Ehud Olmert, in an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's most popular daily (via the NYRB):

At the moment, I'd like to do some soul-searching on behalf of the nation of Israel.... In a few years, my grandchildren will ask what their grandfather did, what kind of country we have bequeathed them. I said it five years ago, in an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth, and I'll say it to you today: we have a window of opportunity—a short amount of time before we enter an extremely dangerous situation—in which to take a historic step in our relations with the Palestinians and a historic step in our relations with the Syrians. In both instances, the decision we have to make is the decision we've spent forty years refusing to look at with our eyes open.

We must make these decisions, and yet we are not prepared to say to ourselves, "Yes, this is what we must do." We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, meaning a withdrawal from nearly all, if not all, of the [occupied] territories. Some percentage of these territories would remain in our hands, but we must give the Palestinians the same percentage [of territory elsewhere]—without this, there will be no peace.

The ironies are enough to make you cry.

Violence violence violence.
Madness madness madness.
Wall Street Wall Street Wall Street.
Bush Bush Bush.

Change change change!

bravo on your post

what I would underline is how we, the United States, has been a hindrance to peace there, not a help. Bush I made real efforts in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (James Baker took on Israel), and so did Clinton, of course. But Bush II? Condi? What a piss poor record.

I am uninterested in doing any soul-searching on behalf of the nation of Israel, which I respect as a foreign country friendly to the United States but nothing more than that.

The question I would pose is how the national interests of the United States are engaged in the question of who governs what part of the West Bank of the Jordan River. The easy answer is that they are not. The more difficult issue is how the United States should respond to "unhelpful" (in the diplomatic phrase) actions taken by the citizens and government of a nation with which it is widely identified by virtue of -- among other things -- the very substantial yearly subsidy it gives that nation for other reasons.

In the recent past the American government has responded by letting the Israeli government do whatever it wanted, without passing judgement. The reasons for this touch on domestic politics, of course, but this course of action is profoundly harmful to the regional interests of the United States -- which, and I beg pardon for putting it this way, are the only interests that matter.

No American interest is served by Jewish settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan River. No American interest ever has been. It is the obligation of the Israeli government to conform its policies in this area to American preferences, not Washington's obligation to make excuses to the world every time some zealous Jewish group decides it needs to follow some obscure half-interpreted Old Testament prophesy by taking Arab land from the people who live on it now. We'll see if the incoming Obama administration takes a firm view of promoting American interests, or whether it continues the Bush administration's course of identifying those with the views of one faction in the politics of a foreign country.

Settler shooting three Palestinians in Gaza. They've gone wild.
I'm reminded of the battle between the primates in 2001.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/midtosten/artikkel.php?artid=555098

Israel is losing legitimacy as a polity. It really has become a rogue nation, with nukes.
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/midtosten/artikkel.php?artid=555098

I went to look up the meaning of pogrom, here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pogrom

Etymology:
Yiddish, from Russian, literally, devastation
Date: 1903
: an organized massacre of helpless people ; specifically : such a massacre of Jews

For this pogrom, the last item could be rewritten:

an organized massacre of helpless people ; specifically : such a massacre by Jews

Couldn't find a US version for the video linked above. According to the commentary it shows settlers and Palestinians quarreling, with one settler in the end firing his gun at three Palestinians.

Here's a YouTube collection from "settler shoots Palestinians"

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=settler+shoots+palestinians&search_type=&aq=f

The situation is completely untenable, and if you ever should gain access to Gaza, you will come away disgusted at what is going on, and at the complicity of the West in how the population there is treated. This is not a question of being for or against Israel, but of seeing Israel lose all legitimacy as a nation state, due to the rabid measures adopted by its radical fringes.

I used to be a big supporter of Israel. But their behavior has made me rethink that position. I can no longer make excuses for them. My brother had this position: "all the Israelis and Palestinians should should be given AK-47s and be forced to fight each other. And whoever is left should then be killed." That's sounding more reasonable every day. But I'm still not going there. But I will go here: Cut off all funding for Israel until they decide to either bring the occupied territories into the country with full citizenship and voting rights, or pull out and let them form their own country. For Israel, the latter is the only option. If they do the former, Israel becomes a majority Muslim nation. But, hey, it's their decision.

