How about peace between the two sides and a free independent Palestine living side by side with a free independent Israel?

One can dream, right?

One thing is for sure, both sides will have to compromise and give up some of their cherished preconceived notions before this can happen!

This column was very one-sided. Israel isn't perfect, but the columnist doesn't mention the horrible terrorism that the Palestinians have inflicted on Israel, the hundreds of massive suicide bombs blowing up busses and restaurants, and the continuous barrage of rockets that Palestinians fire at Israeli towns...these are not military measures (aimed at soldiers) but pure terrorism, aimed at civilians.

Maybe if the Palestinians stopped terrorism and tried to actually make peace they would get somewhere...Israel has as much right to exist as France or the USA, and the Palestinians do as well, they do need a state, but they won't win one by terrorism.

And the columnist's comment about aid to Israel misses the point - Egypt gets nearly as much aid as Israel does, should we stop that as well, after all, Egypt engages in tons of human rights violations as well.

This is an opinion column, and a very one-sided opinion this is indeed. Mr. Anderson is entitled to his opinion, but I felt the need to respond.

First off, regardless of what you think of Israeli’s policies, tactics, etc., understand that what Mr. Anderson asserts in this article never really gets to the point of this entire conflict. The point is this: Israel exists. Period.
What does that mean? Well, settlements may come and go, harassment on both sides come and go, bloodshed on both sides comes and goes, but ultimately what the Palestinians disagree with is the existence of Israel. Israel has had left wing, right wing, and centrist parties at the helm at various times. This did not make any difference. Israel took all the settlements out of Gaza and withdrew from the south of Lebanon, this made no difference. They still exist – that is what this conflict is about. Not land, not control of water or electricity, not ethnic or religious politics, not military occupation, not freedom or homelands, but that Israel exists. Period.

Which brings me to my question for Mr. Anderson, what is the “Occupation of Palestine?” I ask because I started studying the Arabic language some time ago, and I find that if you say Filasteen (“Palestine” in Arabic), you are referring to all of Israel, not just the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Do a Google image search of قلسطين (Filasteen) and you’ll find that in the Arabic speaking world there is no “Israel,” only “Palestine.” So what does it mean to “end the occupation?” What would a “liberated Palestine” look like?

Before the modern State of Israel it was a British Mandate. Before that it was Turkish land, part of the Ottoman Empire. You can go back farther and farther, but ultimately who Mr. Anderson refers to as the “indigenous inhabitants” of Palestine is really a murky concept. Look at the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entry for “Palestine.” It denotes how hard it is to determine 1) what boundaries exactly constitute Palestine, and 2) the ethnology of Palestine due to so many ethnicities and languages (50 or so) there.
It is true that many Arabs fled during the fighting that ensued in 1948, but Mr. Anderson fails to mention that many stayed. Those Arab Muslims today make up 20% of the citizenry of the state of Israel. And the numbers of the refugees that fled the war of 1948 have been estimated to be around one million. Today their descendants living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip number almost 4 million. So if Israel is attempting to “cleanse” the land, as Mr. Anderson so absurdly asserts, why have their numbers quadrupled? Why do the Arab Israelis, with full citizenship, work and pay their taxes and vote? Why do some of them vote for Jewish parties? Why do some join the Israeli Military? If they are in the process of being “cleansed,” why do they go about their daily lives in Haifa or any other Israeli city? Why do Israeli government web pages have Arabic versions, too? Why does Israeli money have “Bank of Israel” written in Hebrew and Arabic? Why have Arab Christians, Muslims, and Druze immigrated to Israel since 1948? Why do persecuted homosexuals in Gaza seek refuge in Israel, which is the only country in the region with Gay Pride parades (3 – in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem)? I ask you, why?

So, Mr. Anderson, what would a “liberated Palestine” look like? Who lives there? What kind of government does it have? Consider tactics used by Palestinians to achieve “liberation” and tell me what you think “liberation” would look like.
Groups from Gaza and West Bank have people strap bombs to themselves and go into crowded restaurants and pizzerias and blow everyone up. These people are then referred to as “martyrs” who are “victims” of Israel. They are considered heroes because they committed mass murder. Crowded places are chosen because more people will die. Body count = progress towards “liberation.”

Another important point is Mr. Anderson forgets to mention the fact that the Palestinians don’t recognize Israel and that there is no functioning “government” to speak of to be partnered with for peace in the first place – more so an ad hoc set of organizations who constantly fight each other. Hamas, the group the Palestinian people overwhelmingly elected to represent them, advocates the destruction of the state of Israel. That is how “liberation” will be achieved. Even if there were a moderate party within Palestinian politics, that didn’t have an “armed wing” engaged in “resistance” and “martyrdom operations,” I doubt they would get any support. Does this mean the average guy walking around Ramallah supports blowing up his neighbor? I like to think not. I like to hope not. But I just don’t know.
I am not saying there is no group of people who are Palestinians. Clearly there are, and clearly they deserve to have normal lives just as much as anyone else. But they weren’t “Palestinians” until 1948. If you understand what I mean, then you understand this conflict.

So I ask Mr. Anderson, you advocate ending the “occupation”; is there any other UN member whose destruction you support? Would you advocate throwing Muslims out of Mecca, or Catholics out of the Vatican? Who else do you advocate stopping aid to? Israel’s neighbor, Egypt, is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid. I’ve met some wonderful Egyptians, but their government is unscrupulous – especially with persecution of homosexuals. Do you advocate stopping aid to them? I’d really like to know.

Hello, this is the author.

to Joeooreo: Actually, it isn't one sided. It rounds the picture out by putting it in its proper perspective, that of a military occupation, that the mainstream media sadly does not adequately do.

As for the Palestinians stopping terrorism and actually trying to make peace, the same can obviously be said of the Iraelis. In fact, historically speaking, it can more honestly be said that it is precisely the Nation of Israel that doesn't want peace. They want the land. It really is that simple.

Also, concerning aid. It doesn't miss the point. The United State's explicitly supports every crime the Nation of Israel commits against the population of Palestine, both in policy and monetarily. This is morally reprehensible.

Concerning our aide to Egypt: the reason we give them money is so that they'll do what we say, like bow to Israel's every demand, including keeping starving people penned in Gaza like animals. Already we've cut off 100 million dollars to them since the breakthrough at Rafah crossing this week, and already Egypt is scrambling to push the people back into the strip.

Jayhawk100, thanks for speaking up with an extremely educated perspective on this. You mentioned a lot of things that people, especially those who have never actually spent time in the middle east, absolutely fail to realize. You were dead on in pointing out that this whole lack of peace thing has nothing to do with the occupation of Israelis in settlements, but rather the fact that Israel exists at all. Lest we forget, the the call for a Palestinian state also calls for Jerusalem to be it's capital. That poses an obvious problem if a Jewish state were to exist as well. That however, is the entire point. The idea of a Palestinian state is supposed to replace Israel, not just the west bank or gaza, but all of Israel. Without American funding, that is a very real and scary possibility.

In many text books throughout the middle east, students study maps of the world. In the small area about the size of New Jersey, students learn that the area is Palestine, not Israel. In most educational establishments in that area, it is taught that Israel is to not even be recognized as a state, but rather the area be recognized as the Palestinian state. It would be like Mexico not recognizing Texas as part of the US, during their conquest to regain Texas. Again, this proves that the ultimate goal of the Palestinians is the destruction of Israel, not the removal of settlers from the West bank or any other place.

Mr. Anderson, you seem to fault the Israeli government for treating the existing Palestinians living in Israel unfairly. In Israel, the government provides families money every month based on how many kids they have. There are no exclusions based on income level or anything; if you have kids the government sends you a check. This even goes for the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, etc. So what's beginning to happen is, Palestinian families are having more kids than anyone so they can reap the benefits of the Israeli government's kind welfare program. Though most people in Israel are opposed to helping an "enemy" to such a great extent, it still goes on. Though it has it's problems, the Israeli government certainly is not unfair to it's Palestinian citizens.

Mr. Anderson, your article was well thought out and you are obviously entitled to an opinion so thanks for sparking the debate. I would love for you to take a trip at some point to Israel and gather multiple opinions of various people and groups. Maybe you would change your standpoint a bit.

Mr

From the author,
to Jhawk100, comment #1:
First of all, I never contended Israel's right to exist.
Secondly, you say that "settlements may come and go" when in fact, their express purpose is to come and never go - one of the most effective tools of the land-grab.
Thirdly, Israel left Lebanon (mainly because most people saw it as wrong for them to be there), and promptly turned around and bombed them. And not just Hezbollah: civilians and UN observers. And they did leave Gaza, sure, in order to more effectively turn it into a prison for the population. They still control virtually every aspect of life there. This is indisputable.
Lastly: look at an Israeli map of the region, you won't even see the West Bank or Gaza. Double standard?

again, to Jhawk100:
In reference to "indigenous", I very simply mean the people who lived there up until the Israeli invasion. Arabs, Armenians, Muslims, Jews, Christians. All of them.
And as to your questions asking why all of these things, like the languages present on the banknote, etc, I ask the question, why can't those Palestinians driven from their homes in 48 and 67 return to them? Why can't a Palestinian get a building permit inside Israel? What makes it ok to indiscriminately bulldoze any Palestinian house they want to?

Mr. Anderson, I see I failed to emphasize my main point. It does not matter if people driven from their homes in 1948 or 1967 were allowed to return (of those that are still alive, the vast majority of Palestinians have never been to or lived in Israel and were not born there). About one million Jews were driven from their homes in 1948-49 from North Africa and other Middle Eastern states. They were forced out with nothing. I know, I've met some. They are not allowed to return to their homes, nor do they want to. What difference would it make if they wer allowed to return. Honestly? None. Israel is still there.
And when Israel left Lebanon, they withdrew completely - groups like Hezbollah only used this opportunity to rearm. And settlements that were in Egypt are gone now, and the settlements in Gaza are gone now - but it is all inconsequential. Israel is still there. Bottom line. And they don't indiscriminately bulldoze houses, nothing is done indiscriminately - there is always a target or a group of persons they are after. This is not to terrorize but to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.
I am glad that you don't contend Israel's existence, or that of any state, I'm assuming, but you did not answer my question. What does it mean to end the occupation? What would a "liberated Palestine" look like? You say you are against the "cleansing" that you assert Israel does, but what do you think "liberate" means?

May I say also, I am confused about what you mean by the the "israeli invasion." The population of the British Mandate that became Israel in 1948 was already there, many of them for many generations. It was a UN partition of land that created mondern Israel, not an "invasion." Therefore I am confused.
Also, regarding your response to the "indigenous" comment, if you assert that the Israeli government is trying to "cleanse" the "indigenous population," but then say you mean by indigenous "Arabs, Armenians, Muslims, Jews, Christians. All of them," then that statement makes no sense as that would include their entire citizenry. Which takes me back to my point that this assertion is incorrect - Israel is not trying to "cleanse" anyone, they are just keeping their people safe and making sure their country is still around tomorrow. If you disagree with their tactics, policies, etc. I am fine with that. But to accuse them of something so heinous as ethnic cleansing, when there is no evidence of such, that is just wrong.

There is plenty of evidence of ethnic cleansing. That it hasn't been as reported as such doesn't negate the truth of the matter. Israel is and has been employing every tactic that it can get away with to remove the land of it's inhabitants that are not Jewish since 1948.

I disagree with tactics and politics that violate anyone's inviolable human rights. That anyone would agree with such policies and tactics is what is heinous.

Plenty of evidence, you say? I can see this is fruitless. Mr. Anderson, if you disagree with tactics violating human rights then you REALLY chose the wrong horse to back (the Palestinians and their "martyrs" and their heinous infighting treating each other like dirt). Mr. Anderson, I cannot speak for the Palestinians, only about what they have shown the world. And that is that destruction is their national anthem. If you read my eariler posts you'd know that plenty of non-Jewish people have come to live in Israel since 1948. The Bahai (who are persecuted in much of the rest of the ME) have their HQ in Israel. Muslims, Druze, Christians, etc. have all immigrated there along with others of the Jewish faith. And if you want to talk about control of land (which, as I have said, is not what this conflict is even about), ask someone who controlled the W. Bank and Gaza from 1948 to 1967 - Jordan and Egypt. They used that land to attack Israel, which is why Israel took control of it. It is as plain as that. Think Israel is the aggressor? Read about what Gamal Abdul Nasr of Egypt did right before the Six Day War and tell me you wouldn't have done exactly what Israel did.
And if you still assert that Israel is trying to "cleanse" the inhabitants - who you refer to as "Arabs, Armenians, Muslims, Jews, Christians. All of them," thus meaning Israel is trying to cleanse itself (non-sensical), then I ask why are there millions more people who identify themselves as Palestinians today than there were 60 years ago? If they are being "cleansed" then why are they walking around, studying abroad, running for office in Israel, etc.
I've spent a great deal of time educating myself on this conflict, it has taken years to come to my conclusions. I suggest you do the same. And I am still curious about your answer to my question. What would a "liberated Palestine" look like?

You're right, I should've refined my language about policy. What I intended to illustrate that official state policy, especially from the mouth of the oppressor, that justifies killing, stealing and other terror tacts (with state funds, etc) is heinous.

I do not condone violent resistance to the occupation. At all. But I do understand it. In the same way that folks from your camp think of civilians and innocent bystanders who die during Israeli incursions are acceptable collateral damage, I understand WHY militants fight back.

And I am sorry, Israel is the aggressor. Israel was built on terrorism, and sustains the occupation on terrorism.

And I'm not going to tell you how long I've studied the conflict or how many books I've read or how qualified my conclusions are. Nor am I going to tell you what my version of a liberated Palestine would look like.

I don't need to tell you these things to come to the conclusion that the occupation is wrong, that it needs to be ended, and that I can't ignore my conscience.

There are too many people here who are way to biased towards one side or the other.

It seems to me that peace can only come when:

1. Israel accepts the Palestinians right to exist and withdraws from their land.

and

2. The Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist and stop terrorism against Israel.

and finally,

both sides must give up their most cherished goal...Israel must give up on "greater Israel" and accept the Palestinians as legitimate, and the Palestinians must accept Israel as legitimate and give up on the idea that they can "push Israel into the sea"

You can't turn back the clock, and undo what has already happened, you have to be brave and make peace and look forward to building for the future.

Now I'm even more confused.
"What I intended to illustrate that official state policy, especially from the mouth of the oppressor, that justifies killing, stealing and other terror tacts (with state funds, etc) is heinous."
If you really felt that then you would not have written an article entitled "Palestine needs our help." The official policy of Hamas, the democratically elected group that represents Palestinian interests, is just those things you described: killing (Israelis and each other), stealing (from each other, resources and funds), and other terror tactics (firing rockets into Israel constantly, tit for tat assassinations between Hamas and Fatah) is what Palestine is all about. It is Israel that is fighting back, not the other way around. No rockets, then no incursions in response.
This discussion has been fruitless.

Again, you take it out of perspective: the reality of occupation, that has and continues to destroy the lives of Palestinians, wherever they are.

People there elected a party that not only provided them with the social programs they are badly in need of because of the Israeli occupation, but because they gave them a sense that someone is sticking up for them. Again, I can't condone the use of violence, but then again, I don't live in Palestine. My home wasn't destroyed or my father or brothers taken in the middle of the night, a wall wasn't built around my village and army tanks don't regularly roll down my street. But if they did, you can bet I would probably throw a stone or two at them. But since I don't have one (and can't throw that far), I'll use my words.

Also, you illustrate a good point: you believe that Israel is the one "fighting back" against an enemy that wants to push them to the sea, and I believe that the Palestinians are the ones "fighting back", while virtually imprisoned, against a well-funded militarized society with the backing of the richest and most powerful country in the world.

So we're at an impasse. I don't know what else to say except that I didn't hope to convert you in responding to your comment, but I don't think our conversation was fruitless.

dude don't you ever think of why Palestinian do this kind of act, exploding them self, come on only a maniac would do it, put it this way, think why do they do it, because there homes taken way, they children, food, drink, electricity, moms, dad, rape, all kind of depression is in Palestinian lives, why does this hundred of people exploding them self think about it man, please do your research, read don't just follow what you watch in tv in America, come now are you that naif, just taking what ever you want to hear, i know its hard to believe that the bad side, but come on now are the israillians being fair. think about the Palestinians how long do they have to put up with it, 1 year no almost half of a century, but living there hearing guns, bomb, children crying people dieing, and then they look at the neighbor and see people drinking, having fun, like nothing is going on in the neighbor, come on now think about don't be ignorant, read and educate your self, some times the truth is just hard to take it but, thats the fact, we need to do something. May God help the needy, hungry, children, moms that cant feed their kids, and the people who is being oppress. amin

First of all one of the most over used arguments as to why Israel should never have been created is that the land was taken in 1948. The land was not taken in 1948. As stated above it was given to then Jewish citizens through a Brittish Mandate. At that point the Brits had the right to the land, not the Palestinians. Furthermore by your logic, that the land belongs to the Palestinians and Israel should give it up, that means neither of us should go to the University of Kansas because it would not exist. Rather we should be citizens of Britain because the Native Americans, French and Mexico owned our land we now call the United States.

SlaveofGod: As for your claim that Israelis are drinking wine and watching Palestinians suffer, clearly you have not seen border towns along Gaza. In January alone there were over 4000 rocket attacks aimed at innocent civilians. None of the targets were military in nature, as Israelis only target, nor were they justified to have any cause.

As for one of the most crucial facts in this entire story, the Israelis have no government to negotiate with. Abbas claims to control the West Bank and Gaza, when in fact he controls only about 60% of his claim because Hamas controls the other 40%. To quote the Israeli Ambassador to the United States: "When the Palestinians got an opportunity to elect a free government they chose terror." Hamas is a terrorist organization that has stated their main goal is to destroy Israel and their beliefs go hand in hand with Iran.

The United State's support of Israel has been unwavering from Republicans to Democrats for many reasons. The most important reason being that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East that supports the United States in our goals. If the world is to be rid of terrorism Israel is on the front lines, not only within their borders dealing with Hamas, but throughout the Middle East.

adoll - I'm not questioning Israel's right to exist.

I would question the British Mandate's right to the land over the right of the inhabitants of said land in the first place, but that is because of my general opposition to the colonial paradigm.

I would also question the legitimacy of the claim that Israel is a shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East. The Israeli Ambassador and you assert that as soon as the "Palestinians got an opportunity to ELECT A FREE GOVERNMENT, they chose terror". Electing a free government, of course, being the cornerstone of democracy. It would seem that it wasn't democracy at all that we are supporting in the Middle East, but something else altogether. We only seem to advocate democracy when it agrees with us, although we know this can't, by definition, be democracy.

I am not sure if you are referring to Israel not being a democracy, in which they elect their government, have a parliamentary system, have a free market and allow anyone to apply for citizenship.

In what case have we not advocated democracy? Maybe you are referring to China, in which we have made huge strides in converting them to a more modern state of government. They now have a free market and Chinese citizens have more rights then they have ever had.