News US wants to pump Iraqi oil to Haifa

[El Hombre Invisible]

That, on the other hand, was a good thing if you ask me: after all, the Taliban REALLY were a terrorist-supporting regime with a direct link to 9/11. Of course, it was a failure in that they didn't find OBL in the end, but that's more a technical failure than anything else. The US was actually quite friendly towards Afghanistan ; after all, to play for sure, they could have nuked out the entire country too - that way they would have really eliminated OBL without any question. I still wonder why they didn't do that.

I pray you're joking.

 

[Art]

You do know that being an undercover cop doesn't make you a criminal, that vaccines aren't released in the open, and your neighbour doesn't live in a forest, right? Unless, that is, you are a squirrel. Are you a squirrel, Russ?

I don't think he's a squirrel as he doesn't have any 'nuts'. Unless you count being one.

 

[Yonoz]

First, I want to apologise if any of my statements were taken as personal attacks by anyone; they weren't meant to be because I just don't do that sort of analysis. I do not think any 'people' or any 'race' is 'bad' or 'evil'. I am truly an internationalist - totally anti-patriotism, anti-racist and anti-nationalist in any shape and form; I think the only real solution to the world's social problems is if we ever manage to adopt an internationalist, pro-human way of thinking and living.

There was no need to apologise, I did not take any personal offence. I would very much like to hold and internationalist view similar to yours, but I think our history has taught us that there can never be absolute assimilation, because there can never be absolute acceptance between different races. Furthermore, to have such a view means to clear yourself of your history and culture - I like the multiple shades of the world, and Israel is a good place to witness the beauty of variety, because of all the different cultures represented here, made even more beautiful by the ways in which Jews who have returned after several generations in the diaspora have brought customs, trades and especially cuisines from the different cultures within they resided. Sure, there are racist jokes about the different Israeli sub-cultures but deep down we are all united, and that unity is made even stronger in times of external conflict. I'd like to find a good middle ground between love of self and love of humanity.

When I make statements about countries, I always mean the adminstrations'/governments' policies in those countries. Most of the individuals caught up in the madness (soldiers, for example) are not (as far as I am concerned) to blame. They are simply doing what they are told to do in some cases, and in others they're just trying to stay alive. In some countries there are conscription laws, and so people have no option but to be in the army. In other situations, people are forced by poverty to join organisations such as defence forces that open up opportunities for them that they would not have otherwise. Having clarified my position, I'll respond to your points in detail.

I'd still like to distinguish between democratic and non-democratic regimes. Israel is democratic. As such the Israeli public is responsible for its leadership's actions. As an individual that identifies himself with an opposition party, it may seem I should not feel so much responsibility for my government's actions, and even more so as someone who was born into the conflict. However, I do try to take positive action, to influence my compatriots and during my service I requested to be posted to a front line unit - I feel that is the best place to make a difference. I think most of the conscientious objectors are very brave, and that they are playing an important role in Israeli society - which like all other societies is composed of balances and counter-balances - but in my equation the good outweighes the bad in the IDF and I would rather take an active role, that is to try to steer things in the right direction, as far as my microcosm is concerned.
Your point about trying to stay alive is very important. This feeling is manifested not only in the personal sense, but also in the national one. I do not think Israel's future is guaranteed as that of other nations. We are still struggling to preserve our existence here, and there's no strong foundation for the international acceptance of Israel's right for existence, as some of the posts in this forum show. Conscription actually works in favour of the peace camp because it ensures the security forces get a more-or-less fair representation of the makeup of the society's political views. It is still obvious that a militant people find their way to combat units more than dovish ones, but some people who would otherwise would not have considered joining the forces find themselves in a military career. Some of my friends are like that, and I am very happy there are people like them in the Army.

Ok, as you say - it is a whole other argument. Nevertheless, it seems to me that only a 'cooperative' government will be allowed to come to power in Iraq.

I think in this particular case the US has been very cautious and tried to meddle as little as possible in the actual make-up of the Iraqi governing bodies, and the interim representatives were selected in good faith. Obviously, as the main power to currently secure Iraq, they must seek cooperation with the new leadership, and even more obvious, is the fact that with the current power struggles (in which other countries such as Iran are strongly involved) in Iraq, it is crucial for any elected body or individual to cooperate with the same power that ensures its safety! I see this cooperation as totally natural and I believe the US is honestly trying to establish a nation in which the many different groups, that have so far only battled each other, receive equal rights and a fair representation, and will cooperate with each other. I think most of those who post the usual non-constructive criticism here have very little insight into the matter and frankly, this forum has made me realize a few things about the information revolution and the internet (but that is a subject for another discussion).

I could provide plenty of historical evidence of other countries where this is a precondition for survival in government - but this has been done on other threads. I do have one new source of information to add to this debate, however... Has anyone heard of/read John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man I heard a radio interview with Perkins, and he said that he decided to 'spill the beans' as a result of 9/11 - anyway, here's an excerpt from a review:

The intricacies of modern economics evade me, so I cannot comment much on this matter. Regardless, there are so many different people and bodies involved in the Iraqi situation, I find it hard to believe there's some puppeteer pulling the strings behind all these mechanisms. There is obviously a natural affinity between power and wealth, but (and I'll allow myself to slip into yet another topic now) that is just one of the many things broken with the modern world and IMHO it is not as influencial as you may view it. It may be a contributing factor but it is not as if it is the sole reason or even a major cause for the situation in Iraq, in my very humble opinion.

The thing is, it's all connected - and we cannot hope to understand what is happening if we try to examine everything in isolation. We have to study history (including recent history) if we are to have any hope of understanding what's going on. The events recounted in Perkins' book help shed light on what's happening now.

My short life experience has tought me this: you can read and study and research and fill your head with facts and figures, but to get a good grasp on anything you need to experience it as closely as possible. You can't teach a colour blind person in what way blue differs from red. Reading some of the comments here reminds me of when city folk used to come to our Kibbutz. They'd see cows get milked and would be amazed. It's not as if they didn't know how cows are milked, or never imagined it or saw it in a picture - it's just not the same until you experience it first hand. You want to know about Iraq? Talk to an Iraqi - you'll learn things you'll never find on the net. Talk to two Iraqis - you'll more than double that knowledge. You think socialism is a good concept? Experience life in a socialist community - join a commune or something. Heck, come here and live on a Kibbutz - there are some that still cling to the old ideals. Then Marx will read out like a children's book. The point I'm trying to make is that when you study too much of the theory and have too little experience, you can get a skewed perspective on things.

I think the Israeli government has been facing criticisms for several years, though, Yonoz - regarding their armed forces' actions in the zones where they are active. I know that in their simplistic way, many ordinary people (whose views are moulded by the media) not directly involved in the conflict have also expressed anti-semitic views. They are wrong. On the other hand, I can understand the ordinary members of Palestinian populations who have had actual bad experiences involving members of the IDF being racist; one has to expect that (perhaps you disagree? It would just seem logical to me that if your relative has been maimed/killed by someone you may hold a grudge against them).

I have a serious objection to the way the media reports on Israel. Looking at the headings saddens me. Reading the articles makes me furious. It's not only what is reported, it's especially what isn't. How many of the zealous critics here know that yesterday a 21-year old Palestinian female from Gaza, who was previously treated in an Israeli hospital for burns from a gas cylinder explosion and was granted a pass so she could attend her check-up, was caught trying to cross into Israel wearing a 10kg explosive device on her way to performing a suicide bombing at the hospital? These would-be-suicide bombers are stopped in volumes you are unaware of. It just doesn't get reported. When IDF forces enter a Palestinian town, it's all over the news - and there'll always be cameras there, because it's easy to simply take pictures of APCs and bulldozers without reporting on their reason for being there. I've also noticed that when a Palestinian militant is killed in whatever circumstances the news headings read "Palestinian Killed" as if he was another innocent civilian. Of course, when an unarmed civilian settler is killed, the heading will be sure to mention the fact he was a settler. (Now Art will quickly pull out the list of Rupert Murdoch's media holdings, to demonstrate how all these organisations have no journalistic integrity compared to the unbiased anti-war, anti-bush sources linked to in this forum, as if their authors are free of any agenda).
I understand the Palestinian views, since they experience the same situation - on the opposite side, perhaps, but there's still a lot of similarities between our views, especially in both sides' expectations of the other. However, I find the Palestinian presence in the international media and information channels inconsistent with my impression from personal encounters with Palestinians and other interfaces such as a Palestinian-Israeli students' paper I read or editorials by Palestinian journalists in the only Israeli newspaper I hold reliable, Ha'aretz. It is not hard to find Israeli opposition to the occupation, but it's very hard to find any sort of Palestinian introspection without digging very deeply. Unfortunately, it emerges sometimes as if that would mean Israel is the only side at fault here.

 

[Yonoz]

This situation is unfolding at the moment, and one can't yet say where it will go...

Well, that can be said about anything anytime in the middle east...

I don't know what's happening elsewhere, but the radio and TV news here does cover this issue consistently, and I am also reading about it online. I understand that the issue is very divisive.

You may be better educated, but I see no recognition of the how difficult this is for Israel to carry out. We're expected to perform acts against our own citizens that other nations would naturally object to. I cannot think of any historical precedent to the disengagement plan, apart from the withdrawal from Sinai but there are still major differences between the two events.

I did not mean to imply that the Israeli people are ruthless barbarians when I used that term - I used it as a blanket term because I could not list all the separate incidents that would be relevant (there are too many of them). And again, I must emphasise that I do not blame the Israeli people, not even the soldiers. The IDF is a conscript army, right? And also, I have in the past read reports of a number of conscientious objectors who refuse to serve in the IDF - because it generally takes a very brave person to stand up and be counted publicly on issues such as conscription, I imagine there are other IDF members who aren't entirely happy with some of the situations they are put into (but I'm only guessing).
Yonoz, I did not imply this at all. I believe that armies act on orders they are given; whenever I analyse a situation, I hold governments responsible for what their armies do; I do not hold the individuals comprising the armies responsible (although, as you point out, there are probably some bad people in all armies - these would be a very tiny minority, I imagine).

Still, you must remember decisions are not carried out blindly, and the issue of what is and what isn't illegal and when orders should be disobeyed is explained to every soldier in their first days in the army. This issue has been dealt with many times and there are many official and unofficial safeguards in place to avoid using the army in incorrect manners. The supreme court is always discussing some appeal to prevent the military doing something, often ruling against the military's view, and the media publicises any breach of conduct without restraints. The public has even come to disrespect some popular journalists for publishing "facts" later disproved by the army, such as the case of Imam al-Hamas.
Once again, IMO in a democratic country the electorate is reponsible for the government's decisions. I wish we had a Milosevich to use as a scapegoat sometimes, but that's the burden of democracy. I can only hope other nations around us will take responsibility for all their leaderships' actions.

But Yonoz, this situation must be addressed - surely you agree? See, I would hope that if I had been alive during WWII I would have fought against the atrocities being carried out against the Jewish people. In fact, it was the book 'The Diary of Anne Frank' (that a marvellous English teacher introduced me to when I was in high school) that aroused my passionate hatred of injustice - in fact, I could say without exaggeration that reading this book changed the course of my life. I don't think you really understand what I'm on about - I just can't be silent when a situation is not right because I believe that silence is complicity and is unforgivable. I am a humanitarian-type person - I cannot stand suffering and injustice - now please, hear me out (I haven't finished my response yet)...

That is a very good point, but this is not the Second World War and there's no genocide going on here, contrary to what some posters here will have you believe. If you truly care for the Iraqi people (all of them, not just those that Saddam favoured) I would think you would have less criticism of the US. When I sum it up, it's done more good than harm, even from the most cynical point of view I can muster. Some forum members apparently expect a democratic nation to be established overnight, that external forces will not try to clandestinely take an unfair advantage of the weaknesses of this interim state to advance their agendas, and that rebuilding a country that has been abused by its leaders for their private profit for decades should be accomplished without using any of its resources.
I've previously mentioned a few other conflicts that IMO should trouble the world more than the Iraqi or Palestinian ones. Since the attention given to these conflicts is, as a fact, not proportionate to the amount of suffering or savagery, I come to the conclusion that other factors influence the critics' selection of targets.

I stressed that I did not think that the US presence in Iraq has anything to do with Israel. However, I do think that Israel is part of the bigger political picture, especially concerning the US administration's strategic aims in the middle east - but this is completely different to saying that the US and its allies invaded Iraq in order to help Israel. I doubt the US administration would ever do that (not unless it suited other important US administration aims as well).

Well then, what do you think the US administration's strategic aim in the ME are, and what role does Israel play?

