In Arab states that are faced with terrorism, like Egypt, it is fought relentlessly and nobody seems to care very much about the human rights violations that brings along. This is, to a lesser extend, also true for European countries that faced terrorism in the past like Germany, Spain and the UK. Yet if Israel does the same it is condemned for it in harsh words, and divestment campaigns are set up.

Pages: 1 2

The UN proposal to call "the killing of innocent civilians or non-combatants, regardless of one's cause, terrorism, pure and simple" is new and I would almost say, revolutionary. Not only in Arab states and media, but also in Western countries often a distinction is made between attacks in Israel (mostly committed by 'militants'), Iraq (mostly called 'insurgents' and Western targets that are generally hit by terrorists. Regarding the latter I must say however that the BBC decided to not call the attackers in London 'terrorists' because this would stigmatize the Muslim population.

Pages: 1 2

At the UN annual general assembly summit in September, that will be devoted to UN reform mostly, the UN probably will adopt a political definition of terrorism, according to an article in the Jerusalem Post:

"If approved by the leaders in September, the definition could break the impasse over a comprehensive treaty against terrorism, which has been stalled for years over the question of defining a terrorist. That debate has focused especially on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Pages: 1 2

In my previous blog I wrote about an article by the Israeli journalist Ari Shavit about the threat and the occupation. I especially appreciated his statement that the occupation cannot be ended as long as the threat exists, and his explanation of Arab/Palestinian opposition to the existence of Israel. I think both issues are crucial in understanding the conflict.
Last week Haaretz editor Aktiva Eldar and professor in psychology Daniel Bar-Tal responded to this article: "Right of Reply / The meek and the mighty" by Daniel Bar-Tal and Akiva Eldar.

At some points I had the feeling they have been reading a different article than I did.

Pages: 1 2

It is often stressed, especially by the left, that because Israel is the strongest party, it is also the main responsible country in the conflict, and should be the first to make concessions. First, I want to object to the idea that being stronger means automatically being more guilty. It would mean the weaker is always right. Secondly, there are more inequalities between both sides. Below some of these are listed. There are certainly more, so you are welcome to add others.

Pages: 1 2

Last week outstanding Israeli journalist Ari Shavit wrote a very interesting article in Haaretz. It started with what is at the heart of the problem:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being played out between an occupied nation and a threatened nation. Two elements set this conflict apart from others: the occupation and the threat. No other nation has been subject to a protracted occupation like the Arab-Palestinian nation; no other nation has been subject to an existential threat like the Jewish-Israeli nation. It follows that without concurrent treatment of both the occupation and the threat, no solution will be found to the harsh conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Pages: 1 2