Like all sensible bloggers, I tend to avoid Israel/Palestine issues for fear of provoking awful comment threads . . .

And the topic really isn't of enough intrinsic importance to outweigh something like that, I guess.

What will work?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Now it seems to me that it is not  in the interest of the US to permit Israel or Al Qaeda or George Bush go about creating failed states, willy-nilly destablizing the Middle East.

 Whew! That took balls.

Well call me  an anti-Semite holocaust denying mullah-luva if you must, but please don't call me late for lunch

Well, if you feel that there is a clear and defensible policy path that Israel must take on this issue, then, yeah, maybe you'd want to talk about it. Sound of the commentators sound like they fall into that camp. At the risk of stirring up the typical firestorm, let me say that I don't think the issue is that clear. That is, I don't have a policy approach I am willing to defend with confidence. So I can understand a hesitation to bring up an issue where I don't have an answer and the ensuing discussion is not likely to be very helpful.

In any situation like this in which two populations dispute control of the same land, there are only four possibilities:

1. Forceful removal of one of the populations (by extermination or expulsion)

2.Subjugation of one of the populations (either within the dominant state or within a "bantustan" that is nominally independent but is really controlled by the dominant state)

3. Mutually agreed separation of the populations into independent states

4. Integration of the populations into one state or a federation 

The current situation (occupation) is a version of option 2 (with a bit of option 1, since the Palestinian refugees have been prevented from returning to their traditional homes in Israel). This is an inherently unstable solution, since the subjugated population will continue to resist. The purported goal of most of the parties has been to achieve the third solution--two separate states. This once seemed feasible, but increasingly looks impossible. The remaining options are 1 and 4. Four is preferable from a humanitarian perspective, but even harder to imagine than option 3. Because of this, option 1 seems increasingly likely. It's an ugly prospect, but I think it may be where this is headed. 

Maybe someone is more optimistic than I am and can suggest something different, but personally, I see only an ugly end to this conflict.

There are plenty of topics on which "the issue isn't that clear" - Iraq, anyone? - but plenty of bloggers and pundits are willing to take their best shot. And don't tell me that out of all the intelligent writers, thinkers and pundits in Left Blogistan, only Juan Cole, Steve Clemons and an anonymous guest poster at Josh Marshall's place can come up with something to say about what's going on in Gaza right now. Does Kevin Drum think crippling the power in Gaza was a good call? Does Ezra Klein think Bush should try to rein in Israel? For a group that prides itself on the ability to speak their mind, the blogosphere is deathly silent here.

I hate to be one of those people who goes on about why nobody's talking about Pet Issue X, but this isn't an obscure topic here. It's a issue that dominates America's mideast policy and overshadows our foreign policy in general, and it's being highlighted by a major event that's dominated international news for much of the past week, and next to nobody is talking about it. That's really, really damn weird, and is pretty much exactly the kind of thing that proves the point Mearsheimer and Walt were making.

No one suggested that Gaza was being occupied, did they? Purple State's comment pretty clearly referred to the situation as a whole.

Purple State, 3 is the only possibility, and even if it looks like a distant possibility right now, I don't think I'd say that 1 is more likely, given the outcry among Israelis, Americans, and Europeans that would result from Israeli attacks at a much greater rate than the current one, which has not resulted in a smaller Palestinian population.

3 is also what our official policy position is, so we should do more to support and more that position forward, don't you think? Unfortunately, chalk this up to another area where Bush goes with his gut but is just too damn lazy to actually care or do anything to try to move things forward.

Acutally, I am one who would say that Gaza is still occupied. While Israel did withdrew its 6,000 settlers and the soldiers protecting them, it still retains control over Gaza's waters, airspace, and borders. The IDF has blockaded Gaza's borders for months on end. It's the IDF who decides whether Gazans will have food, medicines, and any other goods, how much, and when. Cut off from the rest of the world, Gaza is really just a massive penal colony.

Not to mention the fact that, even before the IDF invasion, Gaza was bombarded by missiles, artillery, and naval fire, causing far more destruction and casualties than the Qassam rockets Islamic Jihad and the renegade cells of Hamas were firing.

That is not a remotely plausible scenario. Who is going to "steal" an Israeli nuke?

I do think the Israelis are engaging in collective punishment against Gaza and should be condemned for doing so, but I also think the Israelis have a right to be secure and to use force to rescue their kidnapped soldier.

The vast majority of Israelis have no interest in occupying Gaza or the West Bank forever and certainly not in committing genocide. They are a democracy with civilian rule and the rule of law. Yes, they have some extremists, as do all states. This is no excuse for spouting these conspiracy fantasies about the entire country/people.

Going back to Matt's original posts, this provides a good illustration of why it can be hard to talk about Israeli-Palestinian relations outside of trusted circles. However, I think it is both possible and highly necessary to do so but also agree that it is very tricky. I haven't read him much lately, but I think Eric Alterman has done this well in the past, although perhaps he gets a bit of a pass from some quarters since he is Jewish. Still, some Jewish Dems give Likud and Israeli extremists a pass, so that's perhaps a fair trade-off.

The other problem is that the Israelis and the Palestinians have long memories and can recite each perceived slight for the next two days. Then you're back to arguing about 1948 all over again, and opinions about that are usually pretty hardened at this point.

Perhaps somewhere between 2 and 3, if I had to guess what Purple State was thinking?

Well, I'll take the plunge and advocate a specific plan. I have been going back and forth to Israel for the last 40 years, including 3 trips this year. I have relatives scattered around Israel and the settlements. I've talked to literally hundreds of Israeli's and dozens of Palestinians about the situation. I am not an expert on Israel but time and devotion to the Israel and my religion at least give me the right to an honest opinion.

The first thing that must be considered is the cultural differences between the arabs and our more westernized Israeli's. Aside from all the emotional yelling and screaming that goes on in Israeli politics, they still value Western pragmatism. The arabs do not value pragmatism at all. They have a strong sense of justice as far more important than just about anything else.

This cultural difference -pragmatism vs justice is the heart of the dispute. The Israeli's approach negotiations in a businesslike manner. How can I maxmimize my win without cratering the entire process. This leads to suggested compromises, hidden loopholes and gotcha provisions. I do not look at this approach negatively, it's standard operating procedure for westerners.

On the otherhand, for the Palestinians they feel they got screwed by the entire process from 1948 onward and especially since 1967. Until this is rectified and in their minds justice restored, nothing else matters. This is why Camp David failed, their sense of justice was not satiated. Right or wrong, Israel's offer of 95% or 97% of the West Bank would no more be acceptable to the Palestinians than had they made an offer to the Israeli's that Israel could keep 95% of the pre-67 borders. What's good for the goose is good for the gander type thinking.

Until Palestinian justice is satisfied, they will continue to resist and fight for the next 1000 years. Israel has a choice, it can easily obliterate the Palestinians or transfer them but even then the "war" and terrorism will continue. That is the worst of all worlds for Israel, and outlaw nation still being terrorized.

The ONLY way out of this war that is well on its way to exceeding the 100 years war is a permanent peace treaty with negotiations starting NOW.

If I were Olmert I would go to Bush, the EU,China and Russia and say lets convene and International negotiation with ALL the parties. All 22 countries of the Arab League and essentially the UNSC, Israel and the Palestinians would meet and stay meeting until an agreement with ALL those parties were hammered out. My guess is it would only take 2 years. In the meantime a cease fire would be agreed upon. The nut for Israel is a withdrawal to essentially the 67 lines. This means the end to Ariel(where my sister lives) as well as even Ma'le Adummim. There would be a negotiation on Jerusalem so that the Western Wall and Temple Mount are handled satisfactorily. A free passage transportation corridor between Gaza and the West Bank would be part of the deal.

In return, peace agreements would be signed by all 22 members of the Arab league and relations would be normalized. The Golan Heights would be returned to Syria as part of this agreement. Palestinian compliance would be guaranteed by all signers. Palestinian refugees would be resettled in the new state with a $50,000 per person grantand a new home. Israeli settlers would get the same deal.

I know this is a bitter pill for Israeli's to swallow to go through this kind of upheavel and dislocation, If my sister knew I was writing this she would die immediately and before her cancer could take her. All but a few of my relatives would disown me. However, my 62 years of experience has taught me the wisdom of compromise. If the 67 war had been a draw, Israel would have been happy to live on the land it already had. My first visit to Israel was 1966 when my sister made aliya. I knew the situation then as well as the years after. Early in the settlement beginnings most Israeli's(except the religious) thought they would be an effective negotiating ploy. Well they still are a negotiating ploy and it's time to use them.

As I have written before, I hate what this war is doing to our moral character. I fear that for a few extra dunams of land, we are wasting money, material and respect. There is no conventional military way these extra dumans of land help one iota. Is there risk in negotiating any final settlement. Yes, but will Israel be any less or more secure than it has for the last 58 years? Remenber, the choice is 1000 more years of low grade warfare or worse. Justice must be realized in the eyes of the Palestinians for there to be any deal. Whether this is right or not is immaterial, Israel's survival depends on a permanent peace.

True enough, but at the same time Israel continues to exert significant control over the Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank. I think it's a stretch to say that the withdrawal from Gaza amounts to a liberation of the Palestinians from Israeli dominance. This is not to deny that Israel has a legitimate security concern that may make subjugating the Palestinians "necessary" from an Israeli viewpoint, but subjugation is not a stable (and therefore not a truly workable) solution to the problem.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Oh it is nothing if not "pragmatic". See too many get hung on "target" part of klllings and can't see the body bags for the body. "Ah os poor little Israel fighting for her existence yet such restraint!" In a pig's eye! Taken together and with an on the sequence of these acts there is one possible conclusion. Israelis are master of the realpolitik. Highly pragmatic in the senee of totally inmmoral Shorn of propagadistic pretense to prinicipled proportionality, you seee a river blood reaching to the source, a unremittingly ruthless rogue state sewing chaos and civil disorder among their Arab neighbors whenever, whereever they can.

 Damn your eyes George Bush for the temptations to aliterations. Bill Lind put its clearly and aliteration free:

Hamas may have presumed that once it won a free election, other states, including the United States and Israel, would have to recognize its legitimacy. Great expectations are seldom fulfilled in the amoral world of international politics. When the Washington Establishment calls for "free elections," what it means is elections that elect the people it wants to deal with. Hamas does not fall in that category. Washington therefore greeted Hamas' electoral victory with a full-court press to destroy the new Hamas leadership of the Palestinian Authority, a "state" that bears a state's burdens with none of a state's assets. Both Machiavelli and Metternich were no doubt delighted by this act of Wilsonian hypocrisy, a variety that often exceeds their own and does so with a straight face, an act they could never quite master, being gentlemen.

Those wild and crazy realists in Israel know their Wilsonians and neo-con audiences. The irony of it all of course is that Isreal's realism serves to highlight by contrast the wretched hypocrisy of the US political elite. And why not? With a President who fancies himself and a national and global preacher man, they'd be idiots not exploit so vast an audience of useful indiots in America.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Cole's got a PS to his post Failed State Strategy

PS: See Robert Bryce in Counterpunch on the Israeli destruction of the Gaza power plant and its dire consequences for the Palestinians there.

See also the discussion of the silence of the blogosphere on this issue by Robert Wright and Matthew Yglesias at bloggingheads.tv.

And here's a link to Vermonters for Just Peace in Israel and Palestine.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Robin Wright mentioned "Cole and few other" bloggers that follow the goings on in Palestine and Israel. One of the best of the rest, as it were. Helena Cobban's Just World News Though she's changed her cmment arrangement a bt, Helena takes the lickns and keeps on tickin.

Eh Quakers!

One issue not considered - boredom. When we hit 13,337 days of Occupied Iraq there probably won't be much blogosphere activity either. There probably won't even be a blogosphere as we know it

Well I agree with you jdledell, and appreciate your comments. I continue to support the two-state solution, and believe that solution must be based on UN242 and an effective return ro the 1967 borders. I believe it will also involve a lot of money, to compensate and repatriate Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and to compensate Palestinians for relinquishing the substantive material aspects of their right of return.

And as you properly stress, the solution can only be achieved with the aid of the strong, unified and broad-based intervention of outside parties. The two parties themselves will never make this deal. They have both been too radicalized by the long war. Without outside pressure, the Israelis will always believe (correctly) that they can do better for themselves by fighting longer, and their country contains large maximalist constituencies that are utterly contemptuous of Palestinians and their rights. Many of Palestinians will continue to fight on desperately and hope for a salvific miracle, and are prevented by bitterness, resentment and anger from making a cold assessment of their best available options, and acquiescing in their historic dispossession. Their community also contains a significant portion of fanatical zealots who are driven not by worldly community interests, but more transcendant and otherworldly aims.

The necessary solution can only be enacted if it is imposed on the principals. Perhaps another way to look at it is that even those Israelis and Palestinians who are animated by political realism will require the political cover provided by an imposed solution in order to sell the deal to their publics. Then they can say to their respective constituencies: "I don't like the deal either, but we are out of cards and the powers that be are giving us no choice."

It is my view that the US is the missing lynchpin in the gate to progress. The solution you suggest has been available since 1967, but the Americans have been unwilling or unable to face down their Israeli client and make it happen. The Arab League can, and will impose this deal on the Palestinians if they are convinced that the Americans are willing and determined to impose it on the Israelis. But so far, the US has not mustered the political will to do the correct and obvious thing.

I agree Ellen, it would be nice to be able to quit, but I don't think AIPAC is ever going to allow that and if you become a major voice against the wishes of AIPAC you may lose your voice.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac

"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a special interest group that lobbies the United States Government in favor of maintaining a close U.S. - Israel relationship. Describing itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," it is a mass-membership organization including both Jews and non-Jews, and is considered one of the most powerful political lobbies in the United States. The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence a presidential candidate's choice of staff, to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals."

 George Washinton warned us of foreign entanglement.

Are we free or are we slaves to AIPAC ?

Imagine the recent elections in Mexico had been won by Al-Qaeda, that rockets fired by militant factions of the ruling government were raining over the border into Texas, and that a militant faction of the ruling party kidnapped an American soldier and demanded that the US release all female Mexicans in US jails, implying that if we didn't do this by a certain deadline, the captive would be executed.

What would the US response look like? Under President Clinton, say?

"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock

Are we occupying Mexico? Do we control the flow of goods, electricity and medical supplies into the country? Have we carried out a decades-long camapign of destroying its infrastructure and impoverishing its civilians? Have we shelled Mexican civilians, gunned down Mexican civilians, and launched rockets into their homes and schools in a protracted counterinsurgency? Are we spending millions of dollars to colonize Mexico with illegal American settlements? Your analogy breaks down really, really quickly.

"The Palestinians all ultimately want to drive us out, they can't be trusted, and the only really safe way to deal with them is with force"

This is precisely the attitude which has animated Israeli policy for over three decades, and it is precisely why they aren't pragmatic. "Responding with force" has gotten Israel nothing but more suicide bombers and rocket attacks. Do you honestly think that this current re-invasion of Gaza - complete with the killing of civilians, the knocking out of electricity and potable water across the strip, and the abduction of elected officials - is going to reduce terror in Israel? Israel seems to operate under the premise that for every home they destroy, every school they blow up, and every civilian they kill, it only serves as a deterrent to terror. If they kept that up for five years and saw that it didn't work, I'd call that a tragic and horrible mistake. If they kept it up for ten years I'd call it mindlessly myopic. But to maintain the same self-destructive tactic for thirty years and still stand by it when it does nothing but provoke the very behavior they're trying to eliminate - I'd call that insane.

from the perspective of domestic politics within Israel not responding aggressively is impossible

Which is why there needs to be serious external pressure applied on Israel to change its policies - and since the only country that can properly apply that pressure is the United States, it makes matters actively worse when liberal American opinion writers refuse to discuss the subject.

The late Edward Said and Daniel Barenboim, a Palestinian Christian and an Argentine Israeli respectively, made valiant efforts to unravel the Palestine-Israeli Gordian knot.  Said was attacked by academic colleagues. See Wikipedia.

Said is best known for describing and critiquing "Orientalism," which he perceived as a constellation of false assumptions underlying Western attitudes toward the East. In Orientalism (1978), Said described the "subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture"[10]. He argued that a long tradition of false and romanticized images of Asia and the Middle East in Western culture had served as an implicit justification for Europe and America's colonial and imperial ambitions. Just as fiercely, he denounced the practice of Arab elites who internalized the American and British orientalists' ideas of Arabic culture.

And so was Barenboim as follows:

Barenboim is a vociferous critic of the Israeli presence in the West Bank, saying his adopted homeland is, "losing its moral capital [by] fighting against the identity of a people." In an interview with British music critic Norman Lebrecht in 2003, he accused the Israeli government of behaving in a manner which was, "morally abhorrent and strategically wrong", and, "putting in danger the very existence of the state of Israel." [1]

The two courageous friends, united in a mutual desire to see progress made in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, were (and Barenboim still is) subjected to personal attacks and sometimes fatuous criticism by academic colleagues and others.  The discussion must find a way to proceed despite the calumnies and misrepresentations. 

As to the role of the U.S. in this question, The Mearshiemer and Walt paper, "The Israel Lobby" has been misrepresented similarly by its critics.  There must be more discussion, somehow.

Brooksfoe,

I agree with you that most Israelis are focused on security, and that, with the exception of Jerusalem, the quest for security drives Israel policy far more than any "Greater Israel" ideology. Even the settlements have more to do with consolidating control over the West Bank and territorial gains than with nationalist/religious attachments to Judea and Samaria. In light of both the terrible historical legacy of anti-semitism and the historic hostility of Palestinians and Arabs to Zionism, Israel's obsession with security is understandable. Obviously, suicide terrorism only makes Israelis even more frightened.

At the same time, depriving Palestinians of their basic political and human rights is a not a sustainable path to security. Groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad feed off the rage, humiliation, and despair of Palestinians.

In my opinion, Israel has learned the wrong lesson from Oslo. The real problem (in my opinion) with Oslo is that it required the PLO to renounce all violence and to serve as a sub-contractor for Israel's security, while at the same time leaving issues like settlements, freedom of movement, Jerusalem, borders, and water to an endless round of negotations, all dependent on Israeli goodwill. There's also the failure to understand the Palestinian viewpoint that by recognizing Israel, they had already conceded 78% of Palestine and were not going to compromise on the other 22%. In this light, the suprising thing about the Second Intifiada is not that it broke out but that it didn't erupt earlier.

I'd never thought I'd say this, but there's an excellent quote from Henry Kissinger (in another context):

The quest for absolute security inevitably produces a revolutionary situation. A legitimate order is distinguished by not pressing the quest for security to its limits, by its willingness to find safety in a combination of physical safeguards and mutual trust. It is legitimate not because each power is perfectly satisfied, but because it will not be so dissatisfied that it will seek its remedy in overthrowing the existing system"

Too bad Henry didn't follow this advice as Nixon's National Security Advisor!

Israel maintains control of the West Bank because it maintains control of the main roads in the territory. There are nearly 400 checkpoints, barrier gates, road blocks and other Israeli security measures impeding travel inside the West Bank. It is the arbitrariness of checkpoint-rule enforcement that makes life miserable for Palestinians. One day the wait may be no more than an hour. Another day it may be 4 hours. Another day the same checkpoint will be closed. For the Palestinians checkpoints have become not just bureaucratic irritants but emblems of Israeli arrogance.

Who is going to steal an Israeli nuke?

Anyone who wants one, basically. As I said, military security is a joke in every country. Dick Marcinko and his Red Cell SEAL Team proved that in the US. It will no different in Israel.

"The vast majority of Israelis have no interest in occupying Gaza or the West Bank forever and certainly not in committing genocide."

They just took a poll in Israel - the vast majority of Israelis want the Hamas government ASSASSINATED.

So much for your theory.

As for suggesting that the Israelis have the right to use force to rescue their soldier, anybody who thinks ANY of this is over some lone kidnapped soldier is nuts. The Israelis ratcheted up the killing of civilians - around THIRTY Palestinian civilians in the last month - precisely to set off this kind of confrontation. This is simply and purely an attempt to destroy the Palestinian government in order to justify their "no partner" theory of unilateral action to suppress the Palestinians. they win either way - either there IS a "Palestinian state" that they can declare war on, or there ISN'T, in which case they have "no partner". It's a fucking joke.

Juan Cole makes it clear in his Salon article that this has nothing to do whatever with some kidnapping. His analysis is spot on:

"It would be one thing if Olmert, head of Israel's governing Kadima Party, ordered the Israeli Army (the IDF) to conduct simple, targeted search-and-destroy missions, the logical response to the kidnapping by Palestinian guerrillas of an Israeli soldier or the firing of small homemade rockets from Gaza into nearby Israeli towns. Instead, he has launched a wide-ranging attack on the Gaza Strip, sending tanks and troops over the border, destroying Gaza's only electricity plant, and firing missiles at militants without regard for innocent civilians in the area. He even ordered Israeli jets to create terrifying sonic booms throughout the night, as if 1.4 million persons, many of them children, were being subjected to the sleep deprivation techniques applied by U.S. interrogators at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. As Patrick O'Connor has pointed out, Olmert told his cabinet last Sunday that he wanted "no one to be able to sleep tonight in Gaza."

The destruction of the electricity plant has produced a humanitarian crisis of significant proportions. Hundreds of thousands of people have been plunged into darkness at night. It is impossible to operate hospitals and emergency rooms, refrigerate food, pump or purify water, or handle sewage in the cascading heat of midsummer.

Then, this past Wednesday, the Israelis struck at the offices of the Palestinian Ministry of the Interior in Gaza for the second time, wounding three persons. Why? The strike on the Interior Ministry building offers eloquent testimony to Kadima's goals, since that organization oversees police and security. At a time when Israeli spokesmen decry lawlessness in the Palestinian territories, which they say threatens Israel itself, they are actually destroying the only infrastructure -- Palestinian policing -- that has any hope of establishing law and order there.

As usual with outbursts of violence between Palestinians and Israelis, tracing the logic of attack and counterattack is like chasing the paradox of the chicken and the egg. The Israelis justify the invasion of Gaza as a response to the kidnapping of Cpl. Shalit, and as needed to stop the ramshackle homemade Qassam rockets (frankly, of the sort a teenager might construct with a science kit) fired from the Gaza Strip by Palestinian guerrillas of the Ezzedin Qassam Brigades at the nearby small Israeli town of Sderot. The rockets seldom do any real damage, though a few have harmed Israeli civilians. The Palestinians, for their part, counter that the Israelis have replied to the mostly ineffective Qassam attacks with hundreds of artillery strikes, which killed 30 Palestinian civilians in the weeks prior to the present crisis.

But as Jonathan Cook of Media Lens points out, the larger context for this violence is Palestinian grievances over Israeli attempts to isolate Gaza and cut its Hamas government off from monetary resources, moves that have harmed Gazan society and hurt healthcare and even nutrition. (Some 17 percent of children in Gaza suffer from malnutrition.)

The Israelis, along with the Americans and Europeans, have refused to have any dealings with Hamas, arguing that it is a terrorist organization. Hamas has declined to recognize Israel, and its military wing has carried out many terror attacks inside Israel on Israeli civilians. The Israelis and the Americans immediately cut the Hamas government off from monetary aid and even attempted to sidestep it in delivering the tax monies that run ministries and hospitals. Inevitably, and despite Israeli assurances to the contrary, the boycott of the Hamas government has harmed the quality of life of ordinary Palestinians, adding to the miseries of poor healthcare and unemployment, with many government employees suffering long arrears in the payment of their salaries. Government is among the biggest employment sectors in Gaza.

But from a Palestinian point of view, the fundamentalist Hamas Party is a legitimately elected government that had made a truce with the Israelis during the previous 18 months, and largely adhered to it. Some small guerrilla groups, such as the Qassam Brigades, as well as guerrillas loyal to Hamas' military leader in exile, Khalid al-Mashaal, did not share the civilian Hamas Party's commitment to the truce. They have been responsible for provocations, including the rocket attacks on Sderot.

In any case, Israel is itself largely responsible for the rise of Hamas. The Israelis withdrew from Gaza unilaterally, making no arrangements with any Palestinian negotiating party for security in the aftermath. Israel's then- Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had insisted that he had no one to talk to, despite the long-standing commitment of the Palestinian Authority, led primarily by the secular Fatah Party, to a negotiated peace. Fatah is weak in Gaza, however, where most Palestinians support the Islamist Hamas Party. Sharon had undermined Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, helping derail the Oslo peace accords, continuing to expand Israeli colonies on the West Bank, and attacking and weakening the P.A. security infrastructure. P.A. officials also behaved locally in a corrupt and arrogant manner, turning many voters against them.

It should not have been so surprising, then, that the Palestinian population, seeing the Israelis usurp Palestinian land on a grand scale and suffering from Israeli checkpoints and the carving up of the West Bank into small cantons, swung against the secular Fatah in this year's elections.

Sharon and Olmert's refusal to allow the development of a genuine Palestinian state, while desperately trying to avoid ruling as colonial masters over millions of Palestinians, has produced a dead end for Israeli policy. By unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza and unilaterally building a wall on Palestinian territory that usurped more Palestinian land, the Israelis during the past year have created a failed state all around them. The Hamas victory was as unacceptable to many Fatah supporters as it was to the Israelis, and there have been riots and gun battles between the two. The place is beginning to look like Somalia. While Israel may reap a temporary tactical advantage from the split between Palestinian factions, in the long run chaos and armed anarchy next door is not in its best interest."

"Yes, but will Israel be any less or more secure than it has for the last 58 years? Remenber, the choice is 1000 more years of low grade warfare or worse. Justice must be realized in the eyes of the Palestinians for there to be any deal. Whether this is right or not is immaterial, Israel's survival depends on a permanent peace."

I'm glad to see someone with Israeli experience recognize my exact point in all this - that Israel CANNOT be "secure" - the Zionist dream - without dealing with the failures of the past and the present. Without the Zionists giving up their fantasy, Israel will NEVER be secure unless it engages in total genocide of the Palestinians and nuclear war against the rest of the Arab states - which inevitably would result in Israel being taken over by the UN for war crimes - proving yet again that the Zionist dream was always a fantasy.

You CANNOT seize land, drive a million people off it, insult their religion and piss off every Arab for two thousand miles - and then believe that you are going to build a "secure" state for Jews based on a militaristic state and nuclear weapons.

It's just nuts.

"Israel is creaming Gaza right now because it's afraid that letting Hamas "get away with" kidnapping this soldier will be an invitation to mass kidnapping,"

No, that has nothing to do with it.

First of all, there's no such thing as "mass kidnapping" and the Israelis know it. Iraq isn't relevant - the Palestinians aren't the Iraqi insurgency - the situations aren't comparable (not to mention that the Iraqi insurgents aren't kidnapping soldiers, anyway.)

While it may be true that Hamas is learning from the Iraqi insurgency, that is no surprise, and Hamas wouldn't be able to duplicate Iraqi tactics anyway given the disparities in the two situations.

The Israeli government is not kowtowing to the Israeli citizens in this matter. They are following a considered policy of destroying the Palestinians as a society and a potential negotiating partner. While the majority of Israelis may support these actions, the actions are being decided on and taken by the Zionist fanatics in charge of the Israeli government, not the average Israeli citizen.

These actions cannot be justified by saying that Israelis feel "threatened" - not with the history of Israeli military victories and 100-400 nuclear weapons. Comparing that to the Palestinians situation is ridiculous. The Palestinians really DO feel threatened on a daily basis by Israeli military actions. The average Israeli citizen does not fear Palestinian terrorists as much as the Palestinians fear the Israeli military. Certainly the average Israeli fears terrorism more than any US citizen does, but that it is not the motivation for the Israeli government's actions.

You are correct that the Israeli government wants to force Hamas to take responsibility for EVERY act of terrorism by Palestinian splinter groups - or rather, to SEEM to force Hamas to do so. In reality, Israel knows full well that neither the PLO, Fatah, nor Hamas can control splinter groups. Thus, the notion is just an excuse to achieve the real goal - which is to destroy the legitimacy of ANY potential negotiating partner, thus allowing Israeli to claim unilateral action as its only recourse.

The cynicism with which this is done makes it clear that Israel has no legitimate policy in mind for the Palestinians other than ethnic cleansing.

What George said....

"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The problem with trying to separate the Israelis and Palestinians is that buffer zone will never be big enough unless you move the Palestinians completely out of the area - which, of course, merely cedes the victory to Israel's Zionists.

Look at the map. Israel wants ALL that territory, regardless of what Olmert is telling you.

The Palestinians will continue to be in the way of the Zionist dream - they want a "buffer zone", too - until there are no more Palestinians. That's the bottom line.

Your solution isn't going to work.