Good god. I read stories like this and I am just sickened. Injustice and brutality are never right. Never.

Thanks for printing this tread, and thanks for not taking any sides.

I am thanking you for this, because, I notice our news media is pro-Israel no matter what. We tend to get just news nipits, then people think all Americans are dumb. For the most part it's true, but, not through any fault of our own.

A few years ago, I set out to do research on my own to try to understand why people from the Middle East, as Bush likes to say, hate Americans. I was even more determined after I traveled to Italy in 2005. I got lost looking for Corso Buenes Aires - the big shopping street in Milan. I ran into a guy from Pakistan. As soon as I opened my mouth, he recognized my American accent. He said to me with such anger and hatred (you can see it in his face, and hear it in his voice), "You're American. I hate America. I've never been and I never will."

So, anyway, I bought two documentaries that brought me to tears
1) Death in Gaza - James Miller. This filmmaker was killed by Israeli troops while waving his white flag, and had T.V. on his helmet while trying to document the violence in Palestine. It shows how kids are fired upon while at school. It has hospital scenes where families were gassed, causing muscle spasms, a U.N. person talks about how the Israelis continue to violate the Geneva Conventions.....
2) Gaza Strip - James Longley. How kids are wanting to become suicide bombers. One kid picked up a boxing glove filled with explosives, allegedly left by an Israeli, it exploded and blew out the kid's intestines.

These documentaries brought me to sobbing tears, because I had no clue what was really happening in Palestine.

Still, I don't side with either, but, the situation there is grim.

BTW, here is the Ha'aretz source for the excerpt quoted in the post:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1043795.html

"An innocent Palestinian family, numbering close to 20 people. All of them women and children, save for three men. "

Sounds more like a Malthusian disaster to me.

Gee Matt....maybe that "family" includes multiple generations, forced to live together in a small space by the circumstances of Palestinian restrictions.

I am not favoring one side or the other, but "20 people living together" could include everyone from patriarchs down to newborn infants crossing three generations -- whether Israeli, Palestinian or American.

Matt Young, that's not nice. Besides, you don't know if some of the children are grandchildren. Besides, we have that going on here in America. I don't want to name the congregation or the states!!!!

Have you been to Ghaza, Matt?

With people crammed into what space is available, that has not been set off as security zones? With the male population having been decimated (at the best); with widows and children without fathers filling desperate for protection, and seeking that with kin?

Once, in Italy, I was offered an opportunity to go to Sarajevo and shoot people with a sniper rifle. Seriously - in a night club in Milan, I was told that this "entertainment" was being offered for a few hundred dollars, to people who wished to see "what it was like."

Ghaza and the West Bank, today, have attained a similar evil, in the hands of an irrationally expansionist Israel, which can only succeed by the same atrocity that was committed against Jews by Germany.

How quickly the Jewish people forget. This "chosen people" crap has not gone to their heads I hope for they must seek peaceful solutions which involves compromise and not the thinking of a select chosen group if there is to be any progress. These young Jews are acting like racists bringing death and destruction down on innocent people.

Like the "Star Trek" episode where the people fighting to the death had black and white faces but one side was black on the left side of the face and the other on the right side. The US is asked..."can't you see the difference?" when both sides act like terrorists...and for what?

The entire world grows weary of such behavior, when the differences could so easily be settled for the sake of peace. I'm so sick of Americans viewing the Jewish people as innocent bystanders.

I appreciate this post because it is showing the reality...that right wing Jewish ideals can include terrorizing women and children with death and destruction simply because they are not Jewish. In the long run it is extremely self destructive creating fear and hatred...and shame.

Joey, your right, Americans are view Jewish people as innocent bystanders.

However, from what I've learned, it is happening on both sides.

For instance, the documentaries I listed above, Gaza Strip, there was a 3-year-old little girl being taught to hate Jews - She called them "pigs," and specifically said she hated them.

None of the documentaries shows the Rafah refugee camps. However, it does quite a few scenes in the hospitals where children were coming in from being shot by Israeli troops, it goes to a couple of funerals, it even goes to a couple of hideouts for terrorists groups where the kids are taught how to hold weapons and are being recruited for terrorist acts. Kids dropping out of school to sell newspapers to feed their families.

Not to mention, the documentaries I listed above does not show how the Palestineans have no birthplace/citizenship - however, if they get to Syria like through a marriage, they can never come back to Palestine. Nor does it mention, when a suspected terrorist is in prison, only kids and women can visit. No fathers, brothers, uncles, no adult males.

It gets pretty deep. Because these people are without any hope - in fact, in "Death in Gaza," a young girl about 12 years old talks of dying because she felt she had nothing to look forward to.

Palin has turned out to be the biggest liar around. She's lied from the first day of the campaign and continues today to be a major party hypocrite. No wonder she is a star in the republican party...these are the non-virtues they live by...secrecy, cover up, and misinformation, followed by outright lying. Integrity proof.

Your obligatory disclaimer is a sham, since only Israeli sympathizers could threaten you or your reputation in any possible way. It has long since become clear that, in the USA, no one - NO ONE - gives a shit what the Palestinians think or how much they suffer. As far as the US government is concerned, the Palestinians are nothing more than a bunch of sand niggers. Full stop.

rbel,

That is one of the reasons the U.S. as well as its citizens are targets of some of the terrorists groups.

On the one hand, they cite the U.S.'s stance with Israel, on the other hand, they cite the entire foreign policy.

You can sit up and make racial slurs, have a nonchalant attitude, but this is real, this is no joke. Make no mistake in the matter.

This isn't about "taking sides,' Hilzoy; it's about Israelis, by their actions, earning the right to be awarded Swaztikas---and Israelis, by their inactions, doing the same. It's as if these idiots have opened a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf, memorized the plethora of lies he told about the Jewish People, and then declared that "they didn't want to make Hitler out to be a liar."

And make no dancing-around-the-issue spinnings about it---the IDF, police, and politicians who sat and did nothing about this are, by their explicit inaction to either prevent or intercede, guilty of crimes against humanity. The fact that "others have done such to Jews" is never an excuse; it is the act of a coward, and only lends additional street-cred to the various hate-peddlers on the other side of the issue.

Tel Aviv has a choice: It can either curtail these acts of domestic terror committed by its own People and execute meaningfully-harsh penalties against the perpetrators of such acts, or it can acknowledge that the day will come when an Islamic group does, indeed, acquire a nuclear weapon; that such a weapon is deployed against it and destroys it; that a majority of the world will say with righteous indignation that "it got what it deserved...."

Period.

My great-grandfather Jacob brought his family out of Russia nearly a century ago so as to not be on the receiving end of exactly this sort of thing.

The old man must be rolling in his grave.

Considering the historical definition of the word pogrom, it seems wildly misleading and disingenuous to use the word in a situation where not a single Palestinian was killed.

I mean this both to Hilzoy and the original Haaretz article.

[And if there have been any subsequent reports where one or two Palestinians were killed, I would still consider the term pogrom inappropriate.]

That's just it, I saw something earlier this year, that Israel indeed had some young/teen skinheads from Germany causing chaos there.

But that's not the only thing. Apparently, the Israelis have been bringing in immigrants from China to work for cheap wages - if they try to run away and get caught, the Israeli denies having anything to do with the immigrant and refuses to pay the last wages.

People do not know what's really going on over there - it's a mess.

For instance, the Palestinians sometimes go without clean drinking water - the Israelis refuse to let them build new water wells.

And the children, they hold alot of hate, hostility, dispair. And the thing of it is, yes, the Israelis have a lot of expensive firepower, but the Palestinians make bombs out of literally nothing and cause just as much damage.

For instance, the Palestinians sometimes go without clean drinking water - the Israelis refuse to let them build new water wells.

And the children, they hold alot of hate, hostility, dispair. And the thing of it is, yes, the Israelis have a lot of expensive firepower, but the Palestinians make bombs out of literally nothing and cause just as much damage.

I wonder how many Israelis lack access to safe drinking water.

If another country occupied the U.S., and prevented us from obtaining clean drinking water for our children, I expect a whole lot of people would be throwing bombs at the occupiers. There's no moral equivalence here.

Let's do this again, to get all the quoted stuff in italics:

For instance, the Palestinians sometimes go without clean drinking water - the Israelis refuse to let them build new water wells.

And the children, they hold alot of hate, hostility, dispair. And the thing of it is, yes, the Israelis have a lot of expensive firepower, but the Palestinians make bombs out of literally nothing and cause just as much damage.

I wonder how many Israelis lack access to safe drinking water.

If another country occupied the U.S., and prevented us from obtaining clean drinking water for our children, I expect a whole lot of people would be throwing bombs at the occupiers. There's no moral equivalence here.

Low-TECH Cy,

My post was to follow-up on Steve W.

What's your point?

@Anjell

You write: For instance, the Palestinians sometimes go without clean drinking water - the Israelis refuse to let them build new water wells.
Posted by: Annjell on December 6, 2008 at 6:04 AM

Actually, the Israelis, as official policy, have restricted the depth to which the Palestinians can drill, when searching for water -- while allowing their settlers to sink as many and as deep wells as they wish.

It's beyond reprehensible, it is indefensible, and when I found out, I began actively working against Israel's interests, at every legal opportunity that presents itself.

SteinL,

Thanks for understanding what I was saying. I was pretty much following a post by Steve W., but adding the fact, that there are a lot of things going on over there, which Americans, me included have no clue about.

Yes, I spoke of the Rafah refugee camp, but there's also Dheisheh, Jenin. I really feel sad for the Palestinians, however, sometimes their actions doesn't make it better. On the other hand, I'm not in their shoes, yet I still have empathy for them.

@Anjell,

If you corner a dog, taunt it and starve it, then it will lash out when it sees a chance, in desperation.

That's where the Palestinians find themselves today. Ironically, the Israelis have placed them selv in the exact same position, due to their racist unwillingness to reach any sensible accommodation with the Palestinians or with the surrounding Arab nations.

The nation of Israel is doomed on its present course.

SteinL,

I hope nothing like that happens. But, I think you're right. I notice almost all the Arab countries point that out. They say they can't trust the U.S. because of strong ties to Israel.

I can just say it's sad to see the kids going through all of this.

We have this nuclear weapons expert A.Q. Kahn in Pakistan. No one knows how many countries he sold information to. We gave Pakistan Nuclear, then traded Nuclear with India for Mangoes. Yet, Russia is coming through the back door to India to help with some type of nuclear program.

I wasn't too interested in Foreign Affairs until a few years ago. But, it always affect us here, one way or another.

With India, since most of our financial institutions have moved customer service there, and our computer/internet services.

But back to Israel, they are surrounded by Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, wow, their in a bad spot!

Everyone is amazingly well trained.

No actual discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict can ever be had.

SteinL,

Here's a question, I know of two instances where either U.S. or British journalists killed by Israelis trying to expose the violence in Palestine. And there's quite a few that say they were shot at, is this common there - is this like a coverup? If so why? the U.N., the U.S.,the Red Cross and other humanitaries groups have been there, and/or know about the problems there.

Annjell,
I stand by everything I said. Prove me wrong.

Re this>>An innocent Palestinian family, numbering close to 20 people. All of them women and children, save for three men. "

Sounds more like a Malthusian disaster to me.

I don't know who those 20 people are, but there is no question Israelis tend to have very few kids and Palestinians often have huge families. So jumping on Matt for saying this isn't fair. He may be totally accurate.

And when Israel left the West bank, they left some sort of hydroponic garden business for the Palestinians to take over. The Palestinians smashed it. That the Palestinians have been kicked out by Arab countries does not speak too well for them, either.

Plenty of fault to be found on each side.

Looks like there is plenty of stereotypical bias and racial animus to go around as well.

rbe1: "Your obligatory disclaimer is a sham, since only Israeli sympathizers could threaten you or your reputation in any possible way."

Not true. For one thing, I'm not worried about threats, just about preempting pointless arguments that turn on false assumptions about me. For another, I have written posts in which I have faulted some Arabs, the way in this post I faulted some Israelis. Lots of people decided to tell me I was a dupe of the Israeli-slanted media, that Israelis had done far worse, that for that reason the Palestinians could not be expected to be decent human beings, etc., etc., etc. In my experience, it's definitely not one-sided.

hilzoy: "Not true. For one thing, I'm not worried about threats, ..."
Really, I wasn't assuming that you are concerned about physical threats (that's just the way everyone thinks these days in the Collective Paranoia of America). No, I meant that there is no voice with any volume in the US for the point of view of the Palestinians. Consequently, no one is in a position to rebut the Israeli point of view, in any form. And I will stand by my assertion in this regard that the US government has adopted a position that the Palestinians are for all practical purposes just worthless scum. I'll begin to believe otherwise as soon as I see some evidence that the foreign policy apparatus of the US stops acting out kissing the Israelis' collective ass.

I wonder if some of the negotiations between Obama and H. Clinton before she was offered and accepted the position of Sec. of State were about Israel. Obama is a strategic thinker so I'm sure he sees the need to address the problem of the settlements as crucial to going anywhere toward addressing the the larger Palestinian-Israeli issue, which, in turn, is essential to working toward better Arab and American relationships including a way to address the Arab part of the Muslim connection to international terrorism.

If Obama and Clinton came to some agreement already about how to approach the Palestinian/Isreali problem, then I'd love to hear what the nature of the agreement is. Maybe over the next year we will find out.

So.

The difference between the Israeli settlers and the Nazis in Germany is what?

As near as I can tell, the Israeli settlers do not have a Hitler.

Yet.

Despite everything, the Palestinians hang on. At the same time, the position of the right wing Israelis is now unacceptable in any civilized area of the world, which now have educated Muslims in abundance to counteract the propaganda that worked in years past.

Let's remember that these "Jews" are Americans. They are specifically followers of the Nazi Kach movement. It's unsurprising that they'd finally become open storm troopers. They have beem doing things like this for years - burning down olive groves, killing animals, beating up Palestinians. This is the same bunch that "Doctor" Bernard Goldberg came from - the little Nazi who opened fire on worshippers in the Cave of the Martyrs 14 years ago.

The Israelis should never have let these scum into their country to begin with.

You should not have included that disclaimer.

It narrows the terms of the debate.

I note that it appears in no other post about any other part of the world or subject, and it reeks of fear.

Inhuman behavior is just that, no matter the perpetrators. Feeling as if you must include some form of disclaimer yields the high ground to those who use the cry of antisemitism as the stick to beat everyone else into conformation with their narrow parameters of discussion and understanding of a really complex mess.

I note in your post about the riots in Pakistan no such disclaimer is included. Why feel the need to include it in a post condemning radical Israeli settlers who are engaged in similar, law breaking, rioting, and attempted murder?

to Michael C:
Thank you. In europe, nearly everyone is very afraid to speak out against the thugs in Israel because the Israelis have made it abundantly clear that to oppose zionism is completely equivalent to being an anti-semite.
To Hilzoy: The facts as they appear to me are that there were people living in Palestine before the governments of the western world decided to give their land to Jews who came from somewhere else. I don't recall reading anywhere that anyone asked the Palestinians what they thought of this idea, or how they felt about having their villages razed to the ground, renamed, and planted over with trees, but maybe I missed that part. I don't see why the guilt of the western world was translated into allowing american Jews to move to the new state, as I don't recall that american Jews were being persecuted in the USA, but maybe I missed that one too. For my part, I am completely fed up with having my government bow down to a bunch of miscreants who treat their inherited indigenous population like dirt under their feet. Yes Hilzoy, you can say that there have been atrocities on both sides, but you can't say that the Palestinians came from somewhere else to stir it all up. Or perhaps that's another part of the history I missed.

Great disclaimer, SB.

My allegiance has switched back and forth as one side acts better or more abominably. I want this BS to stop. I firmly believe that God is never happy with the suffering of any of his children.

The withdraw from Gaza had be siding with Israel.
This threatens my support.

How about it Israel? Ready to back up your recent gestures?

This vitriolic filth that is being passed off as criticism of Israel and "informed" opinion on the conflict lacks context, objectivity, and any basis in fact. Words are loaded, use them carefully.

It's a terrible situation, and both sides are quilty of unforgiveable acts - as they continue in their death spiral.

We won't find a solution until we open up for a full and free debate - today, there are too many taboo markers, from both sides, these must be removed.

Obama/Biden have clearly stated that they believe in a two-state solution, and that this will be a priority from day 1 of their administration.
Getting Rahm Emanuel as CoS will give the pro-Israel lobby an assurance that they will be tapped in - while Obama gets Nixon in China "got your back" cover from Rahm, from a strong lobby that would otherwise sabotage his efforts at reaching an agreement between the parties.

Clinton has joined his administration because as SecStqate she will gain tremendous credit if she is able to achieve an accord between Israel and Palestinians/the Arab world on this issue.

For this reason, I'm hopeful. But the settlers are rabidly trying to move the situation past any kind of discussion and into open confrontation and war ...

The Israeli settler extremists are such psychopaths for two reasons. One, they are empowered by the pathology of belief in a "word of God" which they imagine gives them the right to do just about anything to get what they have been "promised." Two, they are coddled by a Right-wing Israeli and US clique of neocon/Likudniks who reject any serious critique of Israeli/s misconduct as "anti-Semitism" etc. (ironic in that Arabs are "Semites" as well, just a different branch as metaphoricized by their combined veneration of Abraham as a patriarchal ancestor.)

R Eisenberg: "This vitriolic filth that is being passed off as criticism of Israel and "informed" opinion on the conflict lacks context, objectivity, and any basis in fact"
This statement looks to be a statement without any underlying substantiation. If you're going to make such a statement, back it up with specifics; otherwise you deserve to be ignored in the current discussion. Many of the comments here are not being passed off as criticisms of Israel. They are criticisms of Israel.

Michael C: "You should not have included that disclaimer.

It narrows the terms of the debate.

I note that it appears in no other post about any other part of the world or subject, and it reeks of fear."

Actually, it reeks of boredom. I hate the usual I/P arguments.

rbe1: It's actually a lot more complicated than that. Leaving aside the Jews who have been in Palestine forever, the earlier settlers generally bought their land fair and square. They didn't just come to Palestine on a whim; they were fleeing persecution. Nor did they start the war in 1948, or 1967, or 1972.

They absolutely did bad things during that time. They evicted Arabs from their land, left Arab villages underdeveloped, did not give full civil rights to Arab Israelis, and then, of course, occupied the West Bank. But it's not right to describe them as having just dropped in to cause problems. That is, I think, an accurate description of some of the settlers -- the ones who decided, for reasons that are a mystery to me, that they absolutely had to leave their homes in (say) Illinois and move into the middle of Hebron. But not of Israelis as a whole.

rbe1: Your simplistic and flawed approach to the conflict (i.e. pretending it began in 1948 and forgetting the Arab part of the Arab-Israeli conflict) reeks of anti-intellectualism. You backed none of your assertions up, yet you expect me to provide you with sources. Wisdom isn't always in crowds, friend. And threatening the opposition won't help further intellectual discourse.

Well, some degree (I know not just how much) but "Israel" is fighting the settler-nuts to some extent, hence the summary:

"Israel took its strongest action against Jewish settlers in nearly three years Thursday as riot police stormed a disputed building in Hebron, using tear gas and stun grenades to force out 250 young extremists bent on expanded Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

After losing a swift afternoon battle, settlers struck back into the night with gunfire and arson attacks on Palestinians in this troubled city and other parts of the West Bank, raising tensions between Israel and the Palestinian Authority."

OK Roei, we know that both sides have flubbed up. This article (as Hilzoy explains) just happens to be about some Israelis, and BTW is an internal conflict not just "Israeli policy" as a monolith. All we are asking is, admit it's a creepy way to do things. You don't have to soft-pedal wrongs by Palestinians of which there are many (but their little people are suffering here, not the big-time terror agitators.)

BTW opposing Israeli/s' conduct is not equivalent to opposing "Zionism", since the latter simply means for Jews to have a homeland in the region originally agreed to (roughly, "pre-1967 borders") and which is OK with me and most US politicans on the real-left (if not the far left) and right. But anyone's conduct is subject to critique, including our own nation of course as many of us have been critiquing.

Neil: Why did you put Israel in quotes? And why are you putting words in my mouth? I have no problem criticizing the Israeli government for their missteps. I also understand the problems facing Palestinians. I made no assertions about any of these. I simply noted the distortions about the conflict made in the discussion above.

Also Zionism, which also doesn't require quotes, is a concept that you have horrifically misdefined and has nothing to do with 20th century borders.

TCinLA and now Hilzoy, you're right to point to how many of these people are Americans, a crucial point that often is forgotten. And I say "are" because they can maintain dual citizenship, unlike most citizens by birth who take up foreign citizenship.

But I don't believe they're from Illinois. I think the overwhelming number is from metro New York. Some combination of events began happening in that specific place in the 60s to create a really murderous nutso faction that linked up with the Likud and the real far-right crazies after Likud took over.

This connection is a good reason why it matters to the US what happens over there, incidentally. Our nationals, and dual nationals, are right at the spearhead of these events.

rbe1,

I owe my apologies to you. I have read your comments above.

I get it, you try to be brief and to the point. Whereas, my post are kinda lenghthy in order to try not to leave anything to the imagination or misconceptions.

I have no reason or room to challenge you. It would be a baseless argument.

Hilzoy,

Again, thanks for this thread. Although a few may disagree, the majority agree. This is necessary, and should have been done by you.

I think it's time that there is open dialog about events happening around the world.

There will always be people who disagree about what is said, for instance politics, GOP vs. Dems, abortion, gay marriage, church.

At the same time, this is good, we express on concerns, ask questions, and learn from others. Oh, I wouldn't worry about the disclaimer issue, to me it's a dead issue. In essence, there's no grounds for argument whether you should have or not.

to R. Eisenberg: re "Your simplistic and flawed approach to the conflict ..."
My comments involving the history of the area ran to three or four sentences (enough for a blog), whereas your sarcasm runs to only three sentences. So why don't you write us a dissertation on the history (at least one sentence, please) of the area and enlighten us ? And by the way, ala John McCain, I'm not your friend.
To Hilzoy: it's staggering that you would not see the three wars beginning in 1948 as a direct result of the occupation of the area lived in by Palestinians. Talk about simplifying. And you should go back and read what I wrote. I don't recall having said that there were no Jews who rightfully emigrated to the area from europe after the second war. If you're going to imply that my arguments are simple-minded, at least have the courtesy to read them first.

Hilzoy: "Actually, it reeks of boredom. I hate the usual I/P arguments."

So do I.

Your disclaimer, no offense, seemed obligatory in a way that drives me nuts when the subject is in any way related to (or central to) the Israeli/Palestinian conundrum.

It just strikes me as pre-emptively apologetic, and a fair discussion of these events shouldn't require any reasonable person to feel compelled to issue one.

Well, Michael C - speaking out does have its consequences.

Ask Juan Cole, proposed for a professorship at Princeton, he was effectively kept from the job due to his analysis and reporting from the ME, which to my eye stands as some of the most incisive and perceptive to be found.

I agree with you, but I also know (from personal experience) that speaking without bias on this topic has its professional perils.

rbe1: Your comments are flawed. And since you need a reminder as to why, I will briefly provide it. From your post above:

"The facts as they appear to me are that there were people living in Palestine before the governments of the western world decided to give their land to Jews who came from somewhere else."

Here you deny the very basic fact of the First and Second Aliyot, in which, starting from the 1880s, Jews immigrated to Israel and rightfully purchased land. And you deny the continued Jewish presence in Israel for three-thousand years.

"I don't recall reading anywhere that anyone asked the Palestinians what they thought of this idea... but maybe I missed that part."

I see you forgot that the British appointed Haj Amin al-Husseini the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the spiritual and political leader of Muslims in Palestine. And that both the Peel Commission and the UN Resolutions both called for a two-state solution. The former enacted viciously anti-Semitic policies, and the latter were denied by Palestinians as feasible solutions.

"I don't see why the guilt of the western world was translated into allowing american Jews to move to the new state, as I don't recall that american Jews were being persecuted in the USA, but maybe I missed that one too."

You should also familiarize yourself with the Jewish demographics of the state of Israel. The Holocaust caused a bi-polar axis of Jewish life, with many more Jews choosing to seek shelter in American than in Israel. In fact, tensions between American Jewry and the Israeli government were at an all time high in the following decade as Ben Gurion tried his best to recruit young American Jews.

"For my part, I am completely fed up with having my government bow down to a bunch of miscreants who treat their inherited indigenous population like dirt under their feet."

For my part, I am completely fed up with being told by people who instigated the largest genocide in world history, who occupied a land by brute force and treated its indigenous population with a lack of respect I wouldn't show to a cockroach, that Israel, which time and time again puts its own soldiers at risk in order to minimize Palestinian casualties, somehow ranks lower on the morality scale.

So, in conclusion, rbe1, your four to five sentences were more fraught with inaccuracies than mine were with "sarcasm".