|
2) Holding Israel to a larger piece of the responsibility pie is reasonable, but one should note that Israel IS, at least in it's military operations, being much more responsible and careful than Hamas. One can argue (and be correct, in my opinion) that as a country Israel is doing wrong by not finding a peaceful solution, but when it actually comes to a war, like now, the military does do whatever one could ask for to avoid casualties while still obtaining it's objectives.But that's my point. The IDF cando far more than Hamas to avoid casualties while still obtaining its objectives.
Obvious example: Hamas can't set up military bases outside of civilian areas. Any attempt to do so would just be destroyed. It has to hide among the civilian population. But that means they're using "human shields".Hamas has far less options than Israel does.
I understand this. What I'm saying is that Israel does use it's extra level of freedom to do more than Hamas. My very long list of examples in the post you responded to was a winded way to say that this shouldn't be taken for granted, as is evident by other Arabian armies in the surrounding stomping the Palestinians much harder than the IDF does.
As freehold DM mentioned, "they are worse than us" is not much of a line of defense. Still, there is some solace in knowing that Israel is not nearly as bad as it could be, and that when viewed in a broader, more encompassing eye, the scale of evil in Israel is very restrained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Israel demands a solution where there is no rocket fire. It doesn't matter how little rocket fire there is, or that its killing fewer people than bathtub accidents are. They demand ZERO rocket fire.
There is only one solution where there is no rocket fire, and that's final.
Its a lose lose for the other states. Taking in the refugees would cost money, deprive them of a weapon, and invite retaliation any time Israel decided to snag some more land.Also, they all look the same to us, but they were already a not so popular ethnic group BEFORE this whole mess started.
It would certainly deprive them of a weapon, because once the Palestinian issue is resolved, people might realize that the only liberally-minded nation in the region was Israel. Way easier to get the world distracted by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than let the world focus on the moral, economic, educational, and cultural failings of the rest of the Middle East (quick: which nation in the region is rated highest by the Human Development Index? Here's a hint: it's the only functional democracy in the region).
The sooner the Palestinians figure that out other interests need them as martyrs, the sooner a real and lasting peace will be forged.
I wouldn't exactly call a country where more than half the adult population isn't allowed to vote a "functional democracy".
If Jordan (or any other country) allowed refugees, Israel would simply use it as a pretense for invasion claiming that Country X is harboring Hamas terrorists. It has happened before.
Israel demands a solution where there is no rocket fire. It doesn't matter how little rocket fire there is, or that its killing fewer people than bathtub accidents are. They demand ZERO rocket fire.
There is only one solution where there is no rocket fire, and that's final.
I C wut ur did thar.
Its a lose lose for the other states. Taking in the refugees would cost money, deprive them of a weapon, and invite retaliation any time Israel decided to snag some more land.Also, they all look the same to us, but they were already a not so popular ethnic group BEFORE this whole mess started.
It would certainly deprive them of a weapon, because once the Palestinian issue is resolved, people might realize that the only liberally-minded nation in the region was Israel. Way easier to get the world distracted by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than let the world focus on the moral, economic, educational, and cultural failings of the rest of the Middle East (quick: which nation in the region is rated highest by the Human Development Index? Here's a hint: it's the only functional democracy in the region).
The sooner the Palestinians figure that out other interests need them as martyrs, the sooner a real and lasting peace will be forged.
I wouldn't exactly call a country where more than half the adult population isn't allowed to vote a "functional democracy".
If Jordan (or any other country) allowed refugees, Israel would simply use it as a pretense for invasion claiming that Country X is harboring Hamas terrorists. It has happened before.
Can you provide proof that Arab citizens aren't allowed to vote in Israel?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arab citizens are allowed to vote, though they do face other restriction. I suspect, especially given the "more than half" bit, that he was referring to the adult population of the whole territory Israel controls. Both Israel itself and the Occupied territories.
That's correct. Israel doesn't recognize the state of Palestine, and thus the population of Palestine is de facto part of Israel. They are not citizens of Israel, of course, because that would be democracy and the racist war-mongers in the Knesset would be voted out in a week.
Can you imagine if the US decided that all Native Americans (probably the closest analogy, but you'll forgive since there isn't a perfect one) were not US citizens and were denied the franchise? Being able to pick and choose who among your population are considered "citizens" and thus allowed the privilege of participating in democracy is fascism at its most pure.
Interesting fact, in 1967 Israel offered them citizenship.
In addition, the territories aren't recognized as part of Israel, by the people in them or the international community.
The point does stand, Arab citizens are allowed to vote and are even represented in the federal government.
Well, voting is a legal matter. If you aren't legally part of a country, why should you vote in it?
Large portions of Iraq were controlled by the United States, should we have let them join in our elections during that time?
The comment also implied that Arab's aren't allowed to vote in Israel, which is a common misconception. Perpetuating falsehoods doesn't help anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, voting is a legal matter. If you aren't legally part of a country, why should you vote in it?
Well, when you live in an area under military control by a power that won't recognize your state's sovereignty, and you commute to Israel every day for work for your entire life, yes you should be able to vote.
By your logic, all the US would have to do is declare minority neighborhoods in the US to be part of a different country to disenfranchise entire swaths of our country. No dice.
There's NO WAY you would tolerate a policy that granted citizenship to US residents based solely on their heritage.
I find it telling how willing you are to take the imperialist side of this argument.
The point is that pointing at a nation as a shining example of democracy when they have an entire subject population that doesn't count is hypocritical.
Bingo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They should have their own sovereign country and vote in it's elections.
While the sovereign country isn't there - Palestinians do get to vote in elections for representatives. If the agreement holds there will be an election within 6 months.
Problem was that after that agreement was signed - Israel stepped up the rhetoric and arguably agressively pushed for the conflict that's currently playing out.
thejeff - thats where we get into the grey area of rhetoric and response.
Operation Brother's Keeper - details are there for people to read / form their own opinions of.
In other Middle Eastern news, my Former Arab Terrorist friend is entertaining notions of vacationing in Damascus.
Well, voting is a legal matter. If you aren't legally part of a country, why should you vote in it?
Large portions of Iraq were controlled by the United States, should we have let them join in our elections during that time?
The comment also implied that Arab's aren't allowed to vote in Israel, which is a common misconception. Perpetuating falsehoods doesn't help anyone.
We didn't maintain that control for decades with no end in sight.
I'm not even saying they should be allowed to vote in Israeli elections. They shouldn't. They should have their own sovereign country and vote in it's elections.
The point is that pointing at a nation as a shining example of democracy when they have an entire subject population that doesn't count is hypocritical.
Feel free to quote where I claimed that Israel was a shining beacon of democracy.
You objected to Meatrace who was objecting to Doug's Workshop.
The words "shining democracy" weren't in the latter's post; they were "only functional democracy in the region."
You objected to Meatrace who was objecting to Doug's Workshop.
The words "shining democracy" weren't in the latter's post; they were "only functional democracy in the region."
I was objecting to the implication that Arab's are disenfranchised in the state of Israel. Which is provably false.
Voter turnout has even increased over the past few years. Though it's still below it's all-time high of 75% in the late 90's.
I'm not claiming the Palestinians are even treated well. They aren't. But making implications of an apartheid system is demonstrably false. The people in the occupied territories aren't Israeli. They're supposed to be Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian. Except Jordan relinquished their claim to the land a few years back, effectively casting the West Bank to the wind.
Israel hasn't treated them well, but you don't need to imply things are worse than they are to prove that. Arabs are just as enfranchised as any other religious/ethnic group.
When Egypt took over the Gaza Strip, it didn't offer the residents citizenship.
Most people in the Golan Heights hold Syrian citizenship.
In 1988, Jordan stripped all residents of the West Bank of citizenship.
Everyone has done their best to screw the Palestinians.
The US has been occupying Puerto Rico for 116 years.
The 2-State solution is ridiculous as well. It'd be a country that can't sustain itself as it can't provide food or water, because no way Israel gives up the water rights to the river Jordan.
Let's say it happens, it's a country that can't even provide itself a subsistence level of existence. It's utterly reliant on the neighboring economy of Israel, which would now be free to impose tariffs, taxes, levies, etc on workers coming from Palestine. Now it can profit off their labor, while denying the government of Palestine the economic flow it needs to sustain itself, crippling the government and ensuring it stays weak. But Israel will have divested itself of responsibility for maintaining it and all events inside will be at the feet of the Palestinian government.
A state of perpetual poverty that absolves Israel of responsibility. That is what the 2-state solution means. Giving all the absolute worst land to the Palestinian, while retaining control of Jerusalem and all the water they can get.
The 2-state solution is already here. Formalizing it isn't going to change anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was objecting to the implication that Arab's are disenfranchised in the state of Israel. Which is provably false.You objected to Meatrace who was objecting to Doug's Workshop.
The words "shining democracy" weren't in the latter's post; they were "only functional democracy in the region."
Comrade Jeff's reference to a "shining democracy" was in reference to Citizen Workshop's "only functional, etc." Therefore there is no need to quote you referring to Israel as a "shining beacon of democracy."
I didn't even read the rest of your post because I am trying to help you understand the flow of the conversation so that you don't make ridiculous, self-indulgent scenes because you misunderstand what is being said, not because I am making any political point.
Arab citizens of Israel are as Irontruth states, are treated pretty well. Arab Israelis have served on the Knesset from the 1st right through to today; and an Arab Israeli sits on the Supreme Court of Israel. There are still complaints and issues - but that's true of any country anywhere in the world that has minorities in the demographics.
The disconnect comes only when you consider that the Arab citizens are the 150,000 out of the original 950,000 who didn't flee the country during the 1948 War. Right of Return, etc, etc, etc.
I don't know Israeli Arabs from Adam, but my Hebrew-speaking expatriate comrade once scoffed when someone referred to Palestinians as second-class citizens.
"Second-class citizens are the sephardim. Third-class citizens are the beta. Fourth-class, now we speak of Arabs."
I was objecting to the implication that Arab's are disenfranchised in the state of Israel. Which is provably false.You objected to Meatrace who was objecting to Doug's Workshop.
The words "shining democracy" weren't in the latter's post; they were "only functional democracy in the region."
Comrade Jeff's reference to a "shining democracy" was in reference to Citizen Workshop's "only functional, etc." Therefore there is no need to quote you referring to Israel as a "shining beacon of democracy."
I didn't even read the rest of your post because I am trying to help you understand the flow of the conversation so that you don't make ridiculous, self-indulgent scenes because you misunderstand what is being said, not because I am making any political point.
I was calling into question inaccurate statements from someone else. I don't care if someone else said something, that's not attributable to me. Just because I'm pointing out Meatrace's inaccuracy, does NOT mean I'm disagreeing with his overall sentiment, just that I find some of his "facts" to not actually be facts.
You objected to Meatrace who was objecting to Doug's Workshop.
The words "shining democracy" weren't in the latter's post; they were "only functional democracy in the region."
I was objecting to the implication that Arab's are disenfranchised in the state of Israel. Which is provably false.
Voter turnout has even increased over the past few years. Though it's still below it's all-time high of 75% in the late 90's.
I'm not claiming the Palestinians are even treated well. They aren't. But making implications of an apartheid system is demonstrably false. The people in the occupied territories aren't Israeli. They're supposed to be Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian. Except Jordan relinquished their claim to the land a few years back, effectively casting the West Bank to the wind.
Israel hasn't treated them well, but you don't need to imply things are worse than they are to prove that. Arabs are just as enfranchised as any other religious/ethnic group.
When Egypt took over the Gaza Strip, it didn't offer the residents citizenship.
Most people in the Golan Heights hold Syrian citizenship.
In 1988, Jordan stripped all residents of the West Bank of citizenship.
Everyone has done their best to screw the Palestinians.
The US has been occupying Puerto Rico for 116 years.
Yeah. But Puerto Ricans get to vote from Puerto Rico. Same with a lot of other American territories, if not all of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Irontruth: its not factually incorrect, its a matter of differing opinion. Meatrace (and I) consider the palastinian territories to be part of israel. Israel controls the borders. Israel provides the funding for social services. Israel sets its foreign policy. Israel can override any decision it doesn't like through invasion. Israel builds and maintains roads in the area. Israel maintains checkpoints to keep palastinians off of some of those roads and out of the jewish control settlements. Israel decides how water is distributed. Israel provides passports (or rather doesn't) To say that this area is not Israel is sheer chicanery.
Israel is currently 75% Jewish with a population of 7,821,850, and about 25% arab.
5,966,388 jews
1,955,462 arab citizens.
~4,000,000 people live in the palastinian territories. 83% of the population is Palestinian Arab, 17% are Jewish.
3,320,000 arabs
680,000 jews
Total it up
6,646,388 jews
5,275,462 arabs.
The arab population is growing faster though. Its not quite meatspaces "half the population can't vote" but it IS a very large chunk of the population, enough to keep them out of real power. Israel needs to stop that from happening in order to maintain its Theocratic raison de etre
I was calling into question inaccurate statements from someone else. I don't care if someone else said something, that's not attributable to me. Just because I'm pointing out Meatrace's inaccuracy, does NOT mean I'm disagreeing with his overall sentiment, just that I find some of his "facts" to not actually be facts.I was objecting to the implication that Arab's are disenfranchised in the state of Israel. Which is provably false.You objected to Meatrace who was objecting to Doug's Workshop.
The words "shining democracy" weren't in the latter's post; they were "only functional democracy in the region."
Comrade Jeff's reference to a "shining democracy" was in reference to Citizen Workshop's "only functional, etc." Therefore there is no need to quote you referring to Israel as a "shining beacon of democracy."
I didn't even read the rest of your post because I am trying to help you understand the flow of the conversation so that you don't make ridiculous, self-indulgent scenes because you misunderstand what is being said, not because I am making any political point.
Do you notice how nobody has tried to quote you saying "shining beacon of democracy?" That's because "shining democracy" wasn't in reference to anything you said.
Btw, [looks around to see if any of his current comrades are watching] I agree with you. One-state, two-state, it doesn't matter. There will be no justice for the Palestinians until international proletarian socialist revolution sweeps the Levant.
Down with the Mullahs, Sheiks, Colonels and Zionists!
For a Socialist Federation of the Middle East!
Yeah. But Puerto Ricans get to vote from Puerto Rico. Same with a lot of other American territories, if not all of them.You objected to Meatrace who was objecting to Doug's Workshop.
The words "shining democracy" weren't in the latter's post; they were "only functional democracy in the region."
I was objecting to the implication that Arab's are disenfranchised in the state of Israel. Which is provably false.
Voter turnout has even increased over the past few years. Though it's still below it's all-time high of 75% in the late 90's.
I'm not claiming the Palestinians are even treated well. They aren't. But making implications of an apartheid system is demonstrably false. The people in the occupied territories aren't Israeli. They're supposed to be Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian. Except Jordan relinquished their claim to the land a few years back, effectively casting the West Bank to the wind.
Israel hasn't treated them well, but you don't need to imply things are worse than they are to prove that. Arabs are just as enfranchised as any other religious/ethnic group.
When Egypt took over the Gaza Strip, it didn't offer the residents citizenship.
Most people in the Golan Heights hold Syrian citizenship.
In 1988, Jordan stripped all residents of the West Bank of citizenship.
Everyone has done their best to screw the Palestinians.
The US has been occupying Puerto Rico for 116 years.
Yes, they do hold elections there. They don't vote for president, nor do they have a voting member of Congress.
I went looking for some juicy commie "Free Puerto Rico!" articles but got sidetracked by this 2005 story that somehow I had never heard of.
Learn something new every day in the OTD!
The 2-State solution is ridiculous as well. It'd be a country that can't sustain itself as it can't provide food or water, because no way Israel gives up the water rights to the river Jordan.
Let's say it happens, it's a country that can't even provide itself a subsistence level of existence. It's utterly reliant on the neighboring economy of Israel, which would now be free to impose tariffs, taxes, levies, etc on workers coming from Palestine. Now it can profit off their labor, while denying the government of Palestine the economic flow it needs to sustain itself, crippling the government and ensuring it stays weak. But Israel will have divested itself of responsibility for maintaining it and all events inside will be at the feet of the Palestinian government.
A state of perpetual poverty that absolves Israel of responsibility. That is what the 2-state solution means. Giving all the absolute worst land to the Palestinian, while retaining control of Jerusalem and all the water they can get.
The 2-state solution is already here. Formalizing it isn't going to change anything.
So you're saying there is no solution. Because obviously a one-state solution won't be acceptable to Israel either as it would be a majority Arab state.
Or do you have a better idea?
No, I don't have a better idea. I don't think there is a good solution, nor will one be found in the next decade or two. Here are the two major hurdles IMO:
1) No one wants the Palestinians in their country
2) The Palestinians can't provide for themselves
That means they will live in a perpetual state of poverty. I don't think there's any disagreement that a society in a perpetual state of poverty is an inherently unstable one, which often results in an increase in violent crime.
In the case of the Palestinian territories, that "violent crime" manifests itself largely as attacks on Israel. It's unreasonable to expect a country to sit by and do nothing while being attacked.
Israel isn't incentivized to absorb the Palestinian population for a couple of reasons...
1) It would be a major burden on their government resources.
2) It would disrupt their structure of political power.
The first one could be mitigated by outside help, financial aid from the international community to help care for the Palestinians. The second problem is nearly intractable though. It's like saying the Black Panthers need to start admitting KKK members into their ranks. Neither side has any interesting in participating with the other.
Neither side gives a shit about the other side. When two people refuse to acknowledge the humanity of the other, peace is a long ways off.
Irontruth: its not factually incorrect, its a matter of differing opinion. Meatrace (and I) consider the palastinian territories to be part of israel. Israel controls the borders. Israel provides the funding for social services. Israel sets its foreign policy. Israel can override any decision it doesn't like through invasion. Israel builds and maintains roads in the area. Israel maintains checkpoints to keep palastinians off of some of those roads and out of the jewish control settlements. Israel decides how water is distributed. Israel provides passports (or rather doesn't) To say that this area is not Israel is sheer chicanery.
Israel is currently 75% Jewish with a population of 7,821,850, and about 25% arab.
5,966,388 jews
1,955,462 arab citizens.~4,000,000 people live in the palastinian territories. 83% of the population is Palestinian Arab, 17% are Jewish.
3,320,000 arabs
680,000 jewsTotal it up
6,646,388 jews
5,275,462 arabs.
The arab population is growing faster though. Its not quite meatspaces "half the population can't vote" but it IS a very large chunk of the population, enough to keep them out of real power. Israel needs to stop that from happening in order to maintain its Theocratic raison de etre
That's cool that YOU consider it part of Israel. I must have missed the day they announced you to be the arbiter of these things.
The western bank is pretty much working with Israel*, and I'd say at least for now they are better off than Gaza. The murky reality is, of course, that their position is still terrible. And the settlements keep gnawing at their territory. I still believe they have a better chance than Gaza, in the long run as well as the short.Out of curiousity, is there a Palestinian organzation that recognizes that working with Israel is a better option?
Believe you me, they know this. They are acutely aware of the fact that nobody has the magical combination of both wanting to help them and being able to. Most of them are sick of Israel, of Hamas, of Egypt, of everyone.Sadly, it only takes some of them to continue the violence and condemn them all to a pretty miserable existence.
Is working with Israel a better option?
I was interested in this post by Lord Snow's. I don't know how accurate it is, and I'm pretty sure I don't like the Palestinian Authority any better than I like Hamas, but I found it interesting. I also wonder where that asterick was leading.
And in the black irony column, this is one is always a fun read for old-times' sake:
That's cool that YOU consider it part of Israel. I must have missed the day they announced you to be the arbiter of these things.
More point and less sarcasm would be appreciated, especially when i point out that its a matter of differing opinion.
When you're criticizing someone's statement like you were you aren't the arbiter either. If you want to say they're factually wrong you're setting a pretty high bar that you haven't reached.
Of course a large part of the reason the Palestinians can't provide for themselves is that the Israelis have taken much of the best land in the Occupied Territories, including the water. Since you accept that as part of the premise, it's obvious that Palestine can't sustain itself.
A Palestinian state with borders drawn by Israel is not part of a valid two-state solution. Which is why it's been rejected and shouldn't even be bothered with. A Palestinian state as originally conceived or even on the 67 lines is a valid state. But it's one Israel won't accept.
Just so we're aware, the pre-67 lines would assume that we legitimize the use of force by Arab military forces in 1948 that kicked Jewish families out of their homes in those areas.
This wouldn't be a Paizo Israel thread if I didn't post this Musical Interlude of what looks like, at least to me (but I could be wrong), multi-ethnic Israeli/Palestinian youth flying the flag of international proletarian socialist revolution.
That's cool that YOU consider it part of Israel. I must have missed the day they announced you to be the arbiter of these things.More point and less sarcasm would be appreciated.
