Settlers and their sympathizers use every possible argument from the past to justify their criminal enterprise (which they do not consider criminal, of course. But most criminals justify their actions - that's human nature). To us here, it seems like endless, pointless carping on the past - like who was whose uncle. What difference does it make now? the justifications really don't matter. The situation is simple: israelis (some of them with some government encouragement) wanted more land. They grabbed it. When local inhabitants resisted they were suppressed. yes, this can apply to Israel itself too, but, in the interest of compromise, a line has to be drawn somewhere. most palestinians will accept israel pre-1967. The arabs will too, as they declared through support of the saudi initiative (which was all but ignored in Israel). It is israel that won't accept compromise now. And the compromise is - live withinn the '67 borders and peace will have a chance. Will it get rid of all extremists? no. But even in america, we have sporadic attacks by right wing malicia like extremists. If that's what israel will have to confront oncew it withdraws and a peace treaty is signed, I have every confidence it will be manageable. In the meantime - forget the mufti. The issue are the settlements and only them. And until they go, I and many other past contributors to israel in the US, will be contributing to other causes (as many of us have for quite some time).
Police disperse hundreds in brawl in Kafr Manda, northern Israel (Haaretz)
from the article: Yavin discovered the darkness