I am introducing a bit of lateral thinking here.

When I was a teenager I noticed that every issue of Time seemed to have a focus on the Middle East. I am now aged almost 70 and absolutely nothing has changed. My advice to all who visit OLO - forget about what is happening in Israel and Palestine as there is so much other informative stuff you could be reading about in the facinating worlds of human behaviour and of technology

is it ok if i watch palestine as an example of media manipulation, or as an example of american internal policy having disastrous foreign effects, or as an example simple human brutality, so i don't become complacent with age?

I partially agree with Gila:

There is place for improvement, for example in the placement of the security wall - it should be right on the 1967 border and not cut through people's lands. It is also possible to treat people more humanely in the checkpoints, it is worthwhile to look into other forms of security as well and would be nice to stop using "security risk" automatically for ulterior political motives.

But one must not forget that Israel's security threat is real and solid. One could argue forever whether or not wisdom prevailed in the past and was it indeed necessary to reach Israel's current state, but at this point in time, Israel is facing a coalition of the most hostile and cruel Moslem fanatics that vowed to do absolutely everything (incluiding losing their own lives and blowing up their own country) to bring about as much destruction to Israel as they can.

The wall is necessary - it already stopped hundreds of terrorists and saved thousands of lives, and so are most checkpoints, as much as they regrettably cause suffering to innocent people as well (Israelis also suffer from checkpoints when entering shops, restaurants, cinemas, schools, public buildings, even buses).

Again, I half agree with what Gila said: "We seek to demonstrate to Israelis that security is not the end-result of having a strong, aggressive army": Israel's security absolutely depends on having a strong army, yet it is a difficult but worthwhile challenge to leave the "aggressive" part out without compromising on "strong". In fact, the stronger Israel's army is, the lesser its need for aggressiveness.

yutusu

Yours is exactly the type of attitude that needs changing. You need to realise peace and security go hand in hand. Isolationism, occupation and aggression can only produce insecurity in both peoples minds. Your statements are ample evidence of that truth.

To understand what Keith is saying we need a special dictionary:

Peace :: laying down ones arms and surrender

Security :: living in exile or as Dhimmis

Isolationism :: wanting to preserve one's own culture rather than assimilate in the Moslem region

Occupation :: entering an agressor's land to stop missiles flying across and refusing to leave until the attacks stop

Aggression :: failing to turn the other cheek

Keith is right in his own peculiar way, but to straighten the record with those using common English, I favour the Swiss model of isolationism, and I do not support occupation or aggression:

Switzerland has no security against snow avalanches, common diseases, old age and natural death, but they are not afraid of any other nation: even Hitler did not attempt to occupy Switzerland. The Swiss are not shy of their culture, but they never resorted to occupation or agression - they keep secure by having a strong army and fortifying their mountains, and being strong, nobody dared to attack them and they live in peace despite not signing a single formal peace treaty.

Yutusu

My comments applied equally to both sides.

Now ask yourself why you didn't see that and then why you went on to agressively attack my ideas about peace, security, isolationism, occupation, aggression and insecurity?

Hummmmmm the more you say the more evident becomes the truth of my original thoughts.