Israelophilia

Well, that is something that I would never say-- but then, despite my surname, I'm not Jewish, so raising questions about patriotism about something like this just... makes me feel icky.
-
Instead, I'd just note that the policy of maximal insult to Palestinians isn't in Israel's interests, either, just as occupying Iraq for the next 60 years isn't in the US's interest. Only a million times worse than that.

Joe Klein:

...Hikind is flaunting a warped form of Israelophilia, putting Israel first, that is not in the best interests of the United States, the country where he continues to live and prosper.

That great American patriot and father of our country agrees with you (the counsel of US President George Washington):

...nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.
.
The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests.
.
The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.
.
It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

When did this somehow become a debatable proposition within our government, Joe Klein?

It's ben suggested that this subject would benefit from a period of American detachment. I'd be happy if JK would give it a rest, whether the government does or not.

Here are some questions:

1) Does international law require that people cannot build on land to which they hold title?

2) Were there Jews in E. Jerusalem prior to 1948?

3) Did Jews have the legal right to build anywhere in Jerusalem prior to 1948?

4) Is all emigration to "occupied territory" barred by international law?

Rather than challenging the "patriotism" of Americans, which makes some "feel icky", it should be expressly illegal.

My suggestion would be to amend the Helms-Burton Act, which prohibits transactions in expropriated property in Cuba, to also prohibit purchasing property in the occupied territories.

As a matter of pure political theater, such a bill would be tough to top. The most hardened defenders of the Cuban embargo would likely oppose the bill. Many of the liberal opponents of the Cuban embargo would support it. As would many European countries who similarly oppose the U.S.'s embargo of Cuba.

The persons most likely to be consistent between the proposed Cuban and Israeli embargoes would be arch-international free-traders, who oppose all barriers to international commerce.

Which is why we will have to settle for sniffing in the general direction of Dov Hikind.

I think it's healthy to encourage Americans to buy property in all areas of Israel and Palestine. If and when a Palestinian state is established, or one big (binational?) state is set up, there should be no restrictions on religion or nationality of property owners. So the fact that Americans might buy property right now, doesn't prejudge in any way the outcome; it just helps to insure that the resulting administration will be more free and less able to impose unreasonable restrictions. One of the main things which seems to be missing is a good property registration system so that "who owns what" is perfectly transparent and clear. This again would be helped by having more Americans enter the market.

So, now a citizen can only buy land on his/her PRIVATE time if it is in support of American interests and policies? As long as it is legal, the government has no business telling a citizen where and when he/she can buy private property.

Is that legal? Just barely, I'd guess (quoted from article above)

Really, you aren't even going to bother to do a little research to find out, merely make a guess?? Very responsible journalism there.

Deleterious traitor!

Joe Klein, you are the reason I canceled my printed subscription. I never seen so much 'stupid' writing by a single person.

Thank you Mr Klein for having the guts to speak up about our "pro Israel at any cost" bias. I'm sure all the trolls and Palinites will now come and call you an anti semite for supporting terrorism now.

By the way, didn't Obama say that Jerusalem was the undivided capital of Israel?

goingroguex~
Dov Hikind is a Democratic Congressman. Much like most Democratic politicians, he is insanely pro-Israel. This is not a partisan issue. It won't just be Palinites who oppose reasonable views on Palestine. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the single most bipartisan issue in this contrary, ideologues from all over the spectrum egregiously support Israeli expansion.

Joe Klein calling himself a lifelong supporter of Israel is like Barack Obama calling himself a lifelong supporter of Israel. Saying it over and over won't ever make it so.

Leave Israeli policy to the Israelis, Mr. Klein. They've made it this far without you.

Joe doesn't say if and why this is illegal. I don't know why it would be. I can't imagine there is a law that says I cannot buy property overseas.

I think Joe is starting to realize there is a very significant threat in the middle east regarding American jews. Because the primary support for Israel comes from Christians and other conservatives many jewish groups are lookling at how to better invest their dollars and buying real estate in Jerusalem is a great advantage. To the extent they can make very attractive offers to Palestrinian owners and transfer ownership to jews that obviously lowers the resistance to Israel using Jerusalem as their capital.

The fact is rich Americans have been investing in Israel for decades. Virtually all of the settlements are on property owned by jews sold to them legally by Palestinians. Think about it from the Palestinian perspective. They'll never be able to live there and the Jews will pay a premium. The clear incentive is to sell. Moreover, over time this is going to expand as the Israeli's become far more prosperous than the Palestinians.

As an earlier, more powerful and more widely respected Jew once said "when there is blood on the streets, that is the time to buy."

Maybe Dov is more optimistic about a "final solution" to the Arab - Israeli problem than the media would represent.

Dov is remembering well the lessons he learnt prior to his barmitzvah - wealth and prosperity you can pass on. Ideological positions are for the schmucks.

The law on the rights of an occupier are clear and well understood everywhere except in America and Israel: the occupier is not the sovereign and may not, among many other things, [1] build a wall on land illegally seized in occupied territory or [2] build settlements on land illegally seized in occupied territory or [3] settle members its own population within occupied territory. This law has been set forth in the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice which ruled on the legal consequences of Israel's building its wall in the occupied territories (West Bank). READ IT. IT'S FASCINATING. Especially read paragraphs 100 and 120.

OK, so Dov Hikind may not settle on land he does not own and may not legally acquire land from someone (else) who does not own it. Can he legally buy land from a Palestinian? Perhaps, but good luck.

The USA, for its part, has behaved despicably. As long as peace was (even arguably) in prospect it made a sort of sense (not much, but maybe some) to allow Israel to violate the law of occupation.

Now that Israel has spat in the USA's face by refusing even to stop building new settlements and additions to old settlements, it is clear that Israel prefers to occupation to any peace the Palestinians would accept.

That is OK. No law says Israel must accept what the Palestinians want. Or vice versa.

But since peace is no longer in prospect (realistically, it has not been in prospect for 20 years and the so-called "peace process" has been nothing but a charade), the USA should demand (and in fact should require) that Israel conduct its occupation legally.

This means, minimally, that it must remove the wall, remove the settlers (all 500,000 of them), and either remove (i.e., destroy) the settlements (buildings) and Israelis-only highways which connect the settlements to pre-1967 Israeli territory or else give them to the Palestinians for their unrestricted use.

Will such legality bring peace? Who can say. But the law is the law and should be respected, because it is intended to limit the power of occupiers in the interest of protecting the human rights of the people living under occupation -- in this case Palestinians.

If Israel feels above the law, no power but the USA can correct its lawlessness. If the USA will not do so (and so far it has shown no tendency to do so, backing down regularly to Israeli "tough talk") then we may kiss human rights goodbye and look forward to the next Middle East war.

What is not widely known is that Dov Hykind was one of the early members of the Jewish Defense League, initiated by the late, unlamented racist Rabbi Meir Kahane which was listed by the FBI as a terrorist organization. That this fact has been ignored by the NY Times is evidence of his political clout.

Although Hykind left the JDL when he decided to go into politics, he has never renounced either Kahane or his own virulently anti-Arab racism.

Clearly, Hykind's demonstration of Jewish supremacist and Israeli-first positions sit well with his largely orthodox Jewish constituency although the vast majority of Jews would quite likely find them and Hykind abhorrent.

[...] the increasingly deranged Joe Klein, over at Time Magazine’s appropriately named Swampland blogs, used the occasion for blatant [...]

Guys, with all the due respect, you are out of focus as the basic terms are concerned.
1. The Oslo Peace process was not a "charade" as someone called it but a true attempt on the part of Israel to maneuver the so called Palestinians into a statehood, to which USA and other Western countries were contributors. It turned to be a debacle, obviously, due to the fact that the so called Palestinians are not a nation in pursuit of their statehood, but a conglomeration of tribes or clans ("hamullahs") in general pursuit of wiping Israel from the map. Why? Because the free and open society residing in front of their eyes undermines their Arab Islamic ideal. They parasitize on the Western concepts like self-determination etc., but they behave so that, if they gain any territory, nothing other than Islamic fundamentalist society will be established there. Any doubts? Well, see the example of Gaza strip after Israel's withdrawal, or the avoiding elections by Abu Mazen – he knows the results.
2. American interest. Is the establishing of another Islamic republic, that will necessarily be hostile to the US and the West in general, in the interests of the US?
Moreover, that Islamic republic will be a target to regional predators like Syria and Egypt (like it was from time immemorial – consult history), and hence even more instability will ensue (Egypt and Algeria almost reached a brink of war over a football game). Is that in the interest of US? To remind you, Israel stopped the Syrian tanks columns moving into Jordan in 1970 – following the US request. Isn't that worth a couple of years of military aid? Whom would you ask – the Egyptians? The Turks? (The latter wouldn't let the US units pass through on their way to Iraq).
By the way, contrary to what one of the guys claimed as if Israel refused to freeze construction in the settlements in Judea and Samaria, the opposite is true: Israel conceded to a temporary freeze, but the Arabs didn't come along rejecting Obama's request even for very modest diplomatic gestures.
3. Concerning American military aid. The aid is given to Israel to buy military equipment in the US, so that the US government promotes the American industry. During the years Israel served as a testing ground of the American weapon systems versus the Soviets, and again you don't obtain this kind of invaluable information and feedback from the battle field for nothing. (Of course, you can always try your luck with the French).
4. You are clinging too much to the legalistic and formalistic side of the matter without giving necessary weight to the real culture groups and what future forms of existence they are driving at. Even so, you are applying to Israel rules that are unapplicable elsewhere: no one would seriously consider, say, a German claim to the territories of Prussia which they controlled prior to the WWII that they unleashed, but you do consider Arab claims to the territories they lost in 1967 and even in 1947-8 as a result of the wars they unleashed. You take for granted the Arab right to the Judea and Samaria territories (dubbed as the West Bank), while these were occupied till 1967 by Jordan. Until that year and even later no one talked about the so called Palestinian people and their rights. It's a 1.25 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria and approximately 1.0 million in the Gaza strip (not much common between these two groups). Reasonably they are entitled to some kind of autonomous self-rule. What about some 15-20 million Kurds who constitute a well defined nation centuries in existence? Let's see you, legalistic guys, extricate yourselves from this issue (possible clues: not to divide Iraq, not to aggravate the Turks – very serious legalistic claims. But to risk driving Israel into the sea by promoting Iranian proxy 8 miles from the shore is OK. Someone got insane? Or just too eager to push the Jews? Check your motives versus logic).
5. As to the one guy who claimed that Israel's days are numbered, we've heard it somewhere: Nebuchadnezzar claimed it, the emperor Adrian claimed it (not to mention Hitler). I don't advise you to join those venerable gentlemen's company. Anyway, you won't see it (and I don't mean to wish you a short life), neither your grandchildren, nor theirs.
6. As to JK, I won't bother more than to repeat a comment I've already placed in his regard after reading his other intellectual pearl, pointing out our indebtedness to the people of his kind of mind in that we owe them Mark Twain's aphorism: "First God created idiots".
7. As for Barak Obama, he is a very smart guy but with extremely wrong worldview that he created to himself as a social worker. It looks like the reality is starting to dawn upon him.

Hello, Exiled_At_Home
I'll gladly clarify you my points. But with all due respect, let me only call you to shed off your predispositions taken from a different script, i.e. " Palestinians oppressed, humiliated, denied basic rights, arbitrarily detained" and all that stuff. I don't know where you take that kind of information, or rather disinformation. I'll ask your permission not to repudiate your attempts to "peg me down" (if that's the word – I had to look up in the dictionary, as English isn't my native language) with statements like "Arabs and Muslims are sub-human beings" or " Jews are superior to mere mortal humans". Don't go that low, spare me. Just try to accept the possibility that you don't know the facts and you don't understand the situation. That's why you cling to a scheme that is not relevant and misses the point – the scheme of "oppressors-subdued" or "colonizers-exploited" or something like that. Now let me address some facts.
1. Before the 6-Days war in 1967 the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria had no rights under the Jordanians. I spoke with the people on the ground, not the functionaries.
If a policeman addressed a citizen it would be after punching a fist in his face first. I'll leave to your intelligence to figure out if that citizen had a legal way to complain. This situation is absolutely impossible at the encounter of the Israeli policeman or soldier with that same citizen, or his descendant. Soldiers were put to trial for in a few cases of misbehavior towards Arabs. Can you bring an example of a policeman brought to trial in any Arab state for that same fault?
2. The Arabs that fell under Israeli control in 1967 had no running water, no electricity, life expectancy was 44 years. Their life expectancy was raised at least to mid-sixties long ago due to Israeli medicine. No need to mention electricity and water supply. We could go on on the subject human rights. I'll make it short by challenging you to imagine that you are an Arab standing to trial for whatever crime: now choose whether you prefer to be tried in Israeli court or in a court of any of Arab countries or the PA ("Palestinian Authority"). Before you decide, I'll inform you that even those accused of terror attacks are represented by lawyers (there were cases of acquittal), and if found guilty serve in conditions of 3 star hotel, having family visits and learning toward academic degrees in university if they so choose. Let alone the cell phones, TV sets, books etc. That is in Israel. In PA people were put to death by "pegging" them to the pole head down, torturing and leaving the corpses for another couple of days for everyone to see. Now you will indulge me to inform me of your choice.
3. You can check my the information, but you have to work harder than just reading the press. I'll bring to your attention this particular evidence: an Arab from one of the villages under "occupation" told me personally that "they want to be inside" - which means that if there is a partition, they – i.e. his village- want to find themselves in the Israeli territory. And he added : "Nothing will come out of those Palestinians". Don't believe me? Check this fact: in the last decade some 70 thousand Arabs from the "occupied territories" and also from Jordan infiltrated Israel and found spouses from Israeli Arabs in a bid to get an Israeli citizenship.
According to you they really are eager to seek the status of " sub-human beings".
I think they vote with their feet to the contrary. Is Israel perfect? No, but it is one the most decent countries on this planet caught in a very difficult situation having to constantly fight for its very existence for 60 odd years, and now also against the army of hypocrites, anti-Semitic bigots and, excuse me, fools who find it self-indulging to pronounce cliché on things they don't really understand but in fact undermining the best of the Western culture. Excuse my straightforwardness.
4. You persist to use the expression "the lands that Israel occupied illegally" referring to Judea and Samaria that fell to Israel's rule as a result of the 6-Days War as a result of the Arab countries aggression. That is clear cut. You don't take on the example that I proposed of supposed German claim to Prussia. Or the a possible Mexican claim to California (that was an aggression on the part of the US). So who is singling out Israel: I - for better, or you - for worse?
5. Legality. Believe me it means a lot to me. But the truth is no less precious. Actually you can't base legality on a pile of distortions and outright lies.
6. Take a look from another perspective. There are no Arab states that you may call developed and prosperous, even those drowning in oil. Let alone democratic and free. These are truths you can't deny. What is the clue to this situation? I'll spare you a lecture but I'll suggest a solution: the culture that places them into a kind of vicious circle which they don't find a way to break through. (Check the notion : Nash behaviour). On a personal level they understand this, and after being under Israeli rule they view the prospect of finding themselves under an Arab rule - if their state is founded - rather reluctantly. Try to ask people in Gaza after Hamas took over. By the way, Hamas already killed many more citizens in their skirmishes and staged executions than Israel killed in military actions. I'll be more than glad to hear from you that you are not one of those who speak ostentatiously on human rights and legality but don't really care.
7. Have a good day.

Beng~
Let me begin by reminding you that the the acquisition of land through military operations is illegal under the UN Charter and the 1949 Geneva Convention. The two examples you cited - Mexico's claim to California and Germany's claim to Prussia - both precede these passages of international law. It is only incidents after the ratification of the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention that are subject to these international standards. Israel's annexation of land during the 1967 war is clearly illegitimate under these tenets.
~
Let me further remind you that whatever may have transpired in the West Bank under the Jordanian occupation does not nullify Israel's subsequent policies. You cannot argue that Israel is no worse than Jordan and therefore whatever she may do is acceptable. Israel is still bound by international humanitarian law and the natural law of morality in its conduct affecting the Palestinian people.
~
Given that I have established that occupation is illegal, I think it logically follows that Israel's activities in the West Bank are illegitimate. Does it matter that Israel annexed these territories during a war that was initiated by the Arabs? No it does not. Who started the war is irrelevant to the prohibition on occupying lands. Israel occupied territories that were outside of the 1947 UN mandated borders. Israel occupied Jerusalem, which was a designated international zone. These actions are unacceptable.
~
With regard to Gaza, Israel only abandoned the territory after 40 years of occupation. Gaza was utterly dysfunctional when Israel pulled out and the people were radicalized from years of oppressive Israeli occupation. Is it any wonder that these people turned toward Hamas for leadership? Hamas, by the way, was originally funded by the Israeli government. When Israel's main counterpart was the secular PLO, the Israeli government believed that the emergence of another group, a religiously fundamental group, would divide the Palestinian people and hinder their efforts at unity. Israel therefore backed the emergence of Hamas in Gaza, and since that time the Palestinian people have been divided. This was an intentional strategy by the Israeli government, a strategy that has led to more chaos, less Palestinian cohesion, and less opportunity for peace. Furthermore, having backed Hamas initially, Israel now continues to strangle the Gaza Strip with its blockade. Are you aware that a blockade is an act of war? Hamas has every right to violently resist this encroachment on its territory. However, Hamas, too, has violated international law through its specific tactics, i.e. suicide bombs and rocket attacks on civilian areas. But, that does not negate Israel's illegality.
~
In the West Bank, the Israeli settlements contravene international law. The Israeli government cannot build Jewish only settlements outside of its internationally acknowledged borders. The 30,000 settlements and 500,000 Israeli settlers are all an obstacle to peace. How can Palestinians in the West Bank accept this illegal presence? How can Palestinians in the West Bank accept the hundreds of Israeli checkpoints within their own territory? Why should a Palestinian traveling from point A to point B within their own territory be forced to pass through Israeli military check-points? The billions of dollars that Israel has poured into Jewish only infrastructure, such as settlements, highways, etc, suggests that your government, Beng, has no intentional of relinquishing its illegitimate authority over the West Bank. When will you leave?
~
Now, let's discuss proportionality, shall we. I understand that both side have violated law, both have initiated violence, both have antagonized the other. However, you made an extremely bold and disingenuous statement that Hamas has killed more than Israel. That is a lie. Hamas fights with AK-47s and Katyusha rockets. Israel fights with M-16s, tanks, F-16 fighter jets, and phosphorous bombs. How many Palestinians did your government kill in Operation Cast Lead? The answer is 1400, and another 5000 wounded. How many Israelis did Hamas kill during that operation? 13. How many Lebanese did your government kill in July 2006? 1000. You can justify these hugely disproportionate causalities, Beng? If you do, than it is you, and not I, who has no care for human rights.
~
You can continue to compare Israel to Islamic states and proudly declare your social superiority to their social systems. However, that is simply a diversion from Israel's continued mistreatment of the Palestinians. The only reason some Palestinians choose to immigrate to Israel is because your government has made it so unbearable to live in Gaza and the West Bank that Palestinians see only two options: fight to the death against the occupiers, or, move to Israel to make a better life for them and their families. Any way you represent the situation, Beng, no matter how much you attempt to paint the Palestinians as the aggressors or incapable of governing, the simple fact remains that your government has no authority beyond your borders. So long as you continue to blockade Gaza and occupy West Bank you will be resisted, violently.

Beng,
You should read this. It is written by an Israeli who served in the IDF and is now a professor at Oxford University. It is an account that I wholeheartedly endorse and believe to be true, and yet it is written by an Israeli. He disputes nearly all of your claims and all of your attempt to apportion blame anywhere but on Israel. It would do you some good to understand this perspective.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

Hello again, Exiled_At_Home
Not a bad guess that I'm an Israeli. Let me guess: aren't you an American Arab? First, your alias is Exiled… , and second, you visited Israel and the Gaza. What tourist will voluntarily include Gaza in his itinerary? But you don't have to answer. Anyway, the greatest difference between us is 6 to 10 or even 11 hours, depending on where you live. And you are still enjoying the weekend while I'm after a work day. There's a lot of stuff to write. Even if I don't refer to each and every one of your points that's not because I don't have anything to say but due to my trying not to slide into the night hours.
1. Let's start with the article. I've read it. It is biased to the left and doesn't present the exact situation. Calling Israeli attack brutal is literature. The war is brutal. The fact is that Arabs bombarded Israel with those rockets during seven years. Now the author is citing the English in 1948. Well, sure they were mad – they lost the empire in those years. We could go on and on and turn things over and over infinitely, and that's what is going on in talkbacks. I don't take part in it as a rule. One should take the so called intellectuals with an utter caution. For example, some year ago in the Jewish University in Jerusalem a research was submitted for either master's or doctor's title in sociology, the thesis being – now be sure you are seated because it can knock down a reasonable person – the racist attitude of the Israeli soldiers to the Palestinians due to the fact that they don't rape the Arab women, the presumption being that the occupation army is usually going into such activity. These leftist academics are more of ideologues.They also used to be fond of Stalin Che Gevara and other scoundrels of the 20th century. There is hardly anywhere one-for-one shooting – check the American or the British casualties in the WWII versus the Germans. You mention aircraft and helicopters: check the bombing of Munich – 42 thousand killed in one night. Israel is using helicopters with high precision bombs to target vehicles transporting those Kassam rockets. What are you talking about?
2. Still again, on occupation. Before 1967 war Egypt ruled over Gaza (no need to remind you no one spoke about independence for the Gaza citizens). Israel obtained it from Egypt together with the whole of the Sinai peninsular. When the peace with Egypt was negotiated Israel's then prime-minister Begin proposed that the Egyptians take the Gaza strip. They could be an authority that maintains order and is not belligerent to Israel (supposedly). They refused categorically. They knew they were leaving Israel a time bomb. As for Judea and Samaria, Israel took it from Jordan (in the course of a just war to which I think you agree). Now, Jordan rescinded its claim to those territories in favour of Arab residents of those territories. That's a new game, legalistically. Again Israel after all went with it and proposed them a statehood with Oslo accords and the ensuing process. Don't underplay this. But Arafat started terror acts almost as soon as he arrived: there was a bus explosion in Tel Aviv in the spring of 1995 and Israel didn't react at all, then a series of bus explosions in the winter of 1996, and again no retaliation from Israel. When finally the prime-minister Barak proposed him to finalize the agreement (and Barak meant total withdrawal) Arafat evaded and opened a spree of explosions: buses, cafes etc. I think you didn't miss it.
Arafat didn't want any state, he wanted this indeterminate situation when he could claim that Israel doesn't give him a state while he continues his terrorist war undermining Israel's existences (you know, shooting here, exploding there) – the best he knew. To get a state he would have to sign on the end of conflict and to address issues like education, roads etc. – not his fields of interest. He was after all a professional terrorist. And then – what you sow, that's what you reap.
In the following three to four years more than 14 hundred Israelis were killed ( and ten thousand wounded). Now multiply by 50 to match American proportions and you reach 70 thousand – 25% more than the American casualties in some 15 year of Vietnam war which no one had a perverted mind to call a low intensity conflict.
So Israel erected a wall and added some barriers. Now good souls demand us to do without these minimal means of defense.
3. So we are basically stuck with the following basic facts. In 1947 the Arabs rejected a partition. They took their chance, and they lost. That is history. Now, in the period between 1993 and 2000 they had a fair chance to obtain a state. Under the "leadership" of Arafat they blew it. History drives forward. The Oslo is becoming history too. It is absolutely non-productive to count who did what to whom. In war people do nasty things. If you insist to make a balance you will probably loose, I'm sure. But Israel tried unilateral disengagement many times just not retaliating at all. The Arabs don't stop fighting, and then blame us for retaliating. That a vicious circle. Again, the Arabs don't have and can't produce adequate leadership. Our meddling in their affairs doesn't excuse them: everyone meddles in everyone else's affairs. Americans in ours, Europeans also paying our leftists and maintaining institutes for Peace (it's like Soviet sponsored Peace movements in the West). Even Arafat meddled in our politics. You can't infinitely blame all the world and Israel in particular. The so called Palestinians lost the chance once more. And the history is moving forward relentlessly.
4. To your direct question: when you leave? I'll answer by a question: when you stop fighting. Israel obviously will not leave Judea and Samaria before it is sure there will not be Hamas-Iranian or whatever base to attack it. It may be never, realistically speaking. By the way, since when Jews are such an anathema in any state? Suppose, some agreement is reached and an international boarder is agreed upon. Then why should Jews necessarily leave. Just a theoretical legalistic question. Why shouldn't Arabs leave Israel? It looks like people forget some basics.
5. A few remarks concerning your visits to Gaza. I take it you were not just a regular tourist. On these occasions you are given presentations by people who are specially prepared and instructed. But even after filtering that out, you witnessed a genuine misery (by the way, much less than the misery of certain populations in Africa about whom no one gives a damn, but still a misery). Now, imagine yourself in Berlin in 1945. There was terrible misery on much greater scale – of Germans. Were they responsible? Yes, they were. Suppose you found there a ten year old boy – dirty, underfed and scared to death. Was he responsible? No, but his parents were. The same holds for Gaza. It is tragic. Even more so that actually that responsibility is rather unreal because the individual has very little influence on the society when it "decides" to take a certain turn in history. And the history moves forward.
6. I owe you still another remark, actually two. (Now I'll "peg you down").
First, you blame all on Israel and expect Israel to behave like at least half angels. And then you tease me if I hold Jews as a chosen people. I don't, but you do. We are entitled to our measure of mistakes (like sponsoring Hamas, for example), we can also react and sometimes over-react and so on.
Second, you teased me if I hold Arabs second rate or something like that. I don't but you do. Since they choose to fight I hold them as enemies (at least part of them). But I also hold them responsible for what they do. For example, not only massacring Jews when they succeed, but praising those who did those acts. And don't tell me these are act of war: lynching of prisoners in front of the square full of cheering mob, penetrating a house and killing a woman and her two toddlers, stopping a car and massacring a mother and her five children and so on. It goes also for the Loccarby plane terrorist who on his release was received as a hero in Libya, and others. I'd say it is you rather who holds them disrespectfully as some retarded idiots who just got angry, which is understandable because they thought they were treated badly. With this approach the Jews should go around the world and blow everyone. There is hardly any European country from which they were not expelled, of course not before they were robbed, that is. How about taking responsibility instead of whining? Now, again the explanation lies in minute social dynamics underpinning each culture. Probably, in the subdued status of women. While males are fighting for their inflated honor, the women are in no position to demand from their husbands to calm down and to take care of the kids and the home. As in that ancient Greek comedy.
7. Slipped into night. Let me wish you a good day at this stage. A reminder: Look up for Nash strategy/ behavior.
P.S. Clarification: I didn't mean that Hamas killed more Israelis, I meant that it killed more Arabs in Gaza since it seized power in skirmishes with Fatah and executions than the Israelis in their military actions.

FlownOver says:

"It's b[e]en suggested that this subject would benefit from a period of American detachment. I'd be happy if JK would give it a rest, whether the government does or not."

People who take that view should consider the way the situation is deteriorating even while the USA merely talks about I/P.

An editorial in Le Monde neatly summarizes my view, although not elaborating the human-rights violations or the idea of enforcing international law:

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/11/12/un-fiasco_1266192_3232.html

(translated)

'It's time to stop the verbal pretense. In the Near
East, there is no negotiation "process" underway.
Furthermore, there is also no prospect for peace. The situation is nonetheless not in a state of status quo: it is regressing. Dangerously. The United States bears the primary responsibility.

Several months ago, Barack Obama had placed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the top of his priorities. He demanded that Israel stop the expansion of settlements within Palestinian territory on the West Bank. It was, if not a prerequisite, at least a condition to allow the reopening of negotiations with the Palestinians.

'The Israelis said no: settlements will continue to
expand, but at a somewhat slower rate, replied Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The United States just took it: speaking through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it flatly endorsed Mr. Netanyahu's, position.... Within a few weeks, Mr. Obama lost the credit in the Arab world that his remarkable speech in Cairo in June had gained him. Even in diplomatic language, that's called a monumental fiasco.'

Editorial
Le Monde (France)
November 12, 2009