Yonoz, believe me - I know exactly how complex the situation is for people living in Israel. Honestly, I grew up as a privileged white person in South Africa (with legislated racist policies - the infamous 'apartheid'). The inner conflict I felt the more and more I learned about the system there does, I believe, match the complexity of the situation in Israel. I had to learn all about what was being done 'in my name' and with my tacit approval. It was really ugly. It was a very hard lesson - and it took me a long, long time to figure out what was really going on and to figure out exactly why I was not to blame. Of course, that involved my deciding to no longer be silent and complicit (and therefore supporting the 'Nazis' in power at the time).

I understand your sympathy with my place in Israeli society, but I must draw some distinctions. While racism plays a role in this conflict, it is not of the same sort as the apartheid rule. The reasons for the apparent "privilege" of Israelis over Palestinians by the state are not without reasoning, as much as I may disagree with it. This much violent conflict grew out of other conflicts, and as former PM Barak said, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Both sides have made wrong moves, but it seems to me only one side is attempting to undo them.
Thanks for sharing your experience, you should be aware that the same argumentativeness I display on this forum is used when I deal with Israelis holding the opposite opinions to those I argue against here.

Yonoz, this is precisely the complexity I understand at a deep level because it's the kind of complexity I've had to sort through myself. I haven't given you any of the details (it is the details that make up a person and a life) - all I can say is that I really empathise with you and that it matters to me that you not misinterpret what I was saying. I have to admit, now, that I didn't take enough care in the post that prompted this response from you; I should have known better and crafted my response much more carefully.

No worries :) It's much more interesting that way.

Umm - but blowing up fishing boats? Sorry, Yonoz - but perhaps they were just trying to make a living? The complexity again, I know... 'Rights' are a very complex matter too; what happens to the fishermen - how do they make a living? Do they have other options? Can they fish in other waters? As I admitted earlier, I don't know much about the geography and sea resources etc in that area.

These fishermen fish off the shores of Gaza and may travel to certain distances determined by the Navy according to environmental and intelligence data so that incursions into Israel and weapons-smuggling can be prevented. Between Israel and Gaza there is a restricted zone where only the Navy operates. Sometimes fishing boats enter this zone, either by accident or to fish as the waters off Gaza are fished heavily. The navy vessels then intercept them, sometimes returning them to Gaza, sometimes confiscating their boat or motor (they may only use motors up to a specific strength, so that they will be unable to outrun the Navy boats) or even detaining the fishermen themselves. The exact procedures of approaching a Palestinian boat were revised after the cases I mentioned, in which terrorists blew the boats up as the Naval vessels approached to collect ID certificates. The sailors suffered shrapnel injuries, including to the eyes. Before this the navy boats would circle them, signal in different ways, then approach the vessel closer. Now, to avoid risking the sailors, they resort to other means such as firing shots across the bow and eventually firing at the vessels. Since this process takes a while, there were cases in which Palestinian boats would travel far out to pull the navy vessels to them, and then another would try to scramble closer to the shore to Israeli shores. There was also a case in which a fake mayday call was made and a rescue boat complete with a radio beacon and a suicide bomber on board was found by the navy boat, but it did not respond and so was shot at. The shots hit the explosives and it blew up.

Do you mean regarding the Gaza thing? Blum didn't say that - that was me

I meant the comment about pumping water from Iraq to Israel.

 

[alexandra]

I would very much like to hold and internationalist view similar to yours, but I think our history has taught us that there can never be absolute assimilation, because there can never be absolute acceptance between different races.

Hmm - and yet, when I think about it logically, this is the only solution I can see to the current problems we face. I do believe that if people were allowed to get on with things and lived within a system that emphasised cooperation rather than competition, much could be achieved regarding integration. There aren't such significant differences between different races except those stirred up by powerful groups that have their own agendas. For example, from what I have read about the conflict in Northern Ireland, religion has been a rallying point in a conflict that ultimately involved unequal distribution of wealth and resources. I also believe that humanity has a number of formidable problems to solve and that these can only be solved by working together, eg. developing sustainable energy resources to protect the Earth's environment.

Furthermore, to have such a view means to clear yourself of your history and culture - I like the multiple shades of the world, and Israel is a good place to witness the beauty of variety, because of all the different cultures represented here, made even more beautiful by the ways in which Jews who have returned after several generations in the diaspora have brought customs, trades and especially cuisines from the different cultures within they resided.

But does an internationalist view necessarily mean forgetting one's own history and culture? I, too, enjoy the cultural diversity that exists in the world (insofar as it still exists, in any case – much regional cultural diversity is being severely threatened by the spread of the products of giant multinational corporations and the western ‘culture’ of consumerism). Historically, integration has occurred without the original cultures being entirely lost – what happens instead is that a unified, richer culture emerges. One example that comes to mind is the unification of the ancient Greek city states into a nation by King Phillip II of Macedonia in 338 BC.

Life is fluid and social formations change over time. There has been much written recently about the ‘death’ of the nation-state as an outdated form of social organisation given the increasing effects of globalisation on national economies (although there is much controversy about this). Regional cultures are very similar to one another, it seems to me, despite political conflicts – and as such they need not be lost but could, instead, be valued and even nurtured. One example of very similar cultures that I can think of off-hand is the similarity between Greek and Turkish (and, come to think of it, many Middle Eastern) cultures – they eat the same sorts of foods, look very similar, etc, and yet patriotism and history makes them into mortal enemies.

I'd still like to distinguish between democratic and non-democratic regimes. Israel is democratic. As such the Israeli public is responsible for its leadership's actions. As an individual that identifies himself with an opposition party, it may seem I should not feel so much responsibility for my government's actions, and even more so as someone who was born into the conflict. However, I do try to take positive action, to influence my compatriots and during my service I requested to be posted to a front line unit - I feel that is the best place to make a difference. I think most of the conscientious objectors are very brave, and that they are playing an important role in Israeli society - which like all other societies is composed of balances and counter-balances - but in my equation the good outweighes the bad in the IDF and I would rather take an active role, that is to try to steer things in the right direction, as far as my microcosm is concerned.

I understand your reasoning regarding the decision you have made about how you can best have a positive influence on your society’s present and future (which is not to say I would personally have made the same decision, though – but I am not qualified to have a firm opinion on this issue as I do not live where you live; I understand this).

Your point about trying to stay alive is very important. This feeling is manifested not only in the personal sense, but also in the national one. I do not think Israel's future is guaranteed as that of other nations. We are still struggling to preserve our existence here, and there's no strong foundation for the international acceptance of Israel's right for existence, as some of the posts in this forum show.

And I would argue that I go a step further than the survival of nations: my concern is the survival of the human race – it seems to me that unless we adopt a less conflict-driven way of living, it won’t matter whether any particular nation survives because humanity as a whole will destroy its environment and itself. I guess an argument against what I am saying here is that there is no hard ‘proof’ that we are anywhere close to that situation – yet more and more scientists are concerned enough to be adding their voices (despite the personal risks they face in doing so) to those of the experts trying to alert policy-makers to the dangers we are facing.

Conscription actually works in favour of the peace camp because it ensures the security forces get a more-or-less fair representation of the makeup of the society's political views. It is still obvious that a militant people find their way to combat units more than dovish ones, but some people who would otherwise would not have considered joining the forces find themselves in a military career. Some of my friends are like that, and I am very happy there are people like them in the Army.

This is a different perspective on conscription (one I had not considered until reading this) – food for thought; thank you

… I believe the US is honestly trying to establish a nation in which the many different groups, that have so far only battled each other, receive equal rights and a fair representation, and will cooperate with each other.

I disagree with you - from my analysis, I still firmly believe that the US administration’s agenda is not so benevolent. Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree

The intricacies of modern economics evade me, so I cannot comment much on this matter. Regardless, there are so many different people and bodies involved in the Iraqi situation, I find it hard to believe there's some puppeteer pulling the strings behind all these mechanisms. There is obviously a natural affinity between power and wealth, but (and I'll allow myself to slip into yet another topic now) that is just one of the many things broken with the modern world and IMHO it is not as influencial as you may view it. It may be a contributing factor but it is not as if it is the sole reason or even a major cause for the situation in Iraq, in my very humble opinion.

This is perhaps why we disagree on the above point. I have learned, through my own experiences, that it is important to always conduct a 'big picture' analysis in terms of who benefits materially (economically, strategically, in terms of control of scarce resources such as land, water, energy supplies, etc) from a given situation and how they benefit – to me this is the crucial question, and answering it tells me what is going on in any given situation. Economic matters seem to be the crux to understanding conflict situations.

My short life experience has tought me this: you can read and study and research and fill your head with facts and figures, but to get a good grasp on anything you need to experience it as closely as possible.

But on the other hand, my life experiences have taught me that if you don’t research and study the situation you are caught up in, you are sometimes not aware of all the salient facts. Also, I have learned through my life’s experiences that when you are in a situation you can’t get the distance you require to view things objectively. In my own case, I could only begin getting the ‘big picture’ perspective of the situation I was in after I started researching, studying and thinking about it deeply. Even with all this, I could only truly grasp the big picture once I was completely removed from the situation.

You can't teach a colour blind person in what way blue differs from red. Reading some of the comments here reminds me of when city folk used to come to our Kibbutz. They'd see cows get milked and would be amazed. It's not as if they didn't know how cows are milked, or never imagined it or saw it in a picture - it's just not the same until you experience it first hand. You want to know about Iraq? Talk to an Iraqi - you'll learn things you'll never find on the net. Talk to two Iraqis - you'll more than double that knowledge.

The accounts you get will depend on the individuals you talk to, from my experience. I can’t imagine I’d get the same opinion from a member of the present Iraqi government as I would from an Iraqi insurgent. Although I agree with you that it is important to get the opinions of people who are within a situation, I think it is also important to keep in mind that these opinions are probably biased precisely because the individuals are caught up in the here-and-now. I have a real ‘thing’ about trying to aim for objectivity when analysing any given situation. Marx’s theory is precisely what taught me that it is important to try to do this, and it also provides me with the analytical tools to do it (it taught me the importance of understanding the objective, material conditions of any given situation).

You think socialism is a good concept? Experience life in a socialist community - join a commune or something.

This is a good idea; however, there is no socialist community to join!

Heck, come here and live on a Kibbutz - there are some that still cling to the old ideals. Then Marx will read out like a children's book. The point I'm trying to make is that when you study too much of the theory and have too little experience, you can get a skewed perspective on things.

You make a valid point; on the other hand, I believe I also make a valid counter-point to this argument with my statement that it is difficult to be objective about any situation one happens to be in. These ‘grey situations’ are very difficult to analyse when one is an active player in them – I think perhaps we both agree on that? On the other hand, I am well aware that in such urgent situations one is forced to take a stand – being ‘neutral’ is not an option, since neutrality implies compliance with the status quo and thus consent with whatever is happening.

I have a serious objection to the way the media reports on Israel. Looking at the headings saddens me. Reading the articles makes me furious. It's not only what is reported, it's especially what isn't…When IDF forces enter a Palestinian town, it's all over the news - and there'll always be cameras there, because it's easy to simply take pictures of APCs and bulldozers without reporting on their reason for being there. I've also noticed that when a Palestinian militant is killed in whatever circumstances the news headings read "Palestinian Killed" as if he was another innocent civilian. Of course, when an unarmed civilian settler is killed, the heading will be sure to mention the fact he was a settler.

Yonoz, this is not true from my experience of the media both here and before (when I lived in South Africa). Palestinian suicide bombers get lots of coverage here, and it is certainly not sympathetic. Israeli military operations are also covered, and this is done quite neutrally on the news. There are, however, regularly documentaries on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and these may sometimes focus on the sufferings of one side or of the other (not all documentaries focus on the plight of the Palestinians; some focus on the suffering of Israeli people). Perhaps this differs from the news portrayal of the conflict in other parts of the world, but I thought it only fair to tell you what happens here.

I understand the Palestinian views, since they experience the same situation - on the opposite side, perhaps, but there's still a lot of similarities between our views, especially in both sides' expectations of the other. However, I find the Palestinian presence in the international media and information channels inconsistent with my impression from personal encounters with Palestinians and other interfaces such as a Palestinian-Israeli students' paper I read or editorials by Palestinian journalists in the only Israeli newspaper I hold reliable, Ha'aretz. It is not hard to find Israeli opposition to the occupation, but it's very hard to find any sort of Palestinian introspection without digging very deeply. Unfortunately, it emerges sometimes as if that would mean Israel is the only side at fault here.

I am well aware that there is Israeli opposition to the occupation (the source of the current deep divisions within Israeli society) – there have been a number of radio, television and newspaper reports about it. And regarding who is ‘at fault’: from this distance, I see a situation involving a cycle/spiral of violence – as one group retaliates against another’s actions, it all continues to escalate… the violence seems to be feeding more violence (exactly what has happened in other conflict situations as well, eg. in Ireland and in many African countries).