Jeff Halper on Israel/US Relationship - and Where He's Wrong
Published November 14, 2008 @ 05:48PM PT
Jeff Halper leads the Israeli Coalition Against House Demolitions, a group that began as a real coalition that included groups such as Rabbis for Human Rights but became, over time, it's own NGO under Halper's leadership. it's a group I respect for their willingness to confront the occupation with their bodies, protesting home demolitions and engaging in illegal - but morally just - rebuilding of homes. [Hmmm. I wonder if maybe it's the occupation that is illegal?]
His latest article is getting major play, as it addresses the U.S. - Israeli relationship on the dawn of the Obama administration.
My argument with him is that he makes claims that are not supported in full. Activists working on Israeli-Palestinian issues are strongly tempted to place that conflict at the center of their understanding of world politics. If the I/P conflict is a fulcrum, a lever that could lead to massive change in the international system, then it makes perfect sense for well meaning folks to devote an outsize share of attention to it.
A BONE IN AMERICA'S THROAT by Jeff Halper
Even before the voting began, Israeli politicians and pundits were asking: Will an Obama Administration be good for Israel? "Be good for Israel" is our code for "Will the US allow us to keep our settlements and continue to support our efforts to prevent negotiations with the Palestinians from ever bearing fruit?" For Americans the question should be: Will the Obama Administration understand that without addressing Palestinian needs it will not be able to disentangle itself from its broader Middle Eastern imbroglios, rejoin the community of nations and rescue its economy?
This is an important question. Obama's treatment of the I/P issue will be a litmus test for how it intends to deal with the Middle East and the rest of the world.
The Israel-Palestine conflict should be of central concern to Americans, near the top of the new Administration's agenda. It may not be the bloodiest conflict in the world - its minor when compared to Iraq - but it is emblematic to Muslims and to peoples the world over of American hostility and belligerence. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not merely a localized one between two squabbling tribes. It lies at the epicenter of global instability. Go where you may in the world and you will encounter the same phenomenon: a sense that the suffering of the Palestinians represents all that is wrong in an American-dominated world.
It is certainly emblematic to Muslims, and to leftists around the world, such as those who show up at the World Social Forum. But beyond that - I think you are overstating the extent to which this issue defines the world's perception of a U.S. role. Why, if this was the case, was Israel so successful at getting Europe and others to boycott the Hamas government?
Is Israel really the epicenter of global instability? More than Iraq and the oil rich parts of the Middle East? More than Congo, which it's death toll surpassing five million? Not the global potable water crisis or the rising cost of food? It is also possible to go around the world and find people who associate the Palestinian cause with Islamic extremism and terrorism - but that doesn't make it so.
As Obama comes into office, he will encounter a global reality very different from that of eight years before: a multilateral one in which a weakened and isolated US must find its place. He will discover that much of America's isolation comes from the view that the Occupation of the Palestinian territories is, in fact, an American-Israeli Occupation. If restoring a weakened American economy depends on repairing relations with the rest of the world, he will learn that without resolving the Israeli-Palestine conflict he will not create those conditions in which the US will be accepted once more into the wider global community.
Allow me to disagree. The view of the U.S. as a rogue superpower has much more to do with the invasion of Iraq, the bullying of Iran, the rejection of Kyoto, the bypassing of the United Nations than with the occupation of Palestine. Yes, it's a factor; but not the dominant one, globally speaking.
The second statement, according to which addressing the occupation is key to addressing the U.S. economic recovery is fanciful. The U.S., sadly, can probably come out of recession without changing course dramatically on I/P issues. I don't think your evidence is persuasive:
To be more specific, the Israel-Palestine conflict directly affects Americans in at least five ways:
- It isolates the US from major global markets, forcing it to embark on aggressive measures to secure markets rather than peaceful accommodation;
I am not aware of any major global markets that are currently shut off to the U.S., aside from Cuba and North Korea. The U.S. has quite a robust engagement even with countries such as Iran and Venezuala.
