Everything I hear on the news seems to indicate that everyone is on the side of Israel. Could this be because they have more military power? Are they completely in the right on the issues, and the Palestinians completely in the wrong?

-- (what.is@the.real.deal?), October 12, 2000

Answers

eeet is r coontry. u go now.

-- (raghead@wailing.wall), October 12, 2000.

The real deal is that our government tried to force a peace in a tight timeframe between two peoples who should have been left alone. The timing sucked. The only result was that both sides opened themselves to their respective "right wings" and lost control. Thank you very much U.S. of A. Not.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 13, 2000.

Of course, blame the U.S.A. for everything, even though the ragheads have been fighting since eons before this country even existed. Do this country a favor and go shack up with your pal Bin Laden.

-- (religious@tyrants.nuts), October 13, 2000.

I just look at how quickly the Israelis escalate every confrontation into a military strike and think "there is a nation that deeply believes that the answer to every problem is to drop some more high explosives on some handy target." They have jet fighter planes, tanks, rockets, and probably nuclear weapons. The Palestinians have a few guns and a lot of rocks.

Regardless of the claims and counter claims, arguments and justifications on both sides, the Israelis have it all over the Palestinians when it comes to use of force. Constant, reflexive, brutal use of force. The Arabs in Israel are treated like Catholics are in Belfast or blacks were in South Africa. I must say I do not view the Israelis as pristine in this matter. Their policies and their actions are nothing I can back.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 13, 2000.

Good points Brian, I agree. Of course we have to be careful these days, as it seems most anyone who speaks their mind will be subjected to endless cries of "anti-semitism" if we say that Israel is anything but perfect.

-- (the@real.deal), October 13, 2000.

Sounds like either a State Department memo or speech from a neo Rip VanWinkle. Clue me.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 13, 2000.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't see this ever ending unless one side is totally vanquished.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 13, 2000.

One difference I see is that Israelis have used force in self-defense or retalliation rather than attack. Granted, there's a clear imbalance between their use of guns and the Palestinians use of rocks. But throwing rocks is hardly a peaceful protest. So far, in no case has Israel expressed delight in using force.

By contrast, the Palestinian mob killed the two Israeli soldiers while others cheered with delight at the action. These two soldiers did not attack the Palestinians, didn't throw rocks at them, didn't even make contact with them at all until they were stopped and sent to the police station.

Israel retalliated against this brutal attack by using rockets against buildings rather than people. However, unlike Palestine, nobody in Israel is cheering in delight at this action.

Of course Israel isn't completely right in their issues, nor is Palestine completely wrong. I think Palestinians deserve a homeland as do Israelis. However, I simply can't support a people that takes such delight in killing other human beings.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 13, 2000.

"I just look at how quickly the Israelis escalate every confrontation into a military strike and think "there is a nation that deeply believes that the answer to every problem is to drop some more high explosives on some handy target."

I recall the Iraqi's tossing missles into Isreal during the duration of the Gulf war...killing innocent people left and right, but I don't recall the Isreali's dropping high explosives on Iraq?

-- ? (n@n.n), October 13, 2000.

I'll tell you who dares take their side, all of those Arab oil producing states, that's who. This situation will be a real tightrope walk because when it comes down to it we need the oil more than we need Israel.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 13, 2000.

It's a hard call for me. I've watched the Palestinian/Isarelis townmeeting on CNN a couple nights ago, and came out leaning towards the Palestinians. They made better arguments, blamed the other side less and seemed to be holding the higher moral ground a bit more (but it was a circus all the same.) I don't hold the general population as much responsible as the leaders in this crisis. Both sides have their religious extremists to deal with, and Israel seemed to be suporting theirs all out compared to Palestine (Jerusalem's mayor was an irrational hard-headed moron in this debate.)

I think that Palestinian mobs had a reason to be so inflamed when almost 100 of their rock throwing boys and men were killed. I am not judging them by our standard of "peaceful demonstrations", but by their own standards of rioting with rocks. I believe they don't intend to kill with rocks. Arabs can be seen as savages to our standards and Israel's, but in the end it's Israel that has the more powerful military killing machines. This control I'm sure is not helping the Palestinian's ego.

It's not a fair fight, and you're asking me to decide who's religious shrines and land should be given back. On religious grounds, I say throw the shrines in the sea. On principles, well, I hate bullies and I'd go for the underdog.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 13, 2000.

These are disturbing times. When I think of ascribing blame I believe both sides carry alot. When I see and remember the history of the Jews and their struggles for a homeland, I understand their reflexive actions based on not allowing the camel to get its nose under the tent. To give and inch is to sell out your family, your country. I believe the Palestinians have their rights also. I just can't understand their methods.

-- just past through (thinkin@home.com), October 13, 2000.

I don't hold the general population as much responsible as the leaders in this crisis. Both sides have their religious extremists to deal with, and Israel seemed to be suporting theirs all out compared to Palestine

Actually, I see the opposite. Both sides indeed have their extremists, but Israel seems to have reined in theirs while Palestine has not. You don't see mobs of Israelis killing and mutilating bodies of Palestinians, for example. Arafat has so far done nothing to quell tensions on his side, while Israel responded to the brutal murder of their soldiers by targeting buildings instead of people.

If the situation were reversed, and the Palestinians had the guns and the tanks and the helicopters, do you think they would restrain themselves to just a couple of buildings?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 13, 2000.

Hmm, you make all good points also, and that's why it's hard to understand these people on both sides. One must try to put oneself in their shoes, on both sides, and look at the events and actions with as unbiased eyes as one can possibly do.

"Actually, I see the opposite. Both sides indeed have their extremists, but Israel seems to have reined in theirs while Palestine has not. You don't see mobs of Israelis killing and mutilating bodies of Palestinians, for example. Arafat has so far done nothing to quell tensions on his side, while Israel responded to the brutal murder of their soldiers by targeting buildings instead of people."

What I see are Arabs (religious fundamentalists by definition) rebelling against a superior force attempting to "steal" their land and religious shrine. I see Arab boys and men motivated by their religious zeal and national pride to rebel and throw rocks at the "opressor Israelis", and I see Israelis retaliating with first rubber bullets, then moving on to real bullets and killing the rioters. I see Arabs outraged at this unbalanced show of force and morning their sons, friends and neighbors, fueling their rage. I see them unleashing this rage on military men whom they view as the tools of the opressors (so here I see 2 Isralis lives taken in revenge for 100+/- Arabs). Then I see the Israelis' military taking out the big whip and snaping it down on Arab buildings destroying them as a "warning, don't try that again or you'll really be sorry." Then I see Arabs frightened by that and clamoring for international help in holding back the big opressor and help mediate (Isarel had agreed only to USA help in the peace talk, Arabs say noway! [imagining the "Great Satan" siding for Israel). That's what I see.

"If the situation were reversed, and the Palestinians had the guns and the tanks and the helicopters, do you think they would restrain themselves to just a couple of buildings?"

If the situation was reversed, I have no doubt that they would have attempted to take what they want by force a long time ago. Isn't it the way it works everywhere? ;)

My beef is with the way the Israelis are playing games at "peace talks" when in fact they don't want to make concessions and fighting with same tools.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 13, 2000.

My beef is with the way the Israelis are playing games at "peace talks" when in fact they don't want to make concessions and fighting with same tools.

But make sure to look at this with unbiased eyes. Israel was making some concessions, but there are still areas where both sides disagree. Certainly, Barak's administration has made more concessions in the peace process than any previous Israeli administration. Jerusalem itself is probably the most contentious point, and both sides probably have to agree to divide it up, but I don't think either side wants to. I don't think they're "playing games" at all nor did I believe that Arafat was either. I believed they were both sincere about wanting the peace process to continue. The key is for both governments to keep the tensions down within their own people in order to move peace forward. This is where I believe Arafat should and could step in, but so far has not.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 13, 2000.

Hmm, I agree with what you said in general, but you should have watched the CNN townmeeting to understand my point of view.

"But make sure to look at this with unbiased eyes. Israel was making some concessions, but there are still areas where both sides disagree."

Yes agreed. And one crutial area where they disagreed last week, that is the fuel of TODAY's flare-up, is that Arafat wanted an international commission to investigate the 60 palestinians killed in the previous week, and Barak refused, agreeing only to a US commission. That broke down completely the ongoing peace talks. Why does Israel refuse this? What could possibly be a good reason, when they know that Arabs view American gov. as "the Great Satan"? Could it possibly be because Israel they aren't playing fair according to international opinions and hopes the US would settle in their favor?

"Certainly, Barak's administration has made more concessions in the peace process than any previous Israeli administration."

I agree with that too.

"Jerusalem itself is probably the most contentious point, and both sides probably have to agree to divide it up, but I don't think either side wants to."

That's a no-brainer, considering the religious undercurrent.

"I don't think they're "playing games" at all nor did I believe that Arafat was either. I believed they were both sincere about wanting the peace process to continue."

That's where I disagree on some points with you. You're talking in general, and I'm talking about specific players in this. I do believe both sides of the population wants it to stop somehow, but it's with some of the politicians on Israel's side that the sincerity chain breaks down. Jerusalem's mayor is one who I view as a monkey wrench. He obviously was encouraging the jews in the audience in that town meeting. The woman in Israel's panel said as much when she begged him to shut up.

"The key is for both governments to keep the tensions down within their own people in order to move peace forward."

Agreed

" This is where I believe Arafat should and could step in, but so far has not. "

It's not so simple. Both sides are politicians walking on ice with different political factions within their own country, the same as we have here. If Arafat engers the fundamentalists as apearing too weak and giving in too much concessions, he's toast (remember, Arabs are very emotional over the deaths of their own right now, not a good time for Arafat to put his foot down and hold them in.) When he's gone, another one much harder to deal with will take his place.

I believe right now not much can be done to resume the peace talks until emotions have had time to cool down on their own, and both sides doing their best to hold in their police and military. Barak on the news yesterday seemed ready to do anything but step back and let people cool down. His attitude and voice was that of a control freak. Arafat's attitude was on the defensive. What else do you expect?

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 13, 2000.

Excellent discussion. I seem to recall the Palestinian Charter calling for the anhilation of Israel (though I had heard this too long ago to remember the source). At any rate, as this sentiment has persisted for a very long time, I have been unable to project a peace process involving Israel and her neighbors that could produce tangible benefits that outlast the process itself.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 13, 2000.

I think our Government and that of Israel have an un healthy relationship.Why does our Government give Israel 3 Billion dollars( at least ) every year.And they have done so for the last 52 years ?Plus an extra 15 Billion for not shooting back at Iraq during the Gulf war.Do the Math.The population of Israel is about 4 one and half million people.devide that into 200 Billion and see what you get (Please!) It's like we owe them somethig.Do we? And if so what?And when will we ever get them paid off?

-- Dan Newsome (BOONSTAR1@webtv.net), October 13, 2000.

opps ! population should be four and one half million.

-- Dan Newsome (BOONSTAR1@webtv.net), October 13, 2000.

Where are you getting your figures, Dan? What is included in your 200 billion? Bacteria? As of this year, the population of the entire earth is 6,102,384,336. [as in 6 billion]. The population of the U.S. is 275,933,048 [as in 276 million]. The population of Israel is 6,300,000, [as in 6 million], consisting of 5,150,000 Jews, 1,150,000 Muslims, and 376,000 others.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 13, 2000.

Sorry, Dan. I just "got it." Your 200 billion was a reference to dollars, right?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 13, 2000.

Right Anita. Now could you do the math for me..er us? (I would, but I gotta do something else right now...honest injun...)

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 13, 2000.

Dan, I don't have the data but I am pretty sure that the US chips in 3 billion a year to Egypt too.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 18, 2000.