March & Rally this Sunday to Bring the Troops Home Now! End Occupation!

BART was not held up in traffic. Free yourself. Join us.

Sorry to disappoint you folks, but the liberation of Iraq from Islamofascist terror is going to go on with or without you. George W. Bush is much too intelligent and concerned about international security to listen to the Stalinists from ANSWER. I suggest you find another fad to occupy your time. These protest to end the son-called "occupation" will be about as successful as the ones to stop the war from starting were.

Dear "Sorry,"

Despite your flippant dismissal of the protesters in your rhetoric, we are glad to know that you think that the protesters do indeed have credibility and are effective in what we do, otherwise you wouldn't have wasted your precious time to post on this forum.

Why do like being lied to by this Bush?

We at q2112.com suggest that in reality you are the one in need of a new "fad." The thousands who took to the streets of San Francisco are the true patriots striving for peace and social justice. We care very deeply about being lied to repeatedly and the lives lost due to lies told the world by this illegitimate Bush and his repugnant cabal.

And for those interested, we have published some photos of the protest/march on our site.

Peace.

I too oppose the occupation of Iraq and lament the toll it is taking on both that country and ours. But....

I find it disgusting that this march is being timed to coincide with the third anniversary of the start of this latest round of senseless violence. Blowing up children and the elderly on busses or in pizzerias has nothing to do with national liberation, it is another form of genocide. Thousands of people on both sides have died in the last three years of this latest intifada, probably the majority of them innocent. That is nothing to commemorate with strident political rhetoric, it is a sad fact that speaks to the insanity of this conflict. By taking sides with the intifada, ANSWER is callously ignoring the innocent Israeli victims whose only crime was being on the wrong streetcorner at the wrong time. The loss of life on both sides must be stopped. This is just another example of the anti-Semitic tone of ANSWER, and why I refuse to participate in any march organized by them.

This latest round of senseless violence started in 1948.

anonymouse: "This latest round of senseless violence started in 1948."

That would come as a surprise to the Jews of Hebron who were slaughtered in 1929.

The current round of violence started with the First Aliya, back in the nineteenth century.

anony-mouse: "The current round of violence started with the First Aliya, back in the nineteenth century."

No, that's just your _excuse_ to claim the Zi-i-i-ionists started the "cycle of violence." The First Aliyah -- which predated Herzl, if I remember right -- was based on a simple principle: buy land and move onto it. Somehow this is only ethically wrong if you're Jewish.

@%<

"Somehow this is only ethically wrong if you're Jewish. "

The first Aliyah was a form of European colonialism. Most Leftists condemn all colonialism and its hard to even claim that Israel is singled out when Israel is one of the few places Europeans colonized in the 1800s that is still rulled by ancestors of the colonizers. The US and Australia are rulled by ancestors of colonizers too but that was the result of much earlier colonization.

The first Alliyah wasnt when violence started since it was characterized by peaceful relations between the Palestinians and immigrant Jews from Europe. Many of the factories set up by immigrant Jews at this time actually hired more Palestinians than Jews since the European immigrants demanded higher pay. Violence between Jews and Palestinians started well into the second Aliyah and while it would be easy to blame the Jews or Palestinians the real driving factor was external. The fall of the Ottoman empire and the creation of artificial borders by the British resulted in new nationalisms revolving around former Ottoman states (or in Iraqs case three Ottoman states joined together). For Palestinians stuck in one of the few regions to have a sizable number of European immigrants, racist land grabs suddenly appeared a lot more threatening. The racism of the Jewish immigrants at the time wasnt directed at non-Jews but at non-whites; there were severe conflicts between European Jews and Yemeni Jews when Yemini Jews were brought in for cheap labor. Not of this should be surprising since the same conflicts between racist European colonizers and native populations were also happening in most African states, in India, in Indonesia, in Viet Nam and hundreds of other places at the same time.

What makes Israel semi-unique is that unlike most African states Israelis were in a near majority and had nowhere to go back to after WWII.There was also a lot of Middle Eastern Jewish migration to Israel but this also happened in the 30s and 40s.

I'm amazed-- and encouraged-- to see a reasoned, sober analysis of the tangled mess that is the history of european domination of the Middle East, i.e. post-WWI.... and right here in an IMC forum posting! That's a huge improvement over the corporate media, right here. Nice job, thanks.

Somewhat orthagonal to that: I'm grateful that the ANSWER folks are taking the time and spending the money to keep the protests going, but I've been to too many of them, I'm tired of them, and I'm not going anymore.

Reason? ANSWER is too narrowly focussed on the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. While severe, it is a SYMPTOM of a problem, and not the problem itself. Is there "linkage" between Iraq and Palestine? Of course. But is it the most important "linkage"? I don't think so.

What I REALLY want to see is more "linkage" between Iraq peace protest groups and the anti-globalisation, anti-WTO, anti-GE folks. Is Iraq being "reconstructed"? Is it even being "occupied"? No, it s being *sold off* to the highest bidder: to Bechtel and Halliburton and Shell/Amoco/BP/Mobil/Exxon et al. This is what all this military adventurism is really about: the corporate takeover of this country-- and the world in general-- with the United States and British military acting as private security force, as goons for the corporations.

Why is the USA so hell-bent on propping up the Likudniks? It's not about race, or religion, or eschatology: it's about the MONEY, honey. Israel is the Corporate America's only true "ally" providing "stability" in the region, and that leverage provides Likud with the power it wields so wantonly over the Palestinians.

Why is ANSWER the main group driving anti-war protests? The no-WTO groups are just as passionate, well-organised, and capable. If they started running peace and anti-occupation protests, I'd start showing up again, and, I'd bring money to donate this time around, since I think it'd be well spent: getting to the root of many, serious problems.

At the first protest, last October, I noticed a startling disconnect between the ANSWER organisers and the masses who attended the protest. The shrill, racially-charged, and occasionally anti-semitic rants of some speakers got moderate or scanty applause. Those who ranted about what a scumbag George Bush is, got a little bit more applause. But a few, offhand comments from some speakers who vented frustration about the corporate takeover of this country, got large, hearty, widespread applause and cheers. That tells me a lot. It tells me that the masses understand the root of the problem, and *want* to do something about it, want to focus on it, but... the organisers and the bulk of the speakers were somewhat off the mark. Sadly, at subsequent protests, this disconnect widened rather than closed.

Of course, I won't try to deny the obvious fact that race and religion are significant issues in the Middle East. And of course, Likud is a violent and oppressive regime. But then, so was the Baath party. Um, regime change would/could/can/did solve NEITHER problem.

Instead, let's get down to the core. Why is there an Iraq at all? Why is it not 3 separate nations? Why is there an Israel at all? Why is it not 2 separate nations? If we were to start with a clean slate in the Middle East, and truly let the people who live there have self-determination, what would those peoples choose? What sort of arrangement would let them all live peacefully, prosperously, and with dignity? It is possible in theory, but of course there would be great practical difficulties. But why? Who or what is stopping us from finding out?

Why DON'T we let them have self-determination? Well... here we are right back again at the issue of corporate power and the corporate takeover of our planet. We have shoved these people into an externally-imposed pressure-cooker of competitive races, religions, and traditions, to "divide and conquer" them, to suit our own economic ends. Any psychologist can tell you that overcrowding, lack of self-determination, and poverty can make any mammal turn to violence and irrationality. These people cannot live peacefully under such an arrangement. Full stop.

Let's fix this first, and it'll reduce the pressure that has kept these proud peoples at each other's throats for so long. Stop the globalisation, reclaim the power from the corporations, so that it can be given back to the people(s). That, indeed, is the answer.

1. The analysis by "well":

"The first Aliyah was a form of European colonialism."

- Bull. The Jews from Eastern Europe BOUGHT the land they settled on. The 1st Aliyah was only European insofar that the Zionist Jews came from Europe. Most people are unaware there was a pretty much concurrent Aliyah of Yemenite Jews.

"Most Leftists condemn all colonialism and its hard to even claim that Israel is singled out when Israel is one of the few places Europeans colonized in the 1800s that is still rulled by ancestors of the colonizers."

- That's nothing more than a well though of excuse by the individual who argues it. Nice try though.

"The fall of the Ottoman empire and the creation of artificial borders by the British resulted in new nationalisms revolving around former Ottoman states (or in Iraqs case three Ottoman states joined together). "

- Yes, quite a few new Arab nationalisms sprung up. That doesn't include the Palestinian nationalism, which began forming dozens of years later, definitely after the 1967 war.

"For Palestinians stuck in one of the few regions to have a sizable number of European immigrants, racist land grabs suddenly appeared a lot more threatening. "

- There were certainly no Zionist land grabs back then, so that nonsensical argument comes crashing down.

"The racism of the Jewish immigrants at the time wasnt directed at non-Jews but at non-whites; there were severe conflicts between European Jews and Yemeni Jews"

- True enough.

"when Yemini Jews were brought in for cheap labor. "

- Wrong about the timing. It started actually in 1882. See my first retort above.

"Not of this should be surprising since the same conflicts between racist European colonizers and native populations were also happening in "

- Sorry, this conclusion is inane, since Yemeni Jews weren't natives in Palestine, plus it was an internal Jewish conflict, whereas the rivalries in African states and elsewhere where European colonialists set foot were between European Christians and indigenous non-Christians.

2. amazed's opinions:

"Why is the USA so hell-bent on propping up the Likudniks? It's not about race, or religion, or eschatology: it's about the MONEY, honey. "

- Sorry. Clinton was no less ecstatic about trying to preserve Labor's regime as long as possible at the time; besides, if the money explained it all, then the US would be wholeheartedly, totally and unconditionally on Sharon's side, letting him execute his all his foreign policies vis-a-vis the Arabs and Palestinians as he saw fit. Yet fairly knowledgable people are aware that the US isn't letting Sharon do what he damn pleases, like deporting Arafat.
When it comes to money, the US is rather atuned to the Saudis.

"Israel is the Corporate America's only true "ally" providing "stability" in the region, and that leverage provides Likud with the power it wields so wantonly over the Palestinians. "

- Bullshit. Just look at Egypt, Jordan and of course Saudi Arabia for allies. The Saudi regime's provides the monitary stability Israel could never offer. And you must get yourself a more realistic sense of proportion to realize the Likud/Sharon is very inhibited by the US from dealing the Palestinian terrorists a decisive military victory.

"Likud is a violent and oppressive regime. But then, so was the Baath party."

- First of all, there isn't a real difference in terms of violence levels to speak of between the ways Labor and Likud have handled the Palestinian intifada, save for the fact the Likud had the confidence to stage military incursions into the disputed territories, which Labor didn't. Secondly, on a scale of 1 to 10, the Baath's violence level reached 10 while Likud's registers around 1. Again, get a real sense of proportion.

"We have shoved these people into an externally-imposed pressure-cooker of competitive races, religions, and traditions, to "divide and conquer" them, to suit our own economic ends", etc.

- Sorry. The Palestinians (and by other Arabs) have put themselves into the competing religious, traditional, national "presure cooker". The globalization and corporation matters aren't relevant in the Palestinian problem.

The Yemeni Jews made Aliyah by their own initiative, they weren't brought in by European Jews.
Many of them were compelled to become cheap laborers only once they arrived in Palestine.

My understanding was that near the beginning of the 2nd Aliyah there was a decission by European colonialists in Israel to bring in Yemeni Jews since many of the large factories set up during the 1st Aliyah were starting to fire expensive European Jewish labor and hire Palestinians. The decission was made by groups that wanted Jewish only areas but was opposed by many labor Zionists who saw it as undermining workers.

While many current Isrealis Jews are from neighboring countries (and Yemen) it was my impression that that immigration started quite a bit later (1940s and after).

Actually, the Yemenite Aliyah began in 1881!

One source relates:

"The first forty families that emigrated from Yemen had come six years earlier, in 1881 and 1882, arriving in Israel even before the thirteen Biluim from Russia. The sole desire of these people was to live and die in Eretz Haqqodesh. Subsequent minor aliyot from Yemen continued until the first major Yemenite aliyah to Israel in 1948-9, which effectively transplanted this ancient community. It is referred to as "On Eagles Wings" (popularly known as Operation Magic Carpet), a name that underscores the Divine influence on the events to be described. Forty years later, I was privileged for some unknown reasons to close the circle and to help the last remnant of 1500 Jews go to Eretz Haqqodesh starting in 1988 in a rescue operation known as Operation Esther.

"The first large group of Yemenite Jews came to a community in Palestine known as E’e’leh Be’tamar in 1882 motivated by a Yemenite belief that mashiach would arrive in that year. Nonetheless, life for these early Yemenite pioneers was not easy. Housing facilities were scarce, as were chaluqqah money and jobs. To exacerbate matters, the existing Jewish community gave the Yemenites a cool reception, and tried to discourage a further influx of Yemenite Jews. Apparently, the Palestinian Jewish community was afraid that the Yemenites would further deplete the already scant availability of resources and only worsen the already abject conditions.

"The Yemenite lot did not improve until the dissemination of the Zionist doctrine. In an attempt to build the country through agriculture, the Zionists required manual labor, and the prospect of using Arabs to help forge the Jewish State was anathema. The Yemenite Jews, already accustomed to the rigors of manual labor to which the European Jews were not, were the obvious choice. They had finally found their niche.

"The number of Yemenite Jews in Israel continued to climb until there were 40,000 of them living in Eretz Haqqodesh prior to World War II. Despite the growing presence of Yemenite Jewry in Israel, the majority of this community remained in Yemen, prevented from coming by the anti-Semitic regime then in power. However, following the demise of the Yemenite Imam Yahya in 1948, his son, the Imam Ahmad, ascended the throne. Although the Imam adopted an antagonistic stance towards the existence of the State of Israel to the extent that he included himself in the coalition of seven Arab nations united in opposition against the creation of the State, he nonetheless relaxed existing restrictions barring Yemenite Jews from immigrating to Israel. At a time in which Arab solidarity demanded a uniformly anti-Semitic posture, the change in Yemenite policy should be considered a genuine miracle. The prevailing explanation for his actions is that the Imam could not divert the will of G-D from its intended course. Within two years, 50,000 Yemenite Jews, the entire community, made their way to Israel."

The above was taken from http://yuweb.addr.com/archives/v62iB/features/tawil.html .

See also on pages 9 and 10 on http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:nZb6Qf-LZaMJ:http://www.humanities.uci.edu/history/levineconference/papers/peled.pdf+yemenite+jews+palestine+1882 (I hope this link isn't too long so as to screw up the wrap. )
The author concurs with you that Zionism was a European colonialist movement but that doesn't make you two right. No matter how many times you repeat the phrase "European colonialists", it remains very inaccurate when talking of Zionist Jews from eastern Europe.

I forgot to mention pages 7 and 8 too on the second source.

Thanks for the info. Thats similar to what I had heard but I had not realized that the Yemeni immigration had started on its own.

In your quote form that article (I read something similar in a book about Labour issues in pre1914 Palestine) you didnt mention that the Jewish immigrants didnt get along well with the Yemeni Jews since they were nonwhite (not really a surprise considering that racism was nearly universal in teh US and Europe at the time).

You attacks the use of the term European colonialists but it doesnt seem that inacurate a term. The settlements were by European Jews in Palestine and the idea was to create a whites only area (considering all of the conflicts between Eastern European and Yemeni Jews I wouldnt say Jewish only) Colonialism in Israel is comparible to South Africa (where ties with the parent country were also cut.)

It's the stark differences in CULTURE and KNOWLEDGE OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY that set the two Jewish groups apart, because eastern European Jews felt superior to their Yemeni counterparts. They were right when it came to MODERN TECHNOLOGY.

I disagree with your contention the Zionist Jews from Europe had a quest to create a "whites only area". You haven't presented any proof of this.
It's very probable though that the Ashkenazim wished to erase all the unique characteristics of Yemeni Jewish culture among their Jewish counterparts (as Ben-Gurion attempted to do during the 1950s and early 1960s).

Colonialism in pre-1948 Israel was on a rather small scale, Zionist Jews never aspired to it, were ashamed of it and most of the time they felt the urge to try and find ways to hire Jews instead of Arab laborers. Many times they acted upon those urges

"counterparts. They were right when it came to MODERN TECHNOLOGY. "
Well thats one take on European racism preWWII. Racism was sometimes very overt (talk of genetics etc..) but a lot of racism even in places like S Africa revolved around European culture being superior and building gardens in deserts etc.. There is of course truth to European culture being more advances scientifically but one would think that such arguments would lead to a desire to educate not exclude the Yemeni Jews (or in S Africa's case the native population)The idea that E European Jews just wanted to better their Yemeni counterparts before accepting them as Jews (at least during the 2nd Aliyah) seems spurious. There never was much integration until the 1940s and that was largely forced by world events (Israel today isnt that integrated either and Ive heard it said more than once by Israelis that the Palestinian conflict is the main thing that unites the Israeli population)
.
The problem with Israel proper is definitely more complicated than most proPalestinians on this site pretend. Like white S Africans Israelis cant go anywhere and decolonialism cant take the path it took in India, Kenya or Viet Nam. Unlike S Africa, there is a Jewish majority in Israel proper. One can compare the West Bank and Gaza to S African homelands created to make a whites only solution seem possible, but the percentage of black S Africans living in homelands wasnt the same as the percentage of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. While a two state solution seems much more possible in Israel than S Africa (where a two state solution would have been a disaster), Israel does have an issue with the growing percentage of Arab Israelis. Even with immigration the percentage of Israel that is Arab is growing. In a pluralistic society this wouldnt be a problem, but Isreal will have to face an identity crisis unlike any other country (in Europe and the US you do hear complaints of immigration dilluting traditional culture but you only hear this from the far far right).

So what is the solution.?There is a window of opportunity for a two state solution, but its an opportunity more for Israel than for the Palestinians. Sooner or later either West Bank and Gaza Palestinians will need to get Israeli citizenship or be declared part of some new country. The noncitizen limbo status of millions is obviously not sustainable. The longer Israel waits, the more complicted the situation becomes. More settlers and more Arab Israelis are moving the country in a direction where a one state solution is the only possibility left. Some secular Palestinians envision single state that might be acceptable by many Israelis, but many Israelis see the desire for single state to be the destruction of Israel.

The possibility of a two state solution is fully in Israel's hands. If two states were declared by Sharon tomorrow, would that mean more or fewer attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians? Israel needs to take charge and stop complaining about how the Palestinians need to act first (to act first is a sign of strength not weakness). Violence will never stop (people are gunned down the Oakland, SF and other US cities every day), but the occupation as it stands is increasing worldwide hatred against Israel to levels that have never existed before. The limbo nonstate state status of the West Bank and Gaza is in many ways unique; if the US were to keep troops in Iraq for 30 years and not allow elections it might be comparable but I cant think of any other occupaied territory that has the same status as Gaza or the West Bank.

You`ve requested proof on the fact that " some Zionist Jews Of Europe had a quest to create a "whites only area". Well< here it is>
White gentile immigrants from Russia are well beyond a quarter of a Million, yet the hierarchy establishment continually turns a blind eye to this phenomenon>

Your reading comprehension is less than satisfactory.
For one, what you said refers to a situation that has been happening over the last 15 years or so, not what occurred before 1948
Secondly, the Israeli establishment (Knesset, government) has tried to deal with this problem for some years now, urging the Chief rabbinate in Israel to be more flexible with Orthodox conversion to Judaism than they usually are, but it's that *rabbinical* establishment that has dragged its feet on the matter.

Why do you talk about the 1990s and early 21st century when the discussion was about pre-1948? Wakey Wakey, HJ. Please return to the archives and try fetching *reliable* evidence pertaining to 1881-1948. Godspeed.

You forgot a minor technicality: on which land swaths to declare the Palestinian state tomorrow? On Judea & Samaria and the Gaza strip too? How would you arrange the transportation between these two territories overnight?
Palestinian terrorists will keep right on attacking if Sharon declares a state for them tomorrow, because they really want also all of Israel proper as part of their state. I'm sorry to see you are unaware of this, but it's understandable nonetheless.
Also, your refrain of having Israel take the first step in such a bold manner is that of the Oslo process, which turned out to be a colossal failure, because the Palestinians had interpreted every Israeli unilateral concession as a sign of weakness; ergo, it shouldn't be attempted again. Would you want to try and fix a broken machine by using a tool that has been amply proven to cause only further damage to it? I guess not. Violence will never stop completely, but implementation of your idea will make it increase rather than decrease, as it will whet the appetite of Hamas et al.

It's not the "occupation" alone that's raising the hatred level toward Israel worldwide; in fact, that's the small part of it. It's the superb Palestinian propaganda which is mostly to blame for bringing about this reality.

"Palestinian terrorists will keep right on attacking if Sharon declares a state for them tomorrow, because they really want also all of Israel proper as part of their state."
Some Palestinians do and that number is growing just out of the hatred that results from the current conflict. The number of Israelis who dont want a Palestinian state for any reason is also growing for the same reason (conflicts and killings cause polarization).
If the West Bank and Gaza were given full independence AND the economy improved most of the Palestinian population would stop demanding land in Israel. Sure there would still be extremists but that number would shrink and at some point the Palestinians would crack down (it would take a good economy and peace from Israel for the population to turn against the extremists)

"Also, your refrain of having Israel take the first step in such a bold manner is that of the Oslo process, which turned out to be a colossal failure, because the Palestinians had interpreted every Israeli unilateral concession as a sign of weakness;"
How so? There were a few attacks on Israel during this period but they were nothing like the continuous nature of the attacks that have happened since Isreal sent troops back into the West Bank and Gaza. Suicide bombings are pretty new (with one or two major exceptions most occured after the breakdown of the peace process)

The only reason I think Israel is responsible for taking the first step is that Israel CAN take the first step. Israel has an organized government that does not HAVE TO respond to the current cycle of violence. Palestinians have no single leadership and the more the PA gives in the more power Hamas gets through popular support (I guess you could have said the same for Israel with Labor acting as the PA and Likud as Hamas but I think there is a fundmental difference in that Israel has a real government).

