Survey: Arab world favors peace with Israel, admires democracy

[Wayne Grabert]

A new survey (http://http://www.umich.edu/news/Releases/2003/Mar03/r031003b.html) by the University of Michigan reveals that the Arab population favors peace with Israel and considers democracy the best form of government.
A University of Michigan analysis of rare public opinion data from the Arab world shows that most people support peace with Israel and favor democracy as the best form of government.

Moreover, men and women who are more religious and whose attachment to Islam is strong are just as likely as less religious individuals to favor compromise with Israel and support democracy, according to Mark Tessler, a political scientist at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR), the world’s largest academic survey and research organization.
The new study reinforces the results found by earlier studies. One 2001 survey, based on a random sample of 1,318 West Bank and Gaza residents, found that three times as many people supported reconciliation with Israel as opposed it and that supporters were just as likely as opponents to be religious or very religious.

Another survey of 2,756 Egyptians, conducted in 2000 as part of the ISR World Values Survey, showed that most Egyptians favor democracy and that there is virtually no difference in the attitudes of more and less religious people.

A third survey of 1,223 Jordanians, also conducted as part of the ISR World Values Survey, found that more than 70 percent felt that Islamic leaders should not influence politics, compared to less than 20 percent who felt religious leaders should, and that views about this issue are almost identical among men and women with different levels of mosque attendance and involvement in religious activities.


I won't have the time to participate in lengthy debates (I put in a 63-hour week last week), but I wanted to share this with you. I'll restate a point I've made before on this board. Democracy can develop in the Middle East on its own, but it would be a mistake to try to impose it.

The above surveys debunk the propaganda about Arabs--even Palestinians--wanting to drive Israelis "into the sea."

I hope you can see the opportunity that would be there without a war against Iraq. That war starts this week. It is my belief that it will destroy those opportunities and will replace them with outrage and enmity towards the US and the UK throughout the Arab world.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
A new survey (http://http://www.umich.edu/news/Releases/2003/Mar03/r031003b.html) by the University of Michigan reveals that the Arab population favors peace with Israel and considers democracy the best form of government.

...Democracy can develop in the Middle East on its own, but it would be a mistake to try to impose it.
This seems contradictory to me. An Arab in favor of democracy ought to be happy to see Saddam go. Can Saddam be removed without the U.S. military's involvement? Well, people have tried for years without success.

When people talk about something being imposed by outside forces, I usually equate that with having something you don't want shoved down your throat.

In another part of the world, Kashmir, there are people angry with the U.S. and the U.K. for not sending in a military presence in support of democratic reforms. Kashmiris have to worry about getting shot if they try to run for office or vote.

I think people are afraid of what will happen after the war. Arabs don't trust the U.S. to support a real democracy. They expect a puppet government insensitive to the Iraqi people, and answerable only to American big business.

It's difficult to predict what the Ba'ath party, the Kurds, the Shi'ites, and the Christians, are going to do after the war. There's an opportunity for a better future for Iraq, but there's also an opportunity for more chaos.

I'm upset with our government for its diplomatic incompetence. The case against Saddam is strong. It should have been possible to form a wider coalition of support before sending troops into the region. We moved too quickly, and now we're going to get blamed for a bad outcome, even if we can't control the outcome.

[DanishDynamite]

DrBenway:I'm upset with our government for its diplomatic incompetence. The case against Saddam is strong. It should have been possible to form a wider coalition of support before sending troops into the region. We moved too quickly, and now we're going to get blamed for a bad outcome, even if we can't control the outcome. I agree. The case against Saddam is quite strong. I think that Bush's rhetoric has alienated a lot of people (I know it affected me). The "with us or against us" and "axis of evil" crap, along with the "we will do as we please no matter what the UN agrees on" attitude, has destroyed the case for a coalition.

[kedo1981]

Our position in the world lays the blame on us for lot of things that are not out fault (and a lot that is)
But that said, we are stuck doing the unpopular things because of “our standing” in the world
The UN has little or no spine (or relevance) , unless they have the US to back them up with muscle (both military and economic)

[DanishDynamite]

kedo1981:Our position in the world lays the blame on us for lot of things that are not out fault (and a lot that is)
But that said, we are stuck doing the unpopular things because of “our standing” in the world
The UN has little or no spine (or relevance) , unless they have the US to back them up with muscle (both military and economic) The UN neither lacks a spine, nor has a spine. The UN is an organization whose influence is determined by the members' willingness to allocate money/power/troops and to compromise. Just like any other democratic organization.

I can understand how the US, being the sole remaining superpower, would be tempted to dismiss the opinions of other countries and do as they please.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

This seems contradictory to me. An Arab in favor of democracy ought to be happy to see Saddam go. Can Saddam be removed without the U.S. military's involvement? Well, people have tried for years without success.



being in favour of democracy and not wanting a war are not necessarily contradictory. Some may feel that the means may not justify the end.

don't forget after the first gulf war, the US actively worked against a popular revolt and instead protected saddam.



When people talk about something being imposed by outside forces, I usually equate that with having something you don't want shoved down your throat.

In another part of the world, Kashmir, there are people angry with the U.S. and the U.K. for not sending in a military presence in support of democratic reforms. Kashmiris have to worry about getting shot if they try to run for office or vote.



Kashmir is another hot spot that certainly needs more attention. If the US and UK pushed for the UN to take action, I am sure that something more positive could be achieved.



I think people are afraid of what will happen after the war. Arabs don't trust the U.S. to support a real democracy. They expect a puppet government insensitive to the Iraqi people, and answerable only to American big business.



which is what history has shown. this time may be different, but who knows.



It's difficult to predict what the Ba'ath party, the Kurds, the Shi'ites, and the Christians, are going to do after the war. There's an opportunity for a better future for Iraq, but there's also an opportunity for more chaos.

I'm upset with our government for its diplomatic incompetence. The case against Saddam is strong. It should have been possible to form a wider coalition of support before sending troops into the region. We moved too quickly, and now we're going to get blamed for a bad outcome, even if we can't control the outcome.

which is one of the hallmarks of the bush administration. it decides it is time for a war, it has always been known it was going to be sometime this winter, only, they forgot to check with the other people in the neighbourhood if they felt like having a war too.

As for the arabs recognising the right of israel to exist, i was amazed when this was announced, and promptly totally ignored. This was because the deal involved making palestine a separate state.

[kedo1981]

We aren’t dismissing anything, unless you’re implying that the UN sanctions were figments of GB’s imagination.

[DanishDynamite]

kedo1981: We aren’t dismissing anything, unless you’re implying that the UN sanctions were figments of GB’s imagination. What UN sanctions are you refering to? The oil-for-food sanctions?

The UN resolution 1441 states that the result of non-compliance is "serious consequences". I can live with this being interpreted as War. Some countries can't.

[Segnosaur]

While I don't have any particular reason to disbelieve the opinion poll, it does bring up a few questions:

What do the Arabs consider to be 'peace'? Ok they say they don't want to drive Israel into the ocean, but what are they willing to live with? Do they believe peace requires the 'right of return'? Complete control of Jeruselum?

I recall in the book "Black Hawk Down" (actually, I listened to it on CD), the author describes how you could talk to someone in one of these contlict areas and say "Do you want peace", and they will say "sure". But if you ask if the person's ethinic group should make any concessions, and they say "No". Seems peace only works if the other person is willing to make all the sacrifices. Will that happen here?

Another quesion: If so many Arabs want peace, then why do they not protest the intifada? Or have protests demanding the removal of Arafat? Instead, they cheer whenever there is a suicide bombing. Do they not see that it may be counterproductive?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The above surveys debunk the propaganda about Arabs--even Palestinians--wanting to drive Israelis "into the sea."

I hope you can see the opportunity that would be there without a war against Iraq. That war starts this week. It is my belief that it will destroy those opportunities and will replace them with outrage and enmity towards the US and the UK throughout the Arab world. I believe in the survey and I don't think most in the Mid East hate America or democracy. Those that do hate America won't be changed by a war. Those that don't hate America won't be changed much either.

Thank you for the survey. I respect your opinion but it is very doubtfull that war will turn those that admire us into those that hate us.

Hey, if Palestinians and Arabs can hope for peace with Israel after all that has been done to them directly by Israel then how on earth could the same Palestinians and Arabs turn on us for ousting a man who tortures and murders Muslims?

Something doesn't quite add up.

[DanishDynamite]

If the surveys mentioned are actually an accurate reflection of the viewpoints of the populations involved, I find it very encouraging.

Unlike Wayne, I don't see the coming war as a significant threat to this attitude. The West has been meddling in Middle Eastern/Arabic affairs for decades. If the constant US support for Israel hasn't discouraged these people so far, I don't think the coming war will.

The question is how to seriously encourage and/or implement democracy in these countries without using military invasion.

[kedo1981]

Sorry “Dayna” I meant resolutions

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
If the surveys mentioned are actually an accurate reflection of the viewpoints of the populations involved, I find it very encouraging.

Unlike Wayne, I don't see the coming war as a significant threat to this attitude. The West has been meddling in Middle Eastern/Arabic affairs for decades. If the constant US support for Israel hasn't discouraged these people so far, I don't think the coming war will.

You are erroneously equating admiration for democracy with admiration for the United States. The Middle East is still the most anti-American region in the world. Consider this survey, (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1009-03.htm) conducted last year. WASHINGTON- Public opinion across the Arab world is deeply ambivalent about the United States, which is widely admired for its technological prowess and political institutions but disdained and even hatred for its policies toward Palestinians and Israel, says an unprecedented survey released here Tuesday.

The survey, whose results directly contradict declarations by top U.S. officials that Arab opposition to Washington derives from hatred of western ideals of democracy and freedom rather than U.S. policies, found that other western countries, particularly France and Canada, were widely respected throughout the Arab world.

''They like our values but are angry at our policies,'' said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), an influential, Washington-based lobby and public-education group. The United States is "disdained and even hated." What this reveals is the lies of the Bush propaganda of "why they hate us." It isn't that they "hate our freedoms;" it's they hate us for what we do. Bush is trying to keep the wool pulled over the public eye about the policies the government carries out in support of special interests. It's a way to continue the injustice that fuels terrorism by denying that it exists. I'm not defending terrorism (as some strawmen builders would be eager to claim); I'm pointing out that it is a consequence of policies.

So the coming war is not a threat to "this attitude." They'll just have another reason to continue hating us.

This brings up another consideration. If democracy did come to the Middle East, just whom do you think these people would elect? Do you think any truly democratic Arab government would be more pro-US than the monarchies in Saudi Arabia and Jordan or than the government of Egypt? I doubt it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The United States is "disdained and even hated." What this reveals is the lies of the Bush propaganda of "why they hate us." It isn't that they "hate our freedoms;" Again, your logic does not stand up to reason.

...but disdained and even hatred for its policies toward Palestinians and Israel... Contrasted with,

One 2001 survey, based on a random sample of 1,318 West Bank and Gaza residents, found that three times as many people supported reconciliation with Israel as opposed it They support reconciliation with Israel but hate us because we support Israel.

...it's they hate us for what we do. Bush is trying to keep the wool pulled over the public eye about the policies the government carries out in support of special interests. Could you enumerate these policies that Americans who enjoy a free press are blinded to but Palastenians who do not have freedom of the press are not blinded to?

It's a way to continue the injustice that fuels terrorism by denying that it exists. I'm not defending terrorism (as some strawmen builders would be eager to claim); I'm pointing out that it is a consequence of policies. We cannot make policy decisions based on the notion that Palestinians admire Canadians and the French.

So the coming war is not a threat to "this attitude." They'll just have another reason to continue hating us. No, those that hate us will hate us. Since we are the only super power we are in a position to be hated. I'm not convinced that we are hated and disdained on this survey alone. Our relationship with Israel is the prime reason for some of the hatred. Our freedoms are the reason for others.

FYI there is concern about terrorism in France. They are not free from the threat of terrorism and terrorists have stated thier disdain of secular governments. The notion that France is loved by terrorists is wrong. If you did not mean to make that implication then I appologize but that seems like your argument.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Again, your logic does not stand up to reason.

They support reconciliation with Israel but hate us because we support Israel.
I am posting the results of empirical surveys that have found that the majority of Arabs want to make peace with Israel but dislike US foreign policy. Our policies toward Israel and the Palestinians are part of the reason for the disdain and hatred that many feel toward the United States.

They hate us because when someone like Sharon gets in power and does all he can to kill the peace process, someone like Bush has the audacity to call him a man of peace. They hate us because we stand behind all of Israel's worst impulses without criticism. They hate us because we don't use our power and influence to be an honest and fair broker in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. They also hate us because they see the sanctions against Iraq as either unnecessary or excessive. They hate us because of our military encroachment upon the Middle East.

Not every Arab hates us, but those are among the reasons why for those who do.

Originally posted by RandFan
Could you enumerate these policies that Americans who enjoy a free press are blinded to but Palastenians who do not have freedom of the press are not blinded to?
Just because we have the First Amendment does not mean the news media do a good and balanced job of reporting the news. It also doesn't mean that the media is not manipulated by the government. It also doesn't mean that the public is well informed.

Remember how I had to make you aware of the many interventions of the US government, including its involvement in the overthrow of democracies?

Do you know what "transfer" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=transfer+west+bank+ethnic+cleansing&btnG=Google+Search) means in relation to Likud party strategy in the West Bank?

As recently as last month a poll (http://www.tri-cityherald.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/analysis/story/802713p-5719235c.html) revealed that 42% of Americans still believed that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks! So much for the benefits of a "free press."

Originally posted by RandFan
We cannot make policy decisions based on the notion that Palestinians admire Canadians and the French.
Huh? The article made the point that Arabs (not specifically Palestinians) admire the Canadians and the French to help explain their favorable attitude towards democracy and Western values. And you started your post criticizing my logic?

Originally posted by RandFan
FYI there is concern about terrorism in France. They are not free from the threat of terrorism and terrorists have stated thier disdain of secular governments. The notion that France is loved by terrorists is wrong. If you did not mean to make that implication then I appologize but that seems like your argument.
Not only is that not my argument, I never even mentioned France in my post. France was mentioned in the excerpt I extracted. The excerpt did not make the argument or the implication that terrorists loved France. It was discussing Arab attitudes, not those of terrorists. Does "Arab" = "terrorist" in your mind? Further, I never mentioned terrorists in the post that included the excerpt. Though I shouldn't need to explain this, when I mentioned terrorism in my later post I was not implying that every Arab who disdains or hates us is a terrorist or supports terrorism.

The problem isn't with my logic; it is with your comprehension. Please read more carefully before criticizing.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Kashmir is another hot spot that certainly needs more attention. If the US and UK pushed for the UN to take action, I am sure that something more positive could be achieved.



I am not sure if that will happen. What kind of "action" do you mean?

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert


The above surveys debunk the propaganda about Arabs--even Palestinians--wanting to drive Israelis "into the sea."



If you ask the average person on the street, (any street, any country,) they will most likely they favor democracy.

If you ask the average US citizen if they support the bill of rights, they will say yes.

If you ask the average US citizen to support someone's rights when they did something unpopular, there is a good chance that they will take a position contrary to the bill of rights. This behavior is not unique to the US.

It is one thing to be for democracy in principle. It is quite another to support it when it means doing something unpopular. That is human nature. We start making exceptions when it is convenient and end up abandoning principle. Polls that only ask about general principles do not tell you what a person will do to support those principles. It only tells you about their ideals, not what they would do in the real world.

[RandFan]

Wayne,

I respect your opinion and I am not attacking you.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I am posting the results of empirical surveys... Come on Wayne, there are few thing that can be manipulated more than surveys. There are surveys that show diametrically opposite things. Surveys can and are influenced by the biases of those taking the survey and the questions asked.

Survey 1. Do you favor peace?

Answer: Yes.

Survey 2. Do you favor peace if it means giving up Jerusalem?

Answer: No.

You will forgive me if I am not overly enthused over your surveys. I am not dismissing them out of hand. I am considering them with what I do know about the relationship of Arabs, Palestinians and Israel. I find your arguments specious. They sound good when viewed in a narrow way. But when you look at the entire picture they don't wash (IMHO).

...that have found that the majority of Arabs want to make peace with Israel but dislike US foreign policy. Our policies toward Israel and the Palestinians are part of the reason for the disdain and hatred that many feel toward the United States. "Part", I will agree.

They hate us because when someone like Sharon gets in power and does all he can to kill the peace process,... Good example of specious. The Palestinians had little or no respect for Barak who was willing to give away the store. You are painting the sentiments of those in the Middle East with a narrow brush to suit your argument.

...someone like Bush has the audacity to call him a man of peace. They hate us because we stand behind all of Israel's worst impulses without criticism. Demonstrably false. The US has criticized Israel many times and has called for Israel to stop its aggression. There are a number of commentators including Mona Charen (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen.html) who have often criticized the U.S. for criticizing Israel just to placate the Palestinians.

They hate us because we don't use our power and influence to be an honest and fair broker in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. How would they know? In response to my question you argue that Americans with a free press are not guaranteed to know the truth. I will concede that you are right. But my question was a two sided coin and you only addressed one side of that coin. How are Palestinians who don't have a free press, who are subjected to propaganda from only one source expected to even know what the truth is?

Does the average Palestinian know that we give large sums of money to Palestine that is stolen by Palestinian leaders?

Does the average Palestinian know that we intervened in Kosovo to help muslims?

Does the average Palestinian know that we went to Somalia to feed Muslims?

They also hate us because they see the sanctions against Iraq as either unnecessary or excessive. They hate us because of our military encroachment upon the Middle East. Perhaps, a more prosaic answer is that they hate us because it serves the leaders of their country to hate us.

It just astounds me when you make the argument that Americans are being manipulated when there are opposition groups marching in the streets. When there are commentators on the news speaking against the war. When prominent actors and other celebrities are making commercials and speaking at rallies against the war. Yet you do not consider that the Palestinians are being manipulated.

Where are the protests in opposition to the Palestinian leadership? Trust me, there are none in Palestine.

Where is the Palestinian opposition to the suicide bombings? Why is there no outrage when Palestine murders women and children? On the contrary, those that do murder innocent women and children are heros and are cheered and revered. The Palestinian Authority gives such people money.

Yet for some reason I am supposed to trust that Palestinians hate us because of the reasons you state. I'm sorry Wayne, I do not trust that the average Palestinian has very much idea as to what the truth is.

I think it is far more likely that the citizens of the United States would find and know the truth than the Palestinians and other Arabs.

I am curious and would like to honetly know, do you think that Americans are less likely or more likely to be manipulated by their government than Arabs and Palestinians?

Just because we have the First Amendment does not mean the news media do a good and balanced job of reporting the news. It also doesn't mean that the media is not manipulated by the government. It also doesn't mean that the public is well informed. See above.

Remember how I had to make you aware of the many interventions of the US government, including its involvement in the overthrow of democracies? IMO, Few people on this forum are willing to honestly consider an opposing view. Few people on this forum are willing to admit when they do consider such views or change their minds as to that view.

Perhaps it is because they know that if they are honest someone will in a smug and patronizing manner use such intellectually honest behavior against them.

That you had to "make" me aware of the involvement and the intervention of the US government does not prove that the Palestinians are enlightened as to the truth about US involvement in the Middle East or that your survey is accurate or that your views enumerated in this thread are correct.

Such a statement is mostly self serving.

Huh? The article made the point that Arabs (not specifically Palestinians) admire the Canadians and the French to help explain their favorable attitude towards democracy and Western values. And you started your post criticizing my logic? There is nothing wrong with my logic. You are using the article to justify your point. Hatred of America translates into terrorism of America. Admiration for the French translates into?

Not only is that not my argument, I never even mentioned France in my post. France was mentioned in the excerpt I extracted. The excerpt did not make the argument or the implication that terrorists loved France. It was discussing Arab attitudes, not those of terrorists. Does "Arab" = "terrorist" in your mind? Of course not Wayne,

Inference, what am I to infer by your argument that the US is hated and disdained by Arabs and Palestinians any your re-posting of an article that France is admired?

Further, I never mentioned terrorists in the post that included the excerpt. Though I shouldn't need to explain this, when I mentioned terrorism in my later post I was not implying that every Arab who disdains or hates us is a terrorist or supports terrorism. And I never said that you did imply anything such thing at all. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency. If hatred of America leads to terrorism then admiration of France leads to...?

The problem isn't with my logic; it is with your comprehension. Please read more carefully before criticizing. Sorry, but there is a disconnect with your logic.

So what if the Palestinians and Arabs hate the US? The implications as I understand them include terrorism. What are the implications for France if they are admired by many Arabs and Palestinians? You could make the argument that France is in less danger of terrorism. But you really haven't made an argument in regards to France only to say that they are admired (more admired). Ok, so what?

If the French are not viewed any differently than the United States by terrorists then what is the point?

Wayne,

I respect you. Do me a favor and don't patronize me. I will try in the future to leave out any provocative language to you in my posts if you will try to avoid being patronizing.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Wayne,

I respect your opinion and I am not attacking you.

Thank you. I am not going to address your last post point-by-point because it goes beyond the scope of my argument. You also are fixated on Palestinians when I was discussing the Arab world. I will distill matters thus:

Most Arabs, including a large majority of Palestinians, want to make peace with Israel. This does not mean they like Israel. This does not mean they approve of Israel's conduct. It means they are willing to accept Israel's existence and live in peaceful coexistence. That is different from wanting to drive the Israelis into the sea. They expect, in return, for Israel to change its behavior towards the Palestinians.

According to one of my extracts, Arabs have "ambivalent" feelings toward the United States. It's not all one way or the other. The disdain they feel towards the United States is in large part caused by our billions of dollars of aid to Israel that has made Israel militarily powerful, while we don't exert any real pressure (lip service does not count) on Israel to change its conduct. The settlements keep getting built, the money keeps flowing. The occupation and daily humiliations and atrocities continue, and the money keeps flowing. Sure, when matters start getting too out of hand we'll exert pressure to get Israel to pull back and tone it down, but then we'll follow that with an increase in aid to Israel.

What do Palestinians know that Americans don't? They know their lives. They know what cruelties they endure on a daily basis. (Did you hear about the American woman who was murdered by a bulldozer this weekend? The only thing unusual about that was that it was an American who was murdered. There were demands for an "investigation." There were no demands for an arrest. To my knowledge, the murderer has not been identified or charged with any crime.)

I know someone who was in the Israeli Defense Forces in the 1970's. He patrolled the West Bank. He told me how casually and commonly Palestinian men were shot in the head if they showed any sense of self-respect. If an IDF soldier ordered a Palestinian man who was minding his own business to do something and he didn't do it immediately, he was shot in the head. He says that things have changed now. The same Palestinian man who was killed back then would now only be beaten.

Columnists like Mona Charen are part of the problem. (BTW, your link isn't working.) She believes that Israel can do no wrong and that US support should be 100% and unconditional and uncritical. She denies that the Palestinians have any legitimate grievances and she lashes out when the US ever makes the mildest demand on Israel to change its behavior. Zealots like Charen don't do Israel any favors.

I agree that Arafat is an obstacle to peace, but I'm not going to try to solve that whole dilemma in this thread. The point I was interested in is that there is an opportunity for peace, but vicious hardliners like Sharon are also obstacles.

[Wayne Grabert]

Here is a recent article (http://www.icahd.org/eng/news.asp?menu=5&submenu=1&item=86) from the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. It is accompanied by photographs. This is the type of news that gets reported in Europe, but is largely ignored in the United States. At 7.30 am today Jawad Mohammed Swertie and his elderly mother were at breakfast in their home when several dozen police and soldiers surrounded their house and ordered them outside. They were informed that the house was to be demolished. Guarded by soldiers, the Volvo and Caterpillar bulldozers destroyed the home along with the partially built house next door belonging to Jawad’s brother Zoher Mohammed Swertie. Almost no time was given to remove furniture and personal effects which were buried under the rubble.

Two weeks ago the family’s lawyer Shlomo Lecker obtained an injunction against any demolitions, pending a court hearing at the end of March. Despite the injunction the Israeli Interior Ministry (apparently illegally) ordered the demolition to proceed.

The family bought the land some years ago and poured their savings into building the new homes despite being denied a building permit because the government had zoned the land as ‘open green space’. Like all Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem, there are few building permits available. However the community is almost surrounded by the growing expansion of densely populated settlements. These exclusive Jewish neighborhoods include French Hill to the south, Ramot and Ramat Shlomo to the West/southwest, Pisgat Ze’ev and Neveh Yaakov to the east. While not allowing the natural growth of Palestinian communities the government provides infrastructure and subsidies for the settlements.
It is nearly impossible for Palestinians to get building permits in the West Bank and Gaza while new Jewish settlement spring up constantly. Water is a precious commodity there. The settlers enjoy water rations four times that allowed Palestinians on a per capita basis. There are conscientious Israelis who oppose these policies.
Zoher Swertie’s believes that "Only the Americans or God can stop them"

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions strongly condemns these actions by our Government, especially the continued cynical use of zoning and land use regulations to confine Palestinians in East Jerusalem to small enclaves while the Jewish settlements continue to expand.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Most Arabs, including a large majority of Palestinians, want to make peace with Israel. This does not mean they like Israel. This does not mean they approve of Israel's conduct. It means they are willing to accept Israel's existence and live in peaceful coexistence. That is different from wanting to drive the Israelis into the sea. They expect, in return, for Israel to change its behavior towards the Palestinians. Which raises the question, are they only critical of the behavior of Israel? Are they willing to change to effect peace or do they only demand that Israel change?

According to one of my extracts, Arabs have "ambivalent" feelings toward the United States. It's not all one way or the other. The disdain they feel towards the United States is in large part caused by our billions of dollars of aid to Israel that has made Israel militarily powerful, while we don't exert any real pressure (lip service does not count) on Israel to change its conduct. The settlements keep getting built, the money keeps flowing. The occupation and daily humiliations and atrocities continue, and the money keeps flowing. Sure, when matters start getting too out of hand we'll exert pressure to get Israel to pull back and tone it down, but then we'll follow that with an increase in aid to Israel. This line of argument is parallel to the propaganda that Palestinian leaders feed their people. That Palestinians do not bear any responsibility for the problems they suffer. That they do not realize the aid given to them by the US and stolen by Palestinian leaders. In which case I don't see the relevance of placating the Palestinians if they are incapable of realizing that their leaders are very much responsible for the problems they incur.

The Palestinians must recognize that they can do much to change the situation. The murder of women and children must stop. I agree that the settlements should cease. I won't respond to the occupation line since it is a non starter.

What do Palestinians know that Americans don't? They know their lives. They know what cruelties they endure on a daily basis. (Did you hear about the American woman who was murdered by a bulldozer this weekend? The only thing unusual about that was that it was an American who was murdered. There were demands for an "investigation." There were no demands for an arrest. To my knowledge, the murderer has not been identified or charged with any crime.) I suppose when those who plan and arrange for suicide bombings are arrested then perhaps things will change some. As it is now, to murder an Israeli child will get you money from the Palestinian authority and accolades from the populace. So it seems shrill to complain about Israel not investigating.

At least Israel does not print posters of the murder and hail him/her as a hero.

I know someone who was in the Israeli Defense Forces in the 1970's. He patrolled the West Bank. He told me how casually and commonly Palestinian men were shot in the head if they showed any sense of self-respect. If an IDF soldier ordered a Palestinian man who was minding his own business to do something and he didn't do it immediately, he was shot in the head. He says that things have changed now. The same Palestinian man who was killed back then would now only be beaten. I don't know if this is true or not. If it is, it is anecdotal and if it is the rule and not the exception then it must be viewed in the light of the atrocities of Palestinians. Callous disregard of human life is wrong for both Israelis and Palestinians.

I don't care to argue "who started it first".

I favor democracies. For that reason I think we should support Israel. We should be fair in our dealings with both nations. Perhaps there is more that we can do but I don't buy all of this hatred of us is because of the reasons you state.
Surveys notwithstanding.

Columnists like Mona Charen are part of the problem. But of course she is. Anyone who is to the right is part of the problem. The US is part of the problem. The Palestinians? They are just trying to live their lives.

Mona Charen was to rebut the idea that America does "nothing".

[/b] I agree that Arafat is an obstacle to peace, but I'm not going to try to solve that whole dilemma in this thread. The point I was interested in is that there is an opportunity for peace, but vicious hardliners like Sharon are also obstacles. [/B] My point is that what America does is mostly irrelevant because we can only be seen as "not part of the problem" if we stop supporting Israel. And even then I doubt that we could overcome the propaganda of those who lead Palestine.

There simply is no free press. The Palestinians will believe what ever it is they are told because there is no opposing point of view. And as long as it serves the leaders to make America the bad guy then we will be the bad guy.

You didn’t answer my question, do you think it is more or less likely that
Americans will be exposed to and understand the truth than the Palestinians.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Which raises the question, are they only critical of the behavior of Israel? Are they willing to change to effect peace or do they only demand that Israel change?
No, yes and no. Increasingly, Palestinians are rejecting terrorism, but are still frustrated that their attempts at peaceful resistance are ignored by the United States and met with violence by Israel. I found this article (http://www.dennisfox.net/columns/palestiniancd.html) that discusses the situation.
Though generally underreported in the mainstream press -- still committed to stereotypes of valiant Israelis and irrational violent Arabs -- Palestinian nonviolent resistance isn't entirely new. Neither is Israel's common repressive response. What is new, though, is that more Palestinians, conscious of both the importance of public image and the political situation's fluidity, are stepping forward to advocate making nonviolent struggle central.

Israeli authorities know that their supporters in the United States generally accept Israel's image as a besieged nation that resorts to violence only reluctantly, in self-defense, with no choice other than to expand West Bank settlements, dominate Palestinian life, and restrict individual liberties. Beating or shooting Palestinians guilty only of trying to buy their children bread and milk would dent sympathy in the generally liberal American Jewish community -- and even within Israel itself, where the public prefers heroics to slaughter and where polls show the majority would gladly abandon the settlements if Palestinians would accept a peaceful solution. The shootings a few weeks ago of Palestinians who mistakenly thought the curfew had been lifted got Israel more criticism than it liked.

On the other side, supporters of Palestine often reject calls to turn from suicide bombings and other forms of armed struggle. They claim, with justification, that past nonviolent actions have been met by Israeli repression and worldwide indifference. Given the desperation of the Palestinian people, many argue, armed struggle -- including terrorist attacks within Israel itself -- is both justified and necessary.

Yet in March, Jonathan Kuttab, a Palestinian human rights lawyer and peace activist, and Mubarak Awad, director of Nonviolence International, disseminated a call for alternative strategies, not because they consider violence unjustified -- they don't -- but because they think nonviolence will work better than violence. Apparently they're not the only ones: After Awad launched a similar effort almost two decades ago, Israeli authorities arrested and deported him.

In June, dozens of Palestinians publicly called for an end to suicide bombings. In a full-page ad in the newspaper al-Quds, Palestinian leaders familiar to many American activists called on local militias to "stop sending our young people to carry out such attacks." Joining the appeal were Hanan Ashrawi, often the Palestinian spokesperson; the senior Palestinian official in Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh (whose office Israel briefly closed two weeks ago); and Gaza human rights activist Eyad Serraj. The public call followed increasing Palestinian concern that younger and younger teens were being recruited for suicide bombings.


Originally posted by RandFan
You didn’t answer my question, do you think it is more or less likely that
Americans will be exposed to and understand the truth than the Palestinians.
There is a lot of misinformation and propaganda that circulates throughout the Middle East. If one is willing to search for it, there is a lot of information available to Americans, but much important information is under emphasized. Reporting is still often slanted and unbalanced. However, Palestinians know their lives. (See my post above on the bulldozed homes.) Here is another bit (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,4049446%5e19201,00.html) of humiliation visited upon Palestinians (reported in Australia).
PORN movies and programs in Hebrew are being broadcast by Israeli troops who have taken over three Palestinian television stations of Ramallah, irate residents of the besieged West Bank town have told AFP.
The offices of three local television and radio stations were occupied by soldiers yesterday morning, a few hours after tanks and hundreds of troops stormed the town in Israel's biggest offensive against the Palestinian Authority and its leader Yasser Arafat.

The soldiers started broadcasting the porn clips -- considered extremely offensive by most Muslims -- intermittently this afternoon from the Al-Watan, Ammwaj, and Al-Sharaq channels, the residents said. Certainly not as bad as getting shot in the head, but an indication of the open contempt to which Palestinians are routinely exposed by the IDF.

So who is more likely to be exposed to the truth? That depends on the issue.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
So who is more likely to be exposed to the truth? That depends on the issue. A bit of a dodge but that is fine. I know you are working allot as am I. I appreciate your responses. I read all that you wrote and I promise your points were not lost on me.

We will have to see what transpires in the next few days. I honestly hope for the least amount of bloodshed and my heart is already saddened for those who are about to lose loved one.

War is hell --Sherman.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No, yes and no. Increasingly, Palestinians are rejecting terrorism, but are still frustrated that their attempts at peaceful resistance are ignored by the United States and met with violence by Israel.
Normally I like to stay away from the Palistine/Israel debate (unless I'm really bored, or feeling masochistic.)

But what I find interesting: you say that 'increasingly' they are 'rejecting' terrorism.... But, hasn't Israel been cracking down on terrorism lately? Could it be that a show of force on the part of Israel has actually had success in making the Palestinians change their mode of operation?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

But what I find interesting: you say that 'increasingly' they are 'rejecting' terrorism.... But, hasn't Israel been cracking down on terrorism lately? Could it be that a show of force on the part of Israel has actually had success in making the Palestinians change their mode of operation?
Perhaps, but what excuse does Israel have for cracking down on peaceful protest with force?

Edited to add: Whenever word gets out that Hamas is talking to other terrorist groups to agree on a moratorium against terrorist attacks, Sharon immediatedly reacts with an attack on the Palestinians, such as when last year he bombed an apartment complex and killed 11 Palestinians to get one guy. Hamas, in all its stupidity, does exactly what Sharon wants: it reacts with more terrorism.

What the Palestinians have to learn is that when they react to Sharon's provocations with violence, it is a victory for Sharon and those who do not want a Palestinian state. When the Palestinians protest peacefully and are met with violence, it is a victory for the Palestinians. Gandhi and ML King understood this dynamic. The Palestinians must learn it. What the Israelis must learn is that men like Sharon regard the victims of terrorism as martyrs for the cause of Greater Israel. That is, permanently expanding Israel's borders to include the occupied territories.

Edited furthe to add: Here is an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,762788,00.html) on the incident to which I refer above. Some critics faulted the timing of the attack, however. EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said there were signs of a deal to end suicide bombings in Israel before the raid.

EU diplomats said Mr Solana had been aware of a secret plan for armed groups to declare a unilateral halt to suicide attacks. An announcement had been due on Tuesday, with a strong chance that Hamas would have joined the moratorium, they said.

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas spiritual leader, had said the group would consider such a halt , although the gesture was highly conditional.

But, after the raid, all talk returned to revenge. This was in July 2002. An earlier "moratorium" in December 2001 was not as promising as this one. Back then, Islamic Jihad refused to go along with the moratorium and Hamas limited the moratorium to Israel and not to the settlements. Though the extract below says "end suicide bombings in Israel," if I recall correctly what I heard on NPR the day before Israel bombed Gaza, it was that the moratorium was going to be a complete moratorium and Hamas had agreed to join it. Details of the announcement were being worked out when the bombing took place.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Perhaps, but what excuse does Israel have for cracking down on peaceful protest with force?

Define "peaceful". How many protestors, and do they approach Israeli positions?

And how many "peaceful" protests feature kids throwning stones, or people in masks firing guns? Until the number of people willing to protest 'peacefully' greatly outnumbers the people who want to include rocks and molitov coctails in their activities, Israel has a right to be concerned.

I remember seeing a picture of a Palestinian kid being lead away by security forces. The kid had wet himself. It made him look like a "poor little kid being scared by the big bad Israeli soldiers". That is, until you see the picture taken a minute before where this "poor little kid" was throwing rocks at those same soldiers.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Define "peaceful". How many protestors, and do they approach Israeli positions?

And how many "peaceful" protests feature kids throwning stones, or people in masks firing guns? Until the number of people willing to protest 'peacefully' greatly outnumbers the people who want to include rocks and molitov coctails in their activities, Israel has a right to be concerned.

I think your line of questioning shows a tightly closed mind. When I was a kid growing up in the South and Martin Luther King was assassinated, I remember some adults (one a school teacher!) referring to him as "nothing but a trouble maker." They would dispute King's "peaceful" nature as well. Are you coming from the same mindset as they were? I hope you understand what you are implying about me with your questions.

Does marching through the streets of the West Bank and Gaza Strip banging spoons against empty pans qualify as violence?

BTW, the July 2002 moratorium was to be a complete moratorium that included the settlements. I found another article that I was going to post, but something was wrong with the JREF board because it (the board) wouldn't load into my browser. Anyway, here it is. (http://www.lebanonwire.com/0207/02072613DS.asp)
The EU and chiefly its foreign policy coordinator, Javier Solana, whose efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian “cease-fire” had made considerable progress. His plan would have resulted in a declaration of a unilateral cease-fire by the Fatah Movement. Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would have then prevailed on other Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, to follow suit. The Palestinians killed by the bombing were almost all toddlers. Does that amount to "cracking down on terrorism," or to provoking it?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I think your line of questioning shows a tightly closed mind. When I was a kid growing up in the South and Martin Luther King was assassinated, I remember some adults (one a school teacher!) referring to him as "nothing but a trouble maker." They would dispute King's "peaceful" nature as well. Are you coming from the same mindset as they were? I hope you understand what you are implying about me with your questions.

