it is the gobbling up of Palestinian land beyond the pre-'67 borders that is the cause of most Palestinian violence since 1967.

the settler attitude is exemplified in this youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo_xtf6alCE

someone in the comment section at youtube made the following comment:

Israel has a problem with the Ultra-Orthodox and with the settlers. The government is forced to pander to both groups because they are fertile. The rest of Jewish society in Israel has birth rates well below replacement, just like Europe. Many secular Jews consider the settlers and Ultra-Orthodox an embarrassment, but those secular Jews don't have enough babies to out-breed the Arabs.

hmmm....who has the biggest fuck bomb?

RE: "...Jeff Goldberg of the Atlantic is upset that President Obama recently connected the dots between settlement expansion and violence..." - MJ Rosenberg

SEE: "Israelis and Obama", By HENRY SIEGMAN, OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR, 11/01/09, nytimes.com

(excerpts)...Presidential aides worry that the hostility toward President Obama among Israelis can be damaging to his peace efforts. This is undoubtedly true.
But a White House campaign to ingratiate the president with Israel’s public could be far more damaging, because the reason for this unprecedented Israeli hostility toward an American president is a fear that President Obama is serious about ending Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Israelis do not oppose President Obama’s peace efforts because they dislike him; they dislike him because of his peace efforts. He will regain their affection only when he abandons these efforts.
That is how Israel’s government and people respond to any outside pressure for a peace agreement that demands Israel’s conformity to international law and to U.N. resolutions that call for a return to the 1967 pre-conflict borders and reject unilateral changes in that border...
...Rather, the conflict continues because U.S. presidents — and to a far greater extent, members of the U.S. Congress, who depend every two years on electoral contributions — have accommodated a pathology that can only be cured by its defiance.
Only a U.S. president with the political courage to risk Israeli displeasure — and criticism from that part of the pro-Israel lobby in America which reflexively supports the policies of the Israeli government of the day, no matter how deeply they offend reason or morality — can cure this pathology...

» Henry Siegman, a former national director of the American Jewish Congress, is director of the U.S./Middle East Project.
ENTIRE OP-ED - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02iht-edsiegman.html?_r=1

Everyone with half a brain knows that in a long-standing feud, violence and hatred feed on each other, terror begets terror, murder begets murder, etc. So why are neo-con hypocrite diarrhea-mouths so incessant at denying the obvious applicability to the terrorist-settlers?
A little historical thinking may be useful here.

I used to think such neo-con deceits were basically variations of Orwellian Big Lie techniques: Repeat the lie often enough and loudly enough, and people will eventually start to think there must be some truth to it. But to posit that most American Jews believe this crap about the settlements, one would have to somehow explain how one of the best educated segments of the American public is composed of complete imbeciles when it comes to one of the issues that they should understand better than almost any other subset of the US population. The Big Lie explanation therefore fails. The lie is far too stupid to be widely accepted. It is tolerated despite being an obvious and vile falsehood, and the question is why?

150 years ago, all sorts of rationalizations were advanced to justify the removal of native Americans so that whites could exploit and settle the land. But it was rare indeed, even amongst the rudimentarily-educated Andrew Jacksons, to hear it claimed that the displacement and subjugation played no role at all in provoking violent reprisals. And when it comes to neo-cons spewing BS about the West Bank settlements for Jewish ears, we are not talking about Sarah Palin levels of bimboism.

Here is an analogy that even the Palins can probably grasp. Why was anti-Semitism so prevalent and peristent for so long in Europe (solidly institutionalize well into the 19th century in most places, and even through most of the mid-20th century in some very notorious cases)?

Surely not because non-Jews everyone and always were deeply antagonist to all Jews. There are numerous examples of friendly relations, integration, intermarriage etc. But these were very much the the exception until the beginnings of reform in the 19th century. Why was such reform so long and slow in coming? This is of course a complicated question which many history books have tackled but remain far from completely resolving. But one simple reality pervades the complexity. As with racial segregation in the Deep South, and more other forms of bigotry, anti-Semitism persisted because it could be indulged it at no or very low cost. The ugly Jew, like the good dead Indian, the Jim Crow negro, etc. persisted because the stereotype was socially acceptable amongst people who otherwise tended to behave in what would now be considered a civilized way. Of course, the Cosssacks carrying out pogroms, the KKK lynchers, the calvary mowing down women and children at Wounded Knee, were going "a little too far" but there was nothing fundamentally wrong -so the then prevailing sentiment went- with treating morally inferior people in a morally inferior manner.

It took campaigns, by enlightened Europeans against anti-Semites (as with Whites in America against segregationists, etc.) to bring shame and basic human decency to the forefront and press for enactment of humanitarian reforms.

Every American, but especially every Jewish American, should be deeply ashamed of what our Congress has done to whitewash the barbaric slaughter in Gaza, the decades-long inhumanity in the West Bank, and to criticize a perfectly basic demand by Obama for a moratorium on INCREASING the level of the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. This is not to say that Palestinians are not also quilty of many injustices and crimes, but institutional authority in America is not whitewashing those outrages. As a major world power, America has itself committed more than its share of outrages, from My Lai, to the Central American death squads, to supporting Saddam Hussein, and later using his prison to commit war crimes at Abu Ghraib. But Americans do not insist on interfering for many decades in other countries' legislatures in other to commit horrors that America would not otherwise dare commit.

It is time to stop the kid glove treatment and insist that propagandists for foreign terrorists be considered personas non-grata. Their incessant rationalization of bigotry has no place in a civilized society of the 21st century. Obama is an Uncle Tom in this department. So be it. Others can befriend Uncle Tom while finding and supporting the William Lloyd Garrisons.

That the I-P dispute is central to our problems with Muslims in general and Arabs in particular is not a bad thesis. That a return to '67 borders will solve it is a shameful lie.

Israel cannot be secured behind '67 borders, was never secure behind those borders. That's because the problem is not the occupation but the Zionist project.

Israel is stealing Palestinian land? The Palestinians have made that complaint since 1890, during the Mandate, in 1949 at the conclusion of the War of Independence, in 1967, and currently. Israel is a European colonial project? Same thing. In fact, virtually every argument made against the occupation was made against the Zionist project from its inception.

George Marshall was honest about it in 1947 when he advised Truman that recognition of Israel would threaten our interests in the Arab world. Jabotinsky was honest about it in 1923 when he said that if you believe in the Zionist project then all else follows, and if you don't then all else follows also...except that what is good from the first point of view is bad from the second and vice versa.

So why can't you be honest? Because you're a coward who's principal motivation is your personal safety and privelege. If you were honest you'd be thrown out of your synagogue and never work for an American Jewish organization again, while if you supported Zionism the way Lenny Ben David does you risk Islamic violence even in America. Disgusting.

I wish that you libs would get off of Jeff Goldberg's case. He is a good guy. And I loved him in Jurrasic Park!

Arafat was not above accepting a little now and demanding more later. It's not a Zionist trick. It's a human trick. But he couldn't accept anything that damaged his reputation among his people. Also, quite human.

The PACKAGE you're so proud of would seriously damage Israel's self-confidence, its military security, its internal cohesiveness, it Jewish character...EVEN IF the Arabs adhered to the treaty to the letter. But Arabs have no such reputation of honesty, of making a deal and sticking to it.

So the package is ridiculous and the situation is as I stated;

The problem is Zionism, not the occupation.
The aspirations and goals of the two peoples are mutually exclusive and cannot be resolved by peaceful negotiation until one side or the other is decisively defeated in battle. Just as Jabotinsky said.
The pre'67 borders were, with minor adjustments, a 1949 armistice line. The Israelis were willing to make peace based on that line before their 1967 victory, and even just afterwords, but the Arabs refused. Now there's a new military and demographic reality so the Israelis will never agree to return to the old line, for reasons that are obvious to any person with eyes and brains. A new line would be far more difficult to draw than the old one so no armistice is possible now. More battles remain to be fought during which Jews and Arabs will try to improve their positions.

Meanwhile, each side will continue to jockey for diplomatic advantage, for the "hearts and minds" of the cloud of useful tools and useless fools who constitute the activist base.

Feel good, thank you on the article。by the way,Upstairs is a sucker.
christian louboutin|Abercrombie and Fitch london

The point is not to point out someone for what has happened. Better get out and have some solution for it and then play this politics game Ancient Coins Collecting

The purpose of the West Bank settlements is not to make Israel "secure". That is a pitiful lie. They do the opposite.

olgun sex

The purpose of the West Bank settlements is not to make Israel "secure". That is a pitiful lie. They do the opposite. izmir escort