http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/534963.html

Fundamentalist extremism is part of the problem on both and all sides

Are you really comparing religious Jews opposed to retreat, to Hamas?

WRT to the 'East Jerusalem landgrab', the JNF is a private institution whose charter stipulates that the land it buys should be allocated to Jews. This organisation had a major role in building the nascent state of Israel, doing exactly what it is doing today.

That being the case, wouldn't you have to call the creation of Israel a 'landgrab', too?

Hmm. Ignore the second part of post #2. I was referring to Mazuz's other recent ruling about land.

Actually, yes Colt, I am comparing tactics used by some (not all) religious Jews opposed to retreat from the Occupied Territories to tactics (some, not all <!=suicide bombings) used by Hamas. If it walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, independently acts to blow up houses and salt the earth of its self-declared enemy outside the strictures of a nation-state's declaration of war or imposition of will to power, then it quacks like a terrorist too. Call me old-fashioned like that.

Neither set of extremists' actions nor positions do shit to forward a positive, constructive dialogue that allows children and their parents to grow up in safety and peace. Instead, their short-sighted, selfish behavior merely escalates and perpetuates the hatred and violence.

And yes, the creation of modern-day Israel was a landgrab in the loosest historical sense of the word... chase them Injuns out and declare Eminent Domain... sound familiar?

"And yes, the creation of modern-day Israel was a landgrab in the loosest historical sense of the word... chase them Injuns out and declare Eminent Domain... sound familiar?"

Hoo boy. You have just disqualified yourself from having any claim to impartiality to edit this roundup.

You need to learn some history. Jews were the Injuns, repeatedly ethnically cleansed from their country for 2500 years, starting with the conquest by Babylonia. Originally modern-day Israel was created with a Palestinian state right next to it, which the Arabs living there refused to accept, instead they and their neighbors ganged up on the Jews. To call that a "landgrab" is prejudicial in the extreme.

#4 inkgrrl

If it walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, independently acts to blow up houses and salt the earth of its self-declared enemy outside the strictures of a nation-state's declaration of war or imposition of will to power, then it quacks like a terrorist too. Call me old-fashioned like that.

Could you name me an active/current Jewish terrorist?

salt the earth of its self-declared enemy outside the strictures of a nation-state's declaration of war or imposition of will to power

Isn't that another way of saying 'self defence'? And how can you seriously say that these mythical Jewish terrorists have decided (rather than simply looked out the window and noticed) that the Arab world is at war with them? I mean, that is a fairly obvious fact. What does it say about the Israeli government that it acts like that isn't the case?

And yes, the creation of modern-day Israel was a landgrab in the loosest historical sense of the word...

Yehudit picked you up on your factual errors, but (using your definitions) I want to know how you could support the 1880s-1948 landgrab, but not the ongoing landgrab in Jerusalem. Why is one right and the other wrong?

Why is one right and the other wrong?

Unless of course the creation of Israel was wrong as well?

Colt - I don't have a problem with the re-settling of Eretz Israel by returning Jews because a) they first attempted to live peacefully with the resident Arabs and to be good neighbors despite ongoing harrassment by the locals they bought land in good faith from, and b) it was necessary for the creation of the modern State of Israel. I don't see the current landgrab in East Jerusalem as being strictly pertinent or necessary to the ongoing survival of the State of Israel - she has survived and is going nowhere, despite the last 50+ years of misbegotten attempts by neighboring Arab states to push her inhabitants into the sea. Jerusalem didn't become important in Islam until Mohammed spent time with Jewish merchants, but the Muslim faith does hold it in regard, regardless of the dubious origins of Muslim attachment to the City. Because Jerusalem is a place holy to both peoples, I have no problem with sharing access to it.

To address your other points, no, I can't name any current Jewish terrorists - the last one I took note of by name assassinated Rabin. I do have to ask you, what do you call the non-government sanctioned bulldozing of olive orchards that have supported entire villages for hundreds of years? Self defense? I call it unnecessary provocation. If you take away a man's ability to provide for his family, you create an enemy. We have enough enemies as it is, all of us. What I hate about the conflict is what it's made of us Jews around the world and in Israel, how we're backed into opposing corners lined by fear and mistrust - I hate the look in my Israeli friends' eyes when they talk about serving in Gaza, or riding a bus because it's no longer safe to hitchhike across Israel. I hate the tit-for-tat slaughter of each other's children when war comes to two villages whose inhabitants, Jewish and Arab, have lived side-by-side for the last hundred years in relative peace.

Our traditions perhaps would have done well to be more warlike over the centuries and we would not have been the Injuns of the world, but religious history would have it that we are the Chosen as demonstrated exactly by that constant persecution. Rational discourse, also a Jewish traditoin, has been far too often lost between two peoples who both have the right to exist, but who both want the same pieces of dirt. I don't know what you mean by the Israeli government acting like it's not the case that their country is surrounded by enemies... I've visited villages in Lebanon and been welcomed as an American Jew - repeatedly I was told that the folks there had no problem with the Jews as a people or a faith, it was the Israeli government they hated. That government must be doing something to provoke such notice, don't you think? (Whether I fully believed their protestations of welcome is another story - there were a few who insisted I must be an Israeli spy, otherwise I wouldn't speak both Hebrew and Arabic so well... ha.)

Yehudit - as far as the landgrab reference is concerned, the modern State of Israel as created by the British Mandate or the White Papers was slashed across a map of the Ottoman Vilayet of Palestine by a couple of drunken diplomats. The locals, both Jew and Arab, were hardly consulted in the matter, nor was there any attempt after the first few sketches on the map to accomodate immediate concerns such as water and fertile land for both ethnic groups. The creation of Jordan as a country was a betrayal of both the Arabs in Palestine and the Jews, given to the Hashemites as a sop to their ongoing cooperation. (Ironic that Jordan is the most moderate of Arab Muslim countries in the region today.) The deal as bandied about was not much different in spirit of decision or execution than what happened across most of Europe as various countries acted on their newfound nationalism - e.g., in the best interests of the powers that be and rarely in the best interests of the people. England didn't give a damn about the ethical imperative or the romance of returning the Tribes of Israel to their homeland, they wanted a foothold populated by Europeans, or at least by English-speakers. I'm very familiar with the history, thank you. If I had all my old college reference books unpacked, I'd offer you a few titles to read up on, but I get the feeling you'd already know it all.

By the way, I never claimed to be impartial about any of this, so your ad hominem is slightly irrelevant to the discussion at hand - I'm Jewish and fully support the existance of the modern State of Israel, as well as the Right of Return. I also support the truth as seen and witnessed from many perspectives. Self-examination alone is not enough, we also know ourselves in the eyes of others. As Einstein said, "whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

Self-examination alone is not enough, we also know ourselves in the eyes of others.

With regard to being hated: If one were to ask, what did we do to them?, I don't think that's a bad thing to ask, it's a good thing. [This works for Americans, Israelis, and a whole bunch of others].

If one were to follow up by saying Because it must have been something! - that is where I get off the bus. No, it needn't have been anything, it often isn't, and a people deny this at their peril.

I agree - there's nothing like blind hatred to make you wonder what the hell people are thinking.

#8 inkgrrl:

I don't have a problem with the re-settling of Eretz Israel by returning Jews because a) they first attempted to live peacefully with the resident Arabs and to be good neighbors despite ongoing harrassment by the locals they bought land in good faith from

If the land was bought, how could it be considered a land-grab?

and b) it was necessary for the creation of the modern State of Israel. I don't see the current landgrab in East Jerusalem as being strictly pertinent or necessary to the ongoing survival of the State of Israel

Are there any other parts of Israel that are unnecssary and should be given up? Inside the Green Line, I mean.

she has survived and is going nowhere, despite the last 50+ years of misbegotten attempts by neighboring Arab states to push her inhabitants into the sea.

And it will always be like that?

Because Jerusalem is a place holy to both peoples, I have no problem with sharing access to it.

You're not suggesting sharing access to it, but sharing it. And given how hostile the Islamic world is to Israel, why woud you want to give them anything?

To address your other points, no, I can't name any current Jewish terrorists - the last one I took note of by name assassinated Rabin.

Ah yes, Yigal Amir - the man who could fire a gun without leaving any gunpowder on his hands. A gun that fired bullets that supposedly severed Rabin's spine, yet Rabin kept walking. A video showing Rabin's bodyguards shouting "they're blanks!" and letting Amir stand there shooting. An ambulance trip that took over 20 minutes, despite the short distance to the local hospital. And an autopsy report that shows Rabin had exit wounds in his back - when Amir was standing behind him.

Quite a remarkable case.

I do have to ask you, what do you call the non-government sanctioned bulldozing of olive orchards that have supported entire villages for hundreds of years? Self defense?

Yes. When those orchards are used to fire on Israelis, they become fair game.

Why are you so concerned with what the government sanctions? Why is it terrorism when Israelis do it, but self-defence when the IDF does it?

I call it unnecessary provocation. If you take away a man's ability to provide for his family, you create an enemy.

Come on, he was probably your enemy already. This is like worrying about the destruction of property creating hostility to the Allies in World War Two. That ship sailed.

What I hate about the conflict is what it's made of us Jews around the world and in Israel, how we're backed into opposing corners lined by fear and mistrust

It was always like that - the only difference now is that now the Jews have their own corner. Jews don't have to rely on the goodness of their 'hosts' for their own safety.

I hate the look in my Israeli friends' eyes when they talk about serving in Gaza, or riding a bus because it's no longer safe to hitchhike across Israel. I hate the tit-for-tat slaughter of each other's children when war comes to two villages whose inhabitants, Jewish and Arab, have lived side-by-side for the last hundred years in relative peace.

Its a war, for goodness sake. What's there to like? If you want an end to the war, win it or lose it.

I don't know what you mean by the Israeli government acting like it's not the case that their country is surrounded by enemies...

Really? Egypt will be allowed to move armour and artillery up to the Israeli border. MK Steinitz points out that Egypt is still preparing for a war with Israel. The Israeli government is about to hand over control of Gaza and various cities to the PLO. Several murderers in the PLO have been pardoned by Sharon's government. Mohammed Dahlan, on video discussing plans to attack school buses, is now the Israelis' go-to guy. The IDF has been told not to kill terrorists any more.

Does that sound like a country at war to you?

repeatedly I was told that the folks there had no problem with the Jews as a people or a faith, it was the Israeli government they hated. That government must be doing something to provoke such notice, don't you think?

Yes - Israel exists. That means over a thousand years of social order is turned on its head. It used to be: Muslims, Christians, Jews. It was always that way. But now some 'Arab land' is under Jewish government. I'm sure the Lebanese you met would be happy for it go back to the way it was.

I'm Jewish and fully support the existance of the modern State of Israel, as well as the Right of Return.

The 'right' of 'return' for several million Arabs to Israel?

But you support the existance of the state of Israel?

Colt - please, exaggerating for effect creates an argument no better strung together than the half-baked rhetoric that fills most Arabic newspapers any day of the week. The Right of Return is that wacky Israeli thing where Jews in the diaspora have the right to make aliya and become Israel citizens, with the Israeli government's assistance. It's a good thing.

Being surrounded by enemies and being at war are two different things, both in reality and in mindset. We obviously come from two varying positions on these issues; we're both on the same side - Israel's - but sitting on different spots along the spectrum of ideas and experience. Vis-a-vis the land grab thing - time is linear, my friend, at least in this dimension as history records it. Some land was purchased, some was appropriated. As for the rest... where the potential situation and history of hate is seen as sufficient justification for any act at all, I disagree. I say we have a responsibility to be the better people... Israel has already proved they're the better warriors, she's already coming from a position of strength, why not exercise it wisely? I refuse to give into the hysterical bleatings that the Arabs are right about being stronger than the Israelis and thus that Israel is in imminent danger of being wiped off the map. The surrounding countries' armies have shown time and time again that they'd rather run than fight, that their military leadership is corrupt and ineffectual at best, and face it, they're not fighting for their homes, they're fighting for somebody else's idea. Basic difference right there.

"That's war." Have you seen war, Colt? I really have no idea of your background, and maybe you've been one of those soldiers who doesn't mind being shot at or seeing his best friend's back pumped full of bullets by a kid with a gun, I don't know. The reality is a bit more drastic than the theoretical extension of diplomacy by other means. I'd rather no Israeli kid have to serve in Gaza and be able to go dancing without having to carry a weapon. I sure don't know what it's going to take to get there.

As far as the assassination of Rabin goes, it's the Middle East, after all - where there's a death, there's a conspiracy theory. I'd never seen any substantive evidence that Amin didn't do it, so if I missed out and you can point me to some net- or text-based documentation on what really happened, I'd love to read it - just hate not knowing for sure. Can you post it here? Since we've been hammering back and forth at each other, I'm sure anyone else reading our comments would be interested as well. Thanks!

The Right of Return is that wacky Israeli thing where Jews in the diaspora have the right to make aliya and become Israel citizens, with the Israeli government's assistance. It's a good thing.

My mistake. I thought you were referring to the Arabs' "right" of "return", in which millions of "refugees" would be allowed to move to Israel. And yes, aliyah is a good thing.

I say we have a responsibility to be the better people... Israel has already proved they're the better warriors, she's already coming from a position of strength, why not exercise it wisely?

My point was that Israel may not always be in a position of strength. The American aliyah is no closer to fruition, and Israel has enough internal problems to start a civil war. 20 years down the road, it is impossible to say that Israel will be in a position of strength, let alone 50 or 100.

I refuse to give into the hysterical bleatings that the Arabs are right about being stronger than the Israelis and thus that Israel is in imminent danger of being wiped off the map. The surrounding countries' armies have shown time and time again that they'd rather run than fight, that their military leadership is corrupt and ineffectual at best, and face it, they're not fighting for their homes, they're fighting for somebody else's idea.

Israel is not in imminent danger of being destroyed by the Arabs, but of being given away chunk by chunk - until it comes to a point where the Arabs can win. And that assumes there isn't a civil war.

The arms in Judea and Samaria come from Jordan. The money comes from the Arab League and the OIC (not to mention the EU and US). The grenade that wounded to Israeli soldiers in Gaza probably came via Rafah, ie, with Egyptian approval and/or involvement. The Arab world is at war using propaganda and terrorism, rather than military formations. That doesn't mean there is no war, but a different type of war.

"That's war." Have you seen war, Colt? I really have no idea of your background, and maybe you've been one of those soldiers who doesn't mind being shot at or seeing his best friend's back pumped full of bullets by a kid with a gun, I don't know.

What you are implying or 'putting out there' is that I'm so callous that I "don't mind" seeing my friends killed, and I'm going to give you a chance to take that back.

You missed out what I actually, said, too:

Its a war, for goodness sake. What's there to like?

I'll post more on Rabin later.

BTW, my own position is that I'm joining the IDF in October.

You should read this.

Colt - thanks for the link to the article at IsraelInsider... interesting and disturbing. I see what you mean.

No, I didn't mean to imply that you're that callous and I'm sorry if my reply seemed callous to you - I think I misinterpreted your comment to mean that you're more casual than I'm comfortable with about the realities of war. I've seen that sort of reaction both from folks who had either served too much in horrible places and have to take a more laissez-faire attitude to war in order to stay sane and funtioning, and from folks who think war is glamorous and if you're the good guy you never run out of ammo and never die and being shot doesn't hurt much. The latter always upsets me and I was trying to figure out which you were; my apologies for the mistaken assumption that you'd fit neatly into either category. I obviously need to spend more time reading your blog and getting to know you.

Joining the IDF. Wow - good on you. I'm impressed. Not many people are willing to put their body where their mouth is when it comes to following a bullet to its natural conclusion. Thank you for standing up for what you believe in - if more people walked the walk instead of spewing rhetoric, the world would be a different place and hopefully better for it. Please stay safe. And if you can continue blogging and give an insider's account of your experiences to the English-speaking world I think it would be a wonderful contribution to the blogosphere, et al.

