And, I think this provides a partial answer to exile’s question “On what basis can people call the kidnappings ‘terrorism?’” In the dualistic worldview of many (and, frighteningly, many of our decision-makers): The Terrorist = The Arabs and The Arabs = The Terrorists. Rightwing bloodlust can be explained by a lot of political factors, but I think race, ethnicity, and religion take center stage.

1. On what basis can people call the kidnapping of soldiers “terrorism”? Seems to me that Hamas and Hezbollah made a command decision to attack military rather than civilian targets. This is a repudiation of terrorism. But if the “international community” is so pro-Israel that they condemn instead of praising this change in tactics, what incentive do Palestinians have not to go back to blowing themselves up in Tel Aviv cafes?

2. Wouldn’t these conflicts be LESS likely to escalate so quickly if some Arab country (or perhaps Iran) had just enough nukes to counter Israel’s total military dominance? Wouldn’t a more equal balance of power and a mutual nuclear deterrent likely lead both sides to be more circumspect? That’s what the history of the Cold War teaches us, anyway….

Thanks for the more detailed history. You laid out the basic facts and themes of the story in a calm, and fair and helpful way.

Your concluding two paragraphs make a lot of sense, too, except I can see a big problem about deciding to guarantee that ‘anybody invading Israel will in turn be destroyed’. What are the rightful borders that are not to be crossed? That’s the thorny issue that keeps this conflict unresolved, especially since the 1967 war. In the first forty years and seven wars, Israel has claimed for itself a land increase of 40% over the the 1948 bordered territory.

I am not interested in ‘who’s to blame’ or ”who started it’ or ‘who is the worst offender’. I am interested in the soul-wrenching harm that continues to plague the Israelis and their neighbors and the rest of our world because this situation never heals. I am, in short, interested in the etiology of ‘terrorism’.
I do want to know what would make someone chose to strap on a bomb and kill innocent people. I think about it along these lines: the wanna-be-terrorists are incubated in an Arab/Muslim community-wide unrelieved deep sense of loss [of land, livelihood, and cultural identity] and, facing continuing powerlessness against for instance the giant USA and the USA-powered Israel and the encroaching westernization of their homelands, they turn to radicalized religion to feel some power over the last thing left that they can control, which is to choose to let their own deaths make a statement of defiance. Sort of like, ‘you can beat me on everything else, because you are so much bigger, but you can’t have my soul’. Twisted logic, you bet. But such twists are not uncommon defense mechanisms in those who suffer extended battering, as our FBI profilers could attest.

Heh … the basic problem is that NOBODY agrees on what the ACTUAL history of Israel/Palestine is. In most cases, there are no records, or what records there are have been altered or destroyed. Nearly every event of any significance whatsoever has 2, 3, even 4 or more competing explanations, depending on what source you use.

So, using history and facts as best they can be determined, you can conclude Israel is completely at fault.

Or, using history and facts as best they can be determined, you can conclude Palestine is completely at fault.

Or any shade in between. All based on what sources you read/trust.

It’s all very confusing, and the lack of clarity is what allows both sides to claim moral authority … and can also be used to show neither side has moral authority.

As best as my poor brain can determine it, tho, everything goes back to the 1890s. Palestine, at that time, was a province of the Ottoman Empire. Jews and Christians and Muslims all lived together there, in as much harmony as you would expect anywhere. The Muslims were the undoubted majority, but the other religions were not particularly mistreated.

In Europe and Russia, the Zionist movement was in its beginning stages. That movement called for a final homeland for the Jews of the world. They considered many locations, but they finally decided that nothing less than their original home soil would do. And, in 1917, the embattled British government issued the Balfour Declaration, a document declaring Britain’s support for a Zionist national home in Palestine, “with the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities there”. Remember that WWI was going on at the time, and the Ottoman Empire was Britain’s enemy. So, basically, Britain promised the world’s Jews land that Britain did not, at the time, actually own.

And so, when the allies won WWI, and the Ottoman Empire was carved up into more managable chunks, Britain managed to secure control of the chunk formerly known as Palestine, and they invited Jews to come and settle.

THAT right THERE is when the trouble began.

Britain, and the rest of the world really, tried in pretty good faith to make the whole thing work … but Jews were killing Arabs, Arabs were killing Jews, and both were killing Brits. After multiple attempts to broker peace between the two groups, Britain eventually metaphorically threw its hands up and said to hell with all of you, and started pulling out. As soon as the last Brit soldier was gone, the Zionists declared themselves to be a nation, called Israel, and were very careful NOT to specify where the actual borders were.

Meanwhile, the rest of the Arab countries surrounding, had also been chunkified, and turned over to France and the US, both of which countries did their best to set up a working government and get the hell out. By the time Britain left Palestine, all the other Arab countries had been independant for some time, and they viewed the situation in Palestine with mounting alarm. The basic problem was that all the Jews of the world, in addition to many of the biggest countries of the world, were pouring money into Zionist coffers, which meant that the Jews were gradually beating the Palestinians soundly. The Arab countries surrounding, all of which, remember, had been part of one Empire not that long ago, didn’t understand why a bunch of immigrants were being allowed to kill their brothers in Palestine. It was much less about Jewishness at the time, and much more about Non-Arabness, if you see what I mean.

When the Brits left and the upstart immigrants unilaterally declared themselves to be a country, the surrounding powers viewed that as the final collapse of diplomacy, and they saw it as their duty to wade in and Sort Shit Out once and for all. Of course, what they didn’t count on was the fact that the Zionists had used big chunks of that money to arm themselves to the teeth, and the Arabs got their asses handed to them in short order.

And here again is one of those points of history … according to some accounts, the surrounding powers, when they came in to Sort Shit Out, directed the Palestinians to get out of the way … which is what caused a huge part of the Palestinian refugee problem. According to other accounts, no such thing ever happened. The refugee problem was caused solely by Jewish terrorists and militias running Arabs off their lands.

There is some support for both theories. Difficult to say now which is true, other than the probability that BOTH are, to some degree or another.

The Jews certainly did resort to terrorism, armed militias, intimidation, and fear to run Palestinians out of desirable land, from 1918 on. That is a matter of historical record. The degree to which it happened, that’s highly debatable.

The Palestinians responded with force of their own, terrorism and armed militias and all the rest. That is also a matter of historical record. They were always less organized and less well funded than the Jews, tho, which is part of why the Jews usually got the upper hand.

One of the tactics I’ve read about involved Jews going out to plow farmland in no-man’s-land set up by the British. The Palestinians would see this, interpret it as Jewish encroachment (which it was, of course), and attack the ‘farm’. The Jews would then respond with overwhelming force, drive the Palestinians out, and then fortify the place, explaining to the Brits that said fortification was necessary because the Palestinians attacked first. (which they did, of course). And thus the no-man’s-land moved incrementally farther out.

The first time an offer to Partition the land into two countries was formally laid on the table, Jews owned something like 2% of the land, and the Partition would give them something like 50%. The Palestinians, understandably, did not see the wisdom of giving away 48% of their country, particularly when it was for the most part the BEST 48% … the most arable land, the most resources, etc.

That was the best offer they ever got tho. If they’d accepted it, the history of the middle east would have been very different.

All that to say …

Impossible to assign original sin. It started out with Jews wanting to end their millinea long wanderings and just have a place of their own, where they wouldn’t get slaughtered every few decades for once … it continued with immigrants and existing residents not getting along very well, for a variety of reasons … it escalated with acts of violence, counter-acts, revenge for the counter-acts, vengeance on the revenge … and it continued on in that way, all the way from then to now.

And America has been intimately involved, every step of the way. We were one of the first countries to recognized self-proclaimed Israel AS Israel, our money and our weapons are what allowed Israel to fight off the first few Arab attacks, and our money and weapons and continued international support are what allows Israel to continue doing whatever it wants to do with relative impugnity.

Without the support of the USA, it’s doubtful Israel would even exist right now … but if it DID exist, it would be a much humbled Israel, that would have to actually attempt to get along with its neighbors rather than dominate them.

I think it’s about time we cut ties and make them stand on their own. At this point in history, we can guarantee that anybody that tries to invade or destroy Israel will in turn be destroyed, WITHOUT giving Israel the unconditional support we always have.

-me

Republicans used to accuse Democrats of “throwing money at problems.” The Bush administration not only throws money at problems; it misses them.

Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop

Much as it pains me, I have to generally agree with your thoughtful post.

The Jews in Israel (pre-1948) did indeed buy the land they lived on from wealthy Arab and Turkish land owners. There was some tension but people more or less lived side by side. The state of Israel, as defined and created by the (very guilty) West, though, was founded and continues to live in absolute strife. It was perhaps the last time a colonialist state was created, with all that that implies in terms of non-respect for those already living in the land.

Of course, the Arab world had its very own nasty role to play by encouraging a mass exodus of the Palestinians, promising that the Jews would be driven into the sea and that the Palestinians would be back home within a few weeks. There were massacres on both sides.

A good friend of mine (who’s Jewish) recently spent several months in Israel as a visiting professor. Although she identifies deeply with her Jewish culture and history, she was very disturbed by the inequalities she saw in how Arabs and Jews are treated in Israel. However, neither she (nor I) advocate the destruction of Israel. The question is, what to do?

Bush’s knee-jerk support for everything Israel does is no more intelligent than his invasion of Iraq. Israel’s incursion into Lebanon after Hezbollah’s attack is a monumental mistake but many people seem to forget that there was an attack. Israel didn’t just wake up yesterday morning and decide to bomb Beirut Airport. When the international community condemns Israel without any mention of Hezbollah’s recent actions, one still has to wonder.

The issue seems so totally insoluble because at the heart of it, no one’s completely right or wrong.

Totally condemning Israel or totally condemning the Palestinians means that justice for the one inevitably denies justice for the other. And every one deserves justice and the right to live in peace–the right to get up in the morning and go to work without worrying about your kid being blown up by a suicide bomber on his or her way home from school or your kid being blown up by a rocket aimed at a fundamentalist leader who stirs up violence against innocent civilians.

The Middle East is still living according to the biblical precept of an eye for an eye. Except now, humankind is able to totally exterminate itself in its quest to prove one side right over the other.

I condemn Israel for its massive retaliation and its fundamentally unfair treatment of the Palestinians, but I also condemn the Arab world for its wholesale demonization of Jews (not just Israelis), which leads to the visceral hatred expressed by suicide bombers and the majority of the Palestinian population that supports them.

Is there a solution? Yes, but no one’s going to be happy with it, especially (sorry to have to say this) all those people whose testosterone-fueled hatred keeps them busy blowing each other up.

By the way, interesting research here about the incompetent being incompetent to recognize their own incompetence.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL