Resistance: Moral or Murder?

03/13/2007

If you like this post - click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.us	Add to digg - digg it

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000575.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.

by Moderator @ 04:28 PM CST [Link]

Replies: 29 comments

As usual, this essay from Ami Isseroff is thoughtful, nuanced, and
morally clear-sighted. The most important point to explore further,
I think, is this:

"If there were hundreds of thousands of Palestinians peacefully
demonstrating for their own state and for peace it would be an
effective and moral act."

To move forward, I think we need to understand why non-violent
resistance--though it has occured--has not been a defining feature of
the conflict (or has it been more pervasive than most of us know?).
Several questions need to be addressed here:

* What factors in Palestinian society, culture, and politics have
constrained non-violent resistance or tended to channel "resistance"
into violence? Are there ways that Palestinians or others interested
in promoting non-violent resistance could address these factors?

* What factors in the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis
have had the same effects? Have Israeli state policies contributed
to a perception among Palestinians that non-violent resistance is
ineffective? Are there ways that Israeli state or non-state actors
could more effectively encourage the non-violent expression of
Palestinian grievances and demands?

* What factors internationally have had the same effects? If the
international media, the US government, or others gave more attention
to non-violent Palestinian resistance, for example, would that help?

Have any historians, social scientists, or others addressed such
questions?

Barry Lyons

Posted by Barry Lyons @ 03/13/2007 06:25 PM CST

Thanks.
Some of these factors you raise have been addressed, though often in
self-serving ways that generate heat rather than light.

For example, right wing advocates will insist that "all Palestinians are
terrorists" because "Islam is inherently violent" (message of David Horowitz
and Frontpage Magazine). Palestinian supporters on the so-called left will
insist that Israeli policies "made the Palestinians desperate" or gave them no
choice. But Israeli policies are irrelevant if they are appealing to world
opinion. If there are really brutal Israeli reactions to nonviolence as these
people claim, it would help their case.

I believe that I once wrote that in this war, the side that kills the least
number of people will win.

As a question for thought, what would happen if the PA police got organized,
and a bunch of them went out and evacuated an illegal outpost?? These outposts
are illegal according to Israeli law, and Israel promised to remove them.
Would IDF try to stop them? what would USA say? What if they just threatened
to do it if the outposts are not removed??

Cheers,
Ami

Posted by Ami Isseroff @ 03/13/2007 06:59 PM CST

Barry and Ami,

A few years ago I was heavily active in the Israeli peace movement and I pushed a lot for non violent resistence and tried to examine the options. I can answer your questions:

1. The Palestinians. There were a few localized and temporary attempts at non-violent resistence. The longest running is the one in Bil'in against the fence. I attended a few, but not Bil'in.

There were several flaws with these attempts as far as the Palestinians are concerned:
- these were localized small time effort and did not have support by major Palestinian players. We are unlikely to see Abu-Mazen walking between the roadblock of the West Bank facing the soldiers unarmed.
- The Palestinian attitute toward non violence is instrumental. It is not presented as an alternative to violence, it does not contain a message of peace and non violence, it's only a tool. Compare this to Martin Luther King and Gahndi whose method was opposition to violence as well as oppression.
- Violence has been the accepted norm, and even practicioners of non violence dare not really question it outright. And if they do they are very marginalized.
- I have seen the Palestinians use non-violence against the fence (which protects Israelis from the uncriticized suicide bombings), and in support of the prisoners (who got there for violence). Both these issues are significant to the Palestinians but are unlikely to appeal to Israelis. Land annexation and access to farm land also means little to the rest of the world, most of which are not farmers. The issues of olive harvesting and opposition to settlers violence had more appeal.
- The tone of non violence is militant and nationalistic. I attended a large demonstration shortly after the begining of defensive wall operation to which many Israelis came. There were gigantic Palestinian flags, and chants supporting the Hizbulla. The only Israeli flags were on the signs of Gush Shalom. It is impossible for the Palestinians to present themselves as non-violent when violence is the norm.
- The Palestinians do not examine themselves. They have their own image of themselves, in which they view themselves as non-violent. Needless to say, everybody else doesn't buy it, even if there are a few smal attempts.
- The localized nature of the demonstrations, the fact that they are isolated distant events prevents them from getting any attention, especially considering the competition for attention by the violent people. This also makes it easy for the army to disperse demonstrations without much notice.
- The Palestinians are not disciplined or trained, the demonstrations look more like riots, with demonstrators yelling at soldiers, and you can never be sure that some kids will not start throwing stones. The Israeli Army has been able to present the demonstrations in Bil'in as a clash between soldiers and rioters in which both sides received injuries, and this description is not completely false, although I believe the army tries always to spin things that way.
- The Palestinians are not savvy. Non violence is not only demonstrations without violence; they are dramatic events meant to capture attention. They require understanding of the method by the people using it, so if treated with violence by the other side they are not discouraged. But what does a Palestinian kid see: a bunch of vilagers with large flags marching and being easily dispersed by soldiers without anyone outside noticing -- violence seems more appealing. Non-Violence is not magic, it requires as much tactical awareness and strategy as any other method.

2) The Israelis:
- The Palestinians are isolated from each other by the Israeli army, so concerted efforts seem impossible.
- The Israeli army controls the flow of information so a demonstration seen by nobody except the participants and dispersed easily by the army who then presents it as a violent riot. Nobody knowns, nobody cares. Why should they?
- The Israeli people think of the Palestinians as violent (I wonder why), so they are not view even the non-violent events as non-violent, but only as a cynical tool and a threat.
- I believed that if the Israeli left mounted non-violence of their own, and that non-violence worked and got attention, it would influence the Palestinians too. But the left was too afraid to do it, and not clever enough to do it well -- as far as message and tactics are concerned -- when they did. The more radical groups who did try non-violence, were so busy being radical that they weren't even trying to engage the Israeli people or even the moderate left. In a meeting for a joint Israeli-Palestinian demonstration Uri Avneri suggested that there should be Israeli flags too and was pretty much overruled by the more radical members. When Uri Avneri is the most right wing person in a room you have a problem. Radical groups that go to Palestinian demonstrations to stroke the ego of the Palestinians, who make moderate Israelis feel as uncomfortable as possible, and who do nothing to present an Israeli voice are pretty much worthless if you're interested in affecting Israeli and international public opinion. Today, after the settlers used non-violence for its own immoral ends, the Israeli peace camp probably cannot use this method without seeming pathetic.

3) The Media is drawn to bombs and violence, not small time demonstrations in distant places. But it is the job of the political groups to engage the attention of the media.

"As a question for thought, what would happen if the PA police got organized,
and a bunch of them went out and evacuated an illegal outpost?? These outposts
are illegal according to Israeli law, and Israel promised to remove them.
Would IDF try to stop them? what would USA say? What if they just threatened
to do it if the outposts are not removed??"

The Israeli army would see it as a violent attack against Israelis, and this is how it will be presented by the Israeli media. Since violence will ensue , both because of the Israeli response and the Palestinian lack of discipline, and the Palestinians have not established an image of non violence, except in their own minds, the world media will see it as a violent clash too. Only if civilian, clearly unarmed and disciplined, having prepared the media before hand, will march to the settlements, than maybe it will have impact.

Posted by Micha @ 03/17/2007 05:40 PM CST

It is true that violence begets violence, and with each violent act the cycle continues with neither side willing or able to break it. Many just look on helplessly recognising the cycle, but assuming that were a break possible that it would be universally welcomed. But....

Violence and hatred are wonderful tools for control. In the violent environment we huddle together in our tribal groups for protection. We make incremental adjustments to our moral perception, and soon it's OK to kill the other. In our fear we soon learn to justify the brutal punishment of transgressors within our fold... they deserved it for being defeatist or collaborating. But in truth their crimes were probably nothing more than questionning the direction we have taken or trying to feed a family.

The men and women who are the tools in this cycle of violence have been taught perfectly to kill and to direct their hatreds. They know nothing else.

Then one day some fool dreams of peace. Peace that dreaded time when the killing stops; when the members of each tribe learn to see the members of the other tribes as people like themselves; when the farmer and the craftsman who have slaved hard to pay for the war ask for the chance to spend their hard earned money on themselves.
Is this not the nightmare of the warrior? If peace comes, oh if peace comes.. who will need the warrior? Who will pay the warrior? And what of his family and his life... no more the hero, just a future as an old mumbling man penniless in the corner retelling days of old glory that no one wants to here.

Far better my brothers in blood that we charge once more glorious against the enemy, against the eternal source of evil. And once more we earn our bread.. This is the world of warriors where the farmer and the craftsman cower in their homes.

Posted by Rod Davies @ 03/19/2007 09:38 PM CST

To go off at what may or may not be a tangent:-

"Nobody would claim that the acts of the French Maquis...against the Nazis were wrong...if the representatives of the occupied people have an agreement with the occupier, it is questionable whether they can subvert that agreement by claiming the right to "resistance."

Of course the Germans and the Vichy government precisely did call the Maquis "terrorists", (source "The Sorrow and the Pity") and the Vichy government itself was the result of an agreement with the occupier. Examples of non-violent resistance to the German occupation of France do not spring readily to mind.

Now, I'm certainly not going to start comparing the IDF to the Nazis, but neither is it reasonable to compare them to the British in India, whose aim was never to permanently displace the natives. Plus, non-violence was only a part of the story in India and considerably less in South Africa.

While I personally think a shift to non-violent action by the Palestinians would be a smart move, all political situations are different and to regard the form Palestinian resistance has taken as the primary problem seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

Finally, in a situation where IDF troops fire live rounds at children (and we do all know this happens) even liberal Israeli protests that "killing kids is wrong" are likely to ring a little hollow to Palestinian ears.

Posted by Spike @ 03/21/2007 02:19 PM CST

Incidentally, I saw a 2003 documentary called "Jeremy Hardy vs The Israeli Army" a couple of weeks back. The ISM organized a peaceful march through Bethlehem, consisting only of well-trained and disciplined foreign peace activists. An Israeli tank fired live rounds into the road in front of the march, sending several marchers to hospital with shrapnel wounds.

Posted by Spike @ 03/21/2007 02:24 PM CST

...and sorry to make three contributions where one would have sufficed, but the idea of PA police removing undoubtably armed settlers from illegal outposts by force without triggering a bloodbath and massive IDF reprisals seems pretty ludicrous. A peaceful Palestinian march on the outposts would have much the same effect, only perhaps with more Palestinian civilian casualties. A march to dismantle the outposts by ISRAELI peace activists would be a more appropriate route to take, it seems to me.

Posted by Spike @ 03/21/2007 02:29 PM CST

Spike, I assume that you are British or American. Suppose that one day an Iraqi holding a knife comes to you and says: "hello, I'm fighting the occupation in Iraq, would you mind if I take this knife and plunge it in your heart, as part of the struggle against the occupation, which certainly you support."

What is your reply? Do you simply open your arms and wait for the knife. After all, in India there was also violence, and the fact that he is going to stab you (or your loved ones, if you are indifferent to your own life) is certainly not the primary problem. Do you dare stand in the way of his completely justifiable -- though not smart, you'd rather he'd do something else, but it his his decision -- knife thrust? Blocking his knife thurst and subduing him will certainly be a brutal act of oppression that would be unconscionable for a man who truly opposes the occupation. He has the right of resistence doesn't he?

Posted by Micha @ 03/22/2007 09:19 PM CST

"Incidentally, I saw a 2003 documentary called "Jeremy Hardy vs The Israeli Army" a couple of weeks back. The ISM organized a peaceful march through Bethlehem, consisting only of well-trained and disciplined foreign peace activists. An Israeli tank fired live rounds into the road in front of the march, sending several marchers to hospital with shrapnel wounds."

Isn't the whole point of civil disobedience to stand non-violently in front of the violent reaction of the other side?

Imagine what would have happened if the marchers in the American south would have concluded that since their march was met with violence they should switch to violent resistence? But you know what, some of them did. The civil rights movement and the anti war movement were radicalized, and as a result they lost much of the support and energy.

"...and sorry to make three contributions where one would have sufficed, but the idea of PA police removing undoubtably armed settlers from illegal outposts by force without triggering a bloodbath and massive IDF reprisals seems pretty ludicrous. A peaceful Palestinian march on the outposts would have much the same effect, only perhaps with more Palestinian civilian casualties."

No, a non violent march might have been met with violence by the army, but not nearly as much violence as a violent attack against an illegal settlement. I've attended such demonstrations, and the army would have responded with tear gas, nightsticks, maybe rubber bullets, pushes and arrests. But this would be a success if the protestors were also tactically smart and made sure there was media coverage. But if they expect that the IDF will simply step aside because of the magic of them marching without weapons for a change, althogh they spent no time thinking of the tactics involved, they are in for a disappointment.

"A march to dismantle the outposts by ISRAELI peace activists would be a more appropriate route to take, it seems to me. "

Yes, and I've spent most of my time in Peace Now calling for just that. And we've come close to it by going several time to these settlements, staging protest. But the Israeli peace organizations lacked the leadership or smarts and courage to do it properly. And you know what, now it would seem pathetic. The Palestinian violence speaks more loudly than a small group of Israeli peace activists who do not have the imagination or the tactical mind to stage really effective civil disobedience.

"even liberal Israeli protests that "killing kids is wrong" are likely to ring a little hollow to Palestinian ears."

Not as hollow as the absense of similar Palestinian protests. Many Israeli peace organizations and activists worked hard during the Intifada to protest Israeli human rights violations and bring them to public awareness in the face of increasing suicide bombings. We had 3000 people assembled one Saturday with candles and signs with the number of dead, Jew and Arab (do protestors against Iraq even count the Iraqi casualties?), in Jerusalem a right wing city. We were already assembled for the march when we heard the explosion a few blocks away, in a synagogue. And you know what, we marched nevertheless, through the empty streets of a city -- emptied by suicide bombers. And it was working, awareness of human right violations was increasing. The Israeli peace camp crushed by the failure of Oslo were beginning to talk again about how the occupation was wrong. In an uphill battle they were able to even get Sharon to reconsider to occupation of Gaza -- not enough, but a major step. But eventually, many, except the most radical, grew sick of going to demonstrations that condemned Israeli violence but said little about the never ending Palestinian violence, while on the other side the Israeli violence was inflated and demonized while Palestinian violence was celebrated. People protested because they opposed the occupation,they opposed human rights violations, not because they wanted to become pawns of Palestinian propaganda, nor because they expected Israelis to open their arms wilingly to Palestinian violence.

Posted by Micha @ 03/22/2007 09:52 PM CST

Hello Micha

"Suppose that one day an Iraqi...says...would you mind if I take this knife and plunge it in your heart, as part of the struggle against the occupation, which certainly you support."

Since we have had several Islamic fundamentalists explode themselves on our public transport system in response to Iraq, there's no need to be hypothetical about this. I have no problem with self-defence, and I oppose terrorism as a tactic on principle, but I also know who started the cycle of violence which has put me at risk, and 7/7 didn't change my analysis.

"(do protestors against Iraq even count the Iraqi casualties?)"

As I'm sure you know there is a website dedicated to precisely that purpose.

You seem to be replying to points I wasn't aware I was trying to make. I have great respect for the Israeli peace movement, and for their Palestinian counterparts; I just think the root cause of the problem is not terrorism but dispossession and addressing that is the key. Terrorism provides a convenient excuse for not addressing it of course, and is counter-productive for that reason as well as wrong in itself. But where there is a genuine will for peace, terrorist acts will not be allowed to undermine that goal - the 1998 Omagh bomb would be a prime example.

Posted by Spike @ 03/23/2007 03:45 PM CST

"I also know who started the cycle of violence which has put me at risk, and 7/7 didn't change my analysis."

And I know who started our current cycle of violence. But I don't care. I'm not in kindergarden. I'm interested in how to end it. And the continued terrorism is a very important factor in solving that problem.

"I just think the root cause of the problem is not terrorism but dispossession and addressing that is the key"

No. The root cause of the problem is getting two peoples to live next to each other in mutual respect. When any side is unwilling to accept the other or treat it with respect, and instead treats it with violence and hatred, than the problem canno be solved. In that sense both terrorism and the occupation are the root cause of the problem. This is the point Ami was trying to make. By simply blaming it all on the Israelis while making excuses for the Palestinians you are not getting to the root of the problem at all.

"Terrorism provides a convenient excuse for not addressing it of course."

To say tyhat terrorism is an excuse is like saying that the occupation is an excuse. For some it is. But it is also a major and very real factor in this problem. Ignoring it will not only prevent you from helping solving the problem, it wil make you part of it.

"But where there is a genuine will for peace, terrorist acts will not be allowed to undermine that goal - the 1998 Omagh bomb would be a prime example."

But unfortunatly there is no real analogy between what is going on here and in Northern Ireland. Had the Irish behaved the way the Palestinians behaved there would be no peacein Northern Ireland.

There is no genuine will for peace either on the Israeli or the Palestinian side. It is all talk. (With the exception that in the Israeli case there is a known sizeable minority who does want peace, and another group that wants peace but does not comprehend the necessary price completely).

During the years of the Oslo accords 50% of Israelis were willing to treat the suicide bombings of the Hamas like Omagh, as the acts of an extremists minority, despite strong claims from the Israeli right that these acts represent all of the Palestinians and despite growing uneasiness about internal Palestinian attitudes. But in September 2000 that moment of faith went up in smoke together with the peace process.

"I have great respect for the Israeli peace movement, and for their Palestinian counterparts."

I only have a little respect for them. They have not proven they deserve more than that. Great respects is given to people who do great acts.

Posted by Micha @ 03/23/2007 06:30 PM CST

I think these last pieces by Ami have been great and also want to thank Micha for the posts on the experiences with Israeli peace groups. Reading these comments tends to leave me with more questions than answers, and as an American Jew, I certainly can’t claim any special understanding of the Arab/Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

Maybe because I’m a writer I put undue importance on words and how they are used. But it seems to me the language people use makes it even harder to resolve this difficult conflict. I agree that Israel will eventually have to leave most of the West Bank, but I sometimes think it’s a mistake to call the area the Occupied. Maybe calling the West Bank the “Disputed Territories” would make more sense.

Yes the Palestinians deserve their own state, and yes that the state will exists on the West Bank and Gaza. Still, repeatedly referring to the occupation, it makes it seem as if Jews have no claim on the West Bank. That’s not the case of course, but maybe since the land for peace equation seems like a forgone conclusion, people often assume Israel isn’t being asked to do anything but give up land it isn’t entitled to anyway. Referring to the area as occupied lets people – outside Israel and Jewish communities anyway – forget that in giving up the West Bank Israel is giving up Hebron, and (part of) Jerusalem, and a thousand other places where Jews have a deep and long-standing connection. In a way, these places are as “occupied” by the Palestinians as they are by the Israelis.

