State of war between Israel and Lebanon

[Marten]

Alistair,

I agree that the use of nuclear weapons seems absurd as a method of deterence in Israel's situation when you consider how physically close Israel is to the nations that present a threat.  The Israelis could probably suffer some serious nuclear fallout if they launched their missiles at their neighbors.  Yet... it makes a little bit of twisted sense that only nuclear weapons might deter a greater war with religious fanatics if you consider their philosophy.

As we've seen from suicide bombers, these people are not afraid to die for their cause.  They aren't afraid to martyr themselves.  They believe in losing the battle to win the war.  The key is that they believe they are furthering their cause if they can take out a few people and go down in a blaze of glory.

But the terrorists won't throw all of their might into conflict at once, because if they did, the retaliation from Israel - with their arsenal today - would be so swift and so severe that they'd be wiped off the face of the planet.

[Ari]

That's pretty much also what I think- the sad truth is people only look at the two options Marten gave. Sure, terrorism is something worth fighting, stamping out, etc etc, but I'm still at a loss as to how the nuclear capabilities Israel has that Ari spelled out and fighting battles ensures an 'opposite' or resolution to such terrorism.

But as it were, this is all in the past. Israel is an indesputable fact, and we have a strong army, and we have enough nuclear weapons to lay waste to any country that would try to destroy us, so that the only way we're going to go, is in a nuclear holocaust. This is not a threat of any kind. It's a fact. In the world we live today, any country that possesses nuclear weapons, is pretty much here to stay.

That's a pretty bloody awful comment.


I guess, living in such a peaceful country, which doesn't even want nuclear power let alone nuclear capabilities, I find it VERY hard to even accept a lot of arguments about wars for peace coming out of Israel and the US, let alone buying the 'we need nukes for peace' crap. Gimme a break.

- Alistair

Alistair, You've totally misunderstood what I wrote. We don't and won't ever use nuclear weapons as a retaliatory weapon against terrorism, since terrorism, as bad as it is, doesn't have the capability of destroying Israel. It can make life here miserable, yes. It can kill thousands and cause billions in damage, but terrorists cannot invade and occupy Israel. They don't have the numbers or the weapons for such a thing, and that's precisely why they resort to terrorist tactics, because that's all they can do.

The only reason I brought up the subject of nuclear weapons, is in reply to Marten's post. The point I was trying to make, is that Israel can never be conquered because it has NWs. Therefore, talking about a situation where Israelis have to leave the land of Israel en masse is simply not an option. That's all. I wasn't making threats at anyone and I don't think NW should be used against Lebanon, Hezbollah or the Hamas or even Iran.

I have a small request. I would appreciate it if you read my posts a little more carefully before replying to them. If you don't understand something, ask a question.
Putting words in other peoples mouths is not a very nice thing to do.

[kreatorb]

I suspect France assisting Israel to have nukes in the cold war days would have not happened without a US say so.  I'd still say it most likely would have been a US initiative.

Israel, of all the countries with nukes, has always seemed to be the most likely to use them.  I think we've seen that Israel having nukes isn't a deterrent to invasion and therefore I don't even see the point in Israel having them if they don't intend to use them as a last resort (with the difference being that it is not a MAD situation like USSR-US)?  Even if Israel was fully invaded - the use of nukes would not be justified (it would be similar to using chemical and biological warfare - even Nazi Germany did not do this).

Furthermore, once the genie is out of the bottle and countries start nuking each other, I think the world has big problems.  If Israel gave up it's nukes, it would defuse the situation in the middle east dramatically.

You seriously think any army could get inside Israel ala Kuwait?  The combined Arab force in the 6 day war was soundly defeated - I don't think anything has changed.  Israel likes to play itself down militarily - but they really are one of the worlds powerhouse countries with regard to military might.

I guess I judge countries by actions, not rhetoric - I don't see what Iran has done so far (that wasn't provoked) that makes it such a pariah state.  It is no less trustworthy than say Pakistan...

[Ari]

I suspect France assisting Israel to have nukes in the cold war days would have not happened without a US say so.  I'd still say it most likely would have been a US initiative.

Israel, of all the countries with nukes, has always seemed to be the most likely to use them.  I think we've seen that Israel having nukes isn't a deterrent to invasion and therefore I don't even see the point in Israel having them if they don't intend to use them as a last resort (with the difference being that it is not a MAD situation like USSR-US)?  Even if Israel was fully invaded - the use of nukes would not be justified (it would be similar to using chemical and biological warfare - even Nazi Germany did not do this).

Furthermore, once the genie is out of the bottle and countries start nuking each other, I think the world has big problems.  If Israel gave up it's nukes, it would defuse the situation in the middle east dramatically.

You seriously think any army could get inside Israel ala Kuwait?  The combined Arab force in the 6 day war was soundly defeated - I don't think anything has changed.  Israel likes to play itself down militarily - but they really are one of the worlds powerhouse countries with regard to military might.

I guess I judge countries by actions, not rhetoric - I don't see what Iran has done so far (that wasn't provoked) that makes it such a pariah state.  It is no less trustworthy than say Pakistan...

I disagree with you.
First, I don't think I nead to remind you that Nazi Germany used quite a bit of chemical weapons, mostly against Jewish people in death camps, so I'd leave them out of it.

Second, Israel didn't become a bona fide nuclear power till after the "Yom Kippur" war of 1973. After that, no one ever tried to invade us again, so your argument about "seeing Israel doesn't need NWs to defend itself against invasion" has no historical basis.

Third, if you judge by actions and not rhetoric, I'd like you to consider the fact, that Hezbollah has direct ties in the form of weapons, training, financial backup and leadership with Iran. Even if they've never acted directly against us, they're sponsoring a terrorist group that does.
Israel, on the other hand, has never acted in any way against Iran - directly or indirectly.

[Ivar]

I'd like to put in my 2 cents (after being away for quite some time...but this is a very interesting and intelligent discussion):

I ALSO am afraid that Marten's comments completely hit the spot:

Yes, the problem is created some 60 years ago (and for the life of me I cannot think of any "good" reason to create a Jewish state in a region where culturally, demographically and religiously people are completely different) but we cannot change all that now.

And Yes, as long as on both sides the "religious" aspects outwheigh any pragmatic and practical solutions, the only outcome can and will be a continuation of terrorism on both sides,  (Forgive me in being so bold as stating that Israelian attacks in Lebanon can also be considered as acts of terrorism, IF you look at it from a lebanon civilian perspective. ) or a definite result, whereby one party has been wiped off the map.

Not a very pretty outlook I am afraid, but it seems unavoidable. On both sides there is a clear lack of leaders who are capable of positioning the conflict into a pragmatic/workablew solution whereby the religious aspects are being put secondary. It won't be easy, I know...but I don't see the effort being put into it...and this is far worse.

It really does need a diaglogue without the religious aspects, as both religions so clearly seem to claim the land as rightfully theirs....
Just goes to show that politics and religion NEVER mixes well.

One of the worst consequences next to this, is that the Iraque/Iranian conflicts with the western world over oil and power, seem to feed into the Israelian/Palestian conflict and use it as a catalyst and excuse for their personal agenda's on BOTH sides.

As a final comment, regarding the US backing of Israel:
Isn't that simply due to the fact that US contains the largest population of Jews in the world (according to Wikipedia at least) and that there are many powerful Jews in (mostly) the Republican parties....socalled "Hawks"..I believe?
I cannot prove any of this, but our national coverage has suggested this more than once.

Sorry, I couldn't be more helpfull, but I am also dissapointed in the current state of affairs and don't see a satifactory resolve any time soon.

Ivar

[kreatorb]

Using banned weapons in open warfare is totally different to what you are referring to.  They are both war crimes, and crimes against humanity though, you are right.

I doubt the nukes would stop anyone invading Israel (they would perhaps still try if they had the capacity, but they don't) - they certainly haven't reduced the amount of conflict around Israel's borders (which is what I was referring to).  Besides, I don't think (and hope) the world would sit idly by as Israel nuked the countries around it (or as Israel was invaded).

Hezbollah was fighting against an Israeli occupation originally.. they are demons of Israel's own making.  Aiding them now is a convenient way of Iran striking back against the long-term victimisation of the US (which Israel is seen as a proxy arm of) - and diverting attention from the war the US is seeking to pick with them.  Similar to how Iraq's only way of striking back in the gulf war was to target Israel (rightly or wrongly).

I can understand their reasons - it is unfortunate for Israel that it is so strongly aligned with the US (which is probably something else that should be changed) and is unfairly targeted in this way.

[Alistair]

Ari, on putting words in mouths, you do it at least as much as me in our conversations. However I apologise if I took what you said out of context. I don't think I did, though.

That aside-

Alistair, You've totally misunderstood what I wrote. We don't and won't ever use nuclear weapons as a retaliatory weapon against terrorism, since terrorism, as bad as it is, doesn't have the capability of destroying Israel. It can make life here miserable, yes. It can kill thousands and cause billions in damage, but terrorists cannot invade and occupy Israel. They don't have the numbers or the weapons for such a thing, and that's precisely why they resort to terrorist tactics, because that's all they can do.

The only reason I brought up the subject of nuclear weapons, is in reply to Marten's post. The point I was trying to make, is that Israel can never be conquered because it has NWs. Therefore, talking about a situation where Israelis have to leave the land of Israel en masse is simply not an option. That's all. I wasn't making threats at anyone and I don't think NW should be used against Lebanon, Hezbollah or the Hamas or even Iran.

Well no, I haven't. I said it was a bad comment to make, I didn't assume you thought nukes were a viable option. I just thought yoru words were dangerous ones.

Besides, why have them if you don't want to use them? Are you saying that Israel should have them as a *deterrent*?

I can't for the life of me determine why, given your comments on the matter, Israel shouldn't be looked at in the same light as Iran (for example) with regards to nuclear capabilities. I'd put forward an opinion that Israel is just as likely to use them, given their diplomatic stance with regards to foreign policy in the region. But that's just me being provocative (devil's advocate, say), more than deadly serious.

Second, Israel didn't become a bona fide nuclear power till after the "Yom Kippur" war of 1973. After that, no one ever tried to invade us again, so your argument about "seeing Israel doesn't need NWs to defend itself against invasion" has no historical basis.

That's fine, but I don't see how it makes anyone safe- if anything it makes the other powers in the region more likely to carry equal or superior capabilities. I also personally believe that Israeli's would not feel safe with nukes. If Israel had to use one, presumably someone would strike back, if not the regional bodies, then Russia/France/someone else (I have no idea, I'm just talking off the top of my head here).
To me, that doesn't guarantee a good result for Israeli citizens either. Besides, you've said you don't want your country to use them either. So, what's the point on having them?

Forget historical basis. Let's talk MORAL basis.

My honest opinions are this:

It's not fair that:
a. Israel is denied the right to exist by Lebanon/Palestine's extremist powerbrokers.
b. Israel is attacked for some fairly poor reasons.
c. Israel values fighting more than diplomacy.
d. Israel seems to be aggressive in reaction to attacks. Which is fine in itself, if people will kill your people, then you have a right to retaliate/defend. But when that basically ensues ongoing violence, and ends up in more of your people dying, what the hell is the point.
e. Israel builds walls and does such actions as the Gaza strip nonsense. Call it precedent, call it border protectiion, call it what you will- but it does nothing for either nation's populous or security.
f. The USA defends one side of the conflict's actions with regards to protecting and furthering its' interests (IMO). I.e. war on terror, and definitely the Jew connection Ivar brings up.

Basically, while obviously 3 leaders aren't going to sit around a table and magically end this conflict, I'm damn sure there's a better way than "you attacked my people, we'll attack yours, so that you'll attack us and we'll attack you some more". It's f*ing childish and can ONLY result in more deaths. Surely some government amongst the countries has to own up sooner or later and say, "We've done some wrong. Let's change our actions."

And for me, that's why it's a bad thing for Fatah/Hamas and Hezbollah to be in power. Because although there are some reasonable people, the people with the decision-making power WILL turn to violence. The peace process, or any future one for that matter, is definitely hindered while they're in power. But even that to me doesn't justify offensives on any perceived or real terrorist threats. Terrorists aren't put off by violence. As you yourself said, Ari, they'll die for the cause. In which case, killing them in retaliatory and even autonomous attacks can only bring about the killing of more of your own countrymen.
I personally also think Israel is a very aggressive and defensive nation, and is quite dangerous as far as regional security and peace is concerned. But I also think they have a right to peace and freedom from attack.

Ivar raises some good points, also. Excellent to see you again.

I personally think the US's anger at Iran is at least in part associated to ties with Israel, and that if Iran had nuclear capabilities it could strike Israel, should Israel strike Palestine/Lebanon. Well, it's a thought anyway, if not something I fundamentally believe. I'm talking in freeform here.


Whoo. Kreatorb's comments are pretty itneresting also You were Aussie too, right?

Regards,
- Alistair

[Tom]

Besides, why have them if you don't want to use them?

You're not serious, are you?  What country ever wants to use nuclear weapons?

[kreatorb]

Yup - from Melbourne

While everyone has been all doom and gloom about Hamas getting in power - I would have thought it an excellent opportunity to negotiate directly with those who are causing trouble for Israel, whilst they are in a position of responsibility (sort of like with the IRA).  Instead the world cuts off their funding and pushes them into an even more extreme position.. go figure?

Anyway.. there are points on both sides and the conflict is a complex one.  I hope it never blows up into something bigger - but it seems destined to end that way as things are going.

PS: The US dislikes Iran because it had a revolution that kicked the US's puppet dictator out... then there was the hostage incident with the US embassy and they've pretty much been at each other ever since (US funding Iraq in Iran-Iraq war for instance).  Granted, the middle east is a strategically important part of the world (Oil) and Cold War considerations came into it - but the US was morally in the wrong and the one who initially kicked off the conflict.

[Alison]

Besides, why have them if you don't want to use them?

You're not serious, are you?  What country ever wants to use nuclear weapons?

A country run by fundamentalists/lunatics who see greater rewards in dying because they belief you will be rewarded with a wonderful spiritual life if you die furthering their religious cause.

There is no reasoning with people who see less value in living peacefully with "supposed" religious enemies, than killing themselves just to eleminate one unbeliever, or one who has been named "blasphemer of the day".

[Ivar]

Alison,

I am sorry, but I find this view on these "suiciders" a bit too simplistic.
People, no matter where they live on the world, don't just commit suicide for a greater cause, just because they believe they will go to a heaven Paradise.

There is much more to it.

Over the years there have been many victims of the Palistean/Israelian conflict and many people have been left with no family or purpose in life.
Imagine:
- your family killed by the country that is waging war on you during bombing attacks
- hour house destroyed by bombings
- your country in shatters with no decent infrastructure or government

That is what is driving these people to these exreme measures.
They honestly believe that another country has stolen part of their land, of which they think belongs to them by religious right.
Of course the propaganda of organisations like Hamas throw in a stone or two..and make things worse naturally.

The fact that they believe that a martyr arrives in Paradise after death is a nice "bonus" and I am sure this is inprinted in the minds of these people by religious fundamentalists.

I think its a calculation of all these elements.

The same could apply to Israel of course, but as they historically have stronger weapons/army and of course a different cultural background they are not driven to such extreme measures.

[Marten]

Ivar,

Science recently declared that the egg came before the chicken.  (I'll get back to that point in a moment.)

Imagine:
- your family killed by the country that is waging war on you during bombing attacks
- hour house destroyed by bombings
- your country in shatters with no decent infrastructure or government

Now let me rewrite those words a bit.

Imagine:
- your family killed by the country that is defending itself by bombing the terrorists that have planted themselves in and around civilian areas
- hour house destroyed by bombings, also because the terrorists set up camp nearby and nobody tried to stop them
- your country in shatters with no decent infrastructure or government because your country willingly harbored terrorists and is suffering the inevitable consequences

I believe that's a more accurate assessment.  To my way of thinking, you can't be on friendly terms with terrorists and expect not to be made into a target.  And to some degree, all of the above is moot, because it describes the chicken.  We have to look at WHY Lebanon, Iran, Syria, and similar countries have chosen to harbor terrorists in the first place to understand the root of the problem.

You placed the egg after the chicken when you said:

That is what is driving these people to these exreme measures.
They honestly believe that another country has stolen part of their land, of which they think belongs to them by religious right.

Flip those two sentences around, and I believe we get to the problem.  The Palestinians are convinced that their land was stolen, and they are driven by fanaticism to reclaim it.

I also believe that you can't hit someone, and then when they punch you back, legitimately cry "They hit me!".  BUT... the Palestinians are convinced that the very creation of Israel was a first strike against them.  So neither side sees themselves as the first offender; each side believes they are retaliating for a prior unjustice.

I've previously mentioned that I feel that the creation of Israel in its current location was a mistake, and I stand by that position.  However, that doesn't make Israel the first offender.  The Palestinian attitude towards Israel from Day 1 has placed them on the wrong side of the argument because Palestine didn't have the world opinion behind them.*

(* Pot and Kettle #1: The US does things against world opinion as well; and yes, I think the US is wrong in those cases.  Unfortunately for Palestine, it isn't a fair comparison because the US is a very strong nation and can more easily get away with such things, while Palestine can not.)

I do feel that Israel has made some tremendous blunders along the way.  No amount of "we're defending ourselves against the terrorists" can justify some of the expansionist policies they've held in past years.  Every time I hear the phrase "Israeli settlers," I cringe.  Palestine is not the Wild Wild West*.  It is an already populated region and that land does not belong to Israel.  If Israel had curtailed the "settling" problem, they'd have an even stronger position to defend their current actions.  You can "occupy" your enemy to stop them from attacking you... but you don't go setting up your homes there!  No, no, no!  That is just brainless!

(* Pot and Kettle #2: Actually, the Wild Wild West was also already populated, as was much of North America - by the Native Americans, who were driven west over the Trail of Tears and forced into reservations, so my analogy is a poor one if you consider the broad implications of 1800s US expansionist policy as well.  That, too, was wrong of the US.)

Just call me opinionated.

[Ivar]

Yes, I can see your points and support your logic.

Naturally, I donot want to cleanse the Palestinians from any guild they have in harbouring/being terrorists. A solution whereby you try to kill innocent civilians of another country is never a solution.

I just tried to present the environment that drove these people to these extreme measures.

I stil believe its not just one simple cause-effect situation.
poor living environments (having your house bombed and family slaughtered, no job etc....) often drive people to completely "lose it"....combine that with the intense belief that its their country which was stolen and there you have your "brainwashed" terrorists.

BTW Martin, who then layed the first egg?  
the classic chicken-egg problem is exactly about a very complex situation where we just donot know what came first.....it probably applies very much to the situation in the middle east.

I would like to opt to be careful with the term terrorist or act of terrorism.
The western world usually assumes these acts to be only about suicide bombing or flying airplanes into civilain buildings....
But many western attacks in Afghanistan, Iraque & Iran have led to bombing of non military targets, which in my book is the exact definition of an act of terrorism!

[Marten]

Off-topic (because I believe we could use a breather):

The scientific answer to the chicken or egg question depends on believing in evolution.  By the rules of evolution, a non-chicken laid a chicken egg, and from that egg was born the first chicken.

Now, science can turn to a new question:  Which egg was the first chicken egg?  (It all depends upon where you draw the line between what is, and is not, a chicken.)

But many western attacks in Afghanistan, Iraque & Iran have led to bombing of non military targets, which in my book is the exact definition of an act of terrorism!

True.  It's all about perception.  The dictionary book definition of terrorism is an act performed for the primary purpose of spreading fear.  Although the US may have other intentions when they bomb non-military targets... whether intentionally or not... it is the perception of the victims that makes the difference.  If the people feel they're being terrorized... it's still a form of terrorism, isn't it?

[Ari]

Marten, I would again like to say I totally agree with your logic. I'm saddened to see that a lot of people fail to understand what promotes Israels retaliatory act's, and often view them as pure acts of aggression even though retaliation by definition is an act against someone else's act of aggression.

I would like to point out one thing though. While I too think that Israel shouldn't have settled in the West Bank or the Gaza strip, and should have negotiated they're return in exchange for peace years ago (Just so you know, I've been a peace party supporter from before I could even vote), I think it's worthwhile mentioning that every time we withdrew from occupied territory (First Lebanon 6 years ago then Gaza last year), we've only been rewarded with more attacks, so it's not a simple matter of border disputes.
Our former prime minister, Ehud Barak, offerd Arafat and the Palestinians 98% of all the territories plus other compensations in exchange for peace. Instead we got 6 years of bloody suicide bombings, shootings et cetra. Almost 1500 Israelis died, mostly civilians, and some 3000 Palestinians in the last 6 years, because they would not take an offer which guaranteed them practically everything (besides their demand to resettle inside Israel, something we simply cannot agree to, since it would mean the end of Israel) and because they thought they could mimic Hezbollah and drive us out of the territories by force.

In order to sit down and talk, you need 2 sides willing to sit and talk. We were more than willing, but the palestinians rejected everything and turned to violence to achieve their goals.
To wage war, on the other hand, you only need one side.

Israel has always been willing to continue the peace process, but immediate cessation of violence is a prerequisite, not something you should negotiate for.

[Tom]

Besides, why have them if you don't want to use them?

You're not serious, are you?  What country ever wants to use nuclear weapons?

A country run by fundamentalists/lunatics who see greater rewards in dying because they belief you will be rewarded with a wonderful spiritual life if you die furthering their religious cause.

Touche.  Point taken.  But I wouldn't lump Israel in that "lunatic" group.  I believe that the countries that currently do have NW's, don't wish to use them at any cost.

[Ari]

Judging by her first comment, I think she was referring to Iran, but I could be mistaken.

[Ivar]

Yes, I think so too. (or Palastine) Which was what triggered my reply, as I don't think countries are entirely made up by lunatics or lunacy.
It simply does not work that way.

As Marten also pointed out, people's perception on the "wrong-doings" that have been inflicted opon them is what determines their actions.

At the end of the day, it's all about what you sow is what you reap.
If you sow hatred and destruction, you only get the same in return.

I think on both sides in this conflict, the leaders are not understanding this.

I do believe the resolve was closest by when Rabin was still in office....but alas, in this case the Palistine extremists "killed" that effort.

Ari,
I do agree with the fact that the Palistines (not so much the former Arafat goverment, but moreso the entire population) are more aiming for a totalarian solution. They seem not to be willing to negotiate and want claim for all "their" land. As this is unlikely to happen in the negotiations, extremists will always retaliate no matter which deal is being agreed upon by both leaders.

What I wonder is:
When such terrorist extremists (who were not affiliated to Arafats government) did these suicide killings, why did Israel blaim Arafat for it?
They knew full well that Arafat had no control over these fundamentalists.
Wasn't this a great opportunity to identify a common enemy and work with Arafat to get them out of the way?
Maybe I am oversimplifying it, but it doesn't seem like they've tried this approach.
Instead they held Arafat prisoner in his own "country", within the boundaries of his estate.
I never followed the logic as to how that would result in a positive resolve.
 
Now with Hamas in government, I cannot see this happening anymore, as they are more tied in with those terrorist groups.
Somehow I do think that was an opportunity some years ago.....
I always thought that Arafat was one that could be negotiated with. At least Rabin managed to get on his good side.

Anyway, again, things of the past....and not very practical anymore, I'm afraid.

[shad0wfax]

Only a couple of brief comments:

1) When retaliation greatly surpasses the entity of the agression (it's disproportionate, or it targets to innocent people), it becomes agression.

2) IMO, Religious fundamentalism is usually in a conversely proportional relation to welfare and in a dicreclty porportional relation to ignorance. In the history of Spain, for example, there were a total of three waves of invasion from muslims coming from northern Africa, in 8th, 10th and 12th centuries, respectively. They occupied a great part of the territoty which is now Spain and Portugal. They were finally expulsed in 1492. Those muslims developed a high level of science, culture, art and economical and social welfare. The difference between Al-Andalus (the part of Iberic peninsule occupied by muslim kingdoms) and the northern crhistian kingdoms (including the rest of Europe) was amazing at all levels. For example, whereas the library of Medina Azahara at the time of Abderrahman III and Al-Hakim II kings had more than 40,000 volumes, the library of Ripoll's Monastery, one of the most important ones of the crhistian Europe, had barely 800. In muslim kingdoms there was a great amount of tolerance (christians and jews were able to make religious acts with no problems), and there was no fundamentalism at all (most muslim people drank wine regularly, for example).
What was happening in the christian kingdoms at that time? There was intolerance, muslims were prosecuted, welfare level was vastly inferior (the king of Castilla, one of the christian kingdoms, confused the secretary of the visir with the muslim king during a visit to the king's palace, for example, due to the extraordinary level of richness in the mulsim king's palaces). And when finally the christian kings defeated Granada, the last muslim kingdom, what did they do? They expulsed jews and muslims, or they obligued them to a complusory conversion to christianism, they created the inquisition, and so on.

Today the occidental christinans and jews are the rich ones and the muslims the poor ones. But my suspicion is that there is no fanatism and fundamentalism when people live well enough (in a material sense).

[kreatorb]

The offer from Ehud Barak was a last ditch attempt before an almost certain election defeat (who knows if the next government would honour this deal?  If they did not it would surely rebound on Fatah).. Also, I think the Palestinians felt they were negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength and wanted every little bit they could wring out of it.  In retrospect, turning the deal down was probably a mistake.

But - I think if this deal was offered again it would be accepted.