When you're criticizing someone's statement like you were you aren't the arbiter either. If you want to say they're factually wrong you're setting a pretty high bar that you haven't reached.
His implication is that Arab's aren't allowed to vote in Israel. All adult citizens are allowed to vote in Israel.
An accurate comparison would be African-Americans in the US. They're a similar sized minority and have about proportional representation in the federal government.
African-American 15% population and 8% representation
Arab-Israeli 20% population and 10% representation
I agree with you, Israel doesn't want to suddenly add 4 million population, particularly when most of it is Arab and will significantly disrupt the balance of power in their government. I'd imagine the number of countries that have undertaken such an action in all of human history could be counted on one hand. Unreasonable or not, it's not going to happen.
Residents of the West Bank used to have Jordan passports, but they were revoked in 1988. Why aren't you calling for Jordan to reinstate those and take back their citizens?
"We fight to bring the class axis to the fore. National emancipation for the Palestinians requires the proletarian overthrow of the Israeli capitalist rulers and also those of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, which are home to millions of Palestinians. The Israeli Jewish and Palestinian Arab populations are interpenetrated peoples, laying rival claims to the same territory. Under capitalism, the exercise of the national rights of one necessarily comes at the expense of the right of self-determination of the other. Only in a socialist federation of the Near East can conflicting claims over land and resources be equitably resolved, and all discrimination on the basis of language, religion and nationality be done away with."
His implication is that Arab's aren't allowed to vote in Israel.
And he's right, if you consider the west bank and gaza to be part of israel. YOU do not, but no one made you the arbiter of these things either, much less of another persons intent.
An accurate comparison would be African-Americans in the US. They're a similar sized minority and have about proportional representation in the federal government.
Again, not if you consider the Palestinians a part of Israel. Then they're almost half the population
African-American 15% population and 8% representation
Arab-Israeli 20% population and 10% representation
And again, not if you consider the palatinate territories part of israel. Then its 43% of the population and 17% of the vote.
I agree with you, Israel doesn't want to suddenly add 4 million population, particularly when most of it is Arab and will significantly disrupt the balance of power in their government.
I think the settlers can still vote in israel can't they?
Residents of the West Bank used to have Jordan passports, but they were revoked in 1988. Why aren't you calling for Jordan to reinstate those and take back their citizens?
Because there's no palastinian here arguing that the revocation was necessary, and half the reason no one else gives them passports is that having a palastinian terrorist found with one of your passports is an invitation for an invasion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Israel, Palestine, the UN, US government all disagree with you. No one who has ever sat down at a table to discuss this peace with those various powers has ever considered the occupied territories to be part of Israel.
His implication is that Arab's aren't allowed to vote in Israel. All adult citizens are allowed to vote in Israel.That's cool that YOU consider it part of Israel. I must have missed the day they announced you to be the arbiter of these things.More point and less sarcasm would be appreciated.
When you're criticizing someone's statement like you were you aren't the arbiter either. If you want to say they're factually wrong you're setting a pretty high bar that you haven't reached.
No. His implication, as clearly understood by everyone except you is that Israel controls the lives of large population that are not citizens and do not vote.
Actually, you probably understood it to or you'd be attacking the "more than half the adult population" part as well as the "can't vote" part, since the Arab citizens of Israel are far less than half the population. His statement only makes sense if he's talking about the Palestinians, since that's the only way the population numbers are even close.
It's not the borders themselves, it's that any agreement based on borders from any one specific date will essentially formalize some form of violence against someone. There is no ideal period to reach back to and say "ah, that's when it was good, can we go back to that?" Which is what all drawings on maps are trying to do, except that every line is based on some form of violence against someone.
Peace will be forever out of reach until at least one side decides to give up using violence. But neither side will, because the other side won't.
Let's say you and I are in a fight. I hit you, and felt justified doing it. Now, you feel justified hitting me. I know you're going to do that, so I feel justified defending myself. You of course feel justified defending yourself.
It's a cycle that doesn't stop until one of us decides we don't want to hit the other person any more.
In the Middle-East, no one feels compelled to stop yet. Both sides DO have legitimate grievances and they're not going to stop unless those grievances are addressed. The problem is, the solutions for each side are mutually exclusive right now.
I disagree massively with how Israel handles this problem. The issue I have in this thread is people talk about Israel as if they don't have any legitimate grievances, which to me, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what is going on.