Does marching through the streets of the West Bank and Gaza Strip banging spoons against empty pans qualify as violence?

I never said marching through the streets of West Bank/Gaza qualifies as violence, and I have never said that there aren't Palistinians interested in peaceful protests, along the lines of King.

However, the sad fact is that there are still a large number of individuals who are more interested in throwing stones and using Molitov cocktails as their way of protest. Until those people are a tiny minority, Israeli solders should be wary of any activity, especially ones that approach Israeli positions.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I never said marching through the streets of West Bank/Gaza qualifies as violence, and I have never said that there aren't Palistinians interested in peaceful protests, along the lines of King.

However, the sad fact is that there are still a large number of individuals who are more interested in throwing stones and using Molitov cocktails as their way of protest. Until those people are a tiny minority, Israeli solders should be wary of any activity, especially ones that approach Israeli positions.
Thank you for that qualification. I would not consider throwing molotov cocktails to be peaceful either. I wouldn't consider rock throwing by asolescent boys at soldiers in riot gear to be peaceful either, but I don't think it is a threat to the soldiers. It is symbollic more than anything and doesn't warrant retalliation with bullets.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Thank you for that qualification. I would not consider throwing molotov cocktails to be peaceful either. I wouldn't consider rock throwing by asolescent boys at soldiers in riot gear to be peaceful either, but I don't think it is a threat to the soldiers. It is symbollic more than anything and doesn't warrant retalliation with bullets.
I'll tell you what... You dress up in riot gear, and let me throw a few dozen rocks at you, and see if you enjoy it.

A thrown rock can injure, and there are enough chinks in riot gear to make it a threat. (Assuming everyone is wearing riotgear at the time... I doubt full body armour is worn at all times by all soldiers in the field.)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I'll tell you what... You dress up in riot gear, and let me throw a few dozen rocks at you, and see if you enjoy it.

A thrown rock can injure, and there are enough chinks in riot gear to make it a threat. (Assuming everyone is wearing riotgear at the time... I doubt full body armour is worn at all times by all soldiers in the field.)
So using deadly force against boys throwing rocks that might, under conditions of extreme luck, cause injury to a soldier among an array wearing protective gear and protected by large plexiglass shields is justified in your mind? Why not? The Palestinians are just lice and vermin, right?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

So using deadly force against boys throwing rocks that might, under conditions of extreme luck, cause injury to a soldier among an array wearing protective gear and protected by large plexiglass shields is justified in your mind? Why not? The Palestinians are just lice and vermin, right?

Using deadly force against boys throwing rocks would be bad...
But that's not the typical Israeli response.

Israeli soldiers use rubber bullets. They fire into the air/into the ground. They may use tear gas. None of which are designed to be deadly. (Accidents do happen, but a responsible parent would teach their kids that throwing stones at others is a bad thing to do. I guess your parents didn't pass that memo on to you.)

You also assume that all soldiers are protected by such gear. They aren't.

You still haven't said whether you'll let me throw rocks at you.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

You still haven't said whether you'll let me throw rocks at you.
You never answered my question about whether using deadly force against rock throwers was justified. You dodged the question with "would be bad." I take it you think it would be justified. Palestinians are not really human, are they?

Israeli soldiers don't use rubber bullets. They use rubber coated STEEL bullets that kill. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/mideast_2_001027.html) Israeli troops shot dead four Palestinians in clashes the West Bank and Gaza, witnesses and medical sources said. Gun battles between Palestinians and Israeli troops flared in the West Bank town of Ramallah and the sound of machine gun fire rattled the city.

Palestinian hospital officials said 115 Palestinians were injured in the fighting, 12 of them critically.
____
(snip)

Across the West Bank, Palestinian rock-throwers clashed with Israeli troops who fired rubber-coated steel bullets. In the West Bank town of Ramallah, acrid smoke from a car burned by the crowd rose into the air as Israeli troops took aim at rock-throwers from behind a line of jeeps.

Would I let you throw rocks at me? Sure. Provide me the riot gear and shield, then, like the Palestinian boys, stand 25 yards or more away and throw rocks. Then contemplate this: how would feel about me retaliating with bullets? Would you think that was fair? I doubt it, but I expect that if you answer here you'll say it was fair. Have you ever wondered why those boys throw rocks?

Now I am going to ask you to do something that is probably impossible. I want you to imagine how you were feel if you were a Palestinian and subjected to the abuse detailed in this
Letter from Israel (http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html) written by an Israeli.
Israeli "security analysts" describe the Palestinian city of Hebron as a "city of terror". This is true: Israel’s state terrorism is nowhere as brutal. If you wish to see ethnic cleansing at work, Hebron is a good instance.
The Jewish settlers of Hebron are fanatic extremists even by Israeli standards. They regularly ransack Palestinian shops, cut electricity lines and water pipes, wreck cars, and attack schoolchildren.

Before and after the procession, Ozeri’s comrades were busy carrying out his legacy in Hebron itself. The Independent described how "Jewish settlers rampaged through the West Bank city of Hebron yesterday, smashing the windows of Palestinian homes and setting cars ablaze" (20.1.03). Even the pro-Israeli New York Times mildly mentioned "attacks on Palestinian homes by settlers. The attackers broke windows with iron bars, and at one point a young mother with a baby strapped to her chest pounded a Palestinian house with a big rock. There were wild scuffles as the army and the police tried to intervene, and the crowd taunted the police, shouting insults." (21.1.03)

Do not be impressed by police and army "trying to intervene", as the NY Times carefully puts it. The 450 Hebron settlers are supported by about 4.000 Israeli army troops, who are there for the settlers, not for the Palestinians. Since mid-November, following a clash with Islamic Jihad activists in which 12 Israeli combatants were killed, the Army has been holding the city under continuous curfew, lifted for only a few hours in more than two months(!) to allow for shopping. When the Palestinians do venture out on these rare occasions, they are often harassed by settlers, who stage violent processions whenever they have a pretext. As one Palestinian told US activist group Christian Peacemaker Team, "They lift the curfew so they will have people to beat".

To be demolished are some of the oldest Palestinian houses in the Old City. Bimkom, a new NGO of architects and affiliated professionals, warns of this fatal blow to the one of the world’s most ancient cities. Unlike the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddha sculptures in Afghanistan, very few people in the West seem to be concerned about the destruction of this internationally acknowledged cultural heritage. The Supreme Court has meanwhile ordered the army to reconsider its plans; but past experience shows that in the long term, almost all Court decisions regarding the occupied territories are either supportive of the army or ignored by it.

Associated Press (20.12.02) and the Israeli daily Yedioth Achronot have recently quoted Palestinians in Hebron describing how"Israeli border police have forced detainees to choose whether to have a nose, arm or leg broken." Rujdi al-Jamal told AP that he chose his hand, and the policemen broke it with a rifle butt. A Palestinian student arrested on a different occasion told Yediot Achronot: "I chose the nose because nothing hurts as much as a broken arm or broken leg."

"Pressure" means: "blocking the streets of Hebron to traffic by piling mounds of earth or huge concrete cubes at distances of about a hundred metres from each other, effectively cutting the city into a series of isolated enclaves; the wholesale closing of local radio and television stations, exactly at the time when the curfew-imprisoned population needs them most; the invasion by soldiers of civilian offices of the Palestinian Authority, which fulfill purely civilian functions vital for the population, the destruction of computers and furniture, expulsion of the staff and welding shut the doors; the bulldozing of Hebron’s vegetable market, destruction of at least a hundred stalls, and spoiling of much food-stuff in an already very impoverished city; and the demolition of twenty-two homes on one day, mostly on land which Israeli settlers have long coveted for extension of their armed enclaves" (letter of Gush Shalom to the Judge-Advocate General of the Israeli army, 4.2.03).

So far, the junta’s policy has proven quite effective. Driven away by economic strangulation and fear of settlers’ violence, the population of 12.000 Palestinians who inhabited Hebron’s Old City has dwindled to 5.000 souls since the division of the city in 1997. As for H1 in its entirety, Israeli Channel 1 estimated last week that 20.000 out of its 40.000 Palestinians left their homes. The camera showed rows of Palestinian houses with windows left broken in spite of the cold winter, a clear evidence for a successful policy of ethnic cleansing. Deserted houses are then taken over by settlers, who get the chance to harass the next row of Palestinian neighbours. Depicting Hebron as a purely Jewish city, the maps of Israel’s Foreign Office are thus not just a distortion of reality: they express both a desire and an actual policy of ethnic cleansing, which is carried out with horrendous efficacy in this terrorised Palestinian city. PS: I am well aware of standard Israeli propaganda, so anti-Palestinian readers need not bother to remind me of the 67 Jews massacred in Hebron back in 1929. May they rest in peace. Their children and grandchildren (none of whom is among the present Hebron settlers) have repeatedly condemned the atrocities carried out by the settlers, who claim to be heirs to the massacred, but in fact desecrate their very memory by their crimes.

There are conscientious Israelis, like the author of the above article, who are appalled by the atrocities committed in Hebron.
An overwhelming majority of Israelis supports evicting the provocative stronghold. Following the 1994 massacre, in which a Jewish settler murdered 39 Palestinians during prayer in Hebron’s Tomb of the Patriarchs, there was a majority even in Cabinet for evacuating the Hebron settlement. But Prime Minister (and former General) Rabin refused to discuss the issue in Cabinet. Similarly, during coalition talks last week, another member of the junta – Prime Minister (and former General) Sharon – summarily rejected a request by Labour leader Amram Mitzna to evacuate the Hebron settlers.

What does it mean to have a conscience? To me it means having the willingness to judge your actions as those affected by them would judge them. That is, having empathy for the other guy. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Am I misjudging you, or do you find it impossible to criticize anything done by Israel? Do you think such an attitude serves the image of Israel and her supporters?

If you find it impossible to put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian, then read the "Letter from Israel" column and where ever you see "Israeli," "settler," or "Jew," substitute with "German," and where ever you see "Palestinian," substitute with "Jew." How do you feel about the situation now?

Some of my ancestors immigrated from Germany to Louisiana in the 1720's. Yet I've never heard anyone in my family say a kind word about the Nazis. Instead, my elders fought against them. When I learned as a boy about WW II and Hitler's atrocities, I thought he had to be the most evil man who ever lived. (I still remember how I thought this while hearing my parents talk to me about it while we walked through a grocery store.) These days, I'd put Stalin at the bottom of the pile along with Hitler. The point is, I don't judge actions based on who does them, but based on what is being done. Policies of brutality and ethnic cleansing are wrong, period.

[Wayne Grabert]

Segnosaur, my posts to you have been to some extent deliberately provocative. I am trying to get you to think. However, some of what I've said, in the way that I've said it, may seem subtly accusatory, and I don't fault you if that is how you perceive it. Now I want to put some things in perspective because I do not think you are someone who lacks a conscience. I think you have your reasons, however misplaced, to have blinders on.

Back when the Clinton impeachment effort was in full swing till the end of Clinton's presidency, those of us who saw the impeachment effort as not only unfair to Clinton, but as a threat to our democratic institutions, found it difficult to publicly criticize Clinton during that time. There was the sense that he (and by extension, our form of government) was under siege. To criticize Clinton, at least too forcefully, was thought to be seen as giving amunition to the enemy to further their unfair attacks.

Well, now I don't have a problem criticizing those policies of Clinton's that I think were misguided or just flat out wrong. The situation has changed. I still think the impeachment was wrong and driven by irrational hatred, but I can still fault Clinton on other matters.

What does this have to do with Israel? I see an analogy. There are American Jews who find it difficult, if not impossible, to criticize anything Israel does because they have this greatly exaggerated sense that Israel and the Jewish people are under siege. It's time to take a fresh look.

Israel is in a position of power. It has the strongest military in the region. It is a protectorate of the United States. The sight of Palestinian boys pitifully throwing rocks at at an army with its high powered weapons, jeeps and bulldozers is an apt symbol of the balance of power between Israel and Palestine.

Here in the US, AIPAC wields extraordinary lobbying power. Anti-Semitism is socially unacceptable (as it should be). The siege mentality is out of touch with reality.

As should be clear from my posts on this thread and others, I strongly believe that terrorism and other forms of indiscriminate collective punishment are morally repugnant. I find much to fault on both sides--Israel and Palestine. However, I don't see either as all bad. I have sympathy for both.

The Jews are no different than any other ethnic group. Most are decent, well-meaning ordinary folks. Some are exemplary paragons of virtue. Others are ruthless bigots. The same is true for the Arabs.