That's a fairly accurate description, Jay.

This was my cynical take on their future five months ago when Hamas formed the new, um, "government".

http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/2006/02/this-just-in_01.html

Sadly, a few of my predictions are coming to pass. I oughta go into the prophecy bidness...

First, today's Palestinians are not responsible for the mistakes of their grandfathers, so what was willingly or unwillingly done 60 years ago isn't a moral justification for ignoring today's problems. Half of the people living in Gaza are children. The "sins of the fathers" argument is how people make the preposterous case for slave reparations in our own country.

Second, the fact that neighboring countries have been unhelpful to the problems there is not any rationale for us not to care. It is a non-sequitur argument. Clearly there is a moral deficit disorder prevalent in the Arab world, but that does not need to relevant to our own sympathies.

Third, Hamas was elected by a minority of the Palestinians living there. Continuing to refer to "The Palestinians" as some monolithic group is too simple-minded. Many of them do suck. Many of them do not suck. And yes, the suckers are their own worst enemies, but that still isn't any moral justification for ignoring suffering of the innocents.

Summary -- tarring the Palestinians with these broad brushes is the lazy man's way of avoiding deeper reflection. Israel itself doesn't do that, and if anyone had a reason to utterly dismiss Palestinians, it would be Israel. Instead, they take amazingly great pains to isolate the culpable Palestinians from the innocents.

Jay, that is an extremely accurate and lucid overview of the situation.
While certainly there have been failings on both sides, only someone totally ignorant of the facts would hold Israel as the "cause" of all the Palestinians problems. Indeed, the Palestinians (and their Arab brothren) are their own worst enemies.

"First, today's Palestinians are not responsible for the mistakes of their grandfathers, so what was willingly or unwillingly done 60 years ago isn't a moral justification for ignoring today's problems."

When the IDF goes in to blow up some Palestinian bomb factory, they aren't doing it because someone's granddad was part of Black September they do it because someone's grandson is a current member of a terror cell.

Of course cirby, but blowing up bomb factories isn't the point of this piece. The piece is an attempted justification for ignoring all suffering, including the baby who was strolling by the bomb factory.

Saddam Hussein's 1991 invasion of Kuwait

Nitpicky, I know, but it was August 1990 not 1991.

And, oddly enough, when we see photos of dancing Palestinians, be it during the invasion of Kuwait or in the wake of 9-11, they're usually not elderly folks, either.

In fact, I don't believe too many of the Palestinian suicide bombers have been 70 year olds, demanding justice for their seized olive gardens. But I do believe that many Palestinian mothers, themselves no more than children at the time of the naqba are encouraging their children to become suicide bombers.

As for whether one can use the term "the Palestinians," I've no doubt that not every German engaged in genocidal activities, nor every Japanese beheaded Chinese in WWII. Yet, that did not prevent us from waging war against "the Germans" and "the Japanese." More to the point, were there some undercurrent of sympathetic Palestinians, one wonders where they are?

Where are the Palestinians who engage in peaceful, non-violent protest against Israeli policies? Where are the Palestinians who encourage peaceful coexistence in both English and Arabic? Where are the Palestinians who denounce and decry the suicide bombers, without the mealy-mouthed "but of course it's the fault of the Jooooosssss"?

Sometimes, the morally upright are a minority, and the majority are undeserving of sympathy.

Jay, you left out:

8a) And why did those Jewish settlers have to leave Gaza? Because the Palestinians make sure, one way or another, that their lands are judenrein.

The "sins of the fathers" argument is how people make the preposterous case for slave reparations in our own country.

The fathers aren't the ones blowing up the Tel Aviv bar mitzvah, Mr McCain ... can I call you John?

the fact that neighboring countries have been unhelpful to the problems there is not any rationale for us not to care

So who doesn't care? If you care to the point that you overlook the reality, then you're an idiot willing to self-delude on the path to self-righteousness. Sometimes caring means letting stupid people -- who had stupid fathers and grandfathers -- learn the hard way that they're being stupid.

