It all amounts, however, to a failure to admit the obvious -- that Palestinian rage is, whether or not you think it's justifies in any or all of its particulars, perfectly authentic.

Instead of endlessly talking about Palestinian Rage, can we discuss Palestinian aspirations for statehood? Palestinian Nationalism?

It always saddens me when an otherwise thoughtful analysis of the Israel Palestine conflict hits on that stereotype that presents Arabs as acting through irrational hatred.

"...that was the generic version of the story. Then we got the Iraq version of the story."

You skipped a step: in between there, we got the version that said that the real problem behind Al Qaeda was Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The tricky thing is, that's the version that is closest to being true. But for reasons that tend to confirm your distrust of the general thesis.

After 9/11, there was a general sentiment that AQ's operational abilities were being boosted far beyond those of the traditional terrorist gang by the support of a friendly nation-state.

Furthermore, that nation-state was harboring them, and wouldn't turn them over on request. So it made sense to most of us, really 99% of Americans of all political stripes, to go after the Taliban.

(If we had only finished that job and done a real job of the reconstruction of Afghanistan, the world would be a far better place.)

So the idea that state sponsors are the 'real problem' behind terrorist groups seemed to be fully borne out by our experience with Afghanistan and AQ.

But in fact, the more we learned after the fall of the Taliban, the more it became apparent that the relation between the Taliban and AQ was nothing like the relation between Iraq and the intifada at all.

This wasn't a large, powerful nation state helping out a rag-tag bunch of terrorists. Just the opposite: Bin Laden was so much wealthier and more sophisticated than the Taliban were, that he had for some time before the fall become the de facto ruler of Afghanistan. Old-time Afghani nationalist mujahadeen were starting to grumble about how their country had been taken over by the Arabs. It wasn't a nation-state abetting a terrorist-group: it was a terrorist-group that had taken over a nation-state.

Nothing even vaguely similar applied with Iraq. SH may have sent them checks now and then, but Palestinian terrorists had not taken over the levers of power in Iraq--laughable even to suggest it.

So: there's an old story, taught to Matt back in Hebrew School, about how it is nation-states that are the 'real problem' behind anti-Israeli terror attacks. That story doesn't hold up so well on scrutiny, as Matt amply illustrates.

But to understand the power of that story in our national debate, you have to remember the version of it that said that Afghanistan was the 'real problem' behind 9/11. Because there was some truth to it; there would have been no point in taking on AQ without taking on its power-base in Afghanistan.

But the details of *how* it is true make it even clearer that it does not lend support to the general thesis, or to the current attempts to apply it to Syria and Iran.

"Palestinians by and large want things that Israel won't give them and won't be made happy by concessions of the sort offered at Camp David or by "unilateral disengagement."

I thought that part of the rationale behind the various inchoate peace agreements was to attempt to convince the Palestinian people that these deals were in their best interests over time by presenting them with the various benefits that would flow from a "peace dividend."

The problem is that because these agreements never reached fruition that theory has never truly be tested.

"Peace would require either concessions Israel doesn't want to make, or a major change in Palestinian public opinion."

Well, that covers alot. But Israel could easily be forced by the US to offer a return to the 1967 borders without a single settler remaining beyond them. Those would be concessions that Israel does not want to make, but the negative externalities on the US and the Europe from Israel refusing to offer to remove all the settlers is enormous. This is of course the option much discussed in Europe, which does not have the power to propose it, and which is not much discussed in the US, which does have the power to propose it, because of the intense organisation on behalf of Israel lobby groups to keep it off the agenda.

Of course what the Palestinians really want, which a return to the 1967 lines does not give them, is to reverse their colonisation and ethnic cleansing from 1900 onwards. On that basis, the conflict is only 'resolvable' by repeated ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians (the option prevalent so far), or by subordinating the settler population to the indigenous population, like post-apartheid South Africa or, alas, post-apartheid Zimbabwe.

Your major point is right, but I guess I partly disagree.

The Palestinians never have been able to put together a strong state which would be able to suppress dissidents in the interest of a peace settlement of any description. As I understand, Arafat stayed in power by playing factions off against one another, throwing out bribes here and there, and cutting a succession of deals with the various non-Palestinian players. His own base wasn't big enough and he never really had "power" the way other rulers do, and Israel also was not willing to let him get strong enough to be able to successfully cut a deal and enforce it on the Palestinians.

And meanwhile everyone had their finger in the Palestinian pie -- Syria, Iran, and the Saudis on one side, and also presumably Israel, the US, and probably Egypt on the other. So there never quite was a Palestinian entity.

In other words, a strong Palestinian state just now might have been able to cut a deal and enforce it on reluctant Palestinians until they gave up on their bigger plans, but none of the outside players wanted that to happen.

Everyone "forgets" to mention that Saddam only started his gifts to the families of suicide bombers in reply to Saudi Arabia's now yearly telethon to help palestinians. They raised something like 100 million to help Palestinians whose homes were destroyed in response to suicide bombing. CNN showed video of people bringing in wheelbarrows full of gold jewelry to donate at the time. Saddam announced his "charitable gifts" program a week later. So WTF?

Nevertheless, obviously, removing him from power hardly resolved the situation. The "real problem" in essence, was not Saddam.

Bull.

Removing Saddam was necessary, but not sufficient. The fact that it wasn't sufficient doesn't make it not the "real problem", it just makes it one of several preconditions to peace. Getting rid of Syrian and Iranian influence are ALSO necessary (but not sufficient) conditions.

That all said, I agree completely with John Emerson said above - another necessary condition is a Palestinian state strong enough to be a partner for peace and to be responsible for the actions of its population.

pre-1967 borders... as in when Jordan was an occupier of the territory? The same Jordan that ran roughshod over the Palestinian people? The same Jordan, who might spend huge sums of money to finance bombs and weapons to murder Israelis, yet somehow rationalized the murder of 10,000 Palestinians, by their own King Hussein, in September of 1970. Jordan didn't seem so interested in human rights. Their fellows in the Arab world didn't seem to care either.

When 100,000 Algerian civilians were murdered, it wasn't a human rights violation. When far more are murdered in Sudan, no Arab even blinks. When Syria's Assad massacred 10,000 Syrians in Hama, no Arab would part a hair over it. But when Israel killed 56 people (mostly Arab terrorists), that is called a genocide and a war crime. Yet when Palestinians murder 1200 Israelis after signing the Oslo Peace Accords, that is, according to the Arabs, merely a legitimate protest against occupation

You either don't know the meaning of ethnic cleansing, or you find it inconvenient, because the Palestinian people have not been subject to it.

Ethnic cleansing is an attempt to exterminate a people, there's a vast world of difference between defending ones people, ones citizenry from brutal mass attacks. It's been the Palestinian government, who has had ethnic cleansing in mind, the Palestinian charter, composed in part by the late Yassar Arafat, that called for the destruction of Israel. It's been other leaders in the Arab world that call for the driving of Israel into the sea.. and it's not just been the current president of Iran making such statements.

What is apparent is the Palestinian government, as well as others in the Arab world who are promoting the idea of Arabs and Palestinians as victims instead of their being the victimizer. They make use of nazi propaganda, while at the same time inferring that Israelis are the ones acting like that.

The fact is, that the Palestinians who opted to live within Israel have thus far tripled in population.. they have voting rights and representation in the Israeli government. They are provided access to social welfare programs and access to health care. They are not denied any rights to religious practice.. kindly tell me which Arab country treats it's Jewish citizenry in any like manner? Oops.. that would be if you could find any Arab country that allows any Jewish citizenry. Iran might have a few Iranian Jews still, but they are being oppressed and relentlessly victimized.

The fact is that the area that has been called the West Bank is ancient Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The area where Palestinians and Israelis live is the homeland of the ancestors of all of these people. Jews were living and practising their beliefs there for over 3,500 years. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living there was during Jordan's 19 year rule from 1948 to 1967.

Jews were living in those areas approx. 50 centuries before Islam ever appeared in 622 AD. Civilized people do not allow bullies to run roughshod over the rights of others, they stand up to them. Israel does have responsibility in the problems it has with the Palestinains, but the Palestinians have equally as much responsibility in the same problem. England, France the US and Russia, as allied forces had a hand in bringing about the problem as well, but we won't make up for that by unjustly siding with those in the Arab world who are the ones seeking to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Israelis.

Palestinians by and large want things that Israel won't give them and won't be made happy by concessions of the sort offered at Camp David or by "unilateral disengagement."

Sounds right, but it could just as honestly be said that Israel by and large wants (land) that Palestinians won't give them (without a fight) and won't be made happy by concessions of the sort offered at Camp David or by a "two-state solution."

The only way out at this point may be if the leaders on both sides become casualties of their own inability to govern.

I don't think Matt was trying to do that. He was calling attention to the fact that the Palestinians have a strong concept of "justice" (correctly applied or not) and that until this is addressed, the issues involved will not be.

I think the Palestinian desire for "statehood" is not as great as their desire to get back their lands and stop being treated as "subhumans."

Statehood is merely one way to get there, or so some believe.

Not as long as Israel has a nuclear arsenal, which is why it is critical for the UN and the US and Europe to demand a unilateral and total nuclear disarmament of Israel.

Israel, faced with a couple hundred million mad Arabs and ONLY its conventional military, however powerful that military is vis-a-vis its immediate neighbors, will then have to reconsider its position.

Especially if Iran actually ever does get a nuclear weapon, as then regime change in Iran will be out of the question.

Unfortunately, it looks like a war with Iran is precisely the purpose of the current crisis.

The weak point in that argument is that there are plenty of other places that Iran could stimulate terrorism if it wanted to, even against Israel.

If Hamas cut a deal with Israel, the only losers would be the neocons and the Zionists and the Islamic fanatics that want to destroy Israel.

Iran might be irritated that Israel would no longer be under pressure from Hamas, but it would be foolish to start a wider ME war that could lead to Hamas being crushed.

I mean, it makes no sense. Certainly Iran would like to see the state of Israel put down and converted into a Palestinian state. Getting Hamas crushed in a wider ME war is not going to achieve that, and the Iranians know it. So that would not be a motivation for starting something like that.

Supporting Hamas and Hizballah in terrorist actions is one thing - starting a ME war is another.

People need to remember that despite the stated rhetoric of the various Arab states against Israel, there is a reality on the ground that keeps the ME from exploding on any given day.

These days, it would seem that Israel is the only one truly intent on making it explode. And that is because Israel is relying on the US to contain the damage to itself if the ME does explode.

Iran and Syria have no such "guarantees." Therefore, how likely is it that "they started it"?

"The only way out at this point may be if the leaders on both sides become casualties of their own inability to govern."

I see no indications that the leaders of Israel suffer from any inability to govern; They decide to withdraw from Gaza, they withdraw from Gaza. Demonstrably, they have the capacity to make their people comply with agreements. The other side demonstrably lacks either (charitably) the capacity to enforce agreements, or (realisticly) the desire.

Ethnic cleansing is an attempt to exterminate a people,

Technically, it is an attempt to move a people.  Genocide is the attempt to exterminate a people.

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

I think it's rather ludicrous to suggest that Israel "let" its soldiers get kidnapped.

Even if Israel wanted what you suggest to happen, which I am NOT agreeing is the case, there's no reason they would have had to "let" their soldiers get kidnapped. They could have provoked some cross-border incursions or increased rocket attacks or something (which also points out the problem with attempts to pinpoint who is responsible for "starting" tit-for-tat violence).

No need to conspiracize.

I think this comment veers toward anti-Arab sentiment that would be roundly condemned as anti-Semitism if it were equally incautious about its statements but written from the opposite viewpoint.

Arabs don't all hold the same viewpoints, so you should be specific if you want to refer to leaders of Arab countries or Palestinian leaders or whoever.

When far more are murdered in Sudan, no Arab even blinks. When Syria's Assad massacred 10,000 Syrians in Hama, no Arab would part a hair over it. But when Israel killed 56 people (mostly Arab terrorists), that is called a genocide and a war crime. Yet when Palestinians murder 1200 Israelis after signing the Oslo Peace Accords, that is, according to the Arabs, merely a legitimate protest against occupation

It's not necessary for the theory to be correct to assume that Israel had any specific provocation in mind - just that SOME provocation would be acceptable.

You are correct that Israel could have manufactured one. But why bother when one was nearly certain to occur at some point anyway? Israel and Hibzallah are still technically at war. Israel spent the last month or more killing Gaza civilians precisely to provoke such a response from Hamas, including kidnapping two people and from Gaza and "disappearing" them into their prisons as usual. Not to mention the virtual certainty of some other conflict arising within a matter of days or weeks that Israel could use to justify its "response".

The fact is, according to some Israeli analysts, that the IDF KNEW that kidnapping preparations were being made by Hizballah and Hamas cells. More importantly, it is also fairly certain that the IDF wanted to attack Hamas and Hizballah for the past year.

Doing so unilaterally would obviously have looked bad given the stated objectives of the "withdrawal", not to mention invading Lebanon.

More importantly than the "trigger" event, as I and other reports have emphasized, is the fact that it is CLEAR that Israel is using this to ramp up support for attacking Syria and especially Iran.

I hope that this isn't too much of a digression, but I find, not just in this post, a good deal of superlatives about military weapons use that actually show either restraint or incapacity.

Most of the rocket fire to date is from single-rocket launchers. There's quite an imperative not to keep shooting from one spot, as modern rocket and shell detection radar (e.g., the US AN/TPQ-36) can predict the launch point while rockets are still in flight, and transfer its coordinates to waiting artillery. Well-trained units often can get the counterfire in the air before the rockets land.

A typical Red Army launcher for multiple rockets (e.g., 122mm Grad or 132mm Katyusha) has 48 launch tubes. Again, Red Army practice was to deploy 48-tube launchers in battalions of 18. That means a rocket battalion can deliver 864 rockets in a single salvo, which, given the dispersion of these area-effect weapons, means that approximately one square kilometer will be devastated.

Artillerymen use a concept of "basic load", which is a multiple of the ammunition needed to fire a sincle salvo from all tubes. Minimal basic loads, varying with the artillery type, is usually between 3 and 5.

There are reports that 10,000 rockets were flown into Lebanon. This may sound like a lot, but it's really a little more than 11 units of fire, 3-5 basic loads. US artillery units in Desert Storm often fired "division threes", meaning the 3-12 artillery battalions of a division fired a full load three times. Sometimes, it was a Division Five.

This is all terrifying, legitimately, to civilians, but has to be regarded as relatively light for open war. I simply don't have the data on sorties and ordnance to estimate the damage capacity of the Israeli attacks.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*