- It thereby diverts the American economy into non-productive production (tanks not roads), making it dependent upon deficit spending which only increases dependency upon foreign financing while diverting resources into the military rather than into education, health and investment;
Yes, U.S. militarism steals from the hungry. Eisenhower said that. But is I/P the fulcrum of those policies? The amount of weaponry flowing into the Middle East to countries not named Israel is tens of billions of dollars higher than what Israel gets for free or purchases. And that entire amount, over several years, is small compared to how much is wasted in Iraq, or how much was given away to bailout the U.S. banking industry. This demonstrates how small the issue of I/P is in comparison to other efforts to divert resources away from 'education, health and investment.'
- Support for the Israeli military costs US taxpayers more than $3 billion annually at a time of deepening recession and crumbling national infrastructure;
3 billion dollars is a small fraction of Israel's GDP, estimated at well over 200 billion a year, and an even smaller part of the US annual budget ($2700 billion in 2007). Simply put, it's just not very much money in global terms, however harmful an impact it has in the Middle East.
- It leads to an American involvement in the world that is mainly military, thus begetting hostility and resistance which produce the threats to security Americans so greatly fear; and
Hold on now. You are saying that it's Israel's fault that American involvement in the world is mainly military? The U.S. has pursued imperialism since before Israel existed! It has engaged in military adventures all over the world, and especially in Latin America, without any connection to Israel. And furthermore, the main mechanism to advance U.S. hegemony has been financial instruments and meddling in economies, with the IMF, World Bank and multinational corporations serving the place of U.S. troops.
- It ends up threatening American civil liberties by encouraging such legislation as the Patriot Act and by introducing Israeli "counterinsurgency" tactics and weaponry developed in the West Bank and Gaza into American police forces.
Israeli counterinsurgency tactics are being used by the U.S. military overseas (Iraq), not in the United States. Israel has been a follower, not a leader, in crowd control and police tactics. And support for Israel is completely independent of the amount of freedom Americans enjoy. Blaming Israel for the Patriot Act? It seems far-fetched. Is there any proof of that?
For many peoples of the world, the Palestinians represent the plight of the majority. They are the tiny grains of sand resisting what most Americans and privileged people of the West do not see. They are a people who are denied the most fundamental right: to a state of their own, even on the 22% of historic Palestine that Israel has occupied since 1967. For the majority of humanity that lives in economic and political conditions unimaginable in the West, the suffering caused by Israel's occupation - impoverishment and a total denial of freedom that can only be sustained by total American support - is emblematic of their own continued suffering. Israel's oppression of the Palestinians with the active backing of the US shows demonstrably the existence of a global system of Western domination that prevents others from achieving their own dreams of political and economic well-being.
There are polls showing that for Arabs and Muslims, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a potent issue. I am unaware of data showing that what is true for the Middle East is also true for China, India, Nigeria, Brazil, Russia and other places where poor people struggle. There is worldwide sympathy for the Palestinians, but saying so does not equal the assertion that the suffering of Palestinians is emblematic for the majority of humanity.
Like a bone in the throat, the issue of Israel's occupation can be neither ignored nor by-passed. To make things even more difficult, it is doubtful if a two-state solution is still possible, since Israeli settlement activity has largely eliminated that option. Whatever the eventual solution, if this most destabilizing of conflicts is not addressed, the US - even under Obama - will remain mired in conflicts with Muslim peoples and reviled by peoples seeking genuine freedom. Neither the US nor Israel will find the security they claim they seek. We live in a global reality, not a Pax Americana. The logic of the Bush Administration has run its course. No longer can the US throw its weight around in a War Against Terror. No longer can its involvement be purely military. The new logic that will accompany Obama into office can be summarized in one word: accommodation. And the US will not get to first base until it achieves accommodation with the Muslim world, which means ending the Israeli Occupation. What happens to the Palestinians takes on a global significance. Clearing the bone in the throat - that is, ending the Israeli Occupation and allowing the Palestinians a state and a future of their own - should be a top priority of the next American administration. Indeed, America's attempt to restore its standing in the world depends on it. In the global reality in which we live, the fate of Americans and Palestinians, it turns out, are closely intertwined.
Hear hear. Only, instead of trying to persuade with prophecies of what will happen, I'd rely on more balanced arguments. Changing U.S. policy is important even if Palestine is not the epicenter of global instability, even if most Muslim nations can be persuaded to accept the current U.S. - Israel relationship. Halper's arguments showcase a weakness of the pro-Palestinian left, in Israel, North America and around the world. They multiply the facts by their passion, and end up with unsustainable rhetoric. It can rally the base, but doesn't carry over to the other side of the Potomac, where the decisions get made.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the center of the universe. But it's the center of MY universe, and Jeff Halper's as well, and it needs to be addressed with one eye towards peace and one eye towards justice. Not because the world will go up in flames, and not because this situation will impoverish American families. Saying so provides ammunition to those who see the left's centering of global politics on Israel as a way into anti-Semitism (which it sometimes is).
See Halper's article without my interspersed comments here.
I hope it's clear that I respect Halper and his work, even as a quibble with some of his statements.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Author
-
Charles is a nonprofit professional with 20 years of experience working with nonprofit organizations in Israel, Palestine and the U.S. For the past few years, he's been specializing in online organizing.
Featured War and Peace Actions
-
-
Help Children and Widows In Gaza
290 People
-
Help Children and Widows In Gaza
-
I enjoyed the article as well as your interspersed comments. I spent several days wasting my time on a blog with a Pro Israel stance. It attacked my attention because the author asserted that we could be Pro Israel and disagree with some on Israeli policies. I felt that it was a place to open dialogue on one of the most important problems not just facing our two countries but the entire world. However I found myself arguing with the most of intolerant pro Israel stances. The only good that it could serve is that those who have not made up their minds might see the ignorance in their intolerance..
Halper's article represents the extreme views of the other intolerant view that all of the problems result from Israeli policies and actions. I disagree with you one one point and that is the far reaching effect of the Israeli/Palestine conflict on the world at large and we Americans in general. Though it does not have the impact that the Chicken Little's proclaim it still has the effect of a pebble cast into a pond. So even though the problem in not the center of my universe it effects things that are.
The issue of the placement of the museum high-lites the ignorance of intolerance of both sides which I will refer to as I and P. The problem can be solved if either side were to give just one inch. If the proposed building is a graveyard I could solve the problem by choosing another spot. But P could also solve the problem by removing the bodies. My old time preacher father had a cartoon in his study of two mules tied together and two ponds. In the first half both mules chocked each other trying to reach opposite pools. In the other they drink happily at one pool. The caption read, "All that we needed is a little cooperation.
The world waits to see how the new president of the USA will stand on this issue. Not the parking lot. Will we be pro Israel to the exclusion of all other world views or take a broader world view.I just finished an article that hints at the answer. I have not checked out it's reliability yet. I do hope it is true.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece
Posted by Daniel Ford on 11/16/2008 @ 11:16AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Interesting point of view, but far from true.
The plight of the Palestinian people is far from the minds of the rulers of Jordan, Eguypt, Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia's minds, if this was true, they would have taken care of them 60 years ago, but they did not, they have the money, they have the resources, they have the land, so why not?
If Jordan and Egypt were democracies, like Israel we would have no Palestinian problem. The essence of the I/P conflict originates from the fact that all of the countries mentioned earlier are dictatorships of one kind or another. By nature dictatorships need an external enemy to justify their lease on power. We have seen that here in the USA during the Bush/Cheney reign with the Patriot act and the fear factor, but the US is a democracy and things will now shift back.
Not so with the Arab regimes, and until these countries cease to be dictatorships or have a better scapegoat than Israel for their reason to control their population, I doubt very much that a solution is possible.
We see a daily stream of money and weapons from both Syria and Iran into the hands of various terror groups in Gaza and the WB.
This problem will never be solved until we realize the root cause for it, puting the blame on a supposed occupation by Israel of Palestinian land will not do it. We first have to face the truth and understand the big picture, once the world stops being hostage to the lies produced by the Arab propaganda machine for the last 60 years, we will start to inch forward towards a reality based solution.
Once the world stops being hostage to the oil producing countries, we will inch towards a real solution.
The key is energy independance from Arab oil, only then will we have real political freedom, and the freedom to demand from the Arab heads of state full responsibilty for their actions over the last 60 years, in concern to their Palestinian brothers.
Israel has taken care of millions of refugees from the ME and Africa, with a fraction of the resources available to the Arab dictatorships. So why is no one demanding that they pitch in and do their part? Because of oil, we all need oil more than we need a home for the Palestinians. This is not Israel's responsibility, it is the Arab dictatorships that cause this problem and choose to keep it a problem so that they can stay in power responsibility.
Halper by focusing on house demolitions, is missing the forest from the trees, we need all to focus on the big picture and the root cause of the problem. Until we realize what the problem is we cannot find a solution.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/19/2008 @ 10:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Further more Israel has completed a very costly experiment, yes an experiment, a test if you may.
Israel left the Gaza strip, but left the homes and agricultural base intact, in hope that the Palestinians would prosper and develop further the land, this was Sharon's dream, to live in peace with a Palestinian neighbour.
We all no the miserable result, the next day following the Israel return of Gaza to Palestinian hands, the fortification started and continues until today with rockets fired daily on the Israeli towns of Sdereot and Ashkelon, several thousand so far, without any provocation.
The Palestinians were given a shot at freedom and a land of their own, what did they do with it, created a military stronghold, a base to attack innocent Israeli women and children.
So how can any reasonable person state that Israel is not trying to give the Palestinians land and a peacfull life of their own.
This demonstrates my earlier hypothesis, that the problem is not about supposedly occupation, Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians, and it did not create peace but more war.
The reason being is that Iran made it more profitable for the leaders in control of Gaza to continue war vs peace. Iran has its reasons for that as I stated earlier.
We have to face these harsh realities and stop getting caught in the false logic the Arab dictatorships would like us to believe. That this is all Israel's control over the entry and exit to Gaza and other nonsense, more spin is coming out per minute than a weave can spin yarn in a year.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/19/2008 @ 10:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The Solution
I cannot attach a timetable to this possible solution, but here it goes:
1. Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia are convinced to stop supporting with money and arms the terrorist groups in the WB and Gaza.
2. As a result these groups will wither, die and go away.
3. The six Arab countries that attacked Israel in 1948 are convinced to take care of the several million refugees created. This is a deal breaker for Israel, and until solved, Israel and the Palestinians will not be able to come to an agreement.
4. The new Palestinian leadership, now devoid of terror elements disarms the remaining arm holders, until only the government has firepower.
5. Israel sits down with the Palestinians, Jordan and Egypt to resolve any territorial disputes that still remain, including a just settlement for the Palestinians.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/19/2008 @ 11:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Halper by focusing on house demolitions, is missing the forest from the trees, we need all to focus on the big picture and the root cause of the problem. Until we realize what the problem is we cannot find a solution.
This is the only true statement that Mr Ross made in his tirade against entire Middle East. Egypt,Jordan and Saudi Arabia all reconize Israels right to exist. It is not up to us to change or alter the government of any country.To think so is ignorant and arrogant. The debacle in Iraq proves that.
It only thing we have that will work and not worsen the problem is influence. But the support Israel at the expense region reduces our influence. Israel is not the entire cause of the problem our unbridled support of their crimes against the Palestinians contributes greatly.WE must also accept the results of our actions. Our refusal to accept the duly elected government of fuels the fires of injustice. It is undemocratic and hypocritical.
I am not saying that the Palestinians are themselves without blame. Hamas must stop it's attacks on Israel and recognize their right to exist. Syria and Iran should stop their military support of the militants within Palistine.
There is a process already approved by the most of the nations in the region that includes reconizining Israels right to exist.Israel must in turn return to Syria the Golen Heights, remove settlements from the West Bank and reconize the duly elected government of
Posted by Daniel Ford on 11/19/2008 @ 11:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael, as I'm sure you know, Israel captured the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Gaza strip in the 1967 war. It continues to hold the West Bank and the Golan Heights by force of arms. This is a military occupation and has been recognized as such by virtually every country in the world. As Israel's Prime Minister, even Ariel Sharon referred to it as an occupation.
As for Gaza, since it's unilateral decision to evacuate its settlers and the thousands of troops guarding them from Gaza, Israel has laid siege to Gaza, maintaining complete control, again by force of arms, over all its borders, closing them, even to humanitarian supplies, at Israel's complete discretion. This does not constitute "giving" Gaza to the Palestinians, even had it been Israel's to give.
Under the 4th Geneva Convention, people living under military occupation have certain rights and the occupying country has certain obligations to the population under its control. For this reason it is very important to call the occupation what it is.
There are many issues that can and should be debated about how these two peoples can come to live together in peace, but disputing these basic facts undermines the ability to have a meaningful conversation about these important issues.
Posted by Steven Meinrath on 12/02/2008 @ 01:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Steve, Israel forces left Gaza, as a result of that act Hamas has launched daily so far thousands of rockets on neighbouring Isreali cities. Under Geneva conventions all countries have a right to self defense. That is the reason behind the seige. Most of the world is mixing cause and effect when it comes to Israel.
As far as the occupation of the West Bank, Israel has offered repeatedly territories for peace with the Palestinians, only to be rejected repeatedly. On the other hand peace with Egypt has been maintained for years as a result of returning Sinai to Egypt.
Posted by Michael Ross on 12/02/2008 @ 02:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
On the UN. The majority of countries vote with the Arab block against Israel 100% of the time and for the Palestinians for the simple reason that they need Arab oil, and if they vote against the Arab block they will be black listed for oil.
So Steve, you need to take any UN resolution with a grain of salt. Even so Israel agreed to comply with resolution 242, which for the first time in history ordered a nation to return territories lawfully captured in a defensive war. Emphasis "return territories" not all of the territories, ie to come to a territorial compromise with the Palestinians for a genuine peace.
So far, who should Israel talk to? Hamas a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel? Voted by the majority of Palestinians to represent them, or Fatah, that have little control over the Palestinians? How would you negotiate peace in such a situation? The only reason IDF is in the west bank is self defense, the world seems to forget that thousands of Israelis died as a result of suicide bombers from the WB. The only reason they are no longer coming is because of the IDF presence there.
Posted by Michael Ross on 12/02/2008 @ 03:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The reason that the majority nations in the UN votes against Israel is wrong. From the start I reject the idea that the land belongs to Israel because of ancient history. In 71AD Titus destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews throughout the Empire. Since then the land has changed hands a dozen times. In 1920 it was ruled by the British Empire. The land was occupied by Palestinians, a nomadic tribe who had no claim to the land. The British allowed the Zionest to settle there based on a promise that neither they nor the Palestinians would start an independent state. When the Zionist declared independence from Britian along with most of the region sided with Great Britian. When Israelis won they drove the Palestinians from the land.
The solution is simple Israel must leave the areas occupyed since 1967. They must remove settlements from the West Bank. Unless they do the right thing there will be no peace. We must comdemn Israel's occpation of these lands. If we continue to back their oppression then they will always oppress the Palestinian people.
Posted by Daniel Ford on 12/02/2008 @ 08:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Daniel, your history is inaccurate. First jews have ben living in Israel continously for over 3,000 years. Second Israel was attacked in 1947 by five Arab nations with the full cooperation of the Arab Palestinians, with the intent of killing all the Israelis. The refugee problem resulting from this unprovoked attack on Israel is 100% the fault of the aggressors and not Israel.'s
The only just solution is for those five Arab nations to take care of the refugees they created in 1947. That is the main obstacle to peace, the rest is negotiable.
Posted by Michael Ross on 12/02/2008 @ 09:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael,
You raised some interesting points regarding the lack of democracy in the Arab world and its effect on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict but, again, your defense of Israel's 40 year occupation of the lands she seized in 1967 undermines the ability to have any serious discussion of these issues. Even old Likkudniks like Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have now stated publicly that the occupation itself is the greatest threat to Israel's security. The old, "it's all necessary for Israel's defense" arguments have been laid bare. For Israel's sake, for the sake of the Palestinians who are suffering under this brutal occupation, and for the sake of world peace, let's move beyond these old myths.
Posted by Steven Meinrath on 12/03/2008 @ 10:16AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Steve, The last thing Israel wants is to rule over millions of Palestinians, the single reason for an "occupation" is self defense. If the Palestinians were to stop the terror and disarm, Israel would be gone the next day.
We need first to have a partner for peace, this has been done both with Egypt and then with Jordan. The problem with the Palestinians is, they have no true single representative willing to talk peace. Hamas are effectively a radical islam nation in Gaza, with intentions on the WB, and Abbas is weak. So who can Israel sign a real deal with? We don't want a repeat of the Oslo agreement.
Posted by Michael Ross on 12/03/2008 @ 10:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
No one is forcing Israel to retain its status as occupying power. The idea that Israel "has to stay" to protect itself is sort of like Richard Pryor in the movie Stir Crazy. He holds a gun to his head and says "anybody move and the n***** get it!"
The argument that holding the Palestinians in Gaza under a state of seige, or keeping the West Bank occupied somehow improves Israel's security is false. It is a myth, held on by force of habit.
Posted by Charles Lenchner on 12/03/2008 @ 11:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Charles, lets talk first about Gaza, how do you propose reaching a peace agreement with Hamas/AlQaida/Iran all with influences in Gaza since Israel left, openly declaring as their purpose to destroy Israel, and this is after Israel no longer occupies the strip? The so called seige is a pure act of self defense that every country in the world would do under such circumstances, and most would be much less patient with the Palestinians in Gaza.
Why does the wolrd hold Israel to a different standard, that's prejudice.
Posted by Michael Ross on 12/03/2008 @ 12:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Again: I dispute the notion that the siege, the occupation, any element of Israeli domination of the Palestinians serves to improve Israel's security. What you call a 'pure' act of self defense is one part of a laundry list of measures that Israel engages in, as part of a 41 year old occupation.
Secondly, conflating Hamas, al-Qaida and Iran is revealing. Hamas and Iran are operate at cross purposes: Hamas is part of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood inspired Islamist forces, who are not linked to Shia Islam, they are rivals. Some inside that camp even question whether or not Shi'ites are Muslims. Al-Qaida is a Salafist organization that seeks the resurrection of the Caliphate. Hamas is strongly opposed to that program, and openly condemns al-Qaida. The only purpose of linking them is to create a (false) spectre of irrational crazy Muslim extremism linking 9/11 with the defence of Israel.
Hamas is (mostly) a rational political entity fighting to liberate Palestinians from 41 years of occupation and 60 years of dispossession. Now, I don't agree with the program or ideology that they espouse, but why falsify what it actually is?
Posted by Charles Lenchner on 12/03/2008 @ 12:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Charles,
1. how do you propose Israel proceed with the Gaza situation, with rockets raining down daily on Israel cities within reach?
2. I do not mean that this is one group Hamas/AlQaida/Iran I mean that they all have influence. Iran supplies money and guns and AlQaida have followers for their brand of Muslim practices, so who do you propose we talk to?
3. How is Hamas a rational political entity, I know of no such entity that willingly targets women and children, if they were so rational they would lay down their arms and come to the table. Rationally they cannot defeat Israel, all five Arab nations combined could not do it, so a ragtag group of terrorists can?
Posted by Michael Ross on 12/03/2008 @ 12:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
1. I propose that Israel NOT proceed with any sort of Gaza situation. It needs to move forward with serious peace negotations with the Palestinian people on the basis of the Clinton proposals and the Arab League's 2002 initiative, which has been praised lately by Peres and Barak. Dealing with Gaza, or any kind of specific issue in a way that is disconnected from resolving the main issues on the table, is a recipe for disaster and further bloodshed.
2. Why are you even raising Iran and al-Qaida? Iran has stated publicly, on many occasions, that its official foriegn policy is to embrace any peaceful solution that the Palestinians agree to. Al-Qaida does not appear to have any influence among the Palestinian people. I mean, when Hamas denounces you, that sort of shows the absence of political space for those folks.
3. Israeli willingly targets women and children. If you need examples, visit http://www.btselem.org. It often says 'yes, we kill innocent civilians, but unlike the Palestinians it is always collatoral damage, never the main target.' The human rights community inside Israel rejects this argument, based on the large number of dead children, and the willingness of the Israeli forces to engage in deadly violence (such as dropping a one ton bomb on an apartment building) when it is certain that innocent people will die.
That being said, Israel is also a rational political entity, even though it harbors the illusion that Palestinians will give up thier rights just because Israel is stronger militarily. For now....
Posted by Charles Lenchner on 12/03/2008 @ 01:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.