“I find it hard to believe that this story would be intentionally suppressed.”

You need a reality check. Haven’t you noticed that American media is neglecting to inform the American public that the settlements in the occupied territories are illegal?

Here is something that happened in August 2005 when I confronted a reporter named N.J. Burkett. I was in the lobby of WABC-TV in NY and I overhear a guy saying, “I just got back from Gaza!” gleefully to N.J. Burkett.

I couldn’t resist confronting these bastards. I walked over and I asked, “How come you never report that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal?”

“Everyone knows the settlements are illegal,” Burkett say to me. “No they don’t,” I said. Burkett says, “Sure, it is common knowledge just as there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.”

These guys are such miserable dishonest bastards. These sick minds must concoct lame excuses for not reporting BASIC important facts to the public. “The BBC must be crazy then,” I pointed out because they report that the Israeli settlements are illegal. “The BBC manages to report this basic fact to their audience,” I said, demolishing Burkett’s asinine argument. “Your network doesn’t report it, why do American TV networks refuse to report it?” I demanded.

Searching for an excuse why ABC is not reporting basic facts to the American people, the first guy tried, “Americans don’t care.” Burkett leaves at this point. These guys are such vulgar betrayers of the public trust.

Again, if violence against Israel is the result of occupation, how come Arab possession of the West bank and Gaza prior to 1967 did not prevent three of the four major Arab Israeli wars? How come terrorism started prior to 1967? And if 1967 was all one big land grab, why did Israel give the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace (and I might add, forcibly remove Israelis from settlements)?

And Arafat a “moderate” who is demonized?

Arafat founded the PLO and was responsible for decades of terrorism. The man ordered the slaying of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes at Munich. The man ordered holding school kids hostage in Ma’alot, and massacred 21 children. Thugs operating under his command threw wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer overboard from the Achille Lauro cruise ship. This is just a small sampling of his reign of terror. If he’s a moderate, I hate to know your idea of an extremist.

I know I know, I said that would be the last post. The last post will be the one I don���´t follow with another one, I guess.

YouÃ?Â?Ã?´re just too fun to debate with, because youÃ?Â?Ã?´re both reasonable and so utterly, terribly wrong. Take the idea behind your latest article, for instance. ItÃ?Â?Ã?´s the old, “my client wouldnÃ?Â?Ã?´t be so STUPID as to have murdered his wife with a fountain pen and then used the SAME fountain pen to write the insurance company with” defense. Yes, Bush is THAT stupid, yes, the elites are that self-deceiving, and yes yes, they think the American public (not entirely without good reason) is that stupid, too. Besides that, thereÃ?Â?Ã?´s just all that EVIDENCE to consider…

But thatÃ?Â?Ã?´s not the reason for this (“last last”) post. You accused me of “disgusting callousness” toward Israeli lives, and that just shouldnÃ?Â?Ã?´t stand as a last word in this exchange. If you want my personal, emotional take on Palestinian terrorism–IÃ?Â?Ã?´m horrified, saddened, and dumbfounded every time CNN shows the wailing ambulances, the frantic medics and rabbis, the sobbing relatives, every time a bomb goes off in some cafe or disco. But the fact remains, as Chomsky clearly and dispassionately stated, this is only (at most) HALF the story. Actually, itÃ?Â?Ã?´s only recently that itÃ?Â?Ã?´s risen to the level of a third of the story, based on the number of victims on both sides of this conflict. The Palestinians, “terrorists” and noncombatants alike (yes, including plenty of children, pregnant ladies, you name it) are the OVERWHELMINGLY greater victims of violence. And this victimhood predates the systematic use of suicide bombers by the likes of Hamas etc. It goes back at least as far as the first intifada, when rock-throwing youths (then accused by the Israelis of being a mortal, unspeakably horrible enemy like the worst suicide killers today) were greeted with hails of bullets, torture, you name it. The ratio was, literally, 13 to one (the Israelis killed over one thousand three hundred Palestinians, as against about a hundred Israelis.) As Chomsky would say, look it up.

