Israel

"Loosely" based on this alJazeera article and this story from this site:

Hamas: Statements Were In Error

WEST BANK - Hamas issued a correction and an apology, Sunday, for confusion generated by recent public statements.
"Hamas apologizes for any confusion and false-hope generated by our recent statements. It is possible to interpret these statements as meaning that Hamas supports non-violent activity when in fact it does not," said a senior Hamas official speaking before a suicide-bomber brainwashing clinic.
Hope was raised in the past few days that Hamas might declare a cease-fire and recognize Israel as a country with a right to exist.
"We reiterate our goal of liberating the whole of Palestine from the Zionist enemy and casting them into the sea."

[/satire] (but not by much, really)

War is a mental illness; an addiction. It becomes routine, perpetuated by cynicism grown rampant - contempt prior to investigation. Whether you believe in the "cycle of violence" or whether you think that's another "terrorist-loving liberal" buzzword, war involves cyclical thinking, like so many obsessive mental disorders. The true cycle of violence takes place not in the "real world" where lives are traded, but in the thoughts of those who perpetuate the violence. Once you've killed one of the "enemy," how can you not feel that the rest are after you? How can you ever feel safe again?

(via The American Errorist)

From Ha'aretz:

"Hamas has announced that it accepts a Palestinian independent state within the 1967 borders with a long-term truce," Sheikh Hassan Yousef, the top Hamas leader in the West Bank, told The Associated Press, referring to lands Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war.

[...]

"For us a truce means that two warring parties live side by side in peace and security for a certain period and this period is eligible for renewal," Yousef said. "That means Hamas accepts that the other party will live in security and peace."

Now I can see two main paths that Israel can go with this.

Tonight was the first night that I chose to watch the horrifying images on the news of the elementary school in Russia that was taken over by terrorists. I had avoided watching them over the past few days. I didn't want to see. But now that I have seen them, I've been thinking about a principle. That principle is about suffering and basically what I've come to understand is that all who suffer do not suffer equally. I believe that suffering can be quantified.

Terrorism is so complicated and yet so simple. It is an act which is completely morally deplorable. At the same time, it is entirely predictable. It arises in similar circumstances everywhere and if you create the situations where terrorism seems to prosper, you can provoke it. As morally reprehensible as terrorism is, it is a natural human response to oppression. It's tears the soul apart to think about terrorism because we so justifiably hate what terrorists do, but if we have any humanity at all we must also sympathize with the circumstances that caused them to resort to terrorism in the first place.

In a recent article (Arafat to Turn Over Security Forces), I allowed myself to be cautiously optimistic about the chances for reform.

Getting the security forces out of Arafat's hands and into the hands of someone who would use them to...I don't know...increase Palestinian security, is a necessary step on the path to peace.

It appears that my optimism was misplaced. According to this article from Haaretz, Arafat will retain control of "most" of the security forces which means that very little will change. As a leader, he does his people a disservice.

I find myself, today, having to side with Ariel Sharon in the latest edition of selecting the lesser of two evils (for another example, I refer you to Bush vs. Kerry).

The more I think about it, the more I realize that many of the objections I have to Sharon's planned pullout from Gaza and parts of the West Bank as well as the "security barrier" (wall/fence) have to do largely with the fact that Sharon can't be trusted to carry them out lawfully.

I'm not willing to condemn either action out of hand. I can envision circumstances under which a leader could enact both of these plans in a way that improves the lives of not only Israelis, but the Palestinian populations that they currently occupy. Sharon is not a man who can do that in the same way that George W. Bush cannot be trusted to wage a "war on terrorism." They are both far too corrupt.