With the glorification of violence, with the attacks on civilians, with the resistance that seemingly has no goal other than resistance, it’s clear to me the Palestinians see themselves as fighting a war of decolonization, that they believe eventually, the Jews will pack up and go. I don’t know if they ever ask themselves “go where?” But the Jews aren’t colonizers and it’s impossible to occupy your own land. This misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict seems only to prolong it. (I know I’ve written this before.) This conflict has no parallels – it is not the Congo or Algeria or South Africa. Maybe finding the right words would help all sides recognize the others’ positions. Maybe the right words wouldn’t make a bit of difference. Maybe I’m just a naïve American and don’t know what the heck I’m talking about. I wish I knew what to say or do to help the situation, but I don’t know that either.

Shalom,
Mike

Posted by Mike Barenti @ 03/24/2007 12:13 AM CST

Thank you Mike. I thing you are about one third correct and two thirds incorrect.

You are corect about he use of language in this conflict. Ami has a very good essay about it somewhere around here. You are also correct that the formula land for peace and the phrase occupation represents an Arab point of view in which Israel is the condemned who must pay to expiate its sins, and tends to ignore the fact that while Palestinians so far make only empty promises Israel is being asked to take strategic risks and give up land of great significance to it. It is also true that the image that the notionsthat the formula 'land for peace' evokes has turned Israelis against the idea of peace, and has been used by the Israeli right to great effect. And it is true that Palestinians believe that Israelis are colonizers who wil walk away if enough pressure is applied; a misunderstandstanding on their part that is one of the reasons why the conflict never seems to end.

But the word 'occupation' is the right and wholly objective word. The disasterous sin of Israel is not that it has a land dispute with Arabs, but that it has objectively treated land seized in 67 legally as under temporary military occupation (which is an objective term), while at the same time sending Israeli settlers to live there as if it was simply another district of the legal entity which is the state of Israel. This is a fact right wing Israelis try to hide by talking about dispted land or questions of historical connection, which is all the more reason to insist on using the term occupation.

The second thing I disagree with you about is the idea of "finding the right words would help all sides recognize the others’ positions." Part of the difficulty to solve this conflict is the insistence of both Israelis and Palestinians not only to resolve technical issues but to impose on each other their own language and concepts involved. The Israelis expect the Palestinians to hang their heads in shame and admit that they were unwiling to accept Israel but now accept her historical narrative, that they were guilty of using terrorism to further their goals and that the right of return is an empty and absurd demand which they completely give up. The Arabs expect Israel to hang its head with guilt and admit that zionism is a colonial racist movement with no real ties to the region that arbitreraly has sought to displace and persecute Arabs, and that all the problems in the region from regugees to the current violent is completely Israel's fault. Meanwhile well meaning peacniks try to solve this by using vague diplomatic language that only increases distrust but actually imposes their own point of view. Gush Shalom has gone as far as suggesting creating agreed upon history books, as if it were possible and as if we don't have enough problems agreeing on the terms for peace. No, it is a waste of time to try to get either side to accept an agreed upon language. It will be years before Palestinan historians begins to question their narrative (if at all), and while some Israelis do question theirs, many are unwilling to accept this point of view. We shpuld not become victims of language games but use the most dry and o the point language to solve the problems in the most technical way, or else we'll waste most of our time arguing about wording instead of solving the real problems.

Posted by Micha @ 03/24/2007 03:10 AM CST

Thanks for your response and views Micha. I certainly see your point that getting bogged down in semantics could make peace even harder to achieve -- as if it weren’t hard enough already.

As far as trying to get the Palestinians to accept the Israeli narrative and vice versa, I think the value in that depends on what you mean by “accept.” As any good philosopher will do, I’m trying to turn the argument my way by asking you to define your terms. Like any good Jew, I can spend hours debating someone I basically agree with. But seriously… Not long ago I heard an Iranian dissident speak and he said the biggest failure in the Middle East is a failure of the imagination. What he meant, he went on to explain, is that the Palestinians and others wont try to understand how Israelis see the conflict and Israelis wont try to see how Arabs see the conflict. (Obviously this is a generalization.) I know Amos Oz says the Palestinians and the Israelis understand each other all too well, which might also be true.

Anyway, I don’t think the Palestinians have to accept the Jewish narrative, but I think it would be helpful if they accepted that for the Jews, the Jewish narrative is true, just as it would be helpful for Israeli Jews to see that for Palestinians, their narrative is also true. (I’ve always found it interesting that the best known Israeli historians made their reputations questioning the traditional Israeli narrative while the best known Arab historians also made their reputation questioning the traditional Israeli narrative.) I think the Palestinians have a valid claim on all Israel just as I think the Jews have a valid claim on all the land. Obviously the problem is finding a way to share a land that both peoples have deep roots in. I don’t diminish the idea of historic or spiritual connection, although I’m not super religious, but that’s another topic.

In the end of course, what matters is peace, and anything that complicates that effort should be tossed. If Arabs and Israelis can achieve peace by despising each other, let them despise away. If they need to accept each other, let’s find a way to create acceptance. If, God forbid, they need to achieve the impossible task of becoming friends, let’s find a way to foster friendship.

I would like to ask a question: What can American Jews do to help the situation?

Shalom,
Mike

Posted by Mike Barenti @ 03/24/2007 09:17 AM CST

"But seriously… Not long ago I heard an Iranian dissident speak and he said the biggest failure in the Middle East is a failure of the imagination. What he meant, he went on to explain, is that the Palestinians and others wont try to understand how Israelis see the conflict and Israelis wont try to see how Arabs see the conflict."
"Anyway, I don’t think the Palestinians have to accept the Jewish narrative, but I think it would be helpful if they accepted that for the Jews, the Jewish narrative is true, just as it would be helpful for Israeli Jews to see that for Palestinians, their narrative is also true. (I’ve always found it interesting that the best known Israeli historians made their reputations questioning the traditional Israeli narrative while the best known Arab historians also made their reputation questioning the traditional Israeli narrative.) I think the Palestinians have a valid claim on all Israel just as I think the Jews have a valid claim on all the land."

