contrary to what this comment may seem to indicate, I’m not particularly pro-Israel as I think they’ve contributed their fair share to the problems over there, but they do have a right to defend themselves.

If the Lebanese people don’t want to be stuck in the middle then they should be doing something about removing the Hezbollah elements that are using their country as a battleground. As long as they continue to tolerate Hezbollah’s presence they shouldn’t be surprised if civilians end up being killed in the firefights that ensue.