Actually the reason is important. It's called demographics. The Palestinians are increasing demographically much faster than Israeli Jews.

If Israel formally controls itself, the West Bank and Gaza, then Jews become a minority in the lands that they control.

At that point - you have Minority Rule and the South African precedent is invoked: Israel Palestine becomes a land of Minority rule and the West Bank and Gaza start to look like Bantustans. The idea that Israel is a liberal democracy in the Middle East disappears.

Sharon looked at this rising demographic problem and realized that he couldn't keep both the West Bank and Gaza. Since the West Bank was strategically far more important and Gaza almost worthless, he forced the settlers out of Gaza and abandoned control of it. When he did that, he technically took the demographic question off the table.

That I think is important. Demographics is driving the strategies being employed in the Middle East - and it is far and away the biggest threat to Israel. Sharon bought some time, but that still remains the biggest problem. I'm not sure how anyone can solve that either.

BradthDad says: "By contrast, the Palestinians, despite their suffering and despite all the death and destruction rained down on them, are at their core a supremely unattractive object of sympathy."

Among bigots, you are right. Among decent people, you are wrong. I guess we know what trash you hang around with.

Brad is referring to 'Jews Only' human rights in Israel. For the entire population of Israel, the State Dept. reported a different story in 2000:

The State Department's "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2000: Occupied Territories" (February 2001) states unequivocally that "Israel's overall human rights record in the occupied territories [is] poor." It goes on to report that:

Israeli security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses during the year.... Since the violence began, [September 2000] Israeli security units often used excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators. Israeli security forces sometimes exceeded their rules of engagement, which provide that live fire is only to be used when the lives of soldiers, police, or civilians are in imminent danger. ...Israeli security forces abused Palestinians in detention suspected of security offenses. ... There were numerous credible allegations that police beat persons in detention. Three Palestinian prisoners died in Israeli custody under ambiguous circumstances during the year. Prison conditions are poor. Prolonged detention, limits on due process, and infringements on privacy rights remained problems. Israeli security forces sometimes impeded the provision of medical assistance to Palestinian civilians. Israeli security forces destroyed Palestinian-owned agricultural land. Israeli authorities censored Palestinian publications, placed limits on freedom of assembly, and restricted freedom of movement for Palestinians.

Often lauded as the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel nevertheless appears to have difficulty applying its high human rights standards to non-Jews. One might plausibly argue that these standards are, out of necessity, suspended in areas under military occupation were it not for the fact that the Jewish settler population in the territories benefits from the same rights and privileges accorded their counterparts within Israel's internationally recognized borders.

One might also argue that Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are equal participants in the country's democratic social institutions were it not for certain serious problems such as the fact that nearly 70,000 Arab Israelis live in legal limbo: the more than 100 villages they live in within Israel are unrecognized by the government. As a result these residents pay taxes to the government but are "not eligible for government services...."

"Consequently, such villages have none of the infrastructure, such as electricity, water, and sewers, provided to recognized communities. The lack of basic services has caused difficulties for the villagers in regard to their education, health care, and employment opportunities. New building in the unrecognized villages is considered illegal and subject to demolition."

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2000 [CRHP 2000]: Israel, US State Department, February 2001.

BTD said:

The same dynamic has been going on for years. Any Israeli military action at all produces much sound and fury. The left is outraged. The media focuses on the poor Palestinians. Various useful idiots make excuses for the lunatics of Hamas and say it's all about the occupation (and the fact that Israel has shown itself willing and able to uproot settlements in Gaza doesn't shift the focus away from "occupation" one iota). But somehow, through it all, Israel maintains its support.

You forget Brad, everything changed after 9/11. Or, more precisely, everything changed after the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report and Walt & Mearshimer's analysis of it's findings:

"A critically important issue when talking about America's terrorism problem is the matter of how US support for Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians relates to what happened on September 11," said Mearsheimer...

Mearsheimer suggested that the notion of payback for injustices suffered by the Palestinians is perhaps the "most powerfully recurrent in [Osama] Bin Laden's speeches," who, he said, had been deeply concerned about the plight of the Palestinians since he was a young man. He said that Bin Laden's concern had been reflected in his public statements throughout the 1990's - "well before 9-11." Citing the 9-11 Commission report, Mearsheimer and Walt argued that Bin Laden wanted to make sure the attackers struck Congress because it is "the most important source of support for Israel in the United States," adding that Bin Laden twice tried to move up the dates of the attacks because of events involving Israel. Mearsheimer and Walt went on to argue that 9-11 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences in the United States as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel. "Its hard to imagine more compelling evidence of the role US support for Israel played in the 9-11 attacks," said Mearsheimer.

"In short, the present relationship between Washington and Jerusalem is helping to fuel America's terrorism problem," he went on to say.

They said that US support for Israel motivates some individuals to attack the United States and "...serves as an important recruitment tool for terrorist organizations," according to Mearsheimer. He said that US support for Israel generates huge support for terrorists in the Arab and Islamic world.

This is not to say that our unquestioning support for Israel is to blame for terrorism and anti-Americanism in the Islamic world, but it does create a major stumbling block in our relationships with countries with a large Muslim population.

More and more, it seems as if the two parties - Israelis and Palestinians - just aren't capable of coming to a resolution on their own. Perhaps it's time for international intervention. That would give the moderates in Israel cover; the settlements in the OTs could be removed but the moderates could say they were being forced to do it, and there would be less chance of domestic upheaval that way (although there surely would still be some). The same thing goes for the Palestinians. If they were required, as a result of an international intervention, to relinquish for the most part the Right of Return, or to accept reparations in return for relinquishing it, they also could turn to the more extreme segments of their populations, or those segments more easily influenced by the extremists, and throw up their hands and say, "We had no choice." With a generous settlement from Israel, lots of international development attention and funds, and hope for the first time in years, I think most Palestinians would move on with building their new lives. Similarly, the majority of Israelis would probably do the same.

The extremists on both sides will never be happy. Why let them decide on the outcome? Or dictate the ongoing lack of an outcome?

You're completely right about one thing, Brad. What's been done for decades simply hasn't worked. It's time for something new.