As things are now, the whole “security before peace” trope of Israel-firsters is just patently ridiculous. Where an occupying power demands an end to violent resistance as a PRECONDITION for ending occupation, this can only mean one thing: either the violent resistance will be “wiped out” (the Nazis were good at that), and thus pacification achieved before withdrawal, or the demand is simply hollow. Algeria is a good example, too. The demand that the moderate elements, say Arafat (Dershowitz wasnÃ?Â?Ã?´t muched concerned about his “demonization”, I should add) or Mahmoud Abbas, FIRST act as subcontractors for the occupation by violently repressing resistence, is a demand that is calculately unmeetable. The calculation in this case is duobly clear, because (as has been pointed out here again and again) the Israelis have continued to colonize the West Bank and Gaza THROUGHOUT the period they claim to have been preparing an “historic compromise”.

The callousness here is to “stand on principle”, as Dershowitz would say, about security, in the full knowledge that this will lead to more insecurity, thus “justifying” more repression. When I say that an Israeli withdrawal wonÃ?Â?Ã?´t necessarily end terrorism tomorrow, IÃ?Â?Ã?´m being “pragmatic” (Dershowitz again)–though it will begin the process that will end it completely in the near future. When you invoke “vigilence” as a euphemism for state terrorism, collective punishment, torture, settlement expansion, divide-and-rule, stealing water resources and arable land, etc etc, youÃ?Â?Ã?´re being callous not just toward the Palestinians,the main victims, but toward the next victims of the next suicide bomber in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Philip, besides seconding AdamÃ?Â?Ã?´s comment, IÃ?Â?Ã?´d like to respond more directly to yours. 1) The issue isnÃ?Â?Ã?´t just Israeli security, but one of simple justice. Whether or not terrorist attacks continue across the border of a future Palestinian state, the Israelis have no right to maintain the occupation, for simple reasons of democratic principle, self determination, and so on. But more directly, 2) I said the NECESSARY PRECONDITION to ending terror from the Palestinian side is Israeli withdrawal. ThatÃ?Â?Ã?´s why ChomskyÃ?Â?Ã?´s right when he says the Israeli policy isnÃ?Â?Ã?´t just unjust, itÃ?Â?Ã?´s disastrous (i.e., stupid): because whatever groups in Palestine are out to “get Israel”, theyÃ?Â?Ã?´re only made stronger and bolder and more fanatical by a violent, unjust military occupation. IÃ?Â?Ã?´m convinced that Palestinian terrorism against Israelis would more or less disappear, if Israel withdrew and allowed the large majority of Palestinians to set up a state in peaceful coexistence with Israel. By saying “more or less”, IÃ?Â?Ã?´m just trying to be realistic. (Chances are, thereÃ?Â?Ã?´d be more terrorism by fanatical ex-settlers than crazed jihadis.) Besides the “Benny Morris option” (expulsion), what else do YOU think Israel should do?

As Chomsky pointed out, we’re not supposed to talk about the effect of war and terrorism on Palestinians. Everything gets subordinated to Israel’s struggles against terrorism, even when they carry out actions that have nothing to do with it. That’s why the facts and the evidence is so important. Otherwise, “supporters of Israel” will frame the debate as civilized Israel beseiged by Arabs trying to destroy the country. Very conveniant when you’re following an expansionist program backed by the world’s biggest superpower.

Adam

I appreciate your comments and the ability to debate this important issue, but I think the conversation has run its course, especially when you come back to me with this:

“What should Israel do? Live up to its obligations under international law and withdraw as completely and quickly as possible to its pre-1967 borders. This wouldnÃ?Â?Ã?´t end hostility toward it, and maybe not even end Palestinian terrorism in the short term (Hamas and similar groups are interested in the pre-1947 borders, after all). But it would be the first, necessary condition for doing so.”

So basically you’re saying that Israel should retreat and then stand still while its own civilians get killed by Palestinian terrorists when they’re celebrating Passover, riding the bus, dining at restaurants, partying at discos, and hope that the terrorists would stop attacking them eventually. Their hands would be tied in your ideal world, because Israel would not send its military back into the territories.

Of course what would be more likely to happen if Israel quickly withdrew and did not retaliate is that terrorists would get bolder, feel as though they had Israelis on the run, recruit more terrorists, enabling them to increase their attacks. Without an Israeli military presence in the territories, terrorists would be able to organize easily and build bases there.

I believe that Palestinians should have a state, and at least I can see the other side of the argument enough to understand that the occupation imposes hardships on Palestinians. But you can’t acknowledge Israel has a legitimate interest in defending its men, women and children from terrorism. So I really don’t see how we can have a constructive argument beyond this point.