PS - gods no on the Arab refugees right of return in totality. Time passes and things change and it's a shame that no other Arab country is willing to put their money where their mouths are for the Palestinian refugees. They don't really give a shit about the human cost, it's all NIMBY and a facile excuse to avoid coming into the modern world where they'd have to deal with Israel as a neighbor, not just as an adjuct of the Great Satan their governments tell them are at fault for everything wrong in their lives. Those refugees are everybody's problem in the region, not just Israel's - I'd put money on more civil wars for that reason more than water rights any day of the week.

I'd never seen any substantive evidence that Amin didn't do it, so if I missed out and you can point me to some net- or text-based documentation on what really happened, I'd love to read it - just hate not knowing for sure. Can you post it here?

Yes. The two most important points are the fact that Amir did not have gunpowder residue on his hands when the police examined him, and the medical evidence.

The lack of gunpowder residue means that Amir did not fire the shots. That Amir had no residue on his hands is pretty common knowledge (Google if you like), so I don't have a direct link to hand. The medical evidence, which comes from a cardiologist at Hadassah hospital, proves that Rabin was shot in the front. His account of the shooting (including reference to the autopsy report) is in three parts - one, two and three. I've exchanged emails with Dr. Backon, as well as done some background, and the man is who he says he is.

This bit is my favourite bit of Dr. Backon's essay:

But you forgot to destroy the media tapes. Never have a live TV interview with the Minister of Health Dr. Sneh and Dr. Barbash the then head of Ichilov Hospital telling the entire world how Rabin z"l had his spinal cord severed. They didn't know that you clowns had an "amateur photographer" taking "home videos" of the "assassination". And always check with a basic text in spine surgery (I heartily recommend Austin THE SPINAL CORD: BASIC ASPECTS AND SURGICAL CONDITION) or any elementary text in physiology or neuroanatomy. There you'll find that severing the spinal cord causes IMMEDIATE loss of postural control, with immediate collapse. The "injured" person doesn't continue walking another 2 meters smiling.

The most important bit:

Fourth moral of the story: make damn sure you destroy all incriminating evidence (like handwritten hospital trauma reports having such phrases as: "petza ha'yetzia l'kivun D5-6 IM RISUK SHEL HACHULYA") which of course disappeared in the typed up version (SIKUM HA'MAHALACH HA'KLINI) even though the doctored version still had the phrase: "krishei dam b'chelek ha'achori shel ha'pleura sham nimtze'u gam shivrei tzela V'CHULYA b'gova m'shuar shel D5". You also forgot to destroy the actual operative report
which had such phrases as:"...movil l'eyzor amud hashidra thoracit (D5-6 l'erech) sham nimosh RISUK ETZEM".

And you dummies forgot to destroy the GILYON NITUACH which states: "GSW [gun shot wounds] to chest and abdomen" and "spinal shock". This
[ENTRANCE WOUND from chest] plus "petza ha'yetzia [EXIT WOUND] l'kivun D5-6 IM RISUK SHEL HACHULYA" shows definitively that Rabin was shot from the FRONT toward the chest with the bullet exiting toward the spinal
cord.

inkgrrl:

I've seen that sort of reaction both from folks who had either served too much in horrible places and have to take a more laissez-faire attitude to war in order to stay sane and funtioning

That's closer to my position, though obviously without the formative experience. I don't need convincing that war is a horrendous thing, but when it starts, you should win it decisively.

Not many people are willing to put their body where their mouth is when it comes to following a bullet to its natural conclusion.

I wouldn't ask someone to serve somewhere I'm not willing to serve - which includes Gaza. Perhaps experience will make me change my mind, but I hardly think I'm looking at things through rose-tinted glasses.

And if you can continue blogging and give an insider's account of your experiences to the English-speaking world I think it would be a wonderful contribution to the blogosphere, et al.

I'll try. I have a friend in the IDF at the moment who hasn't emailed me in weeks now. He doesn't have a lot of spare time.

Those refugees are everybody's problem in the region, not just Israel's - I'd put money on more civil wars for that reason more than water rights any day of the week.

In Jordan, yes, perhaps. That's the one country where they'd have a chance of winning. Ironic that if the Arabs did destroy Israel, the palestinians would probably be wiped out.