I am confused as to why many Israelis (or those in the pro-Israeli camp) deny the role of the occupation in the radicalization of the Palestinians. Aren't the two related? The argument that if Hamas was not there, peace would reign is ridiculous as very litle progress was made before 2006. How should people under occupation behave when they have no control over their borders, no semblance of a workable economy, no security infrastructure...? Do you beleive that the Palestinians should meekly accept occupation before Israel withdraws from the occupied territories? Are there any prerequisites for being free? Surely the early zioists (Irgun...) engaged in terrorist activities to intimidate the Brits and Pals... Isn't condemnation of Pal terrorists hypocritical? You're response please.
Iraqi police fire tear gas as thousands of protests burst into Green Zone, storm Parliament (AP)
from the article: Between cease-fire and flame-fanning