i think people need to understand the mindset of these israeli settlers ... we often talk about extremist or fundamentalist behaviour associated with the islamic people ... these "settlers" are no different - they believe god has taken them to this land and that god has given it to them ... and they are prepared to defend that with whatever means necessary ...
Whatever, outlaw. It IS a cycle, and I am not trying to sound smart. How you view Hamas (humanitarians who love social programs, apparently) is your choice to decide. No one has shown me any math that convinces me that Hamas social aid outweighs the drawbacks of continued war with Israel ... If you've got any, feel free to share.
whatever? I give you that long post and all you can say is whatever?
and I never said hamas was full of humanitarians, it's hilarious to see that you can't even hide your sarcasm which only proves that most of your information is probably received from mainstream US media. However, I did say that overwhelmingly, their funds are for social programs. And it doesn't take any math, just reading:
"Through its funding and management of schools, health-care clinics, mosques, youth groups, athletic clubs and day-care centers, Hamas by the mid-1990s had attained a "well-entrenched" presence in the West Bank and Gaza.[24] An estimated 80% to 90% of Hamas revenues fund health, social welfare, religious, cultural, and educational services.[25][26][27]"
Well, that's one potentially valid perspective, soulsinging ... Your arguments are unconvincing, although I have no real basis to say that you're flat-out wrong, because no cessation in hostilities has occurred.
Actually, there have been plenty of instances of civil disobedience in this conflict. The first intifada was LARGELY nonviolent. It consisted of things like Palestinians marching side by side towards tanks, etc. A good book on this is "A Quiet Revolution" by Mary Elizabeth King.
All forms of nonviolent protest are not covered by mainstream media, however, which is probably why you missed out on this kind of information. This conflict has been going on for over 60 years, you think the entire time the Palestinians have been completely violent? There have been student movements, etc, that you clearly don't know about.
Well, that's one potentially valid perspective, soulsinging ... Your arguments are unconvincing, although I have no real basis to say that you're flat-out wrong, because no cessation in hostilities has occurred. My position has not been tested, and neither has the position that continued hostilities are going to produce a resolution. I suspect that any resolution that does happen will occur in spite of the violence, not because of it. The U.S. could unilaterally cut all military aid to Israel, which may have some benefits in the long run. Israel's military superiority relative to Palestine wouldn't change much, though, at least not right away. I don't think the Palestinians should be disarmed, but an explicit disavowal of terrorism might work wonders in terms of improving the image of Palestine (and maybe other Muslim nations) in the Western world. Ever wonder why so many people here think the Tibetans need help, but there are relatively few organized "Save Palestine" groups? How do you know that Israel wouldn't reciprocate a cessation of violence? How do you know that the international community would just watch Israel crush a Palestinian people that had largely renounced Islamic extremism? And you cannot cite breaking ceasefires as evidence here, because both sides have done that repeatedly. Ceasefires are not the same thing as using nonviolent forms of resistance.
I know that the international community would just watch, because the United States has Israel's back and everyone is still afraid of us. My solution, a complete US break with Israel and condemnation of their tactics in the UN, has never been tried either.
The image of Palestine is fine everywhere in the world except the US. But that's really all that matters to Israel.
I've never understood how a government can mandate military service of its citizens when, to the point that they are expected to meet the obligation, they have no choice over being a citizen in the first place. They're kids. Their parents lived in Israel, their parents decided to have children and raise them in Israel...it's not like they can vote with their feet. Can they even vote?
Well, I think you're right, in that many Palestinians probably do not view non-combantant Isrealis as civilians at all. There are Isrealis with similar views of Palestinians. Extremist views on both sides polarize, demonize, and encourage black-and-white definitions of "enemy", which is why the conflict continues to percolate. I also think you're right to use the term reaction ... Only thing is, there is not a linear cause-and-effect relationship here anymore. Its now a cycle of action and reaction. I have long wondered what would happen to the U.S. position on this issue if extremism within the Palestinian community were to grow weaker. I don't mean the Palestinians ceasing to defend themselves against incursions onto their territory, I mean groups like Hamas folding and being replaced by moderates. People who are willing to work with the West instead of casting themselves in an adversarial role. While I do think Obama has been dragging his feet, how easy is it to do so when he can point to people like Hamas and say "See? Why should we push the Isrealis on this issue?".