This is true, and it would be helpful, but it is completely beyond the capacity of most Palestinians and Israelis (to a lesser degree). Attempts to get them to do it unsually end up with them trying to impose their narrative on the other. It would be good if there were people out their who did understand the other side's point of view, but it is too much to ask from the majority of the people, and it is more likely to become an obsticle than help.

"If Arabs and Israelis can achieve peace by despising each other, let them despise away. If they need to accept each other, let’s find a way to create acceptance. If, God forbid, they need to achieve the impossible task of becoming friends, let’s find a way to foster friendship."

Now we have to acheive he minimum necessary to make peace possible, afterwards maybe there wil be better acceptance and friendship. but we should not return to the mistakes of Oslo in which words of friendship were used to hide the disagreements, and then, when they became apparent, trust evaporated. I'm not saying friendship or at least respect cannot exist. But only if people are aware that their friends might harbor beliefs they wil not agree with. Palestinians tend to assume and expect that Israeli peacnicks will accept their point of view conpletely and get disappointed íf they don't. Some Israeli peacnicks do accept the Palestinian POV completely, but then what use are they for making peace between peoples with different points of view?

"I would like to ask a question: What can American Jews do to help the situation?"

At present I don't know what Israeli Peace supporters can do. I think ami wrote something about it. In general it is important to present some basic truths against the claims of both the right wingers and pro-Palestinians: thtat the occupation is wrong, that terrorism is wrong, that both peoples have legitimate ties to the land and legitimate grievances, that the objective is peace, that everybody has to bare responsibility for their own part of ending this conflict, and maybe some other things i can't think about right now.

On a more down to earth level I'm with Abu-Mazaen in believing that we need to get the ball of ongoing negotiations going.We need something like Madrid -- although it was not a success it created a shift in preception. It is necessary that the americans twist the hands of Israel to go to it, since the current government is not strong enough to do it itself, and being forced by the US will give them an alibi.

Posted by Micha @ 03/24/2007 03:58 PM CST

"(do protestors against Iraq even count the Iraqi casualties?)"

"As I'm sure you know there is a website dedicated to precisely that purpose."

No. I didn't know. I don't follow Iraq closely.

Posted by Micha @ 03/24/2007 04:00 PM CST

Thanks again Micha. I agree that friendship isn’t needed, hence the “God forbid.” I was just trying to make the point that we need to do whatever is needed for real peace. I definitely agree that the Israelis and the Palestinians need to be talking. I know this is easy for me to say as an American Jew, and I know that we in the Diaspora have this strange relationship with Israel – we care about it, somehow see our selves as part of it, benefit from its existence, but also incur none of the risks or responsibilities associated with being an Israeli citizen. At the same time, I understand that if you don’t talk to someone, you will never resolve your differences.

There’s that saying, “talk is cheap.” And in some ways, I think that’s an advantage of talking. It doesn’t commit you to anything and it can be productive in surprising ways. Well, I’m going kayaking, I always find a little peace on the river.

Shalom,
Mike

Posted by Mike Barenti @ 03/24/2007 07:52 PM CST

"I know this is easy for me to say as an American Jew, and I know that we in the Diaspora have this strange relationship with Israel – we care about it, somehow see our selves as part of it, benefit from its existence, but also incur none of the risks or responsibilities associated with being an Israeli citizen."

There is no need for American Jews to be too apologetic about the relations with Israel. The relation of an American Jew to Israel is like that of an Irish-American to Ireland, Italian-American to Italy, and Arab-American to the Arab world.

"I think that’s an advantage of talking. It doesn’t commit you to anything and it can be productive in surprising ways."

There are four reasons why Israel does not want to talk, the first is unjustified the others are understandable.
1) The current government is unwilling to offer the Palestinians terms thant answer their minimum demands or even what Israeli peacenicks think is the minimum. Israeli peacnicks would offer something like he Geneva agreement, but they are not in power.
2) The Israeli government is afraid that were it to negotiate this would offer a cover for continued terrorism or militry buildup in anticipation of future terrorism, corruption, anti Israeli incitement, and entenchment of the Hamas in power. An Israeli government that were to negotiate while this is going on will be under extreme internal pressure and will pay an even greater penalty if things deteriorate after they turned a blind eye to this stuff while it was happening. This is what discredited the peace camp. There is very slim chance tat the Palestinians will not create corruption, anarchy, terrorism and military buiildup while negotiations are taking place since nobody has enough power to stop it, or the wil to do it. At best they can make vague promises that after Israeli confidence building measures (at best) or after peace, Abu-Mazaen wil be strong enough to stop terrorism.
3) The Israeli government is afraid that wre it to negotiate it would be flooded with demands for confidence building measures, especially releasing of prisoners, removing of roadblocks, stopping the fence, and ending military attacks in the West Bank. Since at present the relative quiet from the West Bank is based on the Israeli army constantly moving in and out of the West Bank arresting people, and since in gaza where Israel is not using military force there is continued buildup and rockets shot into Israel, it would be a great risk for the Israeli government to lessen the pressure on the Palestinians and risk a worsening security situation during negotiations or if they fail.
4) The Israeli government is afraid that failed negotiations could lead to a worse situation than the status quo, as happened after Barak went to Camp David. Since even if the Israeli government was willing to make the best offer Israel can make (which it isn't and politically can't), it has no guarentee that the Palestiians accept this offer. As Camp David has taught, the narrow difference between a very generous but insufficient Israeli offer and compromising but not compromising enough Palestinian demands, can be very wide.

I believe Abu Mazen wants to return to an Oslo-like situation in which an internationaly respected Palestinian government gets aid from the world, negotiates and makes demands of Israel, and is consequently strong enough to keep the armed people (terrorists) in their place. He may also be hoping to actually acheive peace, and that everything will somehow fal into place after that. But this was exactly the problem with Oslo from the Israeli point of view: the Palestinians seemed respectful but underneath there was support for terrorism and corruption and no real preparation of Palestinian public opinion for the necessary concessions (which is not to say the Israelis were saints). I'm also not sure Abu-Mazaen can acheive these goals. But I would like to gove him a chance.

That's why I'm saying that it would be best if the Israeli government was firced to negotiate. Also, if Israel cannot be sure if its egotiating partner can and is doing everything to stop terrorism, the solution should not be not to negotiate, but to negotiate and fight terrorism. It is better to negotiate under fire than not at all, so long as we're clear that Israel will not stand idly if there is fire.

I so see, it is certainly not simple. Enjoy the kayaking.

Posted by Micha @ 03/26/2007 01:01 AM CST

Micha, a few snippets...

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

"The relation of an American Jew to Israel is like that of an Irish-American to Ireland"

Not exactly. The US doesn't prop up Ireland with billions of dollars of aid. On the positive side this does give the US a big lever if it chooses to use it, as the Bush 1 adminstration did with the **** guarantees.

"Had the Irish behaved the way the Palestinians behaved there would be no peace in Northern Ireland."

This cuts both ways. The British Army didn't fire missiles into the Divis Flats or the Bogside, or create millions of refugees (at least not since the colonisation of the North hundreds of years back). And the IRA did kill plenty of British civilians.

"The root cause of the problem is getting two peoples to live next to each other in mutual respect."

That's the central task at hand, not the cause. And while mutual respect is a necessary condition of fixing things, exclusive focus on that ignores the actual physical and economic issues driving the conflict, such as the fact that it's impossible to live a normal life or make plans if you have hostile troops imposing curfews and demolishing houses on a regular basis, if you have encroachment by settlements and a dishonestly routed wall, and if someone is taking the water you need. Not to mention the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and elsewhere. 90% of the terrorism is a response to all that (accepting that there is a hard core of irredentists who will eventually have to be neutralised). If we could wave a wand and stop all Palestinian terrorism tomorrow, the Palestinians would still be in a terrible situation, because the Israeli right wing would still use their power to keep taking the land. Nasty though terrorism is (and we have had 40 intermittent years of it in London), in the grand scheme of things it's never amounted to more than petty harassment. It's never put Israeli self-determination at risk. Whereas Palestinian self-determination is barely even on the agenda.

I have respect for the (serious part of your) peace movement because it's a tough environment to be working in. It's easy enough for me to have an opinion here, or to go on a march against the Iraq war. Doing the same sort of thing in the occupied territories (or even in parts of Israel) looks pretty scary to me.

Posted by Spike @ 03/26/2007 04:27 PM CST

"The relation of an American Jew to Israel is like that of an Irish-American to Ireland"

"Not exactly. The US doesn't prop up Ireland with billions of dollars of aid. On the positive side this does give the US a big lever if it chooses to use it, as the Bush 1 adminstration did with the guarantees."

Shame on you. The US gives aid to many countries, and after WWII gave aid to Europe too. Are you going to suggest that being an Egyptian American or Mexican American or Cuban American is different than being Irish-American.

"Had the Irish behaved the way the Palestinians behaved there would be no peace in Northern Ireland."

"This cuts both ways. The British Army didn't fire missiles into the Divis Flats or the Bogside, or create millions of refugees (at least not since the colonisation of the North hundreds of years back). And the IRA did kill plenty of British civilians."

The British also did not wihdraw from Northern Ireland and then have it become a center of terrorism against it. How many British civilians have been killed during and since the peace talks except Omagh, and how did the IRA react to Omagh or any other such events? The peace talks between unionists and Republicans have been stalling for years for much lesser reasons than ours, and the IRA is disarming and have given up on joining Ireland. If there was a wave of terrorismn in London right now the British Army would be crashing doors in Belfast in a heartbeat. If they will not fire missiles it is because it is not necessary for them, since the IRA never had enough independence or posed enough of a military threat to necessitate that much force. You are still in control of Northern Ireland.
How many Irish left Ireland as a result of the Potato Famine? What if their decendants decided to return to Northern Ireland.

Please don't compare your European history to ours. You Europeans pillaged the whole world, sent your people to take over vast land turning the indiginous population into minorities, created refugees, killed who knows how many. And then you decided ot was over, and went back to your homes where you could live in comfort. We Jews were homeless people who took a small underdeveloped corner of the vast Arab World, and fought to defend our home, not to maintain an Empire. We don't have the option to go anywhere else. We hacve our share of sins, but they were lesser than yours and committed for better reasons. But somehow our sins are the only ones that can only be attoned by comlete reversal, by the elimination of our home. To this even most peacenick Israelis will not agree.

""The root cause of the problem is getting two peoples to live next to each other in mutual respect."

That's the central task at hand, not the cause."

My wording was wrong: the cause is the unwillingness of both sides to live next to each other in mutual respect.

Let me tell you about the effect of terrorism.
In 1992 there was a relative lull in terrorism, and the Israeli people elected Rabin, who they knew was intending to negotiate peace and withdrawl. True, his offer was insufficient for peace, but it was clear to Israelis that we are talking withdrawl.
In 1993 60% supported Oslo. Again, it was still insufficient, but it was a major development. Israel withdrew from the Palestiian cities so as to reduce the interfereance in everyday lie. But Oslo was followed not by one Omagh, but by a string of suicide bombings inside Israel (as well as an increase in car theft which went straight to the Palestinians). After this (and Rabin's assassination) 49% of israelis supported the candidate Peres who intended to continue with the Peace process, and even the right wing Netanyahu said he wil negotiate.
Netanyahu won, and then there was a relative lull in the suicide bombings. And Barak, the left wing candidate who intended to negotiate over massive withdrawl and the establishment of a Palestinian state, won a great victory. His offers were also insufficient, but they were quite extensive. But the Intifada started, terrorism returned and Sharon won by a landslide.
in 2004, after the army was able to reduce suicide bombings so they were no longer a weekly event, Israel withdrew from Gaza with massive public support. The opposition by the settlers was futile. Then the Israeli people took their votes away fron the right wing Likud and gave them to Labor and the centrist Kadima, who were talking about massive withdrawl from the West Bank. It is still an insufficient offer, but certainly it was something. But the Palestinians elected Hamas and turned Gaza into a base for missile fire into Israel. Southern Lebanon, from which Israel also withdrew, has also become an armed terrorist base. So now again, if there were elections, the right will win, and the chances for peace are slim. So don't tell me that terrorism is just an excuse, a minor harassment, not a cause in this conflict. Oh, and Israel's self determination is question daily by the Palestinians, while Palestinian self determination was already accepted by the Israelis in the 90s. If it was not implemented its because of two reasons: (1) that the Israelis were unable to support ful withdrawl; (2) that the Palestinians crushed any positive development.

"90% of the terrorism is a response to all that."

Maybe 70%. And 70% of the Israeli acts against the Palestinians are the result of terrorism, so it works nicely for both sides. How about not making excuses for the misdeads of both Israelis and Palestinians. How about each side taking responsibility for improving the situation.

"If we could wave a wand and stop all Palestinian terrorism tomorrow, the Palestinians would still be in a terrible situation, because the Israeli right wing would still use their power to keep taking the land."

I'd like to put that to the test. But the Palestinians never stop. The only magic I know that seems to reduce terrorism is the magic of Israeli force. Anyway, the Israeli right was not able to stop the withdrawl from Sinai, or Oslo or the withdrawl from Gaza, or the withdrawl from Lebanon. Not on their own. Only with the help of the Palestinians. The settlements are wrong, but the land they take is not that much. This is not what brings suffering to the Palestinians. What does that is the poverty, roadblocks, anarchy, unemployment -- all of these are the result of the Intifada. If you could use your magic wand it would help the Palestinians much more than the settlers can harm them by taking land, and it will also make it more likely that Israelis will be willing to give a chance for peace.

Posted by Micha @ 03/26/2007 10:02 PM CST

" have respect for the (serious part of your) peace movement because it's a tough environment to be working in. It's easy enough for me to have an opinion here, or to go on a march against the Iraq war. Doing the same sort of thing in the occupied territories (or even in parts of Israel) looks pretty scary to me."

Demonstrating for peace in Israel is difficult, sometimes unpleasant, but rarely dangerous. Which is exactly the reason why I felt the peace camp should move away from their comfort zone and go demonstrate in the settlements, clashing with the police when necessary. Unfortunatly, it did not come to pass in any meaningful way.

I'm sorry if my previous post came out too harsh. I don't think I am the only Israeli peacnick who has had a reaction to the constant one-sided, facile condemnations of Israel, to the point of challenging its existence. Look at this blog. Ami is a major peace activist, who seems more busy these days answering such attitudes. Instead of working together for peace and condemning what needs to be condemned, it seems easier to simply blame on Israel. I am for peace and against the occupation and human rights violations, but that does not mean I'm going to accept one sided Palestinian propaganda and ignore the complexities of the issues, or the needs and concerns of Israelis. If the Israeli left is in such a bad shape today, it is because it has become estranged from the very real concerns and fears of Israelis, while turning a blind eye to Palestinian misconduct.

Posted by Micha @ 03/27/2007 01:04 AM CST

"You Europeans"?

Where are your family from exactly? Is "Micha" a sephardic name? Jews have certainly been part of the European capitalist ruling class past present and future, antisemitism notwithstanding.

I don't want to emphasise our differences when we agree on probably 95% of the question, but:-

"We don't have the option to go anywhere else...But somehow our sins are the only ones that can only be attoned by complete reversal, by the elimination of our home."

is of course only a partial truth in both cases. No need to rehearse the reasons, I'm sure.

We also both know that US aid to any other country is dwarfed by its aid to Israel, and that most of its aid to Egypt is essentially an Israel-related bribe extracted by Sadat. The US has geopolitical reasons (among others) for this and I truly think a lot of the hostility to Israel, from the left at least, is due to this special relationship. Needs must, though, I suppose.

Posted by Spike @ 03/27/2007 04:52 PM CST

"You Europeans"?

Where are your family from exactly? Is "Micha" a sephardic name?

My mother was born in the US, from a father that came from Lithuania and a mother born in the US from Russian immigrants, my father was born in Romania and left in 1959. I was born in Israel and lived all my life there. So there is a difference between me and present Western and Central Europeans. Nor am I connected even by blood to European colonialism.

"Jews have certainly been part of the European capitalist ruling class past present and future, antisemitism notwithstanding."

I hope this is just a slip. I'll assume it is, because the alternative is too horrible, and all too familiar: tying Jews to capitalism the way you seem to dom but I hope are not really doing. Obviously Jews were part of most different walks of life in European society to the degree that they were integrated into it.

""We don't have the option to go anywhere else...But somehow our sins are the only ones that can only be attoned by complete reversal, by the elimination of our home."

is of course only a partial truth in both cases. No need to rehearse the reasons, I'm sure."

No, I stand by what I said. Britain ruled India and Ireland and Australia. Britain left India and Ireland (and a bunch of other places). Australia remains a predominatly anglo-saxon country tied to Britain. And Britain, the nation state of the British (or the union of the joint nation states of the English and Scots, but still a nation state) remained standing, secure in its existence. The British continued having a home while letting the Irish and the Indians have their own homes (although for the aboriginees of Australia it was too late, they had to accept their role as minority). Israel was founded as a nation state for the Jews, because in the early 20th century some Jews felt the Jews should also have a nation state of their own where they were not a tolerated minority (accused of being capitalists or communists). This caused harm to some Arabs, caused some of them to become a minority themselves (althogh still with ties to the greater Arab nationality), as well as to the national desires of these Arabs to form an Arab state in that area. I'm not denying it. But if Palestine were to be 'free' in the sense too many people expect -- if the sins of our past were to be attoned -- than the only nation state of the Jews wil stop existing and Jews will return to be a minority. Obviously, people can live as a minority, some even choose to do so by emigrating. British also don't have to have a nation-state, but they do. But even they can point somewhere and say there is a place that is their historical nation-state, and that that nation-state is still standing. I find it obscene that he Jews should have to forfeit their only nation state for the sins involved in the foundation of Israel while the greater and less justified sins of other countries will not be penalized to this degree. That's why I insist that the only solution the the conflict is one in which a Jewish nation state in part of the land of Israel will exist next to an Arab nation-state on part of Palestine. If anybody thinks this solution is not 'just', they are in for a disappointment. The Jewish nation-state will not dismantle itself to satisfy their selective application of 'justice.'

Any attempt to cast any aspersions on American Jews as a whole because of the diplomatic relations between the state of Israel and the US is obscene.

"We also both know that US aid to any other country is dwarfed by its aid to Israel."

I don't know how much the US gives or has given in the past to Israel or other countries. I don't think it puts much strain on their treasury, especially since the money is usually used to buy American goods. And they certainly get their money's worth by supporting Israel, which is more than you can say for other countries. I do know that the US gives money and as given money and aid to many countries. I somewhat doubt that Israel's gets so much money more than anybody else, but I don't know. Maybe Ami can suply the details.

"I truly think a lot of the hostility to Israel, from the left at least, is due to this special relationship."

So, the left is hostile to Israel because they are hostile to the US, they are hostile to tthe US because they are hostile to Israel. I think the left has hostility issues towards nations in a way that seems inappropriate for people whose ideals are tolerance, peace, inclusion, multi-culturalism and other nice things. I always found it surprising when dealing with leftists while protesting the occupation. Perhaps I was expecting too much.

Posted by Micha @ 03/27/2007 11:24 PM CST

"Obviously Jews were part of most different walks of life in European society to the degree that they were integrated into it"

My statement wasn't a slip, it was the same concept in different words. My point was that Jews of European descent can't disclaim all reponsibility for imperialism when some of their ancestors were involved in it. Whether European workers can be held responsible for imperialism, which was a project of their ruling classes, is a different issue.

I would however argue that European gentiles have to accept responsibility for the Israel/Palestine issue, because without anti-semitism, Zionists would not have felt the need to create Israel. So we do have a responsibility to try and help sort the problem out, so far as it lies in our hands to do so.

"So, the left is hostile to Israel because they are hostile to the US, they are hostile to the US because they are hostile to Israel."

No, the left is hostile to the US because it is the neo-imperialist superpower. That would be so if Israel had never been created. Anti-Zionism wasn't a big deal on the left before the US lined up with Israel and the USSR with the arab regimes after 1967.

I think the left has certainly become disoriented with regard to imperialism and started to view the world via a nationalist prism rather than a class analysis. Which since economic class is rather the point of socialism is a big mistake in my view.

I'll address the other points separately - I just managed to delete my previous draft in error so I'm posting this now...

Posted by Spike @ 03/30/2007 04:28 PM CST

My opinion on resistance and non-violent resistance is outragouse! I think its something

Posted by Mustafa Barghouti @ 03/30/2007 05:03 PM CST

"We don't have the option to go anywhere else...But somehow our sins are the only ones that can only be attoned by complete reversal, by the elimination of our home."

Not that I'm suggesting Israeli jews *should* go anywhere else, but of course many are immigrants from the US who retain their passports, others recent economic migrants from Russia, and so on. Less than 1/3 of the world's Jews live in Israel. Your statement is truest for Israelis whose roots are in Palestine or the Arab countries, (who even the notorious Grand Mufti accepted had a right to be there).

Regarding "elimination of our home", this is not really on anyone's agenda except for the stupider elements of the left, the current Iranian government and a hard core of Palestinian extremists, none of whom are in a position to bring it about. So I think it's a bit of a straw man.

Even the Hamas leadership do not seem to me to be particularly serious about destroying Israel by force, although I accept that opinions vary on this. I think people have an emotional attachment to a concept, but also a hardnosed idea of what is practically possible.

Leaving aside the rhetoric, the real debate since the mid 1970's has been about the shape and form of two states, or rather whether there will be two states or one state (Israel) and a sort of dependency/reservation arrangement for Palestinians.

To turn to principles rather than practical politics.......

I'm not sure how valid it is to compare Israel to Britain as nation states. The question of whether Jewishness is a matter of race, religion, nationality, culture, ethnicity or all five is one even Jews can't agree on, and it does seem to me to make a difference. Britain on the other hand is essentially the state of all those who live within its boundaries, and it's emerged in an organic way. You can be any race or religion and still be just as British. It's a lot harder for an Arab citizen of Israel to identify as Israeli, I would suggest. And for Israel to continue to define itself as "the Jewish state" despite a growing Arab minority is potentially problematic and could eventually reach crisis point. Already some right wing Israelis are talking about forced transfers.

Possibly the problem is that the Zionists exported the European idea of a nation state to a region where such concepts were alien. In Europe the nation state label was mostly a description of a state of affairs which had already come about. With Israel the idea came first and reality had to be adjusted to fit it. Which always seems to cause problems.

An interesting parallel to the Jewish case is that of the Romanies or "gypsies" - again a distinct ethnic group subjected to horrific persecution and genocide. If a Romany project took shape advocating return of all Romanies to the region of northern India where they are thought to originate, and the setting up of a Romany nation state (on land presently occupied by someone else), who would support it? Would the UN? The present occupants of the that land? Would Israeli zionists advocate that the Romanies take this course of action? If not, why not? What would be the difference?

Posted by Spike @ 03/30/2007 05:57 PM CST

"The British also did not wihdraw from Northern Ireland and then have it become a center of terrorism against it....how did the IRA react to Omagh or any other such events? The peace talks between unionists and Republicans have been stalling for years for much lesser reasons than ours, and the IRA is disarming and have given up on joining Ireland."

There was plenty of cross-border terrorism from Eire over the years; the Brits did not invade Ireland or bomb Dublin. The IRA condemned Omagh, as Arafat and Abbas have condemned suicide bombings (although I note Al-Aqsa is nominally part of Fatah). The Irish peace talks have not stalled. And the PLO long ago gave up on eliminating Israel.

Obviously the two cases are not parallel and I only mentioned Ireland to draw some general principles about what peacemaking involves. Mostly, the more powerful side not doing things to inflame the situation.

Posted by Spike @ 03/30/2007 06:05 PM CST

As usual, this essay from Ami Isseroff is thoughtful, nuanced, and
morally clear-sighted. The most important point to explore further,
I think, is this:

"If there were hundreds of thousands of Palestinians peacefully
demonstrating for their own state and for peace it would be an
effective and moral act."

To move forward, I think we need to understand why non-violent
resistance--though it has occured--has not been a defining feature of
the conflict (or has it been more pervasive than most of us know?).
Several questions need to be addressed here:

* What factors in Palestinian society, culture, and politics have
constrained non-violent resistance or tended to channel "resistance"
into violence? Are there ways that Palestinians or others interested
in promoting non-violent resistance could address these factors?

* What factors in the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis
have had the same effects? Have Israeli state policies contributed
to a perception among Palestinians that non-violent resistance is
ineffective? Are there ways that Israeli state or non-state actors
could more effectively encourage the non-violent expression of
Palestinian grievances and demands?

* What factors internationally have had the same effects? If the
international media, the US government, or others gave more attention
to non-violent Palestinian resistance, for example, would that help?

Have any historians, social scientists, or others addressed such
questions?

Barry Lyons

Posted by Barry Lyons @ 04/03/2007 10:24 PM CST

Possibly, Barry, the key question which encompasses most of the others is: who benefits most from the continued violence?

Posted by Chris @ 04/18/2007 03:16 PM CST

Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.