I said: Palestinian terrorists will keep right on attacking if Sharon declares a state for them tomorrow, because they really want also all of Israel proper as part of their state.

"well" responded: "Some Palestinians do and that number is growing just out of the hatred that results from the current conflict.

RESPONSE: *Most* of them do. Seems like you're trying to downplay the situation, but I know the real proportions of the problem.

"well" says: If the West Bank and Gaza were given full independence AND the economy improved most of the Palestinian population would stop demanding land in Israel. Sure there would still be extremists but that number would shrink and at some point the Palestinians would crack down (it would take a good economy and peace from Israel for the population to turn against the extremists) .

RESPONSE: you argue these things with certitude but offer no evidence to prove them. You are unaware or ignore the fact the ultimate goal of the Palestinian cause is to kick all Jews out of Israel and taking all the land for themselves.
Secondly, Israel set up during the Oslo process industrial parks and poured money into the Palestinian economy, encouraged Palestinian entrepreneurship and did her darndest to help create a sound Palestinian economy, and when she ultimately offered PEACE in 2000, the extreme population joined forces with "the extremists" and began their intifada. Remember I'm not talking about the merits of Barak's offer, I said PEACE, which was true. No excuses please.
Therefore, your thesis is quite dubious.

I said: Also, your refrain of having Israel take the first step in such a bold manner is that of the Oslo process, which turned out to be a colossal failure, because the Palestinians had interpreted every Israeli unilateral concession as a sign of weakness;

"well" responded: "How so? There were a few attacks on Israel during this period but they were nothing like the continuous nature of the attacks that have happened since Israel sent troops back into the West Bank and Gaza. Suicide bombings are pretty new (with one or two major exceptions most occurred after the breakdown of the peace process)"

RESPONSE: First off we must establish that the Oslo process broke down on Sep 27 '00 (outbreak of 2nd intifada). That's when all hell really broke loose.
There were MANY terrorist attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli Jewish targets from Sep '93 (start of Oslo process) prior to the 2nd intifada. Feel free to investigate this. Suicide bombing began at 1994, that's not new. Now, every time Israel took a step during the Oslo process to meet its end of the bargain, terrorist attacks increased, not decreased.

"well" says: "(I guess you could have said the same for Israel with Labor acting as the PA and Likud as Hamas but I think there is a fundamental difference in that Israel has a real government)."

RESPONSE: hope you didn't try to draw a perfect analogy. It's utterly ridiculous.
An analogy to the PA in Israel is simply "the government", whether it's Likud or Labor; Hamas would be like the Kahanist organizations on the far Right. Please realize that even though this is the best analogy one can draw, it's still very flawed nonetheless.

"Hamas would be like the Kahanist organizations on the far Right. Please realize that even though this is the best analogy one can draw, it's still very flawed nonetheless."

The difference as you yourself pointed out is that few Israelis support the Kahnists whereas a large percentage of Palestinians support Hamas.

The comparison between Likud and Hamas is one of reaction to violence. When the suicide bombings started politics in Israel moved to the right. Sharon never could have gotten elected if it hadnt been for suicide bombings since most Israelis had held his actions in Lebanon aginst him. Anger in the Israeli public following the suicide bombing made poeple want a leader who would confront the Palestinians rather than trying to make deals with them. The same dynamic is visible in support for Hamas. Before Israel cracked down after the start of the second initfada, Hamas and Islamic JIhad were small. They did carry out a few suicide bombings but they had no real popular support. When Israel cracked down and people had relatives killed, Palestinians wanted a leadership that would not make deals with the Israelis and confront them directly. Support for the PA went down and support for Hamas went up. The PA may have helped with some attacks on Israel but if they did so it was because they feared they were losing popular support (thats doesnt excuse it). The PA is seen in a similar light in Palestinian areas to how Labour is seen in Israel; making deals that might lead to peace is seen as giving in to an enemy that wants to exterminate all of ones own side (the same myth exists on both sides).

Stopping the Israel-Palestinian conflict and ending the occupation is like ending an innercity gang war in the US. As the anger builds each side gets more and more reason to fear the other side. If the cycle of violence were to stop hatreds would reduce, but neither side is willing to make the first move since they fear it will be seen as a sign of weakness. But its not an equal war. Israel has far far more power militarilly than the Palestinians. Israel has the power to end the occupation and keep attacks on Israel at the current level. While this would have no immediate effect on Palestinians, time would heal the hatred and after a few generations there could be real peace. Middle Eastern antiSemitism in it modern form is very recent and mainly adopted from European antiSemitism so its not that deep a part of the culture (and Palestinians on the whole are one of the more secular people in the Middle East).

I do think that groups in the US on both sides are hurting more than helping the conflict. Palestinians wont win militarilly yet Palestinian supporters (and crazies who call themselves antiZionists) demand no deals by the Palestinians with Israel. Israel supporters in the US tend to also take an extreme stand (with groups like the JDL and Kahnists having more of a base in the US than Israel).

Talk of Zionism and early colonization of Israel by either side to this conflict always seems weird to me. I see the seond Aliyah as destructive and the beginning of colonialism, but I also dont think it relates much to the current conflict. Israel wouldnt exist as a state if it hadnt been for the mass immigration following WWII. Zionism had its good and bad sides. My Jewish great grandparents didnt support it since it tended to look down on people who spoke Yiddish and plus my great grandparents wanted to come to the US not move to some dessert with the religious crazies who they probably saw as a cult. But some Labor Zionists wanted a multiethnic secular Arab-Jewish Socialist state, so its hard to make any sweaping statements about Zionism. I find it interesting that while one does hear Zionist conspiracies in the Arab media, one doesnt hear such conspiracies much from Arab Palestinian activists in the US (wheras one does from some white activists who strangely choose Israel as their sole area of focus). Zionism isnt really an issue anymore in Israel. Most Jewish Israelis are pretty secular and the conflict is really about revenge, security and land. Sharon may want Israel to eventually be all of the West Bank and Gaza and somehow expell the Palestinians to neighboring countries, but its not his support for Zionism that makes him want that; its his military desire for a wider country that can be more easilly secured....

(To the editor who censored my initial post: you can't stomach what I'm saying, or do you insist on taking offense when I didn't even deride your screen name? Don't behave stupidly.)

1. I said: Palestinian terrorists will keep right on attacking if Sharon declares a state for them tomorrow, because they really want also all of Israel proper as part of their state.

"well" responded: "Some Palestinians do and that number is growing just out of the hatred that results from the current conflict.

RESPONSE: *Most* of them do. Seems like you're trying to downplay the situation, but I know the real proportions of the problem.

2. "well" says: If the West Bank and Gaza were given full independence AND the economy improved most of the Palestinian population would stop demanding land in Israel. Sure there would still be extremists but that number would shrink and at some point the Palestinians would crack down (it would take a good economy and peace from Israel for the population to turn against the extremists) .

RESPONSE: you argue these things with certitude but offer no evidence to prove them. You are unaware or ignore the fact the ultimate goal of the Palestinian cause is to kick all Jews out of Israel and taking all the land for themselves.
Secondly, Israel set up during the Oslo process industrial parks and poured money into the Palestinian economy, encouraged Palestinian entrepreneurship and did her darndest to help create a sound Palestinian economy, and when she ultimately offered PEACE in 2000, the extreme population joined forces with "the extremists" and began their intifada. Remember I'm not talking about the merits of Barak's offer, I said PEACE, which was true. No excuses please.
Therefore, your thesis is quite dubious.

3. I said: Also, your refrain of having Israel take the first step in such a bold manner is that of the Oslo process, which turned out to be a colossal failure, because the Palestinians had interpreted every Israeli unilateral concession as a sign of weakness;

"well" responded: "How so? There were a few attacks on Israel during this period but they were nothing like the continuous nature of the attacks that have happened since Israel sent troops back into the West Bank and Gaza. Suicide bombings are pretty new (with one or two major exceptions most occurred after the breakdown of the peace process)"

RESPONSE: First off we must establish that the Oslo process broke down on Sep 27 '00 (outbreak of 2nd intifada). That's when all hell really broke loose.
There were MANY terrorist attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli Jewish targets from Sep '93 (start of Oslo process) prior to the 2nd intifada. Feel free to investigate this. Suicide bombing began at 1994, that's not new. Now, every time Israel took a step during the Oslo process to meet its end of the bargain, terrorist attacks increased, not decreased.

4. "well" says: "(I guess you could have said the same for Israel with Labor acting as the PA and Likud as Hamas but I think there is a fundamental difference in that Israel has a real government)."

RESPONSE: hope you didn't try to draw a perfect analogy. It's utterly ridiculous.
An analogy to the PA in Israel is simply "the government", whether it's Likud or Labor; Hamas would be like the Kahanist organizations on the far Right. Please realize that even though this is the best analogy one can draw, it's still very flawed nonetheless.

I think hearing both sides is good and dont think you should be censored. Im not sure if that makes any difference since the hiding of things on this site sometimes seems random.

But in this case I think you just didnt wait long enough for your post to appear (perhaps due to caching on the server or something)..

In any case, I reeponded to your post inbetween the two copies of it.

1. I said: Palestinian terrorists will keep right on attacking if Sharon declares a state for them tomorrow, because they really want also all of Israel proper as part of their state.

"well" responded: "Some Palestinians do and that number is growing just out of the hatred that results from the current conflict.

RESPONSE: *Most* of them do. Seems like you're trying to downplay the situation, but I know the real proportions of the problem.

2. "well" says: If the West Bank and Gaza were given full independence AND the economy improved most of the Palestinian population would stop demanding land in Israel. Sure there would still be extremists but that number would shrink and at some point the Palestinians would crack down (it would take a good economy and peace from Israel for the population to turn against the extremists) .

RESPONSE: you argue these things with certitude but offer no evidence to prove them. You are unaware or ignore the fact the ultimate goal of the Palestinian cause is to kick all Jews out of Israel and taking all the land for themselves.
Secondly, Israel set up during the Oslo process industrial parks and poured money into the Palestinian economy, encouraged Palestinian entrepreneurship and did her darndest to help create a sound Palestinian economy, and when she ultimately offered PEACE in 2000, the extreme population joined forces with "the extremists" and began their intifada. Remember I'm not talking about the merits of Barak's offer, I said PEACE, which was true. No excuses please.
Therefore, your thesis is quite dubious.

3. I said: Also, your refrain of having Israel take the first step in such a bold manner is that of the Oslo process, which turned out to be a colossal failure, because the Palestinians had interpreted every Israeli unilateral concession as a sign of weakness;

"well" responded: "How so? There were a few attacks on Israel during this period but they were nothing like the continuous nature of the attacks that have happened since Israel sent troops back into the West Bank and Gaza. Suicide bombings are pretty new (with one or two major exceptions most occurred after the breakdown of the peace process)"

RESPONSE: First off we must establish that the Oslo process broke down on Sep 27 '00 (outbreak of 2nd intifada). That's when all hell really broke loose.
There were MANY terrorist attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli Jewish targets from Sep '93 (start of Oslo process) prior to the 2nd intifada. Feel free to investigate this. Suicide bombing began at 1994, that's not new. Now, every time Israel took a step during the Oslo process to meet its end of the bargain, terrorist attacks increased, not decreased.

4. "well" says: "(I guess you could have said the same for Israel with Labor acting as the PA and Likud as Hamas but I think there is a fundamental difference in that Israel has a real government)."

RESPONSE: hope you didn't try to draw a perfect analogy. It's utterly ridiculous.
An analogy to the PA in Israel is simply "the government", whether it's Likud or Labor; Hamas would be like the Kahanist organizations on the far Right. Please realize that even though this is the best analogy one can draw, it's still very flawed nonetheless.

1. I said: Palestinian terrorists will keep right on attacking if Sharon declares a state for them tomorrow, because they really want also all of Israel proper as part of their state.

"well" responded: "Some Palestinians do and that number is growing just out of the hatred that results from the current conflict.

RESPONSE: *Most* of them do. Seems like you're trying to downplay the situation, but I know the real proportions of the problem.

2. "well" says: If the West Bank and Gaza were given full independence AND the economy improved most of the Palestinian population would stop demanding land in Israel. Sure there would still be extremists but that number would shrink and at some point the Palestinians would crack down (it would take a good economy and peace from Israel for the population to turn against the extremists) .

RESPONSE: you argue these things with certitude but offer no evidence to prove them. You are unaware or ignore the fact the ultimate goal of the Palestinian cause is to kick all Jews out of Israel and taking all the land for themselves.
Secondly, Israel set up during the Oslo process industrial parks and poured money into the Palestinian economy, encouraged Palestinian entrepreneurship and did her darndest to help create a sound Palestinian economy, and when she ultimately offered PEACE in 2000, the extreme population joined forces with "the extremists" and began their intifada. Remember I'm not talking about the merits of Barak's offer, I said PEACE, which was true. No excuses please.
Therefore, your thesis is quite dubious.

3. I said: Also, your refrain of having Israel take the first step in such a bold manner is that of the Oslo process, which turned out to be a colossal failure, because the Palestinians had interpreted every Israeli unilateral concession as a sign of weakness;

"well" responded: "How so? There were a few attacks on Israel during this period but they were nothing like the continuous nature of the attacks that have happened since Israel sent troops back into the West Bank and Gaza. Suicide bombings are pretty new (with one or two major exceptions most occurred after the breakdown of the peace process)"

RESPONSE: First off we must establish that the Oslo process broke down on Sep 27 '00 (outbreak of 2nd intifada). That's when all hell really broke loose.
There were MANY terrorist attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli Jewish targets from Sep '93 (start of Oslo process) prior to the 2nd intifada. Feel free to investigate this. Suicide bombing began at 1994, that's not new. Now, every time Israel took a step during the Oslo process to meet its end of the bargain, terrorist attacks increased, not decreased.

4. "well" says: "(I guess you could have said the same for Israel with Labor acting as the PA and Likud as Hamas but I think there is a fundamental difference in that Israel has a real government)."

RESPONSE: hope you didn't try to draw a perfect analogy. It's utterly ridiculous.
An analogy to the PA in Israel is simply "the government", whether it's Likud or Labor; Hamas would be like the Kahanist organizations on the far Right. Please realize that even though this is the best analogy one can draw, it's still very flawed nonetheless.

There are public opinion sur veys on the net regarding this sort of thing (you can search on google).

http://www.pcpsr.org/new/new.html

Poll #8 : While Support For Abu Mazin Drops, Support For A Ceasefire Increases With A Majority Supporting Ending The Armed Intifada And Agreeing To A Mutual Recognition Of Israel As The State Of The Jewish People And Palestine As The State Of The Palestinian People. 19-22 June 2003 - (Press Release) and (Joint Palestinian-Israeli Press Release)

To say that the palistinians are becoming more radical as a result of retaliation appears to be flawed.

the last few hours of comments are not showing up on sf.indymedia.org but they are on http://www.indybay.org.

Let's see if the cache problems have been resolved for today.

"well" said: "Before Israel cracked down after the start of the second initfada, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were small. They did carry out a few suicide bombings but they had no real popular support."

RESPONSE: Keep in mind that Hamas was small (the Jihad's following was always small anyway) since Arafat cracked down on it in spring 1996 in an unsuccessful bid to try and get Peres re-elected, after it seemed he would loose to Netanyahu due to Israeli public anger over the spate of suicide bombimgs on buses during late '95/early '96. Prior to that crackdown, Hamas had a considerable membership. That was NOT Israel's or the IDF's fault.
Also, don't forget that lots of suicide attacks were foiled by Israeli intelligence, military and police.
It's also not true to say the Islamist terror groups didn't enjoy popular support, though it was lower than the current rate.

"well" said: "The PA may have helped with some attacks on Israel but if they did so it was because they feared they were losing popular support."

RESPONSE: Sorry, the PA helped with many attacks and it even executed attacks of its own. True, they always had a rivalry with the Islamists, but also their own agenda of hurting Israel through terror. Remember that the central faction of the PA is Fatah, which had terrorists as field troops in the Palestinian Police (actually a paramilitary group) and other apparatuses.

"well" said: "If the cycle of violence were to stop hatreds would reduce,"

RESPONSE: I disagree. As long as there's the MAINSTREAM Palestinian uncompromising rigidity that trigger's 99.99% of the cycles of violence, hatred cannot be reduced.

Let's see if the cache problems have been resolved for today.

"well" said: "Before Israel cracked down after the start of the second initfada, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were small. They did carry out a few suicide bombings but they had no real popular support."

RESPONSE: Keep in mind that Hamas was small (the Jihad's following was always small anyway) since Arafat cracked down on it in spring 1996 in an unsuccessful bid to try and get Peres re-elected, after it seemed he would loose to Netanyahu due to Israeli public anger over the spate of suicide bombimgs on buses during late '95/early '96. Prior to that crackdown, Hamas had a considerable membership. That was NOT Israel's or the IDF's fault.
Also, don't forget that lots of suicide attacks were foiled by Israeli intelligence, military and police.
It's also not true to say the Islamist terror groups didn't enjoy popular support, though it was lower than the current rate.

"well" said: "The PA may have helped with some attacks on Israel but if they did so it was because they feared they were losing popular support."

RESPONSE: Sorry, the PA helped with many attacks and it even executed attacks of its own. True, they always had a rivalry with the Islamists, but also their own agenda of hurting Israel through terror. Remember that the central faction of the PA is Fatah, which had terrorists as field troops in the Palestinian Police (actually a paramilitary group) and other apparatuses.

"well" said: "If the cycle of violence were to stop hatreds would reduce,"

RESPONSE: I disagree. As long as there's the MAINSTREAM Palestinian uncompromising rigidity that trigger's 99.99% of the cycles of violence, hatred cannot be reduced.

"As long as there's the MAINSTREAM Palestinian uncompromising rigidity "

There is rigidity on both sides. In Israel there is a lot of discussion on how/why Sharon is making the situation worse and getting in the way of a peaceful solution:

"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last week attacked the
involvement of a number of Labor Party MKs and
other left-wing activists in an effort to
formulate an agreed document for an end to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sharon was refering
to the so-called Swiss initiative, which aims to
present the two peoples with a peace agreement,
based in great part on the Clinton plan discussed
at the Camp David and Sharm el-Sheikh summits
three years ago. Sharon described the Israelis'
participation in this brainstorming effort as
"activity being carried out behind the back of the
government and in coordination with the
Palestinians." The words were meant to stain the
effort as a treasonous act."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/348803.html
also see
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/348795.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/348792.html

Those are all from todays edition of Haaretz and there have been far harsher editorials about growing racism in Israel etc... in their newspaper.

Haaretz is willing to ask tough questions of Sharon and accuse him of getting in the way of peace and its a pretty mainstream newspaper. But one may ask, where is the Palestinian version of Haaretz? Where is the Palestinian version of Peres (who still maintains that Arafat deserved the Nobel Peace Prize: http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/272868.htm )

There is no Palestinian economy to produce a Haaretz and Palestinians ALL live in a war zone (whereas Israel faces risks of bombings but doesnt have tanks in the streets and constant running gun battles) A Palestinean trying to call for compromise would be stuck in the same situation as a Jewish settler (constant threats breed a security culture where dissent isnt allowed). Once civil society is allowed to rebuild in the West Bank and Gaza one will find more people willing to consider more practical solutions. But civil societry cant rebuild in the state things are in now; so as long as the occupation means no jobs, no schools and increasing levels of poverty things will get worse. Look at Afghanistan, the Taliban were children of war raised in refugee camps without parents or schooling; instead of the constant violence moving a younger generation towards compromise it created young men who only knew war and whose vision for the future was nonsensical

Yeah, there's rigidity on the Israeli side. But it's not as absolute and formidable as the Palestinian.

Please don't be impressed of all the phenomena you spoke of about Ha'aretz. I know that paper. What you've seen there and quoted is mundane in that newspaper. Ha'aretz, my friend, is NOT mainstream. It's actually the mouthpiece of Meretz, the extreme (in Israel at any rate) leftwing party whose opinions are a little Right to the anti-Zionists such as Gush Shalom.
Why didn't the Palestinians create their own Ha'aretz from Sep '93-sep '00? For the same reason most of them had never wanted, and a minority among them never attempted a bloody uprising against Arafat and the PA's regime in a quest to create a much more democratic and responsible regime. This is not Israel's fault, my friend. The blame for this lies squarely on Palestinian shoulders.

If the so-called occupation is ended tomorrow, don't expect the Palestinians to be able to better their condition substantially as long as Arafat pulls the strings there. It's even highly doubtful whether Arafat's heir would be less oppressive of his Palestinian subjects.

Yeah, there's rigidity on the Israeli side. But it's not as absolute and formidable as the Palestinian.

Please don't be impressed of all the phenomena you spoke of about Ha'aretz. I know that paper. What you've seen there and quoted is mundane in that newspaper. Ha'aretz, my friend, is NOT mainstream. It's actually the mouthpiece of Meretz, the extreme (in Israel at any rate) leftwing party whose opinions are a little Right to the anti-Zionists such as Gush Shalom.
Why didn't the Palestinians create their own Ha'aretz from Sep '93-sep '00? For the same reason most of them had never wanted, and a minority among them never attempted a bloody uprising against Arafat and the PA's regime in a quest to create a much more democratic and responsible regime. This is not Israel's fault, my friend. The blame for this lies squarely on Palestinian shoulders.

If the so-called occupation is ended tomorrow, don't expect the Palestinians to be able to better their condition substantially as long as Arafat pulls the strings there. It's even highly doubtful whether Arafat's heir would be less oppressive of his Palestinian subjects.

71% of Baghdad's people want U.S. troops

How many Iraqis have you asked about this personally?

why should we limit these threads to first person accounts?

are you one of these morons who that just can't believe there are people and events which do not reflect your perceptions?

save us your implications regarding conspiracies...

Because polls can't be trusted.