Yes, the palestianians are indeed the only bad guys in the middle east.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is this sarcasm?

I'd like to add that the only, one and single reason Isreal exists at all, is the U.S.A so perhaps the Palestinians should just wait till that bird is done and dead?
Or perhaps the U.S could soilve the major rallying point of Islamists everywhere and and tell Israel to shove it?
I mean, I am really interested as to why you people support that country. But then again you do support fascists.

Well, well. The Magyar responds with a gauntlet. Fair enough.

No, my response to Tribes' was not sarcasm, but a statement rendered in the form of a question -- admittedly a leading question -- which ample evidence indicates is a format with which Tribes' is comfortable. He certainly didn't demur from making a response -- though his response stopped short of a supported argument that it was IDF policy while hinting that he thought they were leaning that way. I was reminding him that the more likely "answer" would be found in the realm of mistake or poor thinking by those involved and not in a programmatic policy.

Banquo's excellent post above, the one referencing his own experiences and frustrations, is quite telling and explored the reasons "why" this instance happened in a far better and more moving way than I could have done. Banquo's assessment (and his prescription of a Ghandian effort as more likely to generate success for the Palestinian Arabs) match closely with my own thinking. Under prolonged stress and pressure, it is far too easy for those enforcing a policy to "take things into their own hands" just a bit. It shouldn't happen, and should never be condoned, but it does occur. I think Banquo's proferred explanation fits the facts and situation nicely.

We are no more likely to tell Israel to "shove it" than we are likely to say the same thing to England or Australia. While the USA was one of the prime movers in the formation of Israel, and certainly has provided more funding for its continuance than anyone else, we are not solely responsible for its creation -- it was a UN mandate. You might want to spare a little of your spleen for the old USSR -- after all they could have scotched the whole thing with a simple "Nyet" if they'd bothered to attend the meeting.

The bond with Israel was forged on a number of levels. Guilt over the Holocaust was one component -- we had turned away Jews who went back to die and according to some might have bettered our time in defeating Germany instead of going after Italy. Another was America's love for the underdog, which role fit Israel admirably in 1948. Then, as the Cold War deepened, Israel became our proxy in the Middle East as the Arab nations turned toward the Soviets for material. As you should be aware, the manner and "rules" by which we conducted the Cold War dictated a lot of US policy -- and led us to support a number of tyrannical regimes, provided they were anti-Soviet. Into this, you can also add the depradations of Islamic terrorists in the 1970s, early 1980s, and then again beginning in the 1990s (The terrorist efforts of Jewish separatists in Palestine in the 1940s did not get much play in the USA, so they carry no stigma of terrorism in this country). The Embargo of 1973 and the Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980 were also episodes that were designed to humiliate and/or make us throw up our hands in frustration over the cost of supporting Israel. Each and every time the backlash has enhanced Israel's position. Howevermuch we may find some of Israel's policies and actions galling, we admire their determination. We'll argue with them, try to convince them to change their behavior sometimes, but all in all we are committed to that alliance.

The one and ONLY way I can see the Arab world de-coupling this alliance, or more likely shifting it to a format where ALL of the US efforts would be to push Israel towards a negotiated resolution, is the strategy outlined by Banquo above. Once the Palestinians are nothing but martyrs -- no acts of vengeance ONLY non-violent defiance -- then the cell phone camera will win what no number of Kalishnikov's can hope to achieve.

I'd suggest that the Palestinians change tactics soon. Waiting for the American Eagle to be "done and dead" is likely to be a bit of a wait. We may not be the Colossus our imaginations sometimes believe, but we're not staggering along in our death throes by a long chalk. Underneath all of our celebrophilia silliness and consumerist hedonism is a bit of steel. Too many in the past have missed that part -- to their regret. And, if you and yours seek to take us off our perch, you are welcome to try.

[Fragony]

Waiting for the American Eagle to be "done and dead" is likely to be a bit of a wait. We may not be the Colossus our imaginations sometimes believe, but we're not staggering along in our death throes by a long chalk. Underneath all of our celebrophilia silliness and consumerist hedonism is a bit of steel. Too many in the past have missed that part -- to their regret. And, if you and yours seek to take us off our perch, you are welcome to try.

Perfection lives.

[Incongruous]

Well, well. The Magyar responds with a gauntlet. Fair enough.

No, my response to Tribes' was not sarcasm, but a statement rendered in the form of a question -- admittedly a leading question -- which ample evidence indicates is a format with which Tribes' is comfortable. He certainly didn't demur from making a response -- though his response stopped short of a supported argument that it was IDF policy while hinting that he thought they were leaning that way. I was reminding him that the more likely "answer" would be found in the realm of mistake or poor thinking by those involved and not in a programmatic policy.

Banquo's excellent post above, the one referencing his own experiences and frustrations, is quite telling and explored the reasons "why" this instance happened in a far better and more moving way than I could have done. Banquo's assessment (and his prescription of a Ghandian effort as more likely to generate success for the Palestinian Arabs) match closely with my own thinking. Under prolonged stress and pressure, it is far too easy for those enforcing a policy to "take things into their own hands" just a bit. It shouldn't happen, and should never be condoned, but it does occur. I think Banquo's proferred explanation fits the facts and situation nicely.

We are no more likely to tell Israel to "shove it" than we are likely to say the same thing to England or Australia. While the USA was one of the prime movers in the formation of Israel, and certainly has provided more funding for its continuance than anyone else, we are not solely responsible for its creation -- it was a UN mandate. You might want to spare a little of your spleen for the old USSR -- after all they could have scotched the whole thing with a simple "Nyet" if they'd bothered to attend the meeting.

The bond with Israel was forged on a number of levels. Guilt over the Holocaust was one component -- we had turned away Jews who went back to die and according to some might have bettered our time in defeating Germany instead of going after Italy. Another was America's love for the underdog, which role fit Israel admirably in 1948. Then, as the Cold War deepened, Israel became our proxy in the Middle East as the Arab nations turned toward the Soviets for material. As you should be aware, the manner and "rules" by which we conducted the Cold War dictated a lot of US policy -- and led us to support a number of tyrannical regimes, provided they were anti-Soviet. Into this, you can also add the depradations of Islamic terrorists in the 1970s, early 1980s, and then again beginning in the 1990s (The terrorist efforts of Jewish separatists in Palestine in the 1940s did not get much play in the USA, so they carry no stigma of terrorism in this country). The Embargo of 1973 and the Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980 were also episodes that were designed to humiliate and/or make us throw up our hands in frustration over the cost of supporting Israel. Each and every time the backlash has enhanced Israel's position. Howevermuch we may find some of Israel's policies and actions galling, we admire their determination. We'll argue with them, try to convince them to change their behavior sometimes, but all in all we are committed to that alliance.

The one and ONLY way I can see the Arab world de-coupling this alliance, or more likely shifting it to a format where ALL of the US efforts would be to push Israel towards a negotiated resolution, is the strategy outlined by Banquo above. Once the Palestinians are nothing but martyrs -- no acts of vengeance ONLY non-violent defiance -- then the cell phone camera will win what no number of Kalishnikov's can hope to achieve.

I'd suggest that the Palestinians change tactics soon. Waiting for the American Eagle to be "done and dead" is likely to be a bit of a wait. We may not be the Colossus our imaginations sometimes believe, but we're not staggering along in our death throes by a long chalk. Underneath all of our celebrophilia silliness and consumerist hedonism is a bit of steel. Too many in the past have missed that part -- to their regret. And, if you and yours seek to take us off our perch, you are welcome to try.

Oh dear...
I do not see the U.S a a bumbling giant trying to do good, your nation is nothing of the sort and you know it. The U.S is a tyrant to the weak. You picked apart Latin America and left it to the desires of your state educated fascist pigs. You also support a fascist regime in the Middle East, that is what it is really. The underdog? Idrael has not been the underdog for a long time, it has held the whip hand over the Palestinians for decades and it has used this to kill and terrorise innocents with your silent approval.
You admire their determination? What aspect? The rabid determination to ethnically cleanse the Holy Land? or to allow their soldiers to shoot old ladies on their way to hospitals? Or their determination to allow women to die while giving birth at an Israeli check point to a hostpital? Which aspect is it?

I suggest that the U.S.A changes its tactics in the Holy Land because a toss load of good they have done so far.

Maybe you should switch off the flame of liberty, we all know its fake, it probably says Made In China somehwere...

[Don Corleone]

Seriously, Bopa, how do you really feel?

I'm curious, do you believe in a 2-state solution?

[Fragony]

The U.S is a tyrant to the weak.

This annoys the crap out of me and I am not even american, if you have to chose between what they are and what they could be what would it be? They have that choice but are what they are, nothing but humanitarian respect to america. What is it that they are doing so wrong I don't get it.

[Dâriûsh]

I think that extremists on both sides, Israeli and Palestinians will always block the only way forward to peace: two viable states coexisting next to each other. I don't blame the Palestinians, and I don't blame the Israelis. I think the majority of people on both sides would settle for such a solution. But it will never happen. Ever. Too many hard-liners on both sides that would rather die than compromise.

In my heart I fear that you are right, but I would like to pretend that you are not. I hope the hard-liners are deposed some day, rejected, and ignored.

[Divinus Arma]

Terrorism, or rather assymetrical warfare and intentional targeting of civilians, is a natural evolution in response to a technologically superior enemy. It is utter ignorance to claim moral superiority in military strategy. While detesting the killing of civilian Israelis by Palestinian militants, I understand that this military strategy is entirely due to their inability to counter Israeli superiority.

Organized violence is an instrument of policy. Be it a gang killing in a turf war, a military invasion, genocide, terrorist use of WMDs, etc. The method we as an organization of individuals choose to employ to exert our will is not something in of itself to decry. It is the intent of the policy that drives the violence that requires analysis and argument.

[LittleGrizzly]

This annoys the crap out of me and I am not even american, if you have to chose between what they are and what they could be what would it be?

What they could be is a shining example to the rest of the world, they make all previous superpowers look evil by comparison but is that really saying much ?

Having huge amounts of power isn't an excuse for doing wrong, if anything its almost worse...

is the strategy outlined by Banquo above. Once the Palestinians are nothing but martyrs -- no acts of vengeance ONLY non-violent defiance -- then the cell phone camera will win what no number of Kalishnikov's can hope to achieve.

This would be a great tactic, unfortunatly it would never work, it would be the equivalent of america taking up non-violent defiance in reaction to 9/11, sure the odd peaceful hippy would think its a good idea but 99% of people just want blood and vengance.

I do not see why Israel could not practice not violent defiance, as an actual developed functioning state they have the means to pull this off, the loosley affailiated organisations running palestine could not, this is probably why i seem to come down on israel they are the only ones who i can see ending the conflict, i think its simply impossible as the situation stands for palestine to manage it....

[atheotes]

[B]

I do not see why Israel could not practice not violent defiance, as an actual developed functioning state they have the means to pull this off, the loosley affailiated organisations running palestine could not, this is probably why i seem to come down on israel they are the only ones who i can see ending the conflict, i think its simply impossible as the situation stands for palestine to manage it....

therein lies a huge problem as far as i am concerned... Palestine needs to unite as one and only the will they see have any way forward...

[Fragony]

What they could be is a shining example to the rest of the world, they make all previous superpowers look evil by comparison but is that really saying much ?

Clear case of the question being the answer I would say. Of course that is saying much. They really don't deserve the treatment they get from the incestiously self-preserving european intellectual elite.

[Dâriûsh]

therein lies a huge problem as far as i am concerned... Palestine needs to unite as one and only the will they see have any way forward...

Well... Did not the "West" unite to drive Palestine apart? I recall it did. Immediately after the Hamas majority victory in the 2006 legislative election.

[LittleGrizzly]

Clear case of the question being the answer I would say. Of course that is saying much. They really don't deserve the treatment they get from the incestiously self-preserving european intellectual elite.

I don't think i stated what i meant clearly, what i was saying was.... just because they are better than what came before it doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise, going by your statement america could go crazy and aslong as they were a little better behaved than previous superpower noone has any right to criticise, having the ability to do alot of harm if they want doesn't excuse them from the harm they do....

Otherwise we should all thank the soviet union, sure they did alot of bad things but they could have done so much worse, hell stalin was practically a pacifist...

Well... Did not the "West" unite to drive Palestine apart? I recall it did. Immediately after the Hamas majority victory in the 2006 legislative election.

I find it ironic how after years of seeing fatah as the enemy they've suddenly realised that fatah are a better option to deal with than Hamas, i can almost see this pattern repeating itself somewhere down the line, we'll be kicking ourselves for not dealing with the much more reasonable Hamas when the next even crazier bunch of guys come along...

[Marshal Murat]

The underdog? Israel has not been the underdog for a long time, it has held the whip hand over the Palestinians for decades and it has used this to kill and terrorize innocents with your silent approval.

Only rarely has a single nation the size of Israel faced three or four foes on two+ fronts, and succeeded. Not only in 1948, in the wars that followed, as Israel outmaneuvered Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraqi forces. The Israeli forces have consistently defeated armed forces twice their size. It's spectacular.

Israel has responded in kind to Palestinian threats over the years. You complain about a pregnant Palestinian woman dying at a check-point? I think if you compare the death rates of Palestinian women from before Israel and after, you would notice a drop in those deaths. With Israel came medicines and assistance that the Palestinians never had before.

Ghandian resistance is the only way to end the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I'm probably echoing previously expressed sentiments, but that's why the West supported Tibet over Chinese "law and order" because the Tibet people aren't RPG-ing Hong Kong, Singapore, or Beijing. That's why we supported the monks over the Burmese "Law and Order" of violence and repression.

[LittleGrizzly]

Only rarely has a single nation the size of Israel faced three or four foes on two+ fronts, and succeeded. Not only in 1948, in the wars that followed, as Israel outmaneuvered Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraqi forces. The Israeli forces have consistently defeated armed forces twice their size. It's spectacular.

Im not so sure about the 1948 war but didn't Israel have a lot better technology than thier rivals in 1967, as spectacular as it is it also doesn't change the fact that these days its the palestinians rocks and homemade bombs vs israels f-16s and nuclear weapons

I think if you compare the death rates of Palestinian women from before Israel and after, you would notice a drop in those deaths. With Israel came medicines and assistance that the Palestinians never had before.

Doesn't the international community give aid to palestine ? (including israel though i guess) so i highly doubt thier contribution to aid for palestine dwarfs the numbers of palestinians they've killed.

Ghandian resistance is the only way to end the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I'm probably echoing previously expressed sentiments, but that's why the West supported Tibet over Chinese "law and order" because the Tibet people aren't RPG-ing Hong Kong, Singapore, or Beijing. That's why we supported the monks over the Burmese "Law and Order" of violence and repression.

A load of good it did those 'provinces' as well, why does everyone expect the palestinians to start up some Ghandian style resistance, the ones who are much better equipped to pull it off are the israelis, how much longer would the palestinians keep blowing themselves up after israel stopped the bombs, dismantled the checkpoints and shared the resources. No palestinian would go and blow themself up because Hamas charter calls for the destruction of israel, give them normal lives and they'll be happy to live them, there be a transitional period where people too far gone would exact thier revenge but that would be over soon enough....

[Tribesman]

Ghandian resistance is the only way to end the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I'm probably echoing previously expressed sentiments, but that's why the West supported Tibet over Chinese "law and order"

Ah yes the peaceful protesters

First of all, I must make it clear that the Tibetan (rioters) has been non-violent throughout (the incident). From Tibetans' perspective, violence means harming life. From the video recordings you can see that the Tibetans rioters were beating Han Chinese, but only beating took place. After the beating the Han Chinese were free to flee. Therefore [there were] only beating, no life was harmed. Those who were killed were all results of accidents. From recordings shown by the Chinese Communist government, we can clearly see that when Tibetan [rioters] were beating on their doors, the Han Chinese all went into hiding upstairs. When the Tibetan [rioters] set fire to the buildings, the Han Chinese remained in hiding instead of escaping, the result is that these Han Chinese were all accidentally burnt to death.

Don't the Tibetan government in exile put it very nicely

[Husar]

Awesome explanation, I wish all riots were as peaceful as that with just a few people being burned accidentally.

[Viking]

A load of good it did those 'provinces' as well, why does everyone expect the palestinians to start up some Ghandian style resistance, the ones who are much better equipped to pull it off are the israelis, how much longer would the palestinians keep blowing themselves up after israel stopped the bombs, dismantled the checkpoints and shared the resources. No palestinian would go and blow themself up because Hamas charter calls for the destruction of israel, give them normal lives and they'll be happy to live them, there be a transitional period where people too far gone would exact thier revenge but that would be over soon enough....

Hah, the Israeli government would have to be nuts to do that, it would be pure manslaughter. No doubt the terrorists could shoot a thousands of civilians showing no resistance what so ever before they started pondering whether they were doing the right thing or not. No terrorist want to share the resources.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hah, the Israeli government would have to be nuts to do that, it would be pure manslaughter. No doubt the terrorists could shoot a thousands of civilians showing no resistance what so ever before they started pondering whether they were doing the right thing or not.