Continuing to refer to "The Palestinians" as some monolithic group is too simple-minded.

Well, that's always the case, but so what? A minority of Americans elected Bush -- though he was the first to be elected by a majority of the voters in a helluva long time -- but there are practical realities which sorta preclude viewing "America" as anything but a single entity. We have "American" foreign policy, not a foreign policy by those who voted for Bush, and another by those who voted for Kerry, and a third for those -- like me -- who voted for anybody but either. By continually offering up irrelevant discernments for impertinent reasons you do little besides wrap yourself around your own axle, and get nowhere and accomplish nothing.

"The piece is an attempted justification for ignoring all suffering, including the baby who was strolling by the bomb factory."

...and where did you get that?

There's "ignoring" the suffering of the Palestinians (who are overwhelmingly in support of their idiot violent groups), then there's "well, we'd love to do something about the suffering, but they shoot at us when we try to stop it."

I appreciate the suffering of the innocent Palestinian children, but why should anyone care more for them than their own parents, leaders, and Arab brothers do? Which, by all appearences, is very little indeed.

There will only be peace in the holy land once the Palestinians start loving their children more than they hate the Jews.

Golda Meir stated, "We will have peace when Arabs love their children more then they hate us."

The Palestinians (and many of their Arab friends) appear to be dedicated to hate, violence and death. I'd like to convince these people in the value of civilized behavior and compromise, but that doesn't appear to be possible. Perhaps the Palestinians are best left on the dung-heap of history as a bad example.

McCain,

Imagine for a minute that Hamas, Fatah, etc all renounced violence. That the adopted the tactics of Gahndi. That nothing the Israeli's did would have them retaliate with violence. Got that picture in your mind.

Now how long do you think it would take to go from there to the Palestinians having their seperate state and being able to live in peace with Israel?

The palestinians use what happened 60 years ago to justify suicide bombers today.

But I guess all you wrote was just " an attempted justification for ignoring all suffering, including the baby who was strolling by the" suicide bomber.

I'd blame the monster that built the bomb factory in a neighborhood full of children, not the folks that had to take it out before it killed their own children.

rwilyrnz, you are basically making Osama's case for warring against the American people. Associating all people with their government, and associating all citizens monolithically, provides his moral justification for flying planes into buildings.

Jay hasn't actually stated a preference for changing Israeli or US policy. Presumably he does not take associations as far as you would in justifying the indescriminate slaughter of civilians. I take the piece to mean we should simply not care when it happens.

cirby, what data do you have that supports your supposition that Palestinians are "overwhelmingly in support of their idiot violent groups"?

As always, Jay, excellent post.

Hi!

I guess I'm one of your progressive critics. In this case, however, we're largely in agreement. Israel is (and has been for a LONG time) in a difficult spot with few (or maybe zero) good options. I find it hard to criticize the choices they've made. And the Palestinians have, in my opinion, made a disasterous choice with Hamas. I do feel Abbas was the best leadership they've ever had...but he was too weak to do anything constructive. If you read "The Missing Peace", a book by a middle-east envoy employed by both Democratic and Republican administration, you get to see he was a (similarly unsuccessful) moderating influence on Arafat.

I find it all very discouraging...

BTW - I find you folks to be intelligent and gracious, although I frequently disagree with you. I try to treat you (and everyone) the same. Thanks for listening!

yetanotherjohn,
To answer your question, it would take about 2 seconds assuming that the borders are fairly drawn. There is quite a dispute already over what constitutes fair boundaries, so the answer to your question becomes more complicated.

Regardless, this thread isn't about solving the conflict. Rather, it is a debate about whether anyone should care when women and children are killed. I really never thought I'd be arguing pro-life positions on a consevative website, but I suppose there is a first time for everything.

McCain:

The reality is that Osama didn't exactly check to see that no Muslims, no women, no children, and no non-oppressors of the ummah were in the Towers that September 11th. Nor did his predecessors back in 1993.

So, those who strike at us do, indeed, view us, all of us, as Americans and, as such, liable to die for the "sins" of our nation.

More to the point, if (big if) Osama is truly pissed because of American support for Israel, or for our support for the House of Saud, or because we use 25% of the Earth's resources, that's pretty much going to mean that all of us are fair game. Because governments are seen as embodying the nation, writ large.

You might not like that, but somehow, I don't think Osama and Zarqawi inquired as to personal politics or voting records before lopping off the head of Nick Berg and various others.

But what of it? Israel does not lop the heads off its prisoners, it does not indiscriminately bomb entire cities, nor lay waste to the countryside, nor perpetrate genocide. Is there really much doubt that, given the opportunity, both Hamas and Fatah would, at a minimum, make Jews a third-class citizen, and at worst perpetrate a new ethnic cleansing-cum-genocide, if they had the chance?

The lack of sympathy for the Palestinians is due to their proven track record of actions, up through the last few days and weeks, and as perpetrated by both Palestinians as individuals and by their government.

McCain --

"First, today's Palestinians are not responsible for the mistakes of their grandfathers..." If that's the case, why do they repeat them? It's not old guys that are blowing themselves up and murdering Israelis. It's adolescents and young men. It's a generalization, but I'd have to say that the national sport of Palestine, by all appearances, is bitter hatred, and it's pursued as avidly as European hooligans follow soccer. There are no rational, attainable objectives any adult would recognize. Just an endless series of bombings, kidnappings, and rocket attacks. Frankly, I think the Israelis have shown commendable restraint, far beyond what we ourselves would tolerate in similar circumstances.

"Second, the fact that neighboring countries have been unhelpful to the problems there is not any rationale for us not to care." I do have sympathies for the Palestinean people, especially their children, who are coached in bitter, irrational hatred like a terrorist farm team. Just like I have sympathy for German Hitler Jungen and Japanese children during WWII. Not that it changes one damn thing. You sound as though the Israelis enjoy this sh*t.

"Third, Hamas was elected by a minority of the Palestinians living there." If so, the "majority" should vote them out of office or otherwise replace them with rational, non-suicidal grown-ups. I'll bet there were Germans that objected to Hitler's rise. A few of them survived the war.

"Summary -- tarring the Palestinians with these broad brushes is the lazy man's way of avoiding deeper reflection." In my opinion, Jay's article is hardly superficial, but a well-read and well-reasoned argument.

You completely ignore the fact that the Israeli's military and security operations almost invariably follow aggression by the Palestinians. I'm not aware of ANY exceptions where the Israelis acted without deliberate and bloody provocations by the Palestinians. At bottom, your arguments seem to be that we should have sympathy for the poor defendant who murdered his parents because he's a poor little orphan boy.

Doesn't fly.

I don't understand this current situation at all...hasn't Hamas said all along that their goal was to destroy Israel? Now they're in charge of the government, war's brewing, Israel's got their army on their doorstep...

Well, Hamas? C'mon. Destroy Israel. This is your big chance...you can blame it on Israeli aggression and everything. You like to talk tough, now bullets are flying, this is your chance. Go, go get 'em, fulfill your charter!

Having never lived there or anything I guess I truly cannot grasp the Arab mind. They sit there, money flowing from the state they've vowed to destroy. Water, food, etc. flowing from the state they've vowed to destroy. Alive merely because the state they've vowed to destroy is too good to crush them like bugs because too many non-bug civilians would also be crushed.

And yet they sit there and demand that Israel leave them alone or they won't give back their hostage. They fire a few unguided rockets vaguely in the direction of Israel in response to warplanes dropping precision ordinance on their offices and infrastructure. I read earlier in the week about 'Israeli tanks massed at the border with thousands of troops in support' while 'dozens of Palestinian militants dug in and erected barriers to resist them'.

Like I said, I don't get the Arab mind, the mind that leads Hamas' leaders to threaten Israel as their collegues are rounded up and they themselves stare down the face of annihilation. It led Saddam to act like he had WMDs ready and waiting for his generals to use (and, boy, weren't they surprised) in repelling us and our allies when we decided we wouldn't stand for that sort of thing anymore. It let bagdad bob talk about the glorious defeat Iraq had handed the infidels as our tanks rolled down the street behind him. It leads Syria to talk about 'driving away' Israeli fighters as they buzz the building their President is sitting in, probably wetting himself quite severely.

And I think it's breaking. Mubarek is allowing elections to be contested (slowly...oh so slowly). Women are voting in Kuwait (in separate booths, but you gotta start somewhere) and running for office (not very effectively, yet, but look at us...200+ years and still no women Presidents, barely any female senators...). For years osama and his cronies thought we were paper tigers as, time and again, we ran or failed to react to their aggression, destruction, killing (I won't say who was President then). But now that people are standing up to the blusterers, we're starting to see who the paper tigers really are (c'mon out and fight, osama, if we're so weak and insignificant, why is he hiding after all, if we're so loathed and weak and he's so strong and blessed by Allah, rise up and smite us oh mighty smiter, we're not hiding from you)...they're the ones relying on 'international outrage' to save them...it worked against Israel years ago, it might work again...but it's getting weaker and weaker each time they pull it.

(so much for saving this for my own blog)

McCain -

Did you just invoke the Chewbacca Defense?

I mean no disrespect, but your points just don't seem to make any sense to me.

On your first item, if one is not to hold folk responsible for deeds 60 years ago, then why (extending the argument to what seems a natural enough conclusion) should the Palestinians in Gaza have any right to "return" to places within the borders of Israel? Why, similarly, should Israel feel any responsibility to let them in?

On your second item, if folk who share the Palestinians' geography, ethnicity, and religion, who helped put them where they are 60 years ago, and who have 100s of billions of dollars a year in cheap oil monies refuse to help them, how can that not affect the views of those in the US? If one is an orphan due to slaying one's own parents, does that one merit sympathy? If those in the Middle east who know these folk best have no sympathy for them, even despite their many commonalities and huge disposable incomes, might that not suggest that the folk may not MERIT much sympathy? If you say the kids are blameless, you may well be correct. However, if a person hurts an own child in an attempt to gain sympathy, might not extending copious help in response endanger the children of many? How is that so different from parents intentionally damaging their kids to make them higher earning beggars?

On your third point, if a government is lawfully elected in a free election, that same government represents the nation. If a majority declined to vote, well, a people deserve the government they elect, which brings me back to point #2 above. Should the US give aid to people because they elect a government freely and lawfully that does not serve them? Should it be a reward-able strategy to garner foreign aid by electing a sufficiently bad government? By that standard, the US may still owe the peoples of the former USSR for monies not given to them during the Stalin years, yes?

(edited to remove Chewbacca url)

"cirby, what data do you have that supports your supposition that Palestinians are "overwhelmingly in support of their idiot violent groups"?"

Ismail Haniya. Mahmoud Abbas.

Look those names up, find out what parties and organizations they belong to and what jobs they hold, and try to connect the dots.

The region under dispute, from Christ's time to 1948, averaged, according to historic demographers, 73% Arabic 27 % Jewish. Yet Tea's
recitation of Joan Peters type distortions is supposed to be accurate history?

Let's tack on the mass conversion of non-Semitic Khazars to Judaism, which constitutes a significant sector of Ashekenazis today.

Let's also acknowledge that as far as religious practise goes, "Bible Jews" are represented by the once-numerous,now small "Karaite" sect.members of which rejected the post-Christian era development of the Talmud.

The premise is then that non-Semitic practitioners of a religion bearing scant resemblance to that of biblical times --and the dominant secular component of that community--which composed a modest (27%) fraction of the endemic population until the 1940s --should have been able to flood the area and overpower the disenfranchised natives, without long term resistance.

Jay's history is untenable and so are his political wishes. And if the US doesn't adopt a totally neutral policy toward the combatants,or simply clear out, it is doomed to losing its already compromised position in the Moslem world.

http://www.palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Start.htm

a more objective history

Jim,
On your first question, I don't claim that Palestininans have any "right" to land any more than the Cherokee have a right to Georgia. I do claim that the world will be better off, we will be better off, and Israel will be better off when Palestinians eventually get some final borders. And I claim, rather curiously to some here, that Palestinian babies are important in God's eyes.

On your second question, although I understand your point, the entire argument is a logical fallacy. Those same neighbors have a whole lot less sympathy for Israeli Jews than they do for Palestinians. If you take your own argument seriously, you are forced to sympathize more with Palestinians than the Israeli Jews because of how their neighbors feel. Sorry, no deal.

On your 3rd point, I agree. We should use carrots and sticks with the Palestinians in order to pressure change. But refusing to sympathize when babies die is neither a carrot nor a stick, but rather, it is unhelpful to the situation and also immoral.

My sympathy for the "Palestinians" has all but disappeared, because they do not seek peace. They seek endless war.

It is by no means all of them, but the majority.

And the majority has chosen war. There is no sympathy for a people that straps bombs to its sons and daughters and sends them to blow themselves up on crowded buses or in markets and pizzarias.

Only pity.

I admire Israel for is restraint, for it has the power to have long since wiped out these people. Instead, Israel has been careful to attempt to separate the good from the bad, and try to deal with sane men instead of terrorists like Arafat and Hamas.

As has been said, the "Palestinians" have repeatedly been offered peace but have chosen war every time. Well, then they deserve to get what they want.

It reminds me of the words of Gen. William T. Sherman in 1864. In his Memoirs, Sherman relates the actual exchange between himself and Rebel Gen. Hood and the city fathers of Atlanta. Sherman had ordered the evacuation of Atlanta after he captured that city. Hood and city leaders protested, claiming the order unprecedented and that Sherman was appealing to the "dark history" of war.

After several letters exchanged hands, Sherman finally had enough, and told them the absolute truth: "No one will define war in harsher terms than I will: War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into this country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."

If this latest incident develops further--or the next flare up does--then the Palestinains will deserve "all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out" because that's the route they always chose.

Palestinian children deserve much *much* better because they *are* precious in God's eyes.

You say set borders... and everyone is going to agree to those borders, eh?

People have made excellent points here and none of them equate to an antipathy toward innocent children. "Why should we care more than their parents or other Arab states" is pointing out that unless those parties start doing something significantly different there is nothing that can be done to really change the futures of those children. "Care" means "Do."

And no, 70 year olds don't volunteer to be suicide bombers... they convince teenagers to die instead. Because, you know, a young man has so much less potential than a 70 year old grandpa, so much less to contribute to the community. And Palestinians elect the "Mother of Martyrs" to office for her *wonderful* accomplishment of bringing children into the world and convincing them to blow themselves and Israeli civilians to kingdom come.

Pointing out that *our* lack of care for Palestinian children simply isn't the problem is just pointing out that with friends (and parents and religious leaders) like these, who needs enemies?

Big Mo:

I agree with you, but the average American -- or the average Westerner -- would not. The related quote from Gen. Sherman is also on point: "War is method that our enemy has chosen, and I say, 'Let us give them all they want.' Generations will pass before they ever turn to it again."

An earlier comment said it very well, if the Palestinians decided to use peaceful means, they would get their own state in quick order. They don't want that. They are adopting what radical fundamentalist Islam is moving the Muslim world toward: a culture of hate, violence, and death.

It's sick.

Hoop, I don't think that website you touted is very objective. I looked through the subject index list: