Klein's Quips

First, thank you for taking the time to seriously respond to bloggers who disagree with you. In the blogspohere, that´s not something to sneeze at.

I can´t respond here in great depth to your response, but I´ll paraphrase Chomsky for starters. You did get one fact right: everyboday has a bias, including Pundak and others who may have less of a bias than the architects of the failed negotiations themselves. It remains a fact, though--which you don´t dispute, because you can´t--that IT STANDS TO REASON that Barak, Clinton, Ross, and for that matter Yassir Arafat, if he were alive, will portray what they did as right and good, and blame the other side for failure. Dershowitz´s "but they were there!" argument is--I repeat--worthless at best, and cheap rhetoric, at worst. For what it´s worth, Robert Malley, who wrote a long and critical assessment of the American-Israeli role at Camp David, was on Clinton´s negotiating team, so he "was there", too. Fortunately for historians, though, we don´t have to actually have been somewhere to report on it accurately.

As for the media and reporting Israeli atrocities, Chomsky and others have spent their political lifetimes documenting the bias in the American media (though I, for one, think the situation has improved in the internet age). Dershowitz´s supposed astonishment here just seemed phony. In this case, though, Chomsky wan´t propsing a "theory" at all, he merely reported facts--which Dershowitz didn´t bother to disupte--and mentioned that they were unreported in the United States. If that´s a "conspiracy theory", then so be it, but I think the term has better uses.

If youl want information on Israeli human rights abuses in the Occupied territories, by the way, it´s very easy to find, for instance:

http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp

As for the "great lengths" to which Israel goes to "protect civilian life", I´d recommend you look into the invasino and destruction of Jenin, among many, many other instances (the shelling of Beirut 1980, etc etc). If there´s a Planet Chomsky, then statements like yours inhabit an entirely different solar system.

I won´t insult your intelligence by linking to a source on American arms transfers. Jane´s Defense Weekly is hardly the only one.

Returning to Ron Pundak and his biases, I think it´s worth noting that he is anything but a pro-Palestinian radical. In his most widely circulated article on the net, he has this to say about the period leading up to the second Intifada, for instance:

"For the average Palestinian during Barak’s administration, the so-called “fruits of peace” were hardly encouraging: closures which were interpreted as collective punishment; restrictions on movement which affected almost all Palestinians; a permit-issuing system which mainly hurt decent people already cleared by Israeli security; mistreatment at IDF and Border Police checkpoints often aimed, on purpose, at PA officials; a dramatic decrease in employment opportunities in Israel, leading to increased unemployment and the creation of new pockets of poverty; water shortages during the summer months as opposed to the abundance of water supply in the Israeli settlements; the destruction of Palestinian homes while new houses were built in the settlements; the non-release of prisoners tried for activities committed before Oslo; Israeli restrictions on building outside Areas A and B; and the establishment of Bantustan-like areas, controlled according to the whim of Israeli military rule and on occasion dictated by its symbiotic relationship with the settlers’ movement. The settlers, for their part, did everything within their power to obstruct the spirit and word of the Oslo Agreement. The result was a relentless struggle, over land resources, with the settlers often receiving the tacit backing of the IDF and the civil administration in the West Bank (a majority of whose staff are themselves settlers).

This difficult situation was magnified by the deep disappointment felt by Palestinians due to the failing governing style of the PA, the discovery of corruption among politicians, the administrative arm, and the security and police apparatuses. These institutions treated the Palestinian public in a manner, which was far from acceptable democratic norms. The Palestinians came to hate the political elite, which had been imported from Tunis, as well as the local leadership, which rapidly conformed to the corrupt standards of the “Tunisians”. The tension between the “street” and the senior officials continued to grow. In this context it proved comfortable for the PA to blame Israel for every problem, which arose...."

On Camp David and after, her writes,

"The negotiations in Taba, which took place moments before Barak’s government lost the elections, proved that a permanent status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was within reach. The distance between the two sides narrowed during the last week of negotiations in Taba, and the climate in which the discussions were conducted was reminiscent of the approach, which was adopted during the Oslo talks. In effect, this lead to dramatic progress on all issues on the agenda, in almost all the most important issues. The talks did not end in an explosion, but rather in the feeling that the time remaining would not enable the two sides to reach a written and signed agreement. On the delicate issue of the Palestinian refugees and the right of return, the negotiators reached a draft determining the parameters and procedures for a solution, along with a clear emphasis that its implementation would not threaten the Jewish character of the State of Israel. In the territorial dimension - which constitutes the main basis for any agreement - the new maps presented by the two sides were closer than ever before to an agreed-upon borderline. Israel reduced its demands to 6% but still insisted on merely symbolic and minimal territorial compensation, while the Palestinians agreed to an Israeli annexation of approximately 3% along with a territorial compensation of the same amount. Had the Taba approach been tried from the onset of Barak’s tenure, we could today be on the road to peace....

Since September 29, 2000, Israeli-Palestinian relations entered a phase of a collapse of the peace process paradigm. The second Palestinian Intifada erupted, leaving both publics deeply shaken, and leading to Barak’s downfall and the breakdown of permanent status negotiations. This is first and foremost the result of a double misperception. The Palestinian side reached the mistaken conclusion that the Israeli public and Barak were not prepared to pay the price necessary for a genuine agreement and peace. Both the Israeli public and the Prime Minister were in fact willing to go the necessary distance, on the condition that the Palestinians expressed publicly the conciliatory positions which they had stated privately, and that they demonstrated non-tolerance and determination in combating terrorism. The Israeli side, for its part, reached the mistaken conclusion that the Palestinians did not want peace, and were instead bent on destroying the Zionist State both from within and from outside it. Israel concluded that there was no partner for peace on the Palestinian side, or at least not one would who had the ability or the will to pursue it. In reality, the Palestinians had not altered their basic position held since 1993, calling for a two-state solution based on a non-militarized state along the 1967 borders with a pragmatic solution to the refugee problem...."

(linked at http://members.tripod.com/~mneumann/mnisrael.htm, an otherwise interesting site)

One last point, for now. Since you linked Morris and Barak´s reponse to Malley and Agha in the NYRB, you might want to mention that the latter responded in turn (a second time), though you have to pay for it to read it.

sorry, forgot to post my name

Pundak's work was a serious scholarly piece, the Hebrew version was even longer apparently. He has a long history of being involved in negotiations. He wasn't there but is presumably in a position to know what happened and its not clear what interest he would have in falsifying the official record against Israel. Furthermore, that's not the only reason for believing his side. As Chomsky pointed out, the negotiations that continued afterword undercut Clinton and Ross's point of view. And Ross revealingly leaves the latter negotiations out of his book.

No one has argued that the Arab states are more open to critics than Israel so that point is completely off-subject.

Chomsky simply stated facts about the helicopter transfer and that it wasn't reported in the US, which it wasn't. Chomsky had personal experience talking to editors, asking them to simply report the facts and they refused. Why? As he said, ask the editors. When Chomsky has offered his analysis of the media its an exact opposite of a conspiracty theory. Its an institutional analysis. Its like saying that corporations trying to maximize profits is a conspiracy theory. That's straight institutional analysis.

Number of deaths is important because it tells us the Palestinians have a serious problem of security as well. Reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the leading Israeli human rights group all undercut Philip's points about the nature of civilian casualties in the occupied terrotories. This debate plays out with Finkelstein and Dershowitz. Finkelstein's latest book, Beyond Chutzpah, goes through Dershowitz's similar apologetics line by line, completely demolishing Dershowitz's credibility on this topic.

Have apologetics reached the point where Israel is to be commended for not carpet bombing Palestinians or using nuclear weapons? Too often people react like defense attourneys or PR agents for state power. Lets say Israel is the most commendable state in the world. Does that mean we look the other way when we see injustice? Is that even relevant to an occupation which has punished and continues to punish an entire population and is brazenly illegal?

At any rate, the issue shouldn't be Israel but, rather, US policy. If, in fact, the United States has been an obstacle to the two-state solution that has been supported by the international consensus, that should trouble us. The evidence is pretty compelling that this is fact the case. But people can be their own judge, hopefully based on an honest accounting of all the evidence.

Adam

I’m too caught up in other projects to respond more in depth Matt, but let me try to do it quickly. Even if you say that Clinton and Ross were too biased to be trusted (something I’d dispute, but will acknowledge for the sake of argument), it still is more feasible to me that Arafat was a barrier to peace. The reason is that Arafat had a record of being a terrorist for decades, and a record of speaking as a peacemaker in English and as a warrior in Arabic. Furthermore, I have watched many interviews with Barak and Arafat. Barak comes off as a reasonable person. Arafat always sounds like a raving lunatic. (I’d expand upon all of these points further if I had the time).

As for bringing up Jenin. I quote from UPI (hardly a pro-Israel source):
-----
“WASHINGTON, May 20 (UPI) -- After the Israeli Army launched its retaliatory strike into the Palestinian Authority-ruled West Bank in early April, the international media was filled with reports that the Israelis had possibly or probably killed hundreds, even thousands, of Palestinian civilians. The reports were later disproved and even the PA itself revised its own official figure for Palestinans killed in the fierce fighting down to only 56.”
-----
The whole thing here:

http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20052002-032952-3644r

Jenin was a terrorist nest, and if Israel wanted to, it could have carpet-bombed the whole city. That’s the strategy that the Russians employed when faced with a similar situation in Grozny. But instead, Israel chose the to fight the battle door-to-door precisely to prevent civilian casualties, and it lost 23 soldiers as a result. Unfortunately, Palestinian snipers fired at Israeli soldiers from civilian buildings such as schools and mosques, putting their own populations at risk.

Also, Palestinians booby-trapped houses in Jenin. I quote from an interview with a Palestinian fighter at Jenin named Omar. The interview was in Egypt’s Al-Ahram Weekly Online 18 - 24 April 2002, so you’d be hard-pressed to argue that it is pro-Israel propaganda. Omar says:

-----
"We had more than 50 houses booby-trapped around the camp. We chose old and empty buildings and the houses of men who were wanted by Israel because we knew the soldiers would search for them," he said.

"We cut off lengths of mains water pipes and packed them with explosives and nails. Then we placed them about four metres apart throughout the houses -- in cupboards, under sinks, in sofas."
------
And listen to their tactics to “lure” Israeli soldiers (notice how they exploit civilian women to achieve their aims):
-----
“And what about the explosion and ambush last Tuesday which killed 13 soldiers?

"They were lured there," he says. "We all stopped shooting and the women went out to tell the soldiers that we had run out of bullets and were leaving." The women alerted the fighters as the soldiers reached the booby- trapped area.

"When the senior officers realised what had happened, they shouted through megaphones that they wanted an immediate cease-fire. We let them approach to retrieve the men and then opened fire.

"Some of the soldiers were so shocked and frightened that they mistakenly ran towards us."”
-----
Read the whole thing here:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/582/6inv2.htm

You write: “I won´t insult your intelligence by linking to a source on American arms transfers. Jane´s Defense Weekly is hardly the only one.”

I’m not saying that America does not give military aid to Israel. I was referring specifically to the major helicopter transfer that Chomsky mentioned. Jane´s Defense Weekly was the only specific source he mentioned. He also said it was reported in Europe, but didn’t mention where. And again, when I say he was asserting a conspiracy theory, I was referring to his assertion that this story was intentionally covered-up by the U.S. media. The fact that it wasn’t reported isn’t evidence of a cover-up. To prove a cover-up, you have to have hard evidence, or else it’s a theory.

And if you want to see examples of anti-Israel media bias, you can look at this Website:

http://www.honestreporting.com/

Just seeing your comments now Adam, but I've got to hop.

Quickly. You write, "Have apologetics reached the point where Israel is to be commended for not carpet bombing Palestinians or using nuclear weapons?"

The reason this argument is used is that the level of condemnation that is directed at Israel by the world, and its critics, is completely out of proportion. Israel's critics make it seem as if Israelis have no regard for the lives of Palestinians, so this is the context of the argument. Also, Russia, for instance, did not receive the type of universal condemnation for carpet bombing Grozny that Israel did for fighting door-to-door in Jenin. It's a disgusting double standard.

I think you said it best at the end: "people can be their own judge, hopefully based on an honest accounting of all the evidence."

Philip,

I´ll address your comments in descending order of (their) vulgarity. First, to

"The reason is that Arafat had a record of being a terrorist for decades, and a record of speaking as a peacemaker in English and as a warrior in Arabic. Furthermore, I have watched many interviews with Barak and Arafat. Barak comes off as a reasonable person. Arafat always sounds like a raving lunatic."

Arafat was a thug and a despot, no doubt, but he didn´t kill 10,000 people in the 1980 invasion of lebanon, nor did he allow militias under his control to massacre upards of 700 men, women, and children in refugee camps (Sabra and Shatila) under his military authority. If you want to compare terror for terror, I´m afraid Arafat is going to lose the contest by more than a few noses, Jewish or Palestian. As for his appearing to be a "raving lunatic", I´ll refrain from sending you Rorschatz blots for political assessments in the future.

On Jenin, you parrot not only the IDF line--maximum concern for protecting civilian life etc etc--but you invoke a the long tradition of apologetics for massacres against civilians when you call Jenin, a town of many thousands, a "terrorist nest". This is the language of the Argentine generals, or Putin´s heroic bombardiers in Chechnya, or most recently, the Americans in Falludjah, to refrain from even more extravegant comparisons. Having decided that the Israelis were fighting in a sea of "terrorists", I seriously wonder if there´s anything the IDF might do that you wouldn´t be inclined to excuse.

Initial estimates of the death toll in Jenin were exaggerated, that´s right--by the Israeli army, among others. It turns out that "only" some 50-odd people were killed, roughly half of them civilians. If that makes for loving kindness fromt the IDF, then I prefer the comfort of Planet Chomsky. The Israelis, for their part, BARRED the media and humanitarian organizations from Jenin throughout the invasion, and then refused to cooperate the UN investigation, which they were then only too happy to cite as proof that there was no "massacre".

Human Rights Watch rerported shortly after the not-massacre in Jenin that

"The presence of armed Palestinian militants inside Jenin refugee camp, and the preparations made by those armed Palestinian militants in anticipation of the IDF incursion, does not detract from the IDF's obligation under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid harm to civilians. Israel also has a legal duty to ensure that its attacks on legitimate military targets did not cause disproportionate harm to civilians. Unfortunately, these obligations were not met. Human Rights Watch's research demonstrates that, during their incursion into the Jenin refugee camp, Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes.

Due to the dense urban setting of the refugee camp, fighters and civilians were never at great distances. Civilian residents of the camp described days of sustained missile fire from helicopters hitting their houses. Some residents were forced to flee from house to house seeking shelter, while others were trapped by the fighting, unable to escape to safety, and were threatened by a curfew that the IDF enforced with lethal force, using sniper fire. Human Rights Watch documented instances in which soldiers converted civilian houses into military positions, and confined the inhabitants to a single room. In other instances, civilians who attempted to flee were expressly told by IDF soldiers that they should return to their homes.

Despite these close quarters, the IDF had a legal duty to distinguish civilians from military targets. At times, however, IDF military attacks were indiscriminate, failing to make this distinction. Firing was particularly indiscriminate on the morning of April 6, when missiles were launched from helicopters, catching many sleeping civilians unaware. One woman was killed by helicopter fire during that attack; a four-year-old child in another part of the town was injured when a missile hit the house where she was sleeping. Both were buildings housing only civilians, with no fighters in the immediate vicinity...."

They go on to detail the indiscriminate bulldozing of homes--with people in them--the systematic use of Palestinians as "human shields"--by the IDF, not the "terrorists"--etc etc. For a closer look, see

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/israel0502-01.htm#P49_1774

and especially

http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/political/21_04_02_JeninThePropagandaWar.html

------

The main point, as I see it, is this. To "supporters of Israel" just about any criticism of Israeli diplomatic instransigence or human rights abuses is simply a case of "double standards", since somewhere else in the world there are worse atrocities, diplomatically more eggregious failures to scream about. Of cours, this only works in one direction. Palestinian terrorism is never compared to, say, the terrorism of Columbian paramilitaries or for that matter the murderers of Beslan, or the KLA and its heirs in Kosovo, to show how "disproportionate" the coverage of Palestinian terror is. Yes, the Arab-Israeli conflict is the political best-seller of the late 20th Century, but this works both ways. That doesn´t make the Israelis into humanitarians, or a 40-year occupation into a "red herring".

Matt,

Terrorists are not going to fight in the open field. So, for civilized societies such as Israel, there is a dilemma. On one extreme, the option is to completely destroy cities where there are known terrorists, which would guarantee that all terrorists in that city would be wiped out, but it would also mean the deaths of countless civilians. On the other extreme, there is the option of doing nothing. That would guarantee that no civilians in that city would be killed. But it would also mean that terrorists would survive, recruit new members, and carry out more attacks on innocent civilians. So, civilized societies facing terrorist threats must balance these two extremes. And Israel does an admirable job of striking this balance.

But you obviously don't think Israel performs admirably Matt. So how would you solve Israel's dilemma? How can Israel catch the terrorists who threaten its civilians without putting one Palestinian civilian at risk? How can it fight terrorism in a way that would be morally acceptable to you?

Should Israel completely retreat to the pre-1967 borders immediately? Should it tear down the security fence that has helped suicide bombings drop by 90 perecent? Would that make groups such as Hamas, which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, put down their arms?

If you are going to tell me that Israel caused all of the problems for itself because of the occupation, then how come it was still threatened prior to 1967? Or is the mere existence of Israel itself immoral?

Philip,

Your first point was already addressed by Adam, so I´ll have to more or less repeat what he said. If I understand correctly, you think that by not committing genocide, the Israelis have shown themselves to be "civilized". I guess that means Pinochet was a democrat, since he didn´t kill off every dissident in Chile, say, the way Stalin wiped out every last political enemy. The term "civilized" is a term of propaganda, and has no other value I can think of. In 1945 it may have been possible to meaningfully talk about a victory of civilization over barbarism--that is, if you forget about what Uncle Joe did in his spare time, or Truman´s predilection for dropping A-bombs on cities. But to use the term with reference to Israel, one of the world´s most consistent human rights violators over at least four decades, is just a way to immunize it against criticism, and may even carry an undertone of racism.

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 wouldn´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.

I´d turn the question back at you and ask: if Israel was so prepared to make the sacrifice of seeing a Palestinian state established in 2000 (the Barak offer, allegedly), why did successive governments since Oslo double the settlements in the West Bank between 1993 and 2000? Where is the "security" purpose behind massive settlement build-ups even as Palestinian sovereignty was supposedly being prepared?

Philip, this may be my last post for the time being, though I´ll look to see if you´ve posted responses. I just want to add this source on the the Camp David debate. It may make you re-think some of the history:

http://www.pepeace.org/current_reprints/10/Rescuing%20Peace.htm

Matt,

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 wouldn´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.

There's no security issue involved in taking Palestinian water resources. There's no security issue in expanding settlements in the West Bank. If the wall is so effective, build it around Israel(pre-1967) and give Palestinians their own state.

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

"One more time..."

Philip, besides seconding Adam´s comment, I´d like to respond more directly to yours. 1) The issue isn´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. That´s why Chomsky´s right when he says the Israeli policy isn´t just unjust, it´s disastrous (i.e., stupid): because whatever groups in Palestine are out to "get Israel", they´re only made stronger and bolder and more fanatical by a violent, unjust military occupation. I´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", I´m just trying to be realistic. (Chances are, there´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?

I think Israel should continue to be vigilant about fighting terrorism. And they should negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinian Authority when the PA shows that it is willing to forcibly disarm Palestinian terrorist groups. The Israeli people deserve better reassurance than your theory that in the long-term, terrorism would subside were Israel to withdraw. Beyond a startling naiveté, your assertion that terrorism would "more or less" go away displays a disgusting callousness toward the innocent Israeli men, women and children who have lost their lives in suicide bombings.

All of you Chomsky lovers are wrong!

Thank you Andrew for your one-sentence subversive commentary on how Chomsky's detractors are intellectually vacuous, ultimately hiding behind the kind of taunts I last heard in grade school. Your use of irony is brilliant. Great work, my fellow Chomsky lover!

Philip,

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.

You´re just too fun to debate with, because you´re both reasonable and so utterly, terribly wrong. Take the idea behind your latest article, for instance. It´s the old, "my client wouldn´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, there´s just all that EVIDENCE to consider...

But that´s not the reason for this ("last last") post. You accused me of "disgusting callousness" toward Israeli lives, and that just shouldn´t stand as a last word in this exchange. If you want my personal, emotional take on Palestinian terrorism--I´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, it´s only recently that it´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 wasn´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 won´t necessarily end terrorism tomorrow, I´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, you´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.

Matt,

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.

Philip, no time for serious response, but I´ll take your Munich and Ma'alot and raise you a King David Hotel (Begin, the "man of peace", remember?), Deir Yassin, and a Sabra and Shatila massacre (Sharon, Begin's heir). Arafat was a terrorist, no doubt about it. He also pursued an historic settlement with the Israelis, beginning at least as early as the mid-80s, when the PLO began a more or less one-sided policy of recognizing Israel (i.e., a two-state solution), while Israel continued to build settlements, while demanding not just recognition of secure boundaries but that the Palestinians recognize its "right to exist" etc. (As Chomsky once pointed out, a category that otherwise doesn´t exist in international affairs. Has Germany recognized Israel´s "right to exist"? How about Mexico´s?) That is why successive Israeli governments negoatiated with him, starting in the early 90s,until it became convenient for Sharon et al to return to labelling him a "terrorist" when he proved to be not enough of a lackey (i.e., not enough of a terrorist toward the right people). The demonization of Arafat began with agit-prop ferocity immediately after Camp David, the original focus of our debate, and served as a convenient excuse (hmm, like WMD) for a rejectionist, maximalist policy vis a vis the occupied territories. You will no doubt disagree with this portrayal; but there´s one thing you just can't get away with: using the word "terrorist" for the guy you think looks "crazed" and represents the wrong side, while letting the killers of many, many more school children off the hook.

Clinton responded with an agreement for "the largest purchase of military helicopters by the Israeli Air Force in a decade" (Ha'aretz, 3 October, '01)

"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.