Israel's 10 worst errors of the decade

"Perhaps this is truly what the messiah has decided to settle for: a situation in which every single inhabitant of the land is unhappy to the same extent. " Palestinians are people too, the land can't be divided, the boundry can't move, war is best avoided, and G-d will frustrate every human plan regarding this. Maybe he's waiting for G-d to decide what should be done.

1- Lebanon war 2- cast lead 3- assassination of imad mughnia 4- bibi election 5- human rights abuses ( last few decades) 6- believing might make right( last few decades) 7- war crimes and crying wolf. 8- settelments 9- settlers 10-not being serious about peace

"UNSC resolution 181, under which Israel declared statehood, declared Jerusalem to be an international city"(Ron) Bingo, yet Jordan ignored that resolution in 1948, ethnically cleansed East Jerusalem of it's Jews (who were the majority population of Jerusalem for centuries). So where were the UN resolutions to condemn them for it? Why are the condemnations forthcoming only against Israel after they restored the rights of Jews to live in East Jerusalem? I call that hypocrisy of the highest order ... Ron! "declares any demographic changes in Jerusalem a violation of international law ..."(Ron) See what I mean, Ron? If you take something away from me by force ... then I take it back by force ... it is inappropriate to declare me to be the criminal ... The Arabs were the ones who made the original demographic changes in Jerusalem, Israel then restored the original demographics after the 1967 war in which they were the ones who were attacked by the Arabs (again) ...

"Did you lie, or were you intellectually dishonest about misquoting UN 242? What about the word "negotiated" in the resolution that you invented?"(Ron) This is what I said in my #84 and I stand by it: "UN Resolution 242 states that Israel is to withdraw to "secure and recognized boundaries" and what does the word "Recognized" mean in this context? It means that the boundaries must be negotiated ..."(Tim R) It is your problem if you don't understand or just don't want to understand what I said ... "1. Who knows before 1967. There was never an international decision rendered. After 1967, UN 242, it was "occupied," not disputed"(Ron) Yes, that's the problem Ron: According to you people, history started in 1967 and nothing that happened before that seems to be relevant to you ... "It says," withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." (English version)"(Ron) That's the only version that is relevant because it is the language in which the resolution was formulated. It does NOT say that Israel is to withdraw from ALL the territories. And if not, then where is Israel to withdraw to, Ron? Answer: That's the bit that is to be negotiated ... "3) There was no recognized border, only an armistice line. So where was Israel required to withdraw to?"(Tim R) "3. I don`t agree or disagree, UN 242 wasn`t written in 1948. So, legally, who cares? Do you fret about such irrelevancies?"(Ron) You did NOT answer my question Ron! I repeat: Where was Israel required to withdraw to? ANSWER: Obviously, according to resolution 242, borders needed to be negotiated. That's the only reasonable conclusion any NON biased person could come to ...

"UNSC resolution 181, under which Israel declared statehood, declared Jerusalem to be an international city"(Ron) Bingo, yet Jordan ignored that resolution in 1948, ethnically cleansed East Jerusalem of it's Jews (who were the majority population of Jerusalem for centuries). So where were the UN resolutions to condemn them for it? Why are the condemnations forthcoming only against Israel after they restored the rights of Jews to live in East Jerusalem? I call that hypocrisy of the highest order ... Ron! "declares any demographic changes in Jerusalem a violation of international law ..."(Ron) See what I mean, Ron? If you take something away from me by force ... then I take it back by force ... it is inappropriate to declare me to be the criminal ... The Arabs were the ones who made the original demographic changes in Jerusalem, Israel then restored the original demographics after the 1967 war in which they were the ones who were attacked by the Arabs (again) ...

