The crisis in the Middle East is rapidly reaching dangerous proportions. Unless someone or somebody injects a heavy dose of sanity into the region's affairs immediately, it is likely to escalate into a wider conflict that will make Iraq look like a picnic. The only player perhaps capable of playing this role is the US. But thanks to a lame-duck President, whose credibility at home and abroad is embarrassing, the world's only super power ᠴe natural guarantor of global order ȱ2mains like its leader, ineffective and directionless on the global stage.

The US has most to lose if things go out of hand. Its key interests in the region are oil, Israel, and liberalism - and they are all in jeopardy. Oil is already at a record high, over $77 at the moment due to fears of disruption in case of a wider war. Israel has never been more insecure. Its two biggest enemies, Hamas and Hizbollah are effectively in control in the North and South and are shooting rockets at it from the North and the South.

US attempts to promote democracy and liberalism in the region had made both Hamas and Hezbollah legitimate political forces creating hopes of positive transformation in the two players. Now its own ally, Israel has undermined Palestinian democracy with its military campaign in Gaza and by attacking Lebanon and pounding it mercilessly it is weakening the forces of democracy and strengthening support for Hezbollah.

Israel could have easily engaged in a prisoner exchange with Hamas and Hezbollah as it has done several times in the past, and most recently in 2004, and the matter would have ended there. But Israel's overwhelming response to the capture of its soldiers, at a time when Iraq is on the brink of a civil war and the Iranian nuclear crisis is at its zenith, is undermining all the key pillars of American national interests in the region. However, I do not blame Israel for this crisis, it is doing what it thinks it must to pursue its security and its interests. I am wondering whether the US is doing everything it should in the region to defend its interests.

All players in the region are pursuing self-interest. The ability of Hamas and Hezbollah to attack the invincible military of Israel and score successes, killing and capturing soldiers, and shooting rockets as deep inside Israel as Haifa, must have sent a chill down Israel's spine. It is reacting with overwhelming force out of fear. Israel's future depends on its ability to terrorize the Arab world through superior military power, and it thinks that by punishing innocent Palestinians and Lebanese civilians it can restore that fear and deter future attacks.

Hezbollah, which is under pressure from within Lebanon and the international community to demilitarize, has once again succeeded in presenting itself as the only defense that Lebanon has against Israel. Israel's killing of dozens of Lebanese civilians and bombing of Beirut will merely increase support for Hezbollah, attract more recruits and funding, and increase hatred for Israel. Right now, even the Christians in Lebanon must hate Israel, as their tourism industry suffers because of this new war that Israel is waging against Lebanon.

Iran, thanks to America's foolhardy adventure in Iraq, is rapidly emerging as a regional power, more capable of shaping the political and geopolitical realties in the Middle East than even the US. It is protecting itself from America's pressure on the nuclear issue by creating a dangerous diversion. Already it has succeeded in dividing the G-8, with France and Russia condemning Israel for excessive force while the US justified it.

What is the US doing at the moment? First of all, by justifying Israel's excessive use of force, the US has immediately distanced itself from the very powers it was seeking solidarity with ű and Russia. America's weak response and support of Israel has probably done billions of dollars worth of damage to the public diplomacy campaign that every one thinks is so vital to win the war on terror.

Muslims all across the world are watching a nuclear power supported, armed and funded by the US, bombard and kill dozens of innocent civilians, destroy the economy and infrastructure of Palestine and Lebanon, kidnap dozens of elected Palestinian leaders, bomb their homes even when there are children present, and all US does is provide political cover for Israel in the UN security council and on the world stage. Al Qaeda must be running out of enrollment forms.

The escalation in the region is not in US interests. It strengthens anti-Americanism worldwide and fuels radicalism in the Arab and Muslim world. It also reverses hard earned gains in the region such as fledgling democracies in Palestine and Lebanon. It is a shame that in moments of crisis American leadership does not take decisive steps to safeguard its own interests. The US does not have to abandon Israel to defend its other interests in the region, all it has to do is use its enormous leverage to ensure that Israel's policies are moderate and prudent and safeguard both Israeli and American interests.

>>However, I do not blame Israel for this crisis, it is doing what it thinks it must to pursue its security and its interests.<<

You should considering that Israel planned its terrorist attacks several months in advance. There was a reason why they pushed so hard for war against Iraq and got Syria out of Lebanon. Anybody familiar with the history of the Middle East knows that what Israel is doing is nothing new, nor is the US reaction to it beyond the pale. Forget about W, the Congress will support Israel no matter what...a fraction of the over $8 billion sent to Israel is given to their puppets.

>>
The escalation in the region is not in US interests.<<

I know you are trying very hard to fit in, but is this the only way you see things? US foreign policy in the Middle East has never been in favor of the US.

"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to [Israel] ... They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wouldn't write anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms."

óAdmiral Moorer, 1984, quoted by Richard Curtiss in A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Dispute

2 questions

1 Why were the Palestinians and Hizbollah willing to risk retaliation by a large military power, when they have almost no means to defend themselves?

2 And why cannot the middle east arabs learn from the effective Israeli PACs.

Are the arab states so incompetent that they cannot learn lessons from how the Israeli's work?

>>1 Why were the Palestinians and Hizbollah willing to risk retaliation by a large military power, when they have almost no means to defend themselves?<<

Thats a great question. The situation in Palestine didnt start with the kidnapping of a zionist soldier. Even before jewish terrorists massacred that Palestinian family on the beach, things were being set in motion to take out the Hamas government. As for Lebanon, according the Asia times the Israelis were ones who stepped into Lebanese territory first which prompted a retaliation from Hezbollah. Even if we put all this aside...nobody with a brain believes that this is about a handful of Israeli soldeirs but a part of expanding the "war of error" by bringing Iran and Syria into the mix. The actions of jewish terrorists are nothing new when one looks at the history of the modern middle east.

>>2 And why cannot the middle east arabs learn from the effective Israeli PACs. Are the arab states so incompetent that they cannot learn lessons from how the Israeli's work?>>

You're assuming that Arab states are independent entities, not the weak client regimes that they truly are. The real question should be when Americans are going to stop giving handouts to israel. Those billions could be put to better use at home. The presence of PACs is IMHO a barometer for corruption.

I agree on several points in this article and disagree with several points, and have a few other thoughts.
1) I agree that the current escalation is of dangerous proportions, that should be clear to all.
2) I agree that Israel could have done a prisoner exchange earlier, and that would have been in their own best interest, although it would have not been an exachange it would have been a release. By putting Palestinians unjustly in prison they give them more strength, it is surprising to me they continue this practice.
3) I agree that all 'Players' are persuing self interests.
4) I agree about Iran's power gain at the hands of the US Invasion of Iraq.

Where I disagree:
1)In this conflict, the US does not have the most to lose. The good people who are trying to raise there children to love others in peace, whether it be in Israel, Gaza or Lebanon clearly are losers in this debacle.
2) The pressure that has been 'exerted' on Hezbollah has not been sufficient to end the missle launches into Israel that have been occurring for the last year. If you push the classroom bully long enough he is going to punch you in the face, which is what Israel is doing right now.

From my vantage point, this region of the world, including Israel, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, as well as Washington have been painfully absent the true leaders needed to take the risks that our children need them to take to secure peace for future generations. As long as Hamas and Hezbollah live in the past and continue be dedicated to the death of their neighbor, there own children are unlikely to ever live without a cold heart. And as long as the Israelis continue to pursue the eye for eye/arm policy they are putting a down payment on hatred for the next 100 years.

The only avenue out of this hole that I can see is in the teachings of Gandi and Mother Theresa. Gandi said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" and Mother Thersa said "If you would like world peace, go home and love your family and your neighbor." This approach worked in India. It worked in large part in the US with civil rights. If the Palestinians have a just and rightful cause, it is my opinion that they should learn from these teachers that violence is not the path, and that peaceful methods will yeild their answers, Although, being peaceful is inconsistent with the demise of your nieghbor.

I believe most reasonable human beings are for non-violence as long as they are left unmolested to go about their business, but its application in extreme situations is doomed to failure and nothing less then learned helplessness. The right of self-defence is non-negotiable.
The British left India because of their inability to administer control in its colonies in the aftermath of world war 2, and unlike the Israelis the British werent committed to ethnic clensing, just run of the mill exploitation of their "subjects." Not to mention that Indians led their own rebellions which launched the independence movement long before Gandhi arrived on the scene.
The Palestinians have no choice but to fight against the vile disgusting askeNAZI zionists who have been killing them for over 60 years. The death toll speaks for itself. If Palestinians were to stop resisting today, the Israelis would simply continue doing what they've been doing fo rall these decades. They kill innocents and cry terrorism when the victims retaliate. The fact of the matter is the Israel has been given a blank check to do whatever it wants by the usual suspects so I doubt that the peoples of the region will accept that and take their own counter measures.

"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. Malcolm X

1. Are the Palestenians getting what they want? Have the tactics of violence worked? Non violent protest is not learned helplessness, and it would actually take more courage than what is currently taking place (Recall the video of the man holding the grocery bags infront of the tank in China). Imagine 10000 Palestinians quietly walking toward an Israeli check point then sitting in unison in protest. Would that be more powerful than shooting a rocket at an Israeli city?
Would it perpetuate the violence?

2. "Most reasonable human beings" do not seem to include the goverments Israel, the United States, Iran, nor the organizations of Hamas nor Hezbollah. All seem perfectly content using violence as a means to an end.

3. The Israels have certainly committed attrocities, they shell indiscrimantly, they use there fire power to kill. The Palestinians blow up restaurants with families and busses with commuters. None are "right." Revenge is not defense.

With president of Iran calling for Israelis to be pushed into the sea it is difficult to paint only the Israelis as the ones committed to ethnic cleansing.

More questions:
When will leaders such as Sadat, Rabin, Carter, Lincoln etc, step forward and forge new ground that can secure peace for generations to come?
Could Jews live in peace with Palestinians if no more busses were blown up, or missles lobbed into Israeli cities?
Could Palestinians live in peace with the current land they have if the Israelis stopped driving tanks through Gaza and the West Bank?

Could people live in peace? Violence is another option (that for some reason people appear to feel more comfortable with.)

>>(Recall the video of the man holding the grocery bags infront of the tank in China). <<

Yes, and the tank went around him and they ended up massacring 5000 civilians.

>>Imagine 10000 Palestinians quietly walking toward an Israeli check point then sitting in unison in protest. Would that be more powerful than shooting a rocket at an Israeli city?
Would it perpetuate the violence? <<

You obviously do not understand the nature of the conflict instead preferring photo op symbolism instead of the REALITY. What would happen if a 100000 were non-volent(as they have been many times)? They would be fired by a fighter jet or a tank, and its has happened before. Do you have any idea how violent Rachel Corrie was being when the israelis drove a bulldozer over her? How about that Palestinian family on the beach before the Israelis cut them to pieces?

>>
2. "Most reasonable human beings" do not seem to include the goverments Israel, the United States, Iran, nor the organizations of Hamas nor Hezbollah. All seem perfectly content using violence as a means to an end.

3. The Israels have certainly committed attrocities, they shell indiscrimantly, they use there fire power to kill. The Palestinians blow up restaurants with families and busses with commuters. None are "right." Revenge is not defense.<<

Once again trying to standardize and camouflage the actions of the aggressor verses the state of the victim. The occupation came long before a single resturant went up. There was no Hamas and Hezbollah until the occupations of Palestine and Lebanon.

I'm with GRIV. Enough killing on both sides. Where will it end? When all the Jews are dead? When all the Muslims? Organized nonviolent, noncooperation as Gandhi and MLK Jr. used is the only honorable solution -- on all sides. Yes, DrM, there have been many "nonviolent" civilian casualties -- on both sides. Many israelis were "being nonviolent" when they were cut down by Hamas or Hezbollah actions.

Israel responds to kids throwing rocks with bullets, and the response to that is a grenade on a bus that kills women and children and the response to that is shelling... and on and on in a mindless and childish slaughter that ennobles nobody and degrades everyone.

Rachel Corrie gave her life for nonviolence. Nonviolent protesters know they risk their lives, but they choose to risk their lives for peace, not in killing other God's children. Gandhi won the hearts and minds of the world with his courageous movement. And he won Indian Independence. He won. The current methods can create only losers and corpses.

>>With president of Iran calling for Israelis to be pushed into the sea it is difficult to paint only the Israelis as the ones committed to ethnic cleansing.<<

He never said that. It was reported that he said that israel should be wiped off the world map in the mainstream press. In fact, Ahmadinejad never used the phrase ìwiped off the mapî in his speech. Professor Juan Cole, fluent in farsi helped expose this. This was put out by the same people who came up the lie that Jews in Iran are required to wear yellow star of david badges. Then again, these guys screamed about Iraqi WMD too.

>>Could people live in peace? Violence is another option (that for some reason people appear to feel more comfortable with.)<<

Perhaps if westerners, by far the most violent people on earth followed the line they push on others, it may have some meaning. But that will never happen...."non-violence" is only promoted insofar as it can be used to further subjecate the subjected. Gandhi has become nothing more then a talking point for people, usually clueless white liberals and their fellow cultural elitists who have no knowledge of history and its context yet pretend to understand the world based on their own fantasy and reductionist politics. To put it in 4 words or less "No Justice, no peace."

"I don't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me." Malcolm X

>>And he won Indian Independence. He won.<<

You actually believe that Gandhi won Indian independence? I guess you watched the movie and didnt read a history book. Anybody who believes the British packed up and left because Gandhi was non-violent is an uninformed uneducated reductionist fool stuck in the 1960s.

Well, normally I don't respond to posts that use ad hominem attacks as a replacement for actual discussion and argument but...

I've read quite a lot on the subject, and travelled extensively in the region. Saw the movie too, years ago. Gandhi won the world to his side and made the British departure inevitable. And Martin Luther King Jr.? Got anything nasty to say about him, DrM?

>Gandhi won the world to his side and made the British departure inevitable. <

Nonsense and reductionism again, sounds like Michael Moore polemicism. The British left because they did not have the resources to administer control in India in the aftermath of the second world war. Their economy did not recover till the 1960s. Thats a bit of history and context which is absent and left out in your arguments. Anybody who believes that Gandhi, as great a man as he was beat the British empire single handedly is simply uninformed or dishonest. As I recall the Algerians had to fight to toss the French out. Didnt go to well in Vietnam, Afghanistan or many other places where people fought back and succeded.
Dont get me wrong. I am all for non-violence , but only to a reasonable extent but never at the cost of self defence which is the right of every human being. You cant apply India or the US civil rights movement to the situation in Palestine which is totally different scenario. Unlike the British in India or whites during the civil rights movement...the Israelis want the Palestinians dead and forgotten. Its called ethnic clensing, its about survival, not integration. Now if the Israelis were reined in and straightened out long ago we would not have the chaos and bloodshed we see today. Instead they continue to violate international law and UN resolutions, they continue to kill unrestrained....yet the Palestinians and Lebanese are supposed to suck it up and be non-violent. Essentially telling people to become functionaries in their own subjegation. Besides...I'd like to see westerners being nonviolent for once instead of their victims being told how to react and behave everytime a 500 lb bomb is dropped on them. Another pathetic attempt to cover up the actions of the aggressors.

>And Martin Luther King Jr.? Got anything nasty to say about him, DrM?<

No, but I do have "nasty" things to say about ignorant buffoons who misuse his example and apply it every case regardless of history and context....as if conflicts can solved with a one size fits all pre-packaged solution. Bottom line = no justice, no peace.


"Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress limits. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors. ...And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against transgressors." (2:190, 193)

4 words or less: Look forward, not back

We as people need to look for the solutions not figure out who was wrong, because as long as people are dying on both sides, everyone is wrong. What are the solutions? I hear no solutions from any corner.

Is the solution for the Jews to lose a war and get pushed out of the land called Israel? Is the solution for the Palestinians to get bombed into submission? What are some solutions?
I was trying to offer a solution, not get into a petty discussion about the merits of Gandi, (who I do think has some solid credentials).

Let me ask a more basic question from both perspectives: Do Israelis consider Palestenians people or less than people? Similarly, do Palestenians consider Israelis people or less than people? To me this is a fundamental question because I hear both Israelis and Palestenians frequently refer to 'people' of both sides as less than that, calling them by derogatory names.

If we want to see progress toward peace, the first step is so basic it is not spoken, and that is to accept that the other side consists of people who are so similar to one another. They share dreams, want their children to be successful, want their spouses to be happy. It becomes much more difficult to kill someone when you feel you share things with them.

Lastly, please dont get me wrong. From my perspective the saddest events in recent memory are those that have come at the hands of the west. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. It breaks my heart every time I see some photo of a dead child in Iraq, Gaza, Israel and now Lebanon. The shame is all of ours to share. Lets look forward together, not find more reasons to kill one another.

> The British left because they did not have the resources to administer control in India in the aftermath of the second world war <

-- and because Gandhi won the PR war, making their departure inevitable regardless. And no, he didn't do it alone. But he was the mastermind behind it, and brilliant. The British held on for a couple of decades in some of their expensive, difficult to administer colonies, colonies they had a much less sentimental and strategic attachment to. They couldn't hold India because Gandhi's movement helped make India too expensive and unmanageable.

Gandhi beat them with nonvioence, and with a media savvy well ahead of his time.

>As I recall the Algerians had to fight to toss the French out. Didnt go to well in Vietnam, Afghanistan or many other places where people fought back and succeeded.<

Ends justfy the means then? I believe all those situations would have profited more from massive civil disobedience (and some media savvy) than from war. I know the Afghan situation well. I was there during the war with the Soviets and have kept abreast through Afghan and other friends since then. How did the Afghan war against the Soviets succeed? Millions dead, millions refugees, millions missing limbs, infrastructure destroyed, degenerated into civil war and lawlessness followed by the Taliban -- some success. And then there are all those who were traumatized, shell-shocked, raving mad from it all -- I lived next door to the Kuwaiti Red Crescent psychiatric hospital and down the road from the Red Cross amputee clinic and the damage I saw daily even when I was outside the war zone would stop your heart. I learned to hate war.

>Dont get me wrong. I am all for non-violence , but only to a reasonable extent but never at the cost of self defence which is the right of every human being.<

I would agree within limits. The tricky part is defining self-defense. As Nobel Peace Prize winner Lester Pearson once said after a disarmament conference: "There was a valid distinction between an offensive and a defensive weapon; if you were in front of it, it was offensive; if you were behind it, it was defensive."

(more)

>the Israelis want the Palestinians dead and forgotten.<

I'm sure that's true of some Israelis. I saw a photograph of little Israeli girls writing messges on missiles destined for South Lebanon and it made me sick. But there are many Israelis who support the Palestinians.
Israelis might say the same thing about the Arab world --" they want us all dead."

Israel exists. How can people make the best out of a de facto situation? How can the Palestinians get justice without alienating a lot of good people who are sickened by the violence on all sides?

> yet the Palestinians and Lebanese are supposed to suck it up and be non-violent. Essentially telling people to become functionaries in their own subjegation.<

No no no. They should fight with everythng they have -- but nonviolently. I think the Israelis should too. Their soldiers answer rocks with bullets? That's a crime too.

>I'd like to see westerners being nonviolent for once instead of their victims being told how to react and behave everytime a 500 lb bomb is dropped on them.<

I'm not giving the Bush administration a pass here. I think their actions are terroristic and have made the world a much more dangerous place.


>No, but I do have "nasty" things to say about ignorant buffoons<

I find that remark to be a tad aggressive and... not very nice. :)

> .as if conflicts can solved with a one size fits all pre-packaged solution.<

Of course it can't be a pre-packaged solution. It has to take into account the actual grievances of the people, and the vulnerabilities of the Power, and what nonviolent actions would be symbolic and effective. For Gandhi it was making salt from the sea and general strikes, for MLK Jr. it was lunch counter sit-ins and peaceful marches through hostile neighborhoods. With cameras rolling of course.

> Bottom line = no justice, no peace.<

Do you believe war will bring justice in this situation? Or just more war? In a sense, war is a rather reductive idea. What would be more effective? I believe nonviolent noncooperation would be a lot more effective in securing justice.

"The grim fact is that we prepare for war like precocious giants and for peace like retarded pygmies." Lester B. Pearson
( http://canadawiki.org/index.php/Quotes_by_Prime_Ministers_-_Lester_Pearson )

I understand where you're coming from GRIV, but there needs to be an appreication of reality. To standardize the action of the aggressive attackers with those of the defenders and downtrodden is immoral. I wonder if this is due to the white guilt complex in the west regarding jews which perverts any serious discussion free of intellectual and emotional blackmail. One cannot look forward without understanding the learning from the past. Israelis refuse to, and are still well rewarded for it.

>But he was the mastermind behind it, and brilliant. The British held on for a couple of decades in some of their expensive, difficult to administer colonies, colonies they had a much less sentimental and strategic attachment to.<

Not quite. The colonies which the British held on to were small African ones which were easy to control until the 60s. India was too large to control and had started flirting with the then Soviet Union. Once again Gandhi is being given excessive credit based on simplistic western interpretations. World War 2 did the colonial empires of Europe in, regardless of Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, Pundit Patel.

>Ends justfy the means then?<

When the ends are a national indepenence, absolutely.

>I believe all those situations would have profited more from massive civil disobedience (and some media savvy) than from war.<

Uh no. This is naive ignorance. "Media savvy" photo ops dont liberate nations, people do...and they dont need the permission of the invader to do it. Nobody will give you your independence on a silver platter. History is a testament to that.

>>How did the Afghan war against the Soviets succeed?<<

Well they did succeed in kicking out the Soviets didnt they? Yes, at a terrible cost...but I dont know a single Afghan who wasnt against the Soviets, and they would never have retreated if the Afghans didnt fight them tooth and nail. The Taliban's appearance is separate post-war matter of tribal war lords and western and client regime intelligence agencies interfering in that countrys internal affairs.

>I'm sure that's true of some Israelis.<

Unfortunetly it is the opinion of a majority of Israelis who want Palestinian "transferred"(a sanitized term for ethnic clensing).

>>Israelis might say the same thing about the Arab world --" they want us all dead." <<

Thats a bizarre statement considering that the Arab and Muslim world protected Jews from European persecution for hundreds of years. That changed when zionist terrorists showed and decided steal and annex territory from the Arabs. You cannot stop genocide by nonviolence.

>They should fight with everythng they have -- but nonviolently. I think the Israelis should too.

Once again you are living in a lala land. You have removed the context and history of the conflict to make naive pacifist pitch which is unrealistic and would never work, especially when you have fighter jets firing missles into residential neighborhoods. The Israelis werent kicked out of southern lebanon years ago because they were asked to either.

>For Gandhi it was making salt from the sea and general strikes, for MLK Jr. it was lunch counter sit-ins and peaceful marches through hostile neighborhoods. With cameras rolling of course.<

Yeah ok, gotcha...make sure you're being shot on live TV and world opinion will magically change. You obviously do not understand that the world we live is not the one of the 1940s or 1960s. Immaturity in the extreme. Mainstream media is a branch of state governments. BTW in the occupied territories cameraman and reporters are usually shot at by the Israelis....even FOX news. Peace activists, civilians are also murdered in broad daylight on TV...yet has the situation changed? Nope. Israel continues to do whatever it wants and it has a blank check for it.

>>I believe nonviolent noncooperation would be a lot more effective in securing justice.<<

You can believe what you want, I could never sit still and let someone harm me or my loved ones. Imagine this, you're the relative of a 14 year old Iraqi girl Abeer Hamza who gets raped by US soldiers, she and her family are then shot and burned alive. What was her crime? Being a pretty girl in her native country under foriegn occupation minding her own business. What would your non-violence have done for her?

How about this one : You are the relative of a Palestinian boy walking to school...only to be jumped by vicious jewish settler thugs who brutally pistol whip the kid into a coma. What was his crime? How about that Palestinian family at the beach in Gaza before the Israeli shelled it and cut them to shreds? What was their crime?

Hypothetical? No, these and many other atrocities have happened and will continue to happen. That is how militancy comes about, because Palestinians will not accept being treated like animals in their own country. Lester Pearson can come up with all the cliched one liners he can in the comfort of his home....let him live 2 days in Gaza and we'll see how fast his outlook changes. This is what cafe latte liberals dont seem to understand. If a gunman is forcing his way into your house, he intends to kill you, rape your wife and children, and steal all your possessions, would you be justified in killing him or maiming him to prevent it? Yes. You could not be considered morally good to stand by and let it happen, or adopt a positon of non-violence if violence is the only option you would have to save what you live for and those you have a duty to protect.
Self-defence is a human right, and it is non-negotiable.


And those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, fight back." (42:39)

And if you punish, you shall inflict an equivalent punishment. But if you resort to patience (instead of revenge), it would be better for the patient ones." (16:26)

DrM, you make good points. If someone entered my home and were attempting to kill my family directly or rape my wife, yes I would actively defend them, with violence. If my son were walking home from school and I witnessed someone trying to pistol whip him, I would actively defend him with violence if need be.

However the greater issue is, where does the violence end? Depending on your perspective and the television channel you watch the other side is always the last one to have done some act of violence.

For instance, Hezbollah has been firing Katushka rockets into northern Israel for over a year now without a coordinated response from Israel. From the perspective of the Israelis they are trying to "defend" themselves right now.

Another example of the beauty of violence. On 9/11 19 men hijacked 4 airplanes and slammed them into buildings killing thousands. From the perspective of the American Goverment they are now trying to "defend" themselves in Afganistan and Iraq.

This cycle never ends, unless people intentionally end it and come to see the other side as people with real needs.

And with regard to the reality. The reality is that this conflict has been going on for 60 years with many dead on both sides, mainly the Palestinian side. My idea would save lives and I believe end with the Palestinians getting the greatest result. Is the alternative solution to just keep fighting until the Jews are all dead or gone?