A very good article here which addresses the issue you raise re: moderates vs extremists:
The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam
Henry Siegman
'...Palestinian moderates will never prevail over those considered extremists, since what defines moderation for Olmert is Palestinian acquiescence in Israel’s dismemberment of Palestinian territory....
...all previous peace initiatives have got nowhere for a reason that neither Bush nor the EU has had the political courage to acknowledge. That reason is the consensus reached long ago by Israel’s decision-making elites that Israel will never allow the emergence of a Palestinian state which denies it effective military and economic control of the West Bank. To be sure, Israel would allow – indeed, it would insist on – the creation of a number of isolated enclaves that Palestinians could call a state, but only in order to prevent the creation of a binational state in which Palestinians would be the majority.
The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history. Since the failed Camp David summit of 2000, and actually well before it, Israel’s interest in a peace process – other than for the purpose of obtaining Palestinian and international acceptance of the status quo – has been a fiction that has served primarily to provide cover for its systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and an occupation whose goal, according to the former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, is ‘to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people’. In his reluctant embrace of the Oslo Accords, and his distaste for the settlers, Yitzhak Rabin may have been the exception to this, but even he did not entertain a return of Palestinian territory beyond the so-called Allon Plan, which allowed Israel to retain the Jordan Valley and other parts of the West Bank.
Anyone familiar with Israel’s relentless confiscations of Palestinian territory – based on a plan devised, overseen and implemented by Ariel Sharon – knows that the objective of its settlement enterprise in the West Bank has been largely achieved. Gaza, the evacuation of whose settlements was so naively hailed by the international community as the heroic achievement of a man newly committed to an honourable peace with the Palestinians, was intended to serve as the first in a series of Palestinian bantustans. Gaza’s situation shows us what these bantustans will look like if their residents do not behave as Israel wants...
In an interview in Ha’aretz in 2004, Dov Weissglas, chef de cabinet to the then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, described the strategic goal of Sharon’s diplomacy as being to secure the support of the White House and Congress for Israeli measures that would place the peace process and Palestinian statehood in ‘formaldehyde’. It is a fiendishly appropriate metaphor: formaldehyde uniquely prevents the deterioration of dead bodies, and sometimes creates the illusion that they are still alive. Weissglas explains that the purpose of Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and the dismantling of several isolated settlements in the West Bank, was to gain US acceptance of Israel’s unilateralism, not to set a precedent for an eventual withdrawal from the West Bank. The limited withdrawals were intended to provide Israel with the political room to deepen and widen its presence in the West Bank, and that is what they achieved. In a letter to Sharon, Bush wrote: ‘In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.’..
Clearly, the obstacle to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict has not been a dearth of peace initiatives or peace envoys. Nor has it been the violence to which Palestinians have resorted in their struggle to rid themselves of Israel’s occupation, even when that violence has despicably targeted Israel’s civilian population. It is not to sanction the murder of civilians to observe that such violence occurs, sooner or later, in most situations in which a people’s drive for national self-determination is frustrated by an occupying power. Indeed, Israel’s own struggle for national independence was no exception. According to the historian Benny Morris, in this conflict it was the Irgun that first targeted civilians. In Righteous Victims, Morris writes that the upsurge of Arab terrorism in 1937 ‘triggered a wave of Irgun bombings against Arab crowds and buses, introducing a new dimension to the conflict.’ While in the past Arabs had ‘sniped at cars and pedestrians and occasionally lobbed a grenade, often killing or injuring a few bystanders or passengers’, now ‘for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centres, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed.’ Morris notes that ‘this “innovation” soon found Arab imitators’...
...The problem is not, as Israelis often claim, that Palestinians do not know how to compromise. (Another former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, famously complained that ‘Palestinians take and take while Israel gives and gives.’) That is an indecent charge, since the Palestinians made much the most far-reaching compromise of all when the PLO formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949 armistice border. With that concession, Palestinians ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN’s partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants. They have never received any credit for this wrenching concession, made years before Israel agreed that Palestinians had a right to statehood in any part of Palestine. The notion that further border adjustments should be made at the expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that remains to the Palestinians is deeply offensive to them, and understandably so.
Nonetheless, the Palestinians agreed at the Camp David summit to adjustments to the pre-1967 border that would allow large numbers of West Bank settlers – about 70 per cent – to remain within the Jewish state, provided they received comparable territory on Israel’s side of the border. Barak rejected this. To be sure, in the past the Palestinian demand of a right of return was a serious obstacle to a peace agreement. But the Arab League’s peace initiative of 2002 leaves no doubt that Arab countries will accept a nominal and symbolic return of refugees into Israel in numbers approved by Israel, with the overwhelming majority repatriated in the new Palestinian state, their countries of residence, or in other countries prepared to receive them.
It is the failure of the international community to reject (other than in empty rhetoric) Israel’s notion that the occupation and the creation of ‘facts on the ground’ can go on indefinitely, so long as there is no agreement that is acceptable to Israel, that has defeated all previous peace initiatives and the efforts of all peace envoys. Future efforts will meet the same fate if this fundamental issue is not addressed.'
If the US and its allies were to take a stand forceful enough to persuade Israel that it will not be allowed to make changes to the pre-1967 situation except by agreement with the Palestinians in permanent status negotiations, there would be no need for complicated peace formulas or celebrity mediators to get a peace process underway. The only thing that an envoy such as Blair can do to put the peace process back on track is to speak the truth about the real impediment to peace. This would also be a historic contribution to the Jewish state, since Israel’s only hope of real long-term security is to have a successful Palestinian state as its neighbour.'
And outlaw, I said "whatever" because I agree that the media is skewed and you and I have had that discussion on at least one other occasion. I don't think I've ever tried to argue otherwise. I guess a better way to word my point is that nonviolent forms of resistance are not going to work well against a backdrop of violence. I don't know ... You guys seem willing to concede the point that extremism probably doesn't help the Palestinian cause much, which is what I am arguing here. I am not arguing that Israel is blameless, nor am I arguing that the Palestinians are the only ones who need to lay down their arms. In fact, Israel should probably be the party to take the first step towards stopping the violence. No more settlement expansion, a withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, and a cessation of military strikes into Palestinian territory ... Obviously the Isrealis should be able to defend themselves should the Palestinians directly attack across the Israeli border, but if you ask me, the Israelis should refrain from striking back in response to rocket attacks, given the general ineffectiveness of such attacks and given that an "extinction burst" would occur should the Israelis stop attacking (meaning, the Palestinian extremist groups would likely launch a bunch of attacks right after the Israelis stopped attacking, and as difficult as it might be, the correct response to this would be to avoid retaliation and let the rocket attacks peter out).
Overall, I think there's more agreement than disagreement in this thread, at least right now. You guys win, in that my view has shifted quite a bit from my original position, and 1) I agree with the basic notion that Israel probably has the higher level of responsibility here, and 2) the international community outside of the Middle East has enabled the Israelis much more than is desirable ... I maintain the view that violence in the form of organized Islamic extremism is not going to help the Palestinian cause, but I can also concede that Israeli actions have fueled this movement. The fuel supply needs to be turned off, and that is Israel's job, assuming they are serious about peace.
Overall, I think there's more agreement than disagreement in this thread, at least right now. You guys win, in that my view has shifted quite a bit from my original position, and 1) I agree with the basic notion that Israel probably has the higher level of responsibility here, and 2) the international community outside of the Middle East has enabled the Israelis much more than is desirable ... I maintain the view that violence in the form of organized Islamic extremism is not going to help the Palestinian cause, but I can also concede that Israeli actions have fueled this movement. The fuel supply needs to be turned off, and that is Israel's job, assuming they are serious about peace.
The problem is that the position of "Palestine should stop using violence" is a cop out. It doesnt' require you to do anything, and it never could. You can't make them stop, only they can. So the only question we have is what can WE do to help the peace process. That is why I advocate for the US withdrawing their support and letting Israel stand up to the world on its own. Put pressure on Israel to make those overtures. Because it's the only thing we can do given that we do have SOME say in how the US conducts its affairs. Placing the onus on the Palestinians is just an easy way to avoid responsibility for our role in it. We created this situation, and now we're asking the victim to forgive us before we lift a finger to make things right with them. Even children know it doesn't work that way.
The problem is that the position of "Palestine should stop using violence" is a cop out. It doesnt' require you to do anything, and it never could. You can't make them stop, only they can. So the only question we have is what can WE do to help the peace process. That is why I advocate for the US withdrawing their support and letting Israel stand up to the world on its own. Put pressure on Israel to make those overtures. Because it's the only thing we can do given that we do have SOME say in how the US conducts its affairs. Placing the onus on the Palestinians is just an easy way to avoid responsibility for our role in it. We created this situation, and now we're asking the victim to forgive us before we lift a finger to make things right with them. Even children know it doesn't work that way.
Maybe ... Like I say, I have no qualms about putting the primary responsibility on Israel and American support. I maintain the view that putting ZERO onus on the Palestinians could backfire, though. If indeed groups like Hamas exist because of Israeli and American policy, changing said policy should cause these groups to lose steam. Let's test it out, I say. It would probably take the Palestinians a few generations to change, and they should be given the chance to do so, after Israel steps up to the plate. Keeping in mind, though, that even children typically feel that big changes or compromises on their part require some reciprocity on the part of others.
The problem is that the position of "Palestine should stop using violence" is a cop out. It doesnt' require you to do anything, and it never could. You can't make them stop, only they can. So the only question we have is what can WE do to help the peace process. That is why I advocate for the US withdrawing their support and letting Israel stand up to the world on its own. Put pressure on Israel to make those overtures. Because it's the only thing we can do given that we do have SOME say in how the US conducts its affairs. Placing the onus on the Palestinians is just an easy way to avoid responsibility for our role in it. We created this situation, and now we're asking the victim to forgive us before we lift a finger to make things right with them. Even children know it doesn't work that way.
Maybe ... Like I say, I have no qualms about putting the primary responsibility on Israel and American support. I maintain the view that putting ZERO onus on the Palestinians could backfire, though. If indeed groups like Hamas exist because of Israeli and American policy, changing said policy should cause these groups to lose steam. Let's test it out, I say. It would probably take the Palestinians a few generations to change, and they should be given the chance to do so, after Israel steps up to the plate. Keeping in mind, though, that even children typically feel that big changes or compromises on their part require some reciprocity on the part of others.
True, it wouldn't help to let Palestine totally off the hook. At some point, they have to show that they're willing to play ball too. I just feel like we need to make the first overtures and it has to be more than saying we're willing to work with them.
Overall, I think there's more agreement than disagreement in this thread, at least right now. You guys win, in that my view has shifted quite a bit from my original position, and 1) I agree with the basic notion that Israel probably has the higher level of responsibility here, and 2) the international community outside of the Middle East has enabled the Israelis much more than is desirable ... I maintain the view that violence in the form of organized Islamic extremism is not going to help the Palestinian cause, but I can also concede that Israeli actions have fueled this movement. The fuel supply needs to be turned off, and that is Israel's job, assuming they are serious about peace.
The problem is that the position of "Palestine should stop using violence" is a cop out. It doesnt' require you to do anything, and it never could. You can't make them stop, only they can. So the only question we have is what can WE do to help the peace process. That is why I advocate for the US withdrawing their support and letting Israel stand up to the world on its own. Put pressure on Israel to make those overtures. Because it's the only thing we can do given that we do have SOME say in how the US conducts its affairs. Placing the onus on the Palestinians is just an easy way to avoid responsibility for our role in it. We created this situation, and now we're asking the victim to forgive us before we lift a finger to make things right with them. Even children know it doesn't work that way.
the problem with "Palestine should stop using violence" is that there is no palestine. this is the state of israel vs the palestinian people dispossesed of their land.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
and I never said hamas was full of humanitarians, it's hilarious to see that you can't even hide your sarcasm which only proves that most of your information is probably received from mainstream US media. However, I did say that overwhelmingly, their funds are for social programs. And it doesn't take any math, just reading:
"Through its funding and management of schools, health-care clinics, mosques, youth groups, athletic clubs and day-care centers, Hamas by the mid-1990s had attained a "well-entrenched" presence in the West Bank and Gaza.[24] An estimated 80% to 90% of Hamas revenues fund health, social welfare, religious, cultural, and educational services.[25][26][27]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Revolution- ... 1560258020
All forms of nonviolent protest are not covered by mainstream media, however, which is probably why you missed out on this kind of information. This conflict has been going on for over 60 years, you think the entire time the Palestinians have been completely violent? There have been student movements, etc, that you clearly don't know about.
I know that the international community would just watch, because the United States has Israel's back and everyone is still afraid of us. My solution, a complete US break with Israel and condemnation of their tactics in the UN, has never been tried either.
The image of Palestine is fine everywhere in the world except the US. But that's really all that matters to Israel.
A very good article here which addresses the issue you raise re: moderates vs extremists:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/sieg01_.html
The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam
Henry Siegman
'...Palestinian moderates will never prevail over those considered extremists, since what defines moderation for Olmert is Palestinian acquiescence in Israel’s dismemberment of Palestinian territory....
...all previous peace initiatives have got nowhere for a reason that neither Bush nor the EU has had the political courage to acknowledge. That reason is the consensus reached long ago by Israel’s decision-making elites that Israel will never allow the emergence of a Palestinian state which denies it effective military and economic control of the West Bank. To be sure, Israel would allow – indeed, it would insist on – the creation of a number of isolated enclaves that Palestinians could call a state, but only in order to prevent the creation of a binational state in which Palestinians would be the majority.
The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history. Since the failed Camp David summit of 2000, and actually well before it, Israel’s interest in a peace process – other than for the purpose of obtaining Palestinian and international acceptance of the status quo – has been a fiction that has served primarily to provide cover for its systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and an occupation whose goal, according to the former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, is ‘to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people’. In his reluctant embrace of the Oslo Accords, and his distaste for the settlers, Yitzhak Rabin may have been the exception to this, but even he did not entertain a return of Palestinian territory beyond the so-called Allon Plan, which allowed Israel to retain the Jordan Valley and other parts of the West Bank.
Anyone familiar with Israel’s relentless confiscations of Palestinian territory – based on a plan devised, overseen and implemented by Ariel Sharon – knows that the objective of its settlement enterprise in the West Bank has been largely achieved. Gaza, the evacuation of whose settlements was so naively hailed by the international community as the heroic achievement of a man newly committed to an honourable peace with the Palestinians, was intended to serve as the first in a series of Palestinian bantustans. Gaza’s situation shows us what these bantustans will look like if their residents do not behave as Israel wants...
In an interview in Ha’aretz in 2004, Dov Weissglas, chef de cabinet to the then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, described the strategic goal of Sharon’s diplomacy as being to secure the support of the White House and Congress for Israeli measures that would place the peace process and Palestinian statehood in ‘formaldehyde’. It is a fiendishly appropriate metaphor: formaldehyde uniquely prevents the deterioration of dead bodies, and sometimes creates the illusion that they are still alive. Weissglas explains that the purpose of Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and the dismantling of several isolated settlements in the West Bank, was to gain US acceptance of Israel’s unilateralism, not to set a precedent for an eventual withdrawal from the West Bank. The limited withdrawals were intended to provide Israel with the political room to deepen and widen its presence in the West Bank, and that is what they achieved. In a letter to Sharon, Bush wrote: ‘In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.’..
Clearly, the obstacle to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict has not been a dearth of peace initiatives or peace envoys. Nor has it been the violence to which Palestinians have resorted in their struggle to rid themselves of Israel’s occupation, even when that violence has despicably targeted Israel’s civilian population. It is not to sanction the murder of civilians to observe that such violence occurs, sooner or later, in most situations in which a people’s drive for national self-determination is frustrated by an occupying power. Indeed, Israel’s own struggle for national independence was no exception. According to the historian Benny Morris, in this conflict it was the Irgun that first targeted civilians. In Righteous Victims, Morris writes that the upsurge of Arab terrorism in 1937 ‘triggered a wave of Irgun bombings against Arab crowds and buses, introducing a new dimension to the conflict.’ While in the past Arabs had ‘sniped at cars and pedestrians and occasionally lobbed a grenade, often killing or injuring a few bystanders or passengers’, now ‘for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centres, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed.’ Morris notes that ‘this “innovation” soon found Arab imitators’...
...The problem is not, as Israelis often claim, that Palestinians do not know how to compromise. (Another former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, famously complained that ‘Palestinians take and take while Israel gives and gives.’) That is an indecent charge, since the Palestinians made much the most far-reaching compromise of all when the PLO formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949 armistice border. With that concession, Palestinians ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN’s partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants. They have never received any credit for this wrenching concession, made years before Israel agreed that Palestinians had a right to statehood in any part of Palestine. The notion that further border adjustments should be made at the expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that remains to the Palestinians is deeply offensive to them, and understandably so.
Nonetheless, the Palestinians agreed at the Camp David summit to adjustments to the pre-1967 border that would allow large numbers of West Bank settlers – about 70 per cent – to remain within the Jewish state, provided they received comparable territory on Israel’s side of the border. Barak rejected this. To be sure, in the past the Palestinian demand of a right of return was a serious obstacle to a peace agreement. But the Arab League’s peace initiative of 2002 leaves no doubt that Arab countries will accept a nominal and symbolic return of refugees into Israel in numbers approved by Israel, with the overwhelming majority repatriated in the new Palestinian state, their countries of residence, or in other countries prepared to receive them.
It is the failure of the international community to reject (other than in empty rhetoric) Israel’s notion that the occupation and the creation of ‘facts on the ground’ can go on indefinitely, so long as there is no agreement that is acceptable to Israel, that has defeated all previous peace initiatives and the efforts of all peace envoys. Future efforts will meet the same fate if this fundamental issue is not addressed.'
If the US and its allies were to take a stand forceful enough to persuade Israel that it will not be allowed to make changes to the pre-1967 situation except by agreement with the Palestinians in permanent status negotiations, there would be no need for complicated peace formulas or celebrity mediators to get a peace process underway. The only thing that an envoy such as Blair can do to put the peace process back on track is to speak the truth about the real impediment to peace. This would also be a historic contribution to the Jewish state, since Israel’s only hope of real long-term security is to have a successful Palestinian state as its neighbour.'
And outlaw, I said "whatever" because I agree that the media is skewed and you and I have had that discussion on at least one other occasion. I don't think I've ever tried to argue otherwise. I guess a better way to word my point is that nonviolent forms of resistance are not going to work well against a backdrop of violence. I don't know ... You guys seem willing to concede the point that extremism probably doesn't help the Palestinian cause much, which is what I am arguing here. I am not arguing that Israel is blameless, nor am I arguing that the Palestinians are the only ones who need to lay down their arms. In fact, Israel should probably be the party to take the first step towards stopping the violence. No more settlement expansion, a withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, and a cessation of military strikes into Palestinian territory ... Obviously the Isrealis should be able to defend themselves should the Palestinians directly attack across the Israeli border, but if you ask me, the Israelis should refrain from striking back in response to rocket attacks, given the general ineffectiveness of such attacks and given that an "extinction burst" would occur should the Israelis stop attacking (meaning, the Palestinian extremist groups would likely launch a bunch of attacks right after the Israelis stopped attacking, and as difficult as it might be, the correct response to this would be to avoid retaliation and let the rocket attacks peter out).
The problem is that the position of "Palestine should stop using violence" is a cop out. It doesnt' require you to do anything, and it never could. You can't make them stop, only they can. So the only question we have is what can WE do to help the peace process. That is why I advocate for the US withdrawing their support and letting Israel stand up to the world on its own. Put pressure on Israel to make those overtures. Because it's the only thing we can do given that we do have SOME say in how the US conducts its affairs. Placing the onus on the Palestinians is just an easy way to avoid responsibility for our role in it. We created this situation, and now we're asking the victim to forgive us before we lift a finger to make things right with them. Even children know it doesn't work that way.
Maybe ... Like I say, I have no qualms about putting the primary responsibility on Israel and American support. I maintain the view that putting ZERO onus on the Palestinians could backfire, though. If indeed groups like Hamas exist because of Israeli and American policy, changing said policy should cause these groups to lose steam. Let's test it out, I say. It would probably take the Palestinians a few generations to change, and they should be given the chance to do so, after Israel steps up to the plate. Keeping in mind, though, that even children typically feel that big changes or compromises on their part require some reciprocity on the part of others.
True, it wouldn't help to let Palestine totally off the hook. At some point, they have to show that they're willing to play ball too. I just feel like we need to make the first overtures and it has to be more than saying we're willing to work with them.
the problem with "Palestine should stop using violence" is that there is no palestine. this is the state of israel vs the palestinian people dispossesed of their land.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say