Israel Is Failing the Moral Test

[dameocrat]

According to Israeli authorities, one reason for my arrest two weeks ago in Biddu and my denial of entry into Israel in 2003 is that I "organized and participated in illegal demonstrations." Israeli authorities frequently use the term "illegal demonstrations" to describe peaceful protests against Israeli government violations of international law. This twisted reasoning needs to be exposed and rejected...........................

Why is it "illegal" for hundreds of Palestinian men, women and children to march peacefully to assert their right to their land in the face of Israeli soldiers, who are defending the construction of a wall that has been declared illegal by the world's highest legal body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? Why is it "illegal" for communities to try and implement the ICJ decision by walking together to their farmland to try peacefully to block Israeli contractors from bulldozing their land, from building a wall to cut them off from their land and from imprisoning them in their villages?

Apparently, it is forbidden for Palestinians to use the tactics of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to try to save their land and their communities from destruction. Apparently, Israeli authorities believe that it is legal for Israeli soldiers to club Palestinian men, women and children, to use tear gas on them, shoot rubber bullets and live ammunition at them and arrest them for peacefully protesting. This use of violence against peaceful protesters is "legal" even though the ICJ declared the construction of the wall on Palestinian land illegal. The Israeli government explains the soldiers' violence as "Palestinian clashes with security forces," even though the Israeli military invariably initiates the violence and young Palestinian men only occasionally respond with rocks



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/539812.html

[beyurslf]

1. What bothers me about the "wall" is how much it resembles the "wall"

that was built by the Nazis to trap in the Jews....

[Jim Sagle]

2. The Peace Fence, making the world a better place...one link at a time.

:beer:

[dameocrat]

3. It will when they move it too the green line

Till then it is the theft fence.

[Jim Sagle]

4. Sez you.

[newyorican]

12. Devastating argument

*urp* :beer:

[Jim Sagle]

13. About as good as it needs to be.

:boring:

[dameocrat]

27. Here are the maps read it and weep.

Here are maps. http://www.mideastweb.org/thefence.htm It isn't on the green line. It cuts deep into the proposed Palestinian state.

[newyorican]

29. He knows that...

basic humanitarian concern is what's missing.

[eyl]

61. Did you scroll down to

the current map, or look only at the first one? The current route is fairly close to the Line.

[beyurslf]

7. Peace Fence? Is that like the "Clear Skies Initiative" or "No Child Left

Behind"?

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I like the "Peacekeeper"

That was the name given to the MX missile, which was also referred to as a 'damage limitation weapon'. *snort* The Cold War produced the best in the way of nice, clean names for really nasty things...

Violet...

[eyl]

6. What bothers me about guns

is that the Nazis also used guns.

Same logic (or illogic)

[beyurslf]

8. It isn't the same logic. The Nazis made up excuses to fence in the Jews

before they tried to exterminate them. They didn't send them from being free to the gas chambers... it was small steps toget to that utlimate fate. The world sat by and said... well maybe this is ok...well maybe that is ok... well we can let this go...

It is WRONG to fence in a group of people and force them to live in their nieghborhood without contact from the outside. Period.

[eyl]

9. So are you contending

That Israel is preparing to exterminate the Palestinians?

[dameocrat]

10. There putting them of four or five reservations

if things go according to Sharon's plan.

[Jim Sagle]

14. The Israelis are fencing the Palestinians OUT, to keep from BEING

killed. Aside from that there's no difference.

[dameocrat]

26. That would only be true if the fence were on the green line

In reality the fence was built to annex occupied land that doesn't belong to Israel. Here are maps that show it. http://www.mideastweb.org/thefence.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

47. He already knows that too...

He doesn't care...

Violet...

[simcha_6]

18. One big difference

is that the Jews weren't trying to kill the Germans. There are a good number of Palestinian exremists trying to kill Israelis.

I dislike Sharon and want a Palestinian state (albeit for Israel's sake) and wish any Palestinian state and its inhabitants, but comparing Israelis to Nazis is a bit (or very) misleading or possibly willfully ignorant.

Ask the Druze. Israel's the first country in the region to give them religious freedom, which is why they fight for Israel as a community. They have a reputation for being more brutal to Palestinians than the Jewish Israelis.

[martymar64]

44. Palestinians didn't kill Yitzak Rabin

[simcha_6]

60. I've been following Middle East knews since I was six

It was a guy named Amir or Yigal, wasn't it? What's your point?

[CindyDale]

5. If Mr. O'Connor were a Jewish liberal peace activist

he might not have been treated so politely. There are people who have had their lives threatened.

[newyorican]

11. Both sides have already failed...

and neither is willing to rehabilitate.

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Not only both sides

but the WCC which has lost whatever credibility it had as an "honest broker."

[dameocrat]

28. Actually the WCC isn't taking one side over the other like the US has

The US has made it impossible for there to be a Palestinian state by accepting the route of the fence and the settlements. Israel thinks the only honest brokers are people who want to help them stick the Palestinians on Indian reservations or ethnically cleans them altogether. WCC is adding balanced negotiating power where there is no balance at all. Israel will take the Palestinians land if it can get a way with it, and the US isn't doing anything to stop it. Israelis don't care about Palestinians and wouldn't even if there were no terrorism.

[centristo]

15. and have the Palestinians

passed this same moral test?

This is a familiar tactic; bash Israel for immorality and remain strangely mute on the behavior of its adversary.

Any moral test must be applied to both parties involved or else it is useless. This is why Abu Graib was such a blow to American credibility overseas. Who are we to say that China has human rights problems when we are violators ourselves?

Clearly, Israel is guilty of human rights violations, but so are the Palestinians. Why is it OK to condemn Israel and post threads titled "Israel fails morality test" when Palestine is equally guilty of wanton acts of cruelty and inhumanity?

Would you post a thread titled "Palestinians must condemn suicide-bombings to advance peace process"? I really doubt it because you don't see both sides to this issue. You empathize only with who you see as the oppressed that you don't see how an entire country is scared shitless every day of their lives that they will be blown to bits while walking down the street. This isn't a post-1967 phenomena either, this is post-1948 if not earlier.

The Peace Process is a two-way street. Remember that.

[Colorado Blue]

17. Thank you for your post. I totally agree with

everything you have said - it needed saying.

I do not understand why people are so blind on this issue. Is it fashion?

I wonder if perhaps we have a generation gap here as well. It's been occurring to me recently that many of the people commenting on these issues, with such one-sided negativity toward Israel, simply weren't alive in the fifties, for example, or during WWII, or even during the Yom Kippur War, or even during the eighties, and were very young during the nineties, and simply don't know about or don't remember, the history of the situation.

Even so I don't get it. There's simply no empathy for the Jewish state whatsoever in many of the opinions stated regarding the I/P issue and Israel is even blamed for the whole "War on Terror" among other things including Hariri's assassination.

Amazing. And sad - frightening, even, in view of the law passed yesterday legalizing religious discrimination in the employment market - another of the Bush Administration's brilliant ideas to destroy the U.S. The article about that is posted on the main board. The trend is deeply alarming. At a time when the very foundations of our country are under fire, liberals and progressives MUST remain balanced and open-minded - about things that happen OUTSIDE the US as well as things that happen within our borders - after all we are all linked. And the forces of darkness are very real.

One factor we almost never mention in discussions about the M.E. is the great force that's clearly trying to take over the US and that's the extreme Christians. I myself practically never think about these folks except in the context of domestic (US) matters - after all one thinks immediately of Muslims and Jews in the context of the Israeli struggle in particular - and struggles BETWEEN Muslim groups in Iraq for example - but I suspect they are playing a role over there, perhaps a very great one, that we are not seeing. But I'm beginning to wonder if we're missing something.

Ideas?

[simcha_6]

19. Its easier to blame the stronger nation

They do the most damage, not because they're worse, but because they have more capability.

I don't condone much of what Israel does. But I also am uncomfortable by what I see as a double standard.

But maybe we should have it. I have a little sister, and when we fought years ago, my parents would say it's my responsibility to end it. I thought this was distinctly unfair, but since I was supposed to be mature, I was supposed to hold back and fix the situation. Unlike the PA, Israel can control its elements, both official and radical. Therefore, they should be held to a higher standard, its argued, because holding the PA to a high standard is like demanding a first grader get accepted to Stanford. In a few years they'll be able to, but not now,

[Coastie for Truth]

20. Posts 15, 17, and 19

I agree with you completely.

I also think that as long as the Divesters, that is, the "Good People" of the World Council of Churches, and the Anglican Communion, and Presbytery, are holding Israel to a higher standard then they are apparently holding the Palestinians to, these "Good People" should hold themselves to an unimpeachable standard of even handedness and fairness. This they have totally failed to do.

To the Divesters from YOUR GOSPELS ----
"Judge not, that ye be not judged." - Matthew VII, 1-3

[dameocrat]

32. uhm the original topic was protests

Isn't dumb for Israel to do this to protesters and claim it wants Gandhi and MLK?

[simcha_6]

37. Yeah, that's a good point

[centristo]

21. How about we not blame anyone?

I agree with your views, and I think many people share your thoughts, but do you really think Isreal has all the power? Are they really fighting ONLY the Palestinians? What about Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Sudan, the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and every other Arab/Muslim state or person in the world? And when I say fighting, I mean fighting against words and ideas, not just armed combat.

Israel is not in control of Middle Eastern events and never has been. The British held the cards that started everything. Israel went on to react to foreign threats. It has pre-emptively attacked in order to further its own interests, just like any other country on this planet would. It cannot control its radical elements either. If it could Yitzhak Rabin would still be alive. Look at a map of Israel compared to the Arab/Muslim countries and tell me Israel is running the show. Compare the populations. Compare the size of the armies.

As I stated before, both Israel and Palestine have failed the moral test. So now what? We must support the withdrawl from Gaza and then the West Bank. We can help move the peace process along without bashing either side, especially during this very hopeful and encouraging time.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. If anybody is in control of the events in the ME

it is "Big Oil" and their fancy Texas Lawyer apologist/consigliere, Jim Baker (and their investment houses like The Carlyle Group and Kingdom Holdings)

Don't take my word -- read for yourself ---->

1. "House of Bush, House of Saud : The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties: by Craig Unger

2. "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by F. William Engdahl

Maybe the "DIVESTERS" should divest their "Big Oil" stock -- stage a proxy battle to influence the directors of "Big Oil."

[newyorican]

30. Perhaps you could elucidate...

what does "big oil" have to do with the failed morals of the Israelis or the Palestinians?

Neither of which have any oil, BTW.

[Coastie for Truth]

35. Glad to

The best recent reads are:

1. "House of Bush, House of Saud : The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties: by Craig Unger

2. "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by F. William Engdahl

Both of which I cited previously.

Unger describes the personalities - especially Bush's deals with Salam binLadin and with Prince Bandar (as well as Prince Talal of Kingdom Holdings). Some in depth discussion of the Carlyle Group (a mutual fund of oil companies and arms manufacturers, and an influence peddler for friends of the Bush family). A good, gossipy read; lots of www.dailykos.com type stuff and Air America type stuff.

Engdahl's book is a bit more "scholarly" (slow read, lots of footnotes and bibliography), but follows the "diplomacy" and "poli sci" and "economics".

Let me tie it all together (but please read both books) - the "west" especially the US and UK - and to a lesser extent the Netherlands - have been playing "power politics" in ME - through proxies, clients, etc. since the days of Queen Victoria. (Here Engdahl gets into the "Corn Laws" and the "Poor Laws" of the UK, and the deportations to Australia).

His thesis is that the US and the UK have created a lot of the hatreds and rivalries by installing compliant autocrats (i.e., "compliant" to US and UK wishes; autocrats to their own people). And, as long as they kept oil flowing to the US and UK - we let them play their little "War Lord" and "oppression" games. Engdahl treats the whole IP issue as a "diversion" to allow "the children to blow off steam" while "placating local political blocs" in the US and UK. Again, all for oil.

Describing the '67 and '73 wars, Engdahl says that as long as the warring parties did not materially threaten the flow of oil - or the local balance of power - neither the US nor the UK would intervene.

The whole point- according to Engdahl (and to some extent Unger) is that:

1. Israel/Palestine was not the big draw -- oil was.
2. Neither the US nor the UK would intervene


-- as long as the supply of oil was uninterrupted.
-- as long as the balance of power was in relative equilibrium (i.e., the terrorists kept Israel at bay, Israel kept the terrorists at bay)

Filthy and immoral (immoral and cheapening and degrading for everybody -- with the ultimate cheapness and degraradtion being the PNAC NeoCons) --- what we don't do to keep the soccer moms in their Hummers.

AND ACCORDING TO ENGDAHL AND UNGER - THAT HAS LED TO A UNIVERSAL CASE OF "FAILED MORALS."

I have been in alternative, renewable, and "green" energy field most of my professional career. I have seen the filth and slime of the underbelly -- and on a scale with the energy companies, the autocrats, the US, and the UK -- both Israel and the Palestinians are pretty much "clean" (in an honor among thieves sense) in a bad neighborhood and under the slimy thumbs of evil interests. I have been there.

[newyorican]

53. From your own post:

I/P conflict does not affect the flow of oil (big or otherwise).

"Describing the '67 and '73 wars, Engdahl says that as long as the warring parties did not materially threaten the flow of oil - or the local balance of power - neither the US nor the UK would intervene."

The "Universe" of failed morals brought about by the effects of "big oil" (which is not affected by the I/P conflict), doesn't connect to the topic at hand. Quite the opposite.

[Coastie for Truth]

54. You missed it

and are on to parsing words and diagramming sentences.

Read Unger and Engdahl (Engdahl can be boring) - I have - and I have been in the (non-main stream) industry.

You may also want to do some serious reading about the "Sykes-Picot" Agreement between France and the UK, and compare and contrast it with "Lawrence of Arabia's" understandings with the Hashemites, all contemporaneous with the Balfour Declaration.

Then ask yourself - "what were the French and Brits up to -- selling the same thing three times?" and put it in the context of the 1910-20 era "high tech" where oil became a necessity -- and the Brits were pumping British and Empire troops into Persia and Arabia and the Persian Gulf (to take the pressure off of Russia on the Eastern Front? Bull crap!). They saw the need for a secure sea lane to India and a secure rail line across the Middle East, and for hegemony over the area. The Arabs, the Palestinians, and the Zionists were tools in the hands of the British for secure sea lanes, rail lines, and oil land hegemony.

The fundamental immorality is the heroin like addiction for ever more oil, and the lengths to which the industrialized west will go, and the games the oil oligarchs and the western political leaders and the "industry" will play.

IMHO (40 years in the non-main stream industry) - the root cause of the conflict is neither Israeli intransigence nor Palestinian intransigence nor Islamic or Haredi fundamentalism. The fundamental issue is grovelling for a shrinking supply of oil and the gamemanship of that grovelling.

[Coastie for Truth]

36. How much of this is going to go to the Palestinian in a refugee camp

Petroleum prices may top $60 or more: analysts--> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1285408

That's the real immorality --they will only see the $60/bbl that the oil that is their birth right fetches as "charity" through a "Wahabi madrasah" to a "terrorist organization."

That is immoral - and it is not the immorality of the Palestinian or the Israeli, or even their "local" leadership. They are pawns - like we all are.

[simcha_6]

38. I agree

Israel is given too much credit and blame, certainly.

When people criticize things Israel's done, I'd like to know what they'd have done in the same situation. Once you try and empathize with Israeli mentality, I realize, a lot of what Israel did was done because there was no viable alternative. That's why I'm so vexed when people talk about Israel occupying the West Bank and Gaza against international law. While I certainly don't like them doing it, I'm not sure how they could have avoided doing so in the first place.

[eyl]

22. Except for one thing

In your analogy, your parents weren't demanding you (and everyone else) consider your sister as an adult. The Palestinians are usually considered, at least in those discussions I've seen, to be ready for statehood, if not already given the status of a state in some ways (for example; I've seen a lot of progressives object to any restriction on a future Palestinian state's military rights, such as demilitarizing it). In that case, the Palestinians should also be held to the standards of a state as well.

You're correct that the Palestinians have far less ability to control their extremists than Israel. But "less" is not the same as "none", and until recently there were no indications they were willing to do what they could (and so far, the jury's out).

[simcha_6]

39. How effective has the PA been?

There's been an attack in Tel Aviv, and even before that Shin Bet (Internal Security) stopped ten attacks, maybe more. In the meantime, someone (Debka, I thought, implicated The Palestinian radicals) has been planting bombs in Gaza to disrupt the evacuation, and they've found two Qassam rocket factories in the West Bank already.

On the other hand, rocket attacks on Sderot have dropped off.

How effective do you all think the PA has been, and how committed to peace is it?

[newyorican]

24. The situation is not helped...

by claims of superiority in the area of morals by Israel. If such a superiority complex cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny, then perhaps a more self-effacing and modest approach is called for.

For example, a gay politician that engages in gay bashing should be ridiculed. Not for being gay, but for being a hypocrite. (This is not a clean example as being moral is clearly a choice, while being gay is not viewed in the same way.)

In the case of Israel, and any other country that places itself above others morally (see USA), such countries bring upon their own heads derision and ridicule for being immoral and hypocritical. It's not that they are singled out, they single themselves out from the word go.

Israel and the USA have similar (almost mirror) tactics in dealing with such criticism. Internal criticism is said to come from "self-haters" or "unpatriotic people". External criticism is said to come from those that are "anti-Israel, anti-semitic" and/or "anti-American". Criticism labeled thusly can safely be ignored, regardless of its validity, to the detriment of us all.

[simcha_6]

40. Most nations are self-righteous that way, aren't they?

I suppose there are a few honorable exceptions, but not many.

[dameocrat]

31. Uhm protests are not suicide bombings

Protest prevent suicide bombings. You are changing the subject and acting like the article is about suicide bombings.. It is only inadvertantly so. It does point to the sillyness of wanting Palestinians to by MLK and Gandhi though.

[martymar64]

45. The difference

The difference is that Israeli violence is sanctioned by the state.

Palestinians have no state.

It's kind of like having your foot on someone's neck and complaining when they bite back.

[number6]

25. yes, it is

.

[simcha_6]

41. As are so many others

[Jim Sagle]

33. Israel RRRRRRRAWWWWWWWWWKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dameocrat]

34. This makes me think you approve of beating on Palestinian

protesters? What is your problem?

[simcha_6]

42. You're assuming way to much here

Yes, I want a Palestinian state.

Yes, I'm Jewish.

Yes, I consider myself a Zionist.

And yes, I might not like Sharon or Netanyahu, UTJ or Shas, but Israel does rock.

What would the U.S. do if we were in Israel's position.

What if a violent group from Mexico (no offense to anyone; I just need an example) began launching terrorist attacks from Tijuana, where they had broad popular support. We'd ask the Mexican government to take care of it maybe, and then we'd occupy or carpet bomb the place if attacks didn't stop. Israel isn't strange in its tactics.

Lastly, Considering Israel's history and what they've gone through, and the ordinary Israeli's mentality and culture, I'd say that there's a lot to learn from the culture that still has a majority willing to create a most likely hostile Palestinian state, a people who can move on with life within an hour of tragedy.

Watch the film "Time of Favor" to get a view of the settler movement and the way Israeli society perceives them. Note that this movie met big rewards in the Israeli Academy Awards.

On a lighter note, Israel and the Jews has made such contributions to the world such as Windows XP, the cell phone, the word schmuck, and the unbelievably fantastic movie "Saint Clara."

Heck yes, Israel rocks, even if their prime minister can be, well, a schmuck.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[simcha_6]

59. Play nice, come on

Just because we disagree doesn't mean you have to swear at me.

[dameocrat]

51. Again the original subject is protesters

You make no sense because you are changing the subject. Placing the "Israel Rawks" statement in responce to an article on arresting beating and killing protesters will naturally make people think he approves of that.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Uh, they weren't talking to you...

And imo, based on being in this forum for a long time, the assumption they were making was pretty spot on...

Mexico isn't occupying the US, so there's no comparison at all there. Not unless you consider Israel not to be occupying territory that doesn't belong to it, that is...

Sorry, but lots of different people make contributions to the world - that doesn't justify them then turning round and doing the wrong thing...

Violet...

[simcha_6]

58. Violet...?

Remember, assumptions make asses of you and me (corny, but true)

I never said Mexico was occupying the U.S. I'm saying that if anti-globalization activists set up terror camps in Tijuana, and the Mexican government wasn't able to stop them, we wouldn't wait for them to improve. We'd defend ourselves.

"occupying territory that isn't theirs." Just curious: how could Israel have avoided taking that territory. Note that the territory was already being "occupied" when they took it, and, at least in the case of Gaza, was being used as a jumping off base to attack Israel. And the Israelis waited 19 years to take it. Same with the Golan. What nation has ever done that before.

Also, as to contributions making up for what they do, you seem to think I was connecting the two- I wasn't. Israel rocks because of what they've contributed (Gar l'Clara) and the situation their in, while in need of resolve, does not give people the right to attack those who say Israel rocks unless they actively say that Israel's right to "break their arms." I don't like what the U.S. does in Iraq or how it discriminates against homosexuals, but that doesn't change the fact that the U.S. rocks.

And as for the guy not talking to me. Like I said, I'm a Zionist. I'm not sure if you have any conflicting feelings about a nation other than your own, but being the Zionist that I am, I dearly love Israel, even when I hate what it does or who it elects. So when someone bashes someone who's complimenting Israel, I reserve the right to respond.

Salaam. Shalom. Whatever.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Simcha..?

Ah, a good ol' corny and incredibly over-used cliche. But unless yr into making assumptions, then you luck out on the telling someone else they were making assumptions when they were pretty spot on...

Yes, you actually were trying to draw an analogy which to be in any way close to the I/P conflict would have the US occupying Mexico. I got it the wrong way round. My mistake...

Are you disputing that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are occupied territory? Are you claiming that Israel has some sort of sovereignty over that territory? I don't recall saying anything about whether or not Israel could have avoided taking that territory in 1967. My opinion is that Israel didn't have any intention of taking that territory, but the mistake Israel made was that instead of working towards letting it go, Israel then went on to create 'facts on the ground' by building settlements all over the occupied territory...

I'm not big on what I consider to be mindless jingoistic patriotism more commonly associated with international sporting events that has little thought involved, which is why I tend to disagree that Israel RAAWWWWKKKS!!! when that comment greets articles posted about the killings of Palestinian civilians by the military, or overheated threats from members of the Israeli govt. Kind of the same way as I'd disagree a fair bit if 'USA RAWWKKKKKSSS!!!' were to greet any of the articles posted about the killing of that Italian secret service guy by US troops. Me, I certainly don't think Israel, the US, or even my own country RAAWWWKKKS!!!, because I have a big problem with the kind of nonsensical gushing that automatically treats any criticism of the state as treason. You can respond all you like if you feel the need in the future to defend someone who's praising Israel for something indefensible like the killing of civilians for example. But the bottom line is I don't give a toss whether yr a Zionist or not - *you* were not being addressed in the post you replied to, even though you made the assumption you were...

Violet...

[simcha_6]

63. Good points made

Except for the response thing, which is weird. Most people here seem to respond to posts not made to *them*. Why not respond, so long as I don't take on the mantle of the accused. After all, you responded to my post, neh?

That point aside, you make mostly good points. Good news about Ma'ariv, isn't it? <http://www.haaretzdaily.com> March 6.

Pax

[Jim Sagle]

50. I don't have a problem. And I don't approve any such thing.

Assuming things about people you know nothing about is no way to get at the truth.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

43. the moral test...

I always find somewhat amusing the "moral test".....what happens when we place other countries in situations that just "hint" at what were going through?

how do they react?

shall we look at Denmark with their new anti terrorist laws?..talk about panicking, two of their politicians hide out every night out of fear.., they now have detentions, searches on suspicion etc.

England...with their "thought racist laws" (here I'm missing some of the details and nuances of the law)

US forces in Iraq?...wow, talk about massive use of firepower, shooting up cars for "passing convoys!"

France....forbidding religous symbols in schools

here in israel our war is 10x more violent-(were at war), subtle and we dont go wiping out entire cities, having our politicans who have been threatened hiding out in fear, restricting the rights of of our own citizens to dress as per their religion. (we have lots of other stuiped laws)

as far as the moral standards go: If the palestenians and others that believe that they are ready for a state, the also means that they are ready to live up to the same responsabilites of one. Given that they have the political infastructure and have proven that when they want to prevent terrorism they can, they now have no excuses NOT to be held to the same moral ground....and there is no longer an excuses since they have shown that:

they have a working judicial system (courts, lawyers and executions)
security services (they are now preventing kassams, mortors, closing tunnels)
working parliment
banking systems
etc.

so perhaps its time that they take responsability for the actions of their citizens?