Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Between the murder of Israeli civilians and the ongoing violence of occupation

A settler in the Jordan Valley was killed in his yard Thursday night. This is the third such incident in the West Bank in less than a month.

Members of the Al Aqsa brigades shoot in the air as they stand in the grave yard in the Qalandiya Refugee Camp near the West Bank city of Ramallah August 26, 2013. After several years of relative calm, civilian casualties are on the rise on both sides (photo: activestills.org)

A retired Israeli colonel was killed in his home last night (Thursday) in the Brosh Habika settlement in the Jordan Valley. The incident brings the number of Israeli casualties in the West Bank to three in less than a month. According to his wife, Seraiah Ofer was attacked with iron rods and axes in his front yard. She escaped through a hole in the back fence, while her husband was beaten to death. By the time help arrived, the attackers fled the scene. Five Palestinians were arrested, according to Ynet News.

There used to be a saying at the daily paper I once worked at: one is “an isolated case,” two is a coincidence, and three means a trend. The three cases – a shooting of a soldier in Hebron, the killing of another soldier by a Palestinian who worked with him in a restaurant and last night’s attack – seem unrelated and uncoordinated, but they do create the impression of an escalation in violence, and several more such attacks are likely to have a serious political impact.

All three casualties were described in the Israeli media as soldiers, but that’s mainly due to the Israeli glorification of army service. The colonel was a civilian settler, killed in his front yard; the restaurant employee was also murdered outside the context of his service by a person who knew him. The Hebron casualty, however, was a soldier on military duty, to the extent that this distinction matters.

The temptation to view these cases as a sign of escalation is also a result of a relatively long period with few attacks on Israelis in the West Bank (not a single Israeli was killed by such attacks in 2012). In fact, from an Israeli perspective, 2012 was the quietest year in decades. Yet this narrative misses the point: the ongoing violence of the occupation has never ceased. When (rightly) condemning the killing of Israeli civilians, one should remember that Palestinians have not been able to enjoy the “calm” of recent years. In fact, there has been an increase in the number Palestinian casualties, including the death of three people in a raid on a refugee camp a month and a half ago.

Which brings us to the strange paradox of Israel’s policy towards terror: when attacks on Israelis take place, the willingness of the leadership to offer concessions decreases (“we don’t deal with terrorists”) while public rage rises. However, when there are no attacks on Israelis, the Israeli willingness to offer concessions also decreases, and government ministers tour the world, praising Israel as “an island of stability” in a Middle Eastern sea of turmoil.

The previous Netanyahu term demonstrated this dynamic all too well. The relative calm provided by the Palestinian Authority’s security forces didn’t cause the government nor the public to be more willing to give up land or share power. If anything, the opposite is true. Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected whatever was offered by Israeli negotiators in previous rounds of talks, while his senior coalition partner, Finance Minister Yair Lapid, argued that Israel should insist the Palestinians give up their claim to East Jerusalem, just as they gave up – according to Lapid – the right of return.

The tragic truth is that so far, the only way to get concessions out of Israel has been through struggle. The First Intifada led to the Oslo process, while armed struggle led to the Gaza withdrawal. In both cases, Palestinians paid a dear price for their revolt, but they did manage to get Israel and the United States’ attention. However, when Mahmoud Abbas went the diplomatic route by taking his statehood bid to the UN, Israel and the U.S. threatened him with all kinds of measures.

For years, Israel has demanded that Palestinians stop attacking citizens and soldiers. But when attacks stopped, the Israeli government started raising new, more abstract demands, such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. The message to the other side couldn’t have been clearer: cooperation won’t get you anywhere.

Finally, a personal note: whenever news of an attack on Israelis break, I feel, like the rest of the public here, a mixture of anger and sadness, especially faced with horrifying details of the murder(s). However, I also understand why many Palestinians treat all forms of resistance – from civil disobedience to violence – as different parts of the same national struggle for freedom, just as most Israelis treat all resistance groups that predated the state as partners to the same just cause. I do not think Israelis should accept the armed attacks on them, but we should also be asking some honest questions on the alternative we offer this struggle beyond the “stable” status quo, which for the Palestinians is a form of systematic, ongoing violence – one which most of the world so comfortably ignores.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. un2here

      It’s darned easy – if the Israelis will not accept being shot at, they settle in Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Kolumn9

      If the ‘anywhere’ that the Palestinians insist on is the elimination of the Jewish State of Israel, then it is quite true, cooperation is not going to lead ‘anywhere’. Neither for that matter is violence.

      If the Palestinians are interested in a successful Palestinian state living next to Israel then cooperation is their best option. Violence, at best, will get them additional independent empires like that of Gaza.

      We have been asking ourselves honest questions and the answers have been accepted by the vast majority of the Israeli population – the Palestinians are not yet interested in a final status agreement that closes all outstanding issues and leaves Israel standing. The only outcome acceptable to the current dominant Palestinian narrative is one which leaves no room for Israel and little room for Jews. This conclusion is driven by the overwhelming support among Palestinians for the massacre and murder of any Israeli civilians wherever they can be found – women, children, whoever. This is quite explicitly demonstrated when murderers of Israeli civilians released from Israeli jails receive hero treatment upon return from the Palestinian ‘peace partner’ and from Palestinian society in general. It is also demonstrated when a shooting attack on a 9 year old Jewish girl is praised by the group (Fateh) led by the Palestinian ‘peace partner’. We aren’t talking about a statement made during the heat of the second intifada. That was done last week on Facebook.

      It doesn’t matter how calm the Palestinian Authority maintains the West Bank. As long as the overriding narrative among the Palestinians is one that demands the elimination of Israel there is no reason to believe that any peace agreement signed will be permanent. Everyone and their mother knows that any agreement signed will be violated or ignored by the Palestinian side, likely with the ringing applause of the columnists of this site that are as it is demanding that the Palestinians abandon previously signed agreements. As such there is no reason to withdraw from strategically valuable land based on the pretense that a peace agreement will prevent that land from being used for hostile activity against Israel. That is until the Palestinians adopt, whether through wisdom or despair, a narrative that accepts the legitimacy of the Jewish collective presence here, at which point it will be possible to actually believe that future generations of Palestinian children will not be raised with a worldview which considers Israel an obstacle to eventually be removed and believes that all actions to bring that about are legitimate.

      Only on the marginal left do the obvious answers that reality provides get ignored in favor of illusions.

      Reply to Comment
      • Danny

        If the latest murdered Israeli hadn’t lived in the occupied territories, he would still be alive today.

        Tell me, kolumn9, if what you say is true, and Israel is only hanging on to “strategically valuable land”, then why does the Jewish presence there keep growing and growing and growing? What lesson can the Palestinians learn from that – that negotiations with Israel will lead to a viable Palestinian state? Rubbish!

        As Noam easily demonstrated, negotiations has only entrenched the occupation, not loosened it. On the other hand, armed struggle did free up Gaza. Unfortunately, logic dictates that murdering settlers and the poor soldiers who have to guard them gets results.

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          I didn’t say that Israel is *only* hanging on to strategically valuable land. It is also allowing Jews to settle those areas and integrating them into Israel to ensure it will keep them in any future arrangements. The lesson the Palestinians can learn from that is that neither negotiations nor violence will prevent Israel from ensuring its hold on lands it considers valuable. The best they can do is to create a state that will exist in peace, cooperation and partnership with a secure Israel.

          Noam demonstrated nothing. Negotiations have allowed the emergence of a quasi-independent Palestinian entity which controls the overwhelming majority of Palestinian life in the West Bank. That entity’s success and failure depends on the level of integration that Israel allows of its residents into the Israeli economy. Armed struggle pushes Israel in the direction of unilateral partition, and not on terms beneficial to the Palestinians. So, yes, murdering settlers and soldiers will work if the Palestinians wish to replicate their ‘success’ by achieving additional Gaza-like enclaves all over the West Bank.

          Reply to Comment
          • Danny

            Ah, I see your meaning. So, in your own words, the Palestinians can’t ever hope to gain anything from negotiations with Israel (other than getting an enclosed enclave that Israel will unilaterally decide how big and free it will be). In that case, there will be more murdered Israelis, and many, many more murdered Palestinians. And in 30 years time, when the Palestinians outnumber Jews in Greater Israel 1.5 to 1, we will all look back and long for the good old days when an agreement for partition had been possible.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            The Palestinians can achieve from negotiations a state living in peace next to Israel. If they continue to proclaim their long-term goal to be the destruction of Israel then the best they can hope for through negotiations or violence is to be enclosed, cut off and bombed. If the Palestinians wish to live next to the Jewish State of Israel let them recognize it and accept that it isn’t going anywhere. I see no particularly good reason why I should hand over a gun to man that comes peacefully to tell me that he wishes to kill me at some point in the future.

            In 30 years time we’ll look back and the Palestinians will be kicking themselves why they didn’t accept a state next to Israel and instead find themselves cut off from the outside world building vast tunnels trying to kidnap an Israeli while their people live in shit. Whether the ratio of Arabs/Jews is 2/3 or 1/1 or 3/2 isn’t going to matter at that point, just like it matters not one bit that there are 1.8 million people living in shit in Gaza or 30 million living in shit in [insert poor country here]. Whether peace will or will not happen here is entirely in the hands of the Palestinians. We can’t force them to accept the reality that they will not destroy us. That is something they are going to have to eventually learn on their own. Whether that takes 30 years or 300 years is entirely up to them. All we can do is continue building and securing our state and try to not get blown up on buses by our ‘friendly’ and ‘peaceful’ neighbors who just want ‘peace’ but in the meantime are perfectly happy to celebrate and give out candy when our children get blown up in a nightclub.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Kolumn9, earlier: “I didn’t say that Israel is *only* hanging on to strategically valuable land. It is also allowing Jews to settle those areas and integrating them into Israel to ensure it will keep them in any future arrangements”

            Kolumn9, now: “The Palestinians can achieve from negotiations a state living in peace next to Israel.”

            It appears that you are attempting to juggle two balls at once, since it should be obvious to everyone that “state states living side by side” is incompatible with “one state settling the land in order to keep that land for itself”.

            After all, where is this Palestinian state supposed to be? Somewhere on the East Bank Of The Jordan River, perhaps?

            Reply to Comment
    3. aristeides

      Why is there an Israeli settlement in the Jordan Valley?

      Reply to Comment
    4. Vadim

      “one should remember that Palestinians have not been able to enjoy the “calm” of recent years”

      More goods passing through the borders, more permits to enter Israel for work or other purposes, more people getting medical treatment in Israel, less curfews, less roadblocks and intervention by the IDF. These are all concrete things that the Palestinian Arabs enjoyed.

      Perhaps you think they only enjoy the philosophical things – like justice or a good suicide bombing. But I think these lesser things should not be ignored.

      The Oslo accords were controversial in Israel, so as usual the press took it upon itself to convince everyone how wonderful everything is going to be afterwards. I don’t see anything of the kind in the PA media. No lessening in the hatred, no trend to show an attempt to prepare the public opinion towards a controversial agreement. So I guess the other side is not really willing.

      “Which brings us to the strange paradox of Israel’s policy towards terror”

      There is no paradox. Terrorism comes with the full authorization and direction of the PA and Hamas leadership. It acts by their decree and for their purposes. In this sense, as long as these organizations are getting paid, as long as the hatred is spread by official channels – there is no difference between periods with attacks or without them – they are part of the same game and you shouldn’t expect any large scale concessions because someone asked the Shuhada-Zubi Brigades to have a break for a month.

      It all comes down to this – most Israelis don’t feel that the other side is willing. That simple. It’s not about a mile here or a hill there. It’s about knowing from experience that the other side does not wish the conflict to end.

      One last thing to people commenting about the victim being a settler – the man was murdered because he is a Jew. Some can’t stand the fact that Arabs murder Jews because they are Jews and cling to the fact that he lived in a settlement. If you think a person’s place of residency is a reason enough to murder him – then you are a moral cripple.

      Reply to Comment
      • aristeides

        The man was living on stolen land because he was a Jew. All the settlers are Jews. Some can’t stand the fact that Palestinians kill Jews because they are settlers, as if “place of residency” were a morally neutral factor that didn’t involve dispossession by armed force.

        Reply to Comment
        • JohnW

          “The man was living on stolen land because he was a Jew.”

          But you are not a bigotted, racist red-neck are you Aristeides are you?

          Go join the Kul Klux Klan. Then again, you probably already have.

          Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            John W – do you suppose a Palestinian would be living in that settlement? Who else is in the settlements but Jews? Who else builds on the land expropriated by Jews, for Jews?

            Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            As many Palestinians live in that settlement as there are Jews living in Gaza.

            Reply to Comment
        • Vadim

          As if no Jews were killed by Arabs inside the green line, or in Europe, or on planes, or in Arab states. After 67 and before 67, and before 48.

          Turns out all these cases are related to “dispossession by armed force”. I bet a suicide bomber in a bus only has settlements on his mind just before he explodes. I bet the “people” that beat Vadim Nurzhitz and Yossi Avrahami to death in Ramallah simply didn’t know they were not settlers. And the Hamas brainwashed imbecile that launches rockets or mortars into Israel simply missed his geography lessons and mistakenly thinks they’ll only hit settlements.

          You can support the Paleastinian cause, but you should not delude yourself. The man was murdered because he was a Jew. His place of residency only made it simpler to perform.

          Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            Maybe Israelis should stop dispossessing people by armed force.

            Reply to Comment
          • Vadim

            Could you please tell me how many people were dispossessed to build Brosh Habika? Who were the former owners of the place? Who did they buy it from?

            A note – claims like “This land belongs to the XXX tribe, because a camel once drank there” are not really relevant.

            Reply to Comment
      • andrew r

        “If you think a person’s place of residency is a reason enough to murder him – then you are a moral cripple.”

        That’s the second anti-Zionism remark by a Zionist I’ve seen this week.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          “If you think a person’s place of residency is a reason enough to murder him – then you are a moral cripple.”

          ANDREW:”That’s the second anti-Zionism remark by a Zionist I’ve seen this week.”

          You are some piece of work arn’t you Andrew?

          A Jewish man gets murdered by a Palestinian, just because he is Jewish and where he lives and that’s the best you can come up with? It ain’t half as clever or as true as you imagine it to be. But it sure says a lot about YOU!

          Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            Way to lie with weasel words, Shmuel. “His place of residence” “just because of where he lives”

            As if the fact that he was living there wasn’t itself a crime and a sin, driving Arabs off their land and out of their homes to replace them by Jews. Here’s what one of his friends said about him: “Ya-Ya was always the pioneer,” Ariel said, using Ofer’s IDF nickname. “He was like that in the IDF and he was like that in the settlement enterprise, leading many behind him to settle in the Jordan Valley, which he claimed was of prime Zionist importance.”

            You think maybe that might have made him a target?

            Reply to Comment
          • Vadim

            I’d really be surprised to find out that they have targeted him specifically because of his role, and I’d love to hear any evidence you have regarding the matter.

            Until you provide such evidence, your claim is silly.

            Up until now, Palestinian terror was highly indiscriminate when it came to Jews. Civilians, women, children, teenagers – all are excellent targets as long as they are Jews. Same goes here.

            I’ll be blunt – if you think that a guy that’s responsible for BUILDING deserves to be murdered by ax and iron rods – then you are definitely a moral cripple.

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            More weasel words, Vadim. The issue isn’t building, digging foundations and erecting walls. The issue is dispossession. The issue is an army coming in and pushing people off their land so other people can come to build.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            You are the only weasel around here.

            If you think that this man’s murder was justified, then I suppose, for the sake consistency you agree that American Indians have every right to murder you and your family.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            And that’s not to say that the two situations are the same. In fact, the Jews have more right to at least some of the land than the European invaders had to America because unlike Europeans, who were true invaders we RETURNED to OUR ancestral homeland.

            But the principles are the same. There is a dispute about who owns what land. So one can resolve it by negotiations and compromise. Or one can attempt to resolve it by random murder.

            So far, the Palestinian Arabs preferred the second method and it cost them dearly. In fact, they lost even more land because of it.

            So, Aristeides, if you really want what is best for them (which I doubt), I suggest that you should encourage them to adopt the former method. It still does not mean that they will get everything that they want, but it will get them more than what they will get by resorting to random acts of murder and terrorism.

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            Shmuel – go read K9′s comments. He, at least, doesn’t use weasel words. He makes it clear that Israel does exactly what it wants, takes exactly what it wants, and no negotiations or compromise or appeals to law make any difference. If Palestinians don’t like it, they can go pound sand.

            Or take revenge.

            It’s not a matter of doing the Palestinians any good. Nothing does the Palestinians any good. Nothing will. It’s hypocrisy to pretend otherwise, and hypocrisy to pretend the situation is just a matter of “where he lives.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            You have a funny idea about working out what land belongs to whom and how to decide it.

            The fact is that Israel has it’s needs and it has it’s justifications for those needs. Likewise the Palestinians do too.

            If there is some middle ground in which each side gets less than what it wants, then peace is possible. Otherwise this 100 year war will continue. So each side needs to make a decision. Do they want peace? If yes, they have to compromise. If they want war, then don’t compromise.

            I suggest that so far, the Palestinians chose the second approach and consequently they lost more and more land. So, if they want to continue in that vein and people like you encourage them, then so be it. We will both pay the price for their decision but they will too. An even bigger price. Their decision …

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            PS

            For us, it is not about being nice or otherwise. It is about national survival.

            We cannot afford to make the wrong decision. Our margin for error is much smaller than the margin for error of the Palestinians. And for us, the consequences of making the wrong decision is also greater. For us, it is nothing less than national and personal survival. So, if need be, we would rather be unpopular with people like you than ending up to be pitied. Because the Middle East is a harsh place and the weak get stepped on mercilessly. So we are not willing to weaken ourselves for the sake of naive (some) or malicious (many) western kibitzers.

            Reply to Comment
    5. Shmuel

      “Which brings us to the strange paradox of Israel’s policy towards terror: when attacks on Israelis take place, the willingness of the leadership to offer concessions decreases (“we don’t deal with terrorists”) while public rage rises. However, when there are no attacks on Israelis, the Israeli willingness to offer concessions also decreases”

      Yes and the opposite is also true. When Israel makes concessions, the Palestinians become more intransigent, demanding and violent.

      In fact, the only thing that has worked for Israel in the past was when Israel responded in a tough way to Palestinian violence.

      Reply to Comment
    6. A brave piece by a man known for such.

      I think it important to talk about these acts. It doesn’t matter what I say about them; it matters what Israelis, and Palestinians, say about them. To the extent that one side vilifies violence against its own while praising that against the enemy, I see no hope. But these attacks need to be understood: the group effort involved, isolation of the victim, histories of assailants and victim, overlapping and not. And the role of story on both sides of the divide.

      There is one asymmetry, not firepower but redress, which I think needs to be considered. Redress of legitimate grievance can ease some of the amplifying power of story by creating alternative stories and events. I know of little redress against the police or IDF. This in no way obviates the crimes reported here. But it might make it just a little harder to motivate people to such future crimes. And I suspect that is all you can get: just a little harder.

      But this American kibitzes and so should be ignored.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        Greg, your wish is my command.

        Just answer this one for me. Are you seriously suggesting that we are making a bigger noise when one of us gets murdered than the noise they make when we hurt them?

        Or did I misunderstand you?

        Reply to Comment
        • Yes, I think you did misunderstand, which just shows how prone we all are to interpret everything as us and them.

          By “redress” I mean some sort of true arbitration, as in courts, which would allow Palestinians under occupation to have a hearing of grievances against actual government acts, in particulars, not ideology. (This is not to say the courts would be fair in a sense I might like, but it would be a start.) The Yesh Din cases detailed on another post series on this site give examples, although you may not like the tone of presentation. Stories do motivate us, and there are powerful stories on both sides. Although it might be hard to believe, I can place myself in the arena of both story sets, and it isn’t a pleasant place to be simultaneously.

          Here is a real event, a trivial one by the standards of your land, but it did happen. I am in Phoenix, AZ, USA. Shortly after 9-11-01, a foreigner, someone with a turban, was murdered as a hate crime. The murderer thought the victim was Muslim, but he was actually a Sikh. A few hours before the act, the murderer had gone to a bar and engaged in angry (hate) talk with fellow travelers there, riled himself up, egged on, then went to find a deed to do. This talk was a triggering mechanism. He was most likely prone to go off anyway, but the talk aimed him, so to say. This talk was like a primitive story, focusing attention, creating resolve. I’m not saying removing hate talk is possible let alone that it will solve the matter; it won’t. But stories do have an effect. What are needed are alternative stories to offset maybe some potential actions, and these stories cannot be about how “your side” is right and wronged; they have to be about how, within that other side, wrong can sometimes be addressed. And wrong does occur there, inevitably so under any occupation as prolonged and intimate when encountered as this one. There has to be sense that violence is not the only option for those living there. I don’t mean the PA people who lead privileged lives. I mean the people who have no say in negotiations and see their life slipping, truncated. There needs to be stories that these are not always wrong. This will not stop murderous attacks. Put it may shift in some the propensity to urge others on. It is a small step. But that is the way peace really works. And it means as well justice for this murdered man just reported.

          I have said before this act that violence against Jews should be reported on this site. These acts are not about a big us and big them. They are about individuals, sometimes groups, that act in response to the acts upon them and the stories they have heard, and sometimes the grief and loss they bear. This is not a matter of excuse, but causation. As I said above, details are needed to make us all pause: the history of all parties, murderers and victims, and how they overlapped to make a place in time. I don’t care about who is squawking the loudest; these are particularized individuals and events. Sometimes, though, they cascade into the intergroup conflict you decry. The question, the long term question, for I do not believe the occupation is going away, is how to prevent such cascades. An iron fist will work for some time, but I think not forever. I’ve tried to offer a small step, as do the Yesh Din reports hereon.

          It may just be me, but the comment threads seem to be getting harsher since the American forced (and they are forced) negotiations have begun. I stay here because I have deluded myself into thinking my voice may be of very mild use to some of the journalists who post on this site. I’m not really interested in defending or attacking Israel; I can’t do us and them; if I could, I would be doing more important things than typing this. Commenter and sometimes poster Vicky of this site seems to have a pretty good rule: comment if it is about children or women, sometimes racial categories, otherwise stay away. My rule and hope is the evolution of law; that’s all I’ve got.

          Noam has talked about the most recent murder, and the others, a bit. I think he deserves some real thought by us. Real thought of a ground which will not conform to our happy definitions of what it should be. You see, I really do have an inkling of how hard life in your land can get. For all. I’m trying to say us and them isn’t going to account for these acts as neatly as we may want them to. We have to look at the details.

          So, no, I’m not using a decibel meter over which side makes the greatest noise.

          If you’ve read this damn long thing, I hope it has not been insulting. Insult is part of the problem.

          Reply to Comment
    7. Tzutzik

      The Palestinian Arabs can thank themselves if Israel and Israelis have now become intransigent.

      Back in 1948, Jews accepted the UN partition. The Palestinian Arabs rioted and attacked Jews.

      After the 1967 victory, Israel attempted to give autonomy to the West Bank Palestinians. It tried to improve their lot by building schools and housing. The Palestinians heeded the orders of Jordan, they refused to cooperate and terrorism continued.

      After the 1993 Oslo accords, the number of attacks against Israeli Jews escalated.

      In 2000/2001 Ehud Barak offered major concessions in a peace deal. Israelis got the second Intifada and 4 years of suicide bombing campaign which killed and maimed thousands of Israelis.

      In 2005 Sharon withdrew all the settlers from Gaza, about 10,000 men women and children. What did Israel get in response? The election of Hamas by Palestinians in 2006 and an escalation of rocket attacks.

      In 2008, Ehud Olmert again made a peace offer involving even more concessions. What did Israel get in response? An intensification of efforts by Palestinians to isolate Israel internationally.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Greg

      Wow, I’ve never heard such complete distortion of truth. How is killing two civilians and a soldier as an act of terror the same as an Israeli raid on terrorists? How can you justify the intafada because of Oslo?! That’s sick..

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        Wow, was that a serious response to what I said?

        I outlined attempts of Israel to end this conflict and I outlined the violent responses that Israel got everytime that it attempted to compromise.

        What about that is sick exactly? Are you disputing what happened in 1948? There was no occupation after the UN declared partition. So why exactly was it right for Arabs to riot and murder Jews then? Or even read about Israel’s initial attempts to reach accommodation after the 1967 war? Here, read the following link and broaden your limited horizons:

        http://research.haifa.ac.il/~eshkol/peace.html

        At that stage there were no “settlements”. So what was their excuse to choose war instead of a peace deal then?

        Reply to Comment
    9. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel