Some interesting reading for those who are interested in the origins of the current conflict and the origins of some of the US media bias.

http://tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=100409

I have read some of Sandy Tolan's articles before and highly recommend his latest book "The Lemon Tree : An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East".
About Sandy Tolan;
"He directs the Project on International Reporting at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California-Berkeley, where he was an I.F. Stone Fellow. He has produced dozens of documentaries for National Public Radio, reported from the Middle East since 1994, and from more than two dozen countries over the last 25 years. He has also served as an oral history consultant to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial" Museum.

Kalin,

You have I think summed up the situation fairly well. I might take issue with you on some points but overall I agree. Of course each side consists of huge numbers of human beings. Many Israelis have marched in opposition to hardline policies, and many Palestinians have shown disagreement with the Hamas position. The trouble is that when sides start hurting each other the moderates are never heard. After the Nazi bombing of London the English started to hate the Germans hence the dreadful bombing of Dresden.

kang

Koestler's theory on the descendency of the Ashkenazi Jews I understand never had any currency amongst historians. He is a popular author like Dan Brown and shouild not be taken seriously. Do a Google on Jews DNA. Extensive DNA analysis revealed that Ashkenazi Jews were not related to the Kazars so that should put that idea to rest.

What the analysis did show is a common lineage on the male side of most Jews to other semitic groups. But not necessarily to any biblical Aaron. It also showed extensive intermarriage of Jews to nations where they lived, ie Russia Georgia etc.

Interesting but it has no bearing on the matter. The Jews arrived in Isael many from Arab countries and many from Europe. A small number have claims that they were there before the Arabs and therefore are the indiginous people of the area. They dominated some areas, many were desparate for survival and many of the Arabs were very territorial as is normal for human beings.

The matter was handled appallingly by all sides and we now have the mess we see now.

Taiwan Teacher’s_link.
Small letters “The way the Left sees things” BIAS!

BALANCE inCAPITALS.. “The other side of the coin” (ADDED by me)

QUOTE
Under the pretext of forcing the release of a single soldier "kidnapped by terrorists" (or, if you prefer, "captured by the resistance"), Israel has done the following:

1/_seized members of a democratically elected government; [WHICH IS COMMITTED TO DESTROYING ISRAEL according to its own charter]

2/_bombed its interior ministry, [WHERE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL IS PLANNED]

3/_Bombed the prime minister's offices, [AS ABOVE]

4/_a school [BEING USED BY MILITANTS TO PLAN ATTACKS]

5/_threatened another sovereign state (Syria) with a menacing overflight; [THE HAMAS BOSS IS THERE]

6/_Dropped leaflets from the air, warning of harm to the civilian population if it does not "follow all orders of the IDF" [YES, ITS CALLED FAIR WARNING – “We” warned Dresden?]

7/_Loosed nocturnal "sound bombs" under orders from the Israeli prime minister to "make sure no one sleeps at night in Gaza" [A STATEofWAR EXISTS!]

8/_Fired missiles into residential areas, [WHERE MILITANTS DELIBERATELY WORK]

9/_Killing children; [ALLOWED UNDER ISLAMIC JIHAD_LAW as long as unintended.]

10/_Demolished a power station that was the sole generator of electricity and running water for hundreds of thousands of Gazans. [WAR is UGLY]

ENDQUOTE.

Abbas condemns the Rockets and Tunnels and kidnapping, BUT FAILS TO ARREST the Militants. The rocket attacks are ACTS OF WAR.
This continnnnual cycle of Palestinians ‘condemning’ themselves for attacks on Israel but NOT DOING anything to stop it, is laughable. We all know the government is either intimidated by the gunmen, or USING them.

Simple Question. -If militants did NOT kidnap the soldier NO Rockets were fired at Israel, WOULD they IDF be where they are now ?

Answer: “NO” they would be back at their bases but..... when Israel got sick of rockets and the kidnapping/attack which was the last straw -they acted. What’s the point of shooting lame rockets at an enemy who could wipe the floor with your scalp at any time it chooses ? Can only be PROPOGANDA reasons. Blame Al_Aksa/Hamas etc for the ensuing deaths.

The Israelis wouldn't be attacking Gaza now or have bombed the power station, if it weren't for Hamas kidnapping Corporal Shalit. True.

Hamas's kidnapping is a justifiable response to Israel's shelling of Gaza, resulting in the massacre of the Ghalia family. True.

Israel wouldn't have been shelling Gaza if it weren't for the Palestinian rocket attacks. Probably true.

Palestinians wouldn't have been firing rockets if Israel would address some of its other human rights issues, such as the indefinite captivity of many Palestinians, including many teenagers, without trial. Maybe true

Israel wouldn't have locked up these people if they weren't involved in insurgent activity. Probably true.

The Palestinian insurgency wouldn't be happening if Israel hadn't driven these people into such a crowded and marginal situation in the first place (beginning with the 1948 conflict). True.

Israel wouldn't have had to treat Palestinians like dangerous enemies if it weren't for the hostility and military aggression of the Palestinians and the surrounding Islamic nations. True.

Neither the Palestinians nor the neighbouring Arab nations would have been so hostile if the Jews hadn't come to Palestine to revive the ancient Jewish state of Israel. True.

Jews wouldn't have come to Palestine in numbers sufficient to form a viable Israel if it weren't for the Nazi Regime and the holocaust. Probably true.

The Holocaust perhaps wouldn't have happened if the British and French had stomped on Hitler at the outset before Germany became a near insurmountable military power. Probably True.

Britain and France would have been stronger had they not been so gutted by World War One.
Maybe True.

Etc, etc,

The further back you go the murkier it gets, but the point is that justifying an atrocity by reference to the other side’s last atrocity is a futile exercise. In a conflict as old as this one the chain of madness, human failure and atrocity is so long that whatever moral high ground one side may once have held has since been covered in blood.

What is the point of arguing which SIDE is more guilty?

Continued.

More fundamentally, the slaughter of innocent individuals by reference to the 'crimes' of nations is ludicrous. All collective terms for people (such as Israel, Palestine) are fictions of convenience. The are simply ideas which have been given an artifical life for reasons of social and political convenience. Like all generalisations, they are often misleading when dealing with in the specific.

When we say Israel or Palestine did this or that, we must always keep in mind we are attributing intelligent and blameworthy behaviour to a fiction. Neither Palestine nor Israel have a mind capable of moral decisions or suffering.

Collectives don't inflict attrocities, people do.

Collectives don't suffer atrocities, people do.

Imagine a maimed little five year old boy - both his legs torn off by ordinance. Do you sympathise with him more or less depending on who his parents are? If your answer is yes, then you are part of the problem not the solution.

The bad guys aren't Israelis or Palestinians, they are the people who perpetuate the hatred.

Well done Kalin.