I must have missed the bit were they stuck thier hands up in the air and lined up to be shot, its a non-violent resistance but if some terrorist came in shooting and i would allow room in my non-violent defiance to shoot back in that case, so if you agree that palestinians won't blow themselves up if thiers no reason and israel's main problem would be gunmen that would be a huge improvment, you could just have regular solidiers (and police?) posted around israel and im sure the vast majority of them would outmatch a palestinian terrorist in a gunfight, sure the would be losses, probably at a far lower rate than today, and just as you'll struggle to find terrorists willing to blow themself up over an enemy that doesn't attack them i highly doubt that you would find too many recruits for suicidal shooting sprees after israel starts its non violent defiance

No terrorist want to share the resources.

Well neither does israel by the seems of things, but as it is now and would be if israel was carrying out non-violent defiance, the terrorists wouldn't really have a choice about having all the resources, just because israel isn't carrying out precision strikes and checkpoints doesn't all of a sudden mean the palestinians are the bigger power.

[KukriKhan]

A bold, brilliant plan our Banquo's Ghost has laid out.

For argument's sake, let's posit that a Paletinian Gandhi did emerge, eschewing violence, and doing a 'salt walk' to the sea.

What conditions and policy attitudes would have to prevail in Israel for El Gandhi to be successful? What conditions were extant in Britain and among Brit Colonials in India to allow Gandhi's success, rather than a brute crushing of his disobedience?

And then, what can the rest of us (the world) do or stop doing, to foster the development of those conditions?

Or, are we begging the strategy too much, since in India, the goal was to persuade Britain to leave, whereas, we're not trying to make Israel 'leave', but co-exist?

I, the eternal optimist, can but hope that some way toward resolution can be found that doesn't involve mass brutalization & death.

[LittleGrizzly]

Maybe i am a pessimist or just a realist, either way even if the palestinian ghandi did emerge he would be a threat to all the leaders in the middle east (or israel and the ones who keep thier populations in check by focusing them on thier enemy)

If not killed by hamas or fatah as a threat to thier power, or maybe killed because he is seen as weak limp wristed leftie whose not willing to stand up for his country like countless martyrs (that is as in the imaginary words of some hamas or fatah spokesman)

Killed by israel either through accident, precision strike gone wrong, israeli soldier's bullet, or on purpose by the israeli leadership as they are a threat to thier continued leadership, or because if succsessful he would be a threat to thier domination of resources in the area (what good reason would israel have to hog resources against a peaceful palestine ? and what good reason to extend thier holdings in the area ?)

Even if he manages to avoid the 2 local powers there are plenty of leader in the middle east who would have thier position more threatened if there wasn't the enemy of israel to direct the peoples attention at

To be honest i really don't see a palestinian ghandi type figure being able to do anything to solves the conflict.

[Viking]

Hah, the Israeli government would have to be nuts to do that, it would be pure manslaughter. No doubt the terrorists could shoot a thousands of civilians showing no resistance what so ever before they started pondering whether they were doing the right thing or not.

I must have missed the bit were they stuck thier hands up in the air and lined up to be shot, its a non-violent resistance but if some terrorist came in shooting and i would allow room in my non-violent defiance to shoot back in that case, so if you agree that palestinians won't blow themselves up if thiers no reason and israel's main problem would be gunmen that would be a huge improvment, you could just have regular solidiers (and police?) posted around israel and im sure the vast majority of them would outmatch a palestinian terrorist in a gunfight, sure the would be losses, probably at a far lower rate than today, and just as you'll struggle to find terrorists willing to blow themself up over an enemy that doesn't attack them i highly doubt that you would find too many recruits for suicidal shooting sprees after israel starts its non violent defiance

No terrorist want to share the resources.

Well neither does israel by the seems of things, but as it is now and would be if israel was carrying out non-violent defiance, the terrorists wouldn't really have a choice about having all the resources, just because israel isn't carrying out precision strikes and checkpoints doesn't all of a sudden mean the palestinians are the bigger power.

Then let me quote:

...some Ghandian style resistance..

[LittleGrizzly]

Then let me quote:


Quote:
...some Ghandian style resistance..

ok to fit into my example properly israeli soldiers would be drafted into the police force and would act like a police force, i don't see why a police force would be outside the concept of ghandian style resistance, the ghandian style resistance would be the act of non-violence from israel, the police force would simply maintain law inside israeli borders.

But ok i would be happy to call it some other name to meet the need of crazy gunmen storming israel, if we call it grizzly style resistance would that make you happy ?

Or was it something other than the term i used to describe the non-violent method they could use that bothered you ? (in other words did you see my plan as unworkable or were you just nitpicking about the ghandian style resistance bit ?)

[Viking]

Then let me quote:


Quote:
...some Ghanaian style resistance..

ok to fit into my example properly Israeli soldiers would be drafted into the police force and would act like a police force, i don't see why a police force would be outside the concept of ghandian style resistance, the ghandian style resistance would be the act of non-violence from israel, the police force would simply maintain law inside israeli borders.

But ok i would be happy to call it some other name to meet the need of crazy gunmen storming israel, if we call it grizzly style resistance would that make you happy ?

Or was it something other than the term i used to describe the non-violent method they could use that bothered you ? (in other words did you see my plan as unworkable or were you just nitpicking about the ghandian style resistance bit ?)

No nitpicking here. I saw the plan that I read out of your as a poor one; though one with the aspects of self defense intact, as something in the right direction. The term ghandian resistance does really hint to a scenario of no violence what so ever.

[LittleGrizzly]

The term ghandian resistance does really hint to a scenario of no violence what so ever.

Well it doesn't really apply to any actual state or palestine as it is now either, any actual state uses violence even if its just through the law but i was going on the type ghandian style for palestinians would be similar, except i think if the palestinians were doing it it would be other palestinians as the crazy gunmen mowing them down, so i figured my use of the term was as accurate as banquo's....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh dear...
I do not see the U.S a a bumbling giant trying to do good, your nation is nothing of the sort and you know it. The U.S is a tyrant to the weak. You picked apart Latin America and left it to the desires of your state educated fascist pigs. You also support a fascist regime in the Middle East, that is what it is really.

We are both a "bumbling giant trying to do good" and an aggressive "playuh" pursuing our own interests -- I wasn't putting us up for international sainthood. We marginalized our abo' population (sometimes murdering them, even a few quasi-pogroms though we never had the stomach to follow it through methodically), we picked one war with a neighbor (Mexico 1842/1843), tried to conquer Canada every time we fought with Great Britain, and threw our weight around in China and in Latin America on a haphazard but pretty frequent basis from 1880 through 1940. During the Cold War we supported a number of loathsome regimes in order to out-compete the Soviets in that global conflict. On the other hand, we've had the whip hand over many nations in the last few decades and have not run amuck or fashioned ourselves much of an empire. It even pays pretty well to lose a war to us (Sellers' did a wonderful send-up of this in The Mouse that Roared). We're a far cry from perfect, but other nations who held a club have used it far more visciously -- Belgium's playfulness with the Congo, Japan's co-prosperity sphere, the Mongols savaging Europe etc. We may get it wrong, but a surprising portion of the time, we really do believe we're doing some of these things for the greater good.

The underdog? Idrael has not been the underdog for a long time, it has held the whip hand over the Palestinians for decades and it has used this to kill and terrorise innocents with your silent approval.

I was referring to the early days of Israel to explain why we had such an attachment to that ally. The "underdog" mindset still strikes a chord with many in the US audience, even if it really isn't accurate anymore. As you are aware, perceptions continue to influence evaluations even if the perception is no longer fully valid unless and until a more accurate perception is internalized by the audience in question.

You admire their determination? What aspect? The rabid determination to ethnically cleanse the Holy Land? or to allow their soldiers to shoot old ladies on their way to hospitals? Or their determination to allow women to die while giving birth at an Israeli check point to a hostpital? Which aspect is it?

No, the part that appeals is that they forged a nation with a democratic tradition while having to fight for their existence for more than a quarter century. Israeli mis-applications of justice rarely get much media play in the USA, so they do not influence public opinion as broadly as the earlier, "plucky underdog" perceptions. This is why, in my opinion, Banquo is in the right of it, however difficult it would be to effect a Ghandian stance in practice. Once Israel is the ONLY participant acting violently (note, not defiantly as Ghandian tactics are quite confrontative albeit non-violent), the media coverage would have to change and support for Israeli hardliners would erode both in Israel and in its biggest financial backer, the USA.

I suggest that the U.S.A changes its tactics in the Holy Land because a toss load of good they have done so far.

Now that is an interesting comment. While I disagree with your overall opinion of my nation (I believe Decatur had it right), you make a fair critique when you point out that the previous strategies employed certainly haven't created any meaningfully different results in the past 20 years. I'm still waiting for a new idea that can work on a practical level -- but it's a tough playing field for rationality.

Maybe you should switch off the flame of liberty, we all know its fake, it probably says Made In China somehwere...

Reminds me of the Communard who commented about our bidding on rope sales. Now who was that....Kruschev?

I live in a country where your birth is only tangentially relevant and you can, with hard work and a dash of luck, make yourself the richest person on the planet and be lauded for doing so. Or, conversely, you can found a movement calling for the abolition of private property and the scrapping of the Constitution in favor of Pastafarianism and the government will not prevent you from preaching your ideas or garnering followers even though you are calling for the destruction of that government. On the whole, we've got a fair handle on the freedom thing.

If you want to revel in the joys of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, go rent The Holy Grail or re-read your copy of the Little Red Book. I'll happily stick with the US of A.

[Goofball]

I live in a country where your birth is only tangentially relevant and you can, with hard work and a dash of luck, make yourself the richest person on the planet and be lauded for doing so. Or, conversely, you can found a movement calling for the abolition of private property and the scrapping of the Constitution in favor of Pastafarianism and the government will not prevent you from preaching your ideas or garnering followers even though you are calling for the destruction of that government. On the whole, we've got a fair handle on the freedom thing.

If you want to revel in the joys of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, go rent The Holy Grail or re-read your copy of the Little Red Book. I'll happily stick with the US of A.

Well said and with remarkable restraint as well, given the hate that Bopa has been spewing.

I am another non-American that has been quite incensed by some of the crap you've been throwing around this thread, Bopa.

Sounds like a simple case of penis envy to me...

[Don Corleone]

Well said and with remarkable restraint as well, given the hate that Bopa has been spewing.

Well, yeah...

but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Some people see faults and call them out when they see them. Others look for fault and call it out whether they see it or not. America has a litany of "Wish we hadn't done that" actions, but honestly Bopa, we are not the Fourth Reich you seem zealously convinced we are. But with all that cotton in your ears, I doubt you can hear me.

By the way, for all you "George Bush is satan" types, why don't you go see what those Nazi wannabes Bob Geldof and Bono have to say about Bush's Africa policies.

On topic: I actually heard a fascinating debate today on NPR on my lunch hour that really has altered my whole view of all of this, but as it deals more with militant Islam and less with the Palestinian question specifically, I should probably start a new thread.

[Tribesman]

I was referring to the early days of Israel to explain why we had such an attachment to that ally. The "underdog" mindset still strikes a chord with many in the US audience, even if it really isn't accurate anymore.

Just wondering Seamus , from the time of the underdog when your president was wondering about what to do with the seemingly impossible situation of carting off a large number of people to where they were not wanted and making them at home...what was it he said was inevitable about the underdog when he got a seat at the head of the table ?

[KrooK]

Guys talking that Israel always had to defend itself is just a b...t
Into 1956 they just attacked Egypt without shadow of reason - they wanted stop Nasser from taking control on Sues Channel. Into 1948 and 1967 they were outnumbered but with much better soldiers and weapon. Every year USA is giving 100.000.000.000 USD to Israel - thats why they have so good army.

Anyway watch on Israel policy into Lebanon. Last years when Hezbollah absolutely controlled that country everything was ok and Israel did not attack Lebanon. But when Hezbollah influences fallen at the beginning of this century (due to good economical development of Lebanon), Israel attacked Lebanon - of course official reason was "save our soldiers". Hezbollah was not destroyed, regained its influences (few months later they took absolute control over country) and now everything is calm on noth border (strange :D).

I have to mention previous attack on Lebanon into early 80ties when Jews helped into killing 20.000 civilians. I wonder why do we want catch Karadzic for 7000 people into Srebrenica and we never wanted Sharon for these 20.000.


Tribesmen would call it WORLD JEWISH CONSPIRACY. I never belied it but TRIBESMEN OPENED MY EYES.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just wondering Seamus , from the time of the underdog when your president was wondering about what to do with the seemingly impossible situation of carting off a large number of people to where they were not wanted and making them at home...what was it he said was inevitable about the underdog when he got a seat at the head of the table ?

Don't know that one Tribes'. Please give us the quotation.

I assure you, as an American raised in the latter 60s and early 70s, I'm not mis-representing the mindset of most Yanks on this issue -- even if they're beliefs not well grounded in fact.