"Did you lie, or were you intellectually dishonest about misquoting UN 242? What about the word "negotiated" in the resolution that you invented?"(Ron) This is what I said in my #84 and I stand by it: "UN Resolution 242 states that Israel is to withdraw to "secure and recognized boundaries" and what does the word "Recognized" mean in this context? It means that the boundaries must be negotiated ..."(Tim R) It is your problem if you don't understand or just don't want to understand what I said ... "1. Who knows before 1967. There was never an international decision rendered. After 1967, UN 242, it was "occupied," not disputed"(Ron) Yes, that's the problem Ron: According to you people, history started in 1967 and nothing that happened before that seems to be relevant to you ... "It says," withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." (English version)"(Ron) That's the only version that is relevant because it is the language in which the resolution was formulated. And it does NOT say that Israel is to withdraw from ALL the territories. And if not, then where is Israel to withdraw to, Ron? Answer: That's the bit that is to be negotiated ... "3) There was no recognized border, only an armistice line. So where was Israel required to withdraw to?"(Tim R) "3. I don`t agree or disagree, UN 242 wasn`t written in 1948. So, legally, who cares? Do you fret about such irrelevancies?"(Ron) You did NOT answer my question Ron! I repeat: Where was Israel required to withdraw to? ANSWER: Obviously, according to resolution 242, borders needed to be negotiated. That's the only reasonable conclusion any NON biased person could come to ...

You like to draw on historical events you presumably believe somehow justify Israel's countless current violations of international law. Regarding any Palestinian claim on E. Jerusalem, no one has a claim on the city. Israel is a state lacking any legal basis for sovereignty in Jerusalem. UNSC resolution 181, under which Israel declared statehood, declared Jerusalem to be an international city, corpus separatum, managed under UN auspices. In 1980 the Knesset passed the "Basic Law" which declared Jerusalem complete and unified the capital of Israel. The Basic Law is a violation of UN Security Council resolutions 476 & 478 and thus a violation of Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, and therefore a war crime. UNSC resolution 478 declared the Knesset Basic Law null and void and 476 declares any demographic changes in Jerusalem a violation of international law and a serious violation of the Geneva Convention, a war crime.

Are we just to ignore your past misstatements and move on as if they never happened? Did you lie, or were you intellectually dishonest about misquoting UN 242. What about the word "negotiated" in the resolution that you invented? 1. Who knows before 1967. There was never an international decision rendered. After 1967, UN 242, it was "occupied," not disputed. 2. Why ask me to show you something I didn't say? Can't you read what it says.? A deliberately dishonest question. It says. "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." (English version). French version says, "all territories." Both are legal. To insert your own adjectives, "all", "a little," "some," "teenie weenie bit," "most of," etc., is asinine semantics. 3. I don't agree or disagree, UN 242 wasn't written in 1948. So, legally, who cares? Do you fret about irrelevancies?

Are we just to ignore you past misstatements and move on as if they never happened? Did you lie, or were you intellectually dishonest about misquoting UN 242? What about the word "negotiated" in the resolution that you invented? 1. Who knows before 1967. There was never an international decision rendered. After 1967, UN 242, it was "occupied," not disputed. 2. Why ask me to show you something I didn't say? Can't you read what it says.? A deliberately dishonest question. It says," withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." (English version). French version say, "all territories." Both are legal. To insert your own adjectives, "all," "a little," "some," teenie weenie bit," "most of", etc., is asinine semantics. 3. I don't agree or disagree, UN 242 wasn't written in 1948. So, legally, who cares? Do you fret about such irrelevancies?

1) Prior to and right after 1967 ONLY two countries lay claim to the West Bank. Jordan to all of it and Israel to part of it. So, was the West Bank disputed territory or wasn't it? 2) Show me where in UN Resolution 242 was Israel requested to withdraw from ALL of the territories to the pre 1967 boundaries? 3) There was no recognized border, only an armistice line. So where was Israel required to withdraw to? 4) UN Resolution 242 states that no country is permitted to acquire territories by means of war. In 1948, Jordan attacked the old city of Jerusalem, ethnically cleansed it of Jews (made it an Arab only city). Now, the Arabs claim East Jerusalem for themselves on that basis even though historically, Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population for at least two centuries. Do you agree with their claim Ron? And if so, aren't you ignoring the principle that no country can acquire new territories by means of war?

violence free sympathy for the ordinary Palestinians close the gap in income, education... but expose the aggressive and violent leaders of Fatah and Hamas

My #77 to Josh was about Israeli violation of UN resolutions and 4th Convention. You responded territory was taken from Jordan and UN did not recognize it as Jordan territory, and then said 1967 boundaries were armistice lines. Non-sequiturs You then misquoted UN242 and thought of old dead issue of "disputed" territory. Marvis jumped in, #80. He thinks nations keep territory won in war. He obviously hasn't read UN242. He talks of an "understanding"(s)which aren't juridical. When Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, it was irrelevant who had held the territory, be it Jordan, Egypt, Nepal or Ouighers. They no longer played any role in Israeli/Palestine issue nor int'l law.Tim, I hold text of 242. If you misquote it and say you read it when you didnt, you are a liar. If you read it and claim it says something else, you are intellectually dishonest. I give you benefit of the doubt, you chose which applies: but, re boundaries, the word "negotiated" is not in the text.

Allowing sharon to the Temple Mount in 2000 was a abomination from a even from some ultraorthodox world views . A warrior atheist crude callous and ruthless had gone to far in politics and should have hidden in his ranch after the lebanon war going past the litani in 1982. His election was a catastrophy for post holocaust world jewry .

What future generations will remember Israel for, is its advancements in military technology. Lead article in the Wall Street Journal now: "Israeli Robots Remake Battlefield " Enjoy disgrace.

"It is irrelevant whom Israeli drove from the territory"(Ron) You are kidding right? It is not irrelevant that Jordan's sovereignty over the West Bank was NOT recognized by anyone other than Pakistan and Britain. It is NOT irrelevant that at that stage, in 1967, the Palestinians themselves did NOT demand a state in the West Bank but only in Israel proper. NOR is it irrelevant that the construction of the settlements began at that time, when the land was disputed and the Arabs did NOT want to recognize Israel no matter what was offered to them. "I didn`t mention 1967 borders. Debate that with yourself"(Ron) No, I will debate it with you because the 1967 boundary lines which were actually the 1949 armistice lines (NOT recognized borders) are the ones in dispute. Fatah and their allies now want Israel to withdraw to THOSE lines while Israel insists that it is willing to withdraw to more secure boundaries. Israel stated that it is willing to offer offsets to territories that it wants to keep in order to make it's borders more defensible and secure. That's what the whole territorial dispute is all about Ron. Where the new borders should be (although there are other disputes too)... "You should read UN 242 before calling others "false." (Ron) No Ron, you should read it. UN Resolution 242 states that Israel is to withdraw to "secure and recognized boundaries" and what does the word "Recognized" mean in this context? It means that the boundaries must be negotiated ... Now I accept that there is a big debate about what UN resolution 242 really means and that some people accept your version of it but please don't pretend that you have the definitive answer because people like Lord Cardanon, Arthur Goldberg, Joseph Sisco and many others disagree with YOUR interpretation. And those people should know because at least some of them were involved in the drafting of Resolution 242. Here, read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#French_version_vs._English_version_of_text

all the anti-jew, anti-Israel crics cite the UN resolutions with reference to the term occupied territories which must be, according to the UN, dis-occupied by the IDF. Who determines who are 'occupants'? Is the UN dictating that Jews cannot be legal occupants in the west bank? Why not? Arabs are legal occupants in Israel,. aren't they? Israel should cede the west bank to Jewish occupants there west bank. They WB Jews would declare an independent state--call it, say, Judah and sign a mutual assistance pact with Israel. Now Judah can set up East Jerusalem as its capitol. and can legitimately expand further into wherever it wishes as long as it is able. Judah can use its JDF (Judaian defence forces) to preserve peace in its country. Under what international law is this illegal? This seems to me to be a winning solution. I end by quoting a once prolific anti-semitic poster to this august forum--might have signed as 'ballistic', Tea?

was the failure of Jews throughout the Diaspora and in Israel to rid themselves of the racist ideology of Zionism. The OneState binational solution is the only solution.

1. Siege of Gaza 2. Siege of Gaza 3. Siege of Gaza 4. Siege of Gaza 5. Siege of Gaza 6. Siege of Gaza 7. Siege of Gaza 8. Siege of Gaza 9. Siege of Gaza 10. Siege of Gaza Just like football, (American Football), offense produces results and defense produces greater results by preventing your opponent to have no offense at all. The siege produced many results. Just look at what the EGYPTIANS are doing.

I'm old enough to remember the six-day war & aftermath very clearly. Israal was attacked by Jordan and had the right to defend itself. If a neighboring country attacks you from the territory they control you have the right to defend yourself. If they lose that territory in the ensuing battle - should you just give it back again so they should attack you again?? I followed the news & UN negotiations closely in 1967. The clear understanding was that Israel would return territories (not 'the' territories) captured in the fighting , based on a negotiated peace, with agreed upon borders. I remember clearly , an interview on TV with a defeated King Hussein who said that even he did not expect the borders to be the same as before the fighting began (& as was mentioned by another writer, these were armistice lines from 1949 - not true, recognized international borders.

It is irrelevant whom Israeli drove from the territory it now occupies in violation of international laws, UN resolutions and articles of the 4th Geneva Convention nor when it was recognized as Palestinian territory. Who coveted what implies dreams. Who cares? I didn't mention 1967 borders. Debate that with yourself. You should read UN 242 before calling others "false." UN 242 demands withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from occupied territories (no conditions). It does It did not demand a negotiated withdrawal to agreed borders. THOSE WORDS ARE NOT IN THE RESOLUTION. I know Israelis like to call the occupied territories "disputed," that makes the condemnation of being in violation of international law easier to take. But the word "disputed" is not in the UN resolutions in which Israel is in violation. UN 242 does not demand Israel withdraw from "disputed" territory. It says withdraw from "occupied" territory. And resolutions 452 and 465 also say OCCUPIED territory.

"...It violates international law for an occupying power to settle its own population on occupied territory"(Ron) Ron you should know that in 1967 Israel took the territories from Jordan because Jordan attacked Israel. But in fact, only a few countries recognized those teritories as Jordanian territory. The majority in the UN did NOT recognize it as Jordanian territory. Nor was it recognized as Palestinian territory because at that stage even the Palestinians did not claim the West Bank for themselves. The only territories that the Palestinians, together with their Arab allies coveted at that srage, was Israel proper. By the way, the 1967 boundries were actually armistice lines, NOT recognized borders. The reason why I mention those facts is to show you that your claim is false. In legal terms, the West Bank is NOT occupied territory. It is disputed territory. And UN Resolution 242 did NOT demand Israel's unconditional withdrawal. It demanded a negotiated withdrawal to agreed borders

There is more you should know about Gaza. Israel occupied Gaza and all of Palestine, in the 1967 war. When Israel refused to withdraw from the occupied territories it became in violation of numerous UN resolutions. When Israel encouraged settlements in the West Bank and Gaza it violated articles of the 4th Geneva Convention, a breach of which is considered a war crime. It violates international law for an occupying power to settle its own population on occupied territory. When Israel withdraw its settlers from Gaza, it took a first step to abide by international law. What it left in their place was a blockade considered by the international community to be the greatest human rights violations taking place in the world today. Collective punishment of a civilian population is in violation of article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention: a war crime.

Ariel Sharon defeated suicide terrorism. He launched a hugely succesful offensive in 2002 and began building the security fence. Today, suicide bombings 3 times a week are a relic of the past. All men succumb to age eventually, but Ariel Sharon was victorious over Araft, without a shadow of a doubt.

Burston is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Israel forcibly uprooted and transported entire communities that have been settled for generations in Gaza. All in the hopes of peace with the Palestinians. I ask you -- what other nation would move thousands of their citizens in the simple hope for peace? Answer -- none but Israel. And what did they get in return? Hamas rule and rockets into Sderot. The real siege is not of Gaza but against Israel, by sick-headed Palestinian leaders and hate-infested Arab leaders who won't accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the middle east. ] Stop blaming Israel for every problem and realize the real root of the problem -- The Arab world's refusal to accept Israel and their cynicial use of the Palestinians as pawns in their endless game. Ever wonder why the Palestinians live in refugee camps when their Arab brothers are making billions from oil and building the tallest skyscraper in the world in Dubai

A lot of the most effective new anti-Israel websites, blogs etc are built around Gaza, especially the siege. There was plenty of material before, but it provided a lot of compelling graphics and so on. Google: site:ifamericansknew.org Then google: site:ifamericansknew.org gaza It probably had the net effect of reducing Israeli influence on American politicians by 5% to 10%. The equivalent of costing Israel billions and billions of dollars in intangible support.

"that suggests the the IDF`s response was not measured and that it allowed innocent civilians to be targeted as a "lesson" to Hamas"(Arieh Zimmerman) That's NOT what I said. I said "do what is necessary" to stop the targeting and murder of innocent Israeli civilians ... "Numerous "Talkbacks" from Israeli have suggested that the overkill was reasonable and justified"(Arieh Zimmerman) What do you mean by overkill? Are you suggesting that the party that perpetuates the war (Hamas) has the right to set the "kill quota"? War is immoral, once it is imposed by one party (Hamas) on another (Israel) events are unpredictable. Hamas and their numerous Palestinian supporters should keep that in mind before imposing THEIR war on Israel... "Collective punishment, however, whenever, and by whom so-ever practiced is an unforgivable crime..."(Arieh Zimmerman) What do you mean by "collective punishment"? War itself is collective punishment. Now ask yourself who is insisting on war? Hint: Hamas ... "Jews have been tortured and murdered for centuries only because they were Jews. Should we allow innocent Palestinian civilians to be murdered only because they are Palestinians in the wrong place at the wrong time?"(Arieh Zimmerman) Your concern for "the innocent" Palestinians is touching. I hope you have the same concern for the innocent Israelis too. Unfortunately innocence or guilt does not come into it in a war. There are only legitimate or illegitimate targets but Hamas does NOT make it easy for Israel to distinguish between the two because it is part of Hamas's war strategy to use human shields. And THAT is THE war crime according to the Geneva conventions! NOT Israel's legitimate self defense ... You don't believe me? Then just ask Obama, the USA's commander in chief, a Nobel Peace laureate: How many Afghan civilians have been accidentally killed in the war against the Taliban (who use the same strategy as Hamas) in 2009? (Hint: More than 1400)

"that suggests the the IDF`s response was not measured and that it allowed innocent civilians to be targeted as a "lesson" to Hamas"(Arieh Zimmerman) That's NOT what I said. I said "do what is necessary" to stop the targeting and murder of innocent Israeli civilians ... "Numerous "Talkbacks" from Israeli have suggested that the overkill was reasonable and justified"(Arieh Zimmerman) What do you mean by overkill? Are you suggesting that the party that perpetuates the war (Hamas) has the right to set the "kill quota"? War is immoral, once it is imposed by one party (Hamas) on another (Israel) events are unpredictable. Hamas and their numerous Palestinian supporters should keep that in mind before imposing THEIR war on Israel... "Collective punishment, however, whenever, and by whom so-ever practiced is an unforgivable crime..."(Arieh Zimmerman) What do you mean by "collective punishment"? War itself is collective punishment. Now ask yourself who is insisting on war? Hint: Hamas ... "Jews have been tortured and murdered for centuries only because they were Jews. Should we allow innocent Palestinian civilians to be murdered only because they are Palestinians in the wrong place at the wrong time?"(Arieh Zimmerman) Your concern for "the innocent" Palestinians is touching. I hope you have the same concern for the innocent Israelis too. Unfortunately innocence or guilt does not come into it in a war. There are only legitimate or illegitimate targets but Hamas does NOT make it easy for Israel to distinguish between the two because it is part of Hamas's war strategy to use human shields. And THAT is THE war crime according to the Geneva conventions! NOT Israel's legitimate self defense ... You don't believe me? Then just ask Obama, the USA's commander in chief, a Nobel Peace laureate: How many Afghan civilians have been accidentally killed in the war against the Taliban (who use the same strategy as Hamas) in 2009? (Hint: More than 1400)

The number of innocent Israeli victims was many times fewer than the number of innocent Palestinian victims; that suggests the the IDF's response was not measured and that it allowed innocent civilians to be targeted as a "lesson" to Hamas. Numerous "Talkbacks" from Israeli have suggested that the overkill was reasonable and justified. Collective punishment, however, whenever, and by whom so-ever practiced is an unforgivable crime. Jews have been tortured and murdered for centuries only because they were Jews. Should we allow innocent Palestinian civilians to be murdered only because they are Palestinians in the wrong place at the wrong time? You may preach your sermon to the already convinced, but by the rest of us your persona is identified by your actions.

... That's what Israel's eternal critics preach to Israel ... And they don't know how right they are but not in the context that they mean. But they are right that what Hamas does is wrong. They are wrong to target and murder Israeli civilians. And equally, Israel would be wrong NOT to do whatever is necessary to STOP Hamas on it's tracks. If possible, stop them without harming Palestinian Arab civilians BUT if that's NOT possible, because Hamas is unable and/or unwilling to fight an open warfare without using civilians as shields, then it would be WRONG of Israel to stop doing whatever is necessary to STOP Hamas from harming Israel's own civilians. Wrong even if it means that Palestinian Arab civilians have to die because if the choice is between Israeli civilians dying or Palestinian Arab civilians dying, then Israel's choice is obvious, it would be WRONG of Israel to allow it's own civilians to die. So, Israel's eternal critics are right: Two wrongs don't make a right ...

thank you and i think you are right..israeali leaders should listen to you and take your advice before taking any decision

tHIS EDITORIAL ONLY REFLECTS THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE EDITORIALIST, I PRESUME THAT OTHER NEWSPAPERS WILL COME UP WITH TOTALLY DIFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.

Controlling borders is not a "siege." Israel has ZERO obligations to Gaza. Not a single Israeli lives in Gaza. The Israeli government has no authority in Gaza. Gazans do not pay taxes to the Israeli government. Hamas holds 1 Israeli soldiers, continues to threaten the safety of Jews, and shoots rockets at Israeli cities on a monthly basis. Nothing illegal or sinister about stopping the flow of weapons. There is NO evidence Israel is withholding humanitarian aid - the receipts are online. Even if it were holding aid, so what? Why should Israel give a cent to Gaza? Gaza borders EGYPT! Egypt is not at war with Gaza, why should Israel - the evil occupier - compromise the lives of its citizens to support a people that want nothing but war? Israel shuffled in 30,000,000lbs of aid 2 months after the conflict ended, returning Gaza's humanitarian conditions to pre-war levels. Has Israel's critics ever done this? NO! Israel should treat Gaza like Russia treats Chechnya!

"israel" itself is n error of history and must be corrected sooner or later, that a tiny zionit spot amongst the Muslim world is doomed to failure !

"Peace would mean the revenue streams from the United States and Germany drying up. Not to mention the shiploads of free military equipment Israel gets" Chris starting off 2010 were you left 2009 off. Lies and more lies. Specifically if you claim what you say is true point to your specific source as evidence of your claim. Prove to us here what you said will actually occur. Can you? Or are you being the pathetic hateful little man that you are. Fact of the matter is the aid Israel received was increased AFTER making peace and giving back the Sinai to Egypt. For information Israel pays for much of the weapons she obtains whether thru loans or other forms of payments so again specifically show us on here were every single weapon Israel receievd was at no cost.

...Israel could at any time mitigate any resistance by simply making a full and fair peace deal. But as the entire world now knows, Israel only wants the land and resources and it wants shut of ANY Arab Palestinians. Israel's rampant and illegal colonialism is the only real existential threat that Israel faces. That noise about Iran is simply fluff aimed at distracting the world away from Israel's only real problem - its inhumane subjugation of the original inhabitants of the Mandate.

Don't panic, there is no way Israel will mount a successful counter insurgency operation against HAMAS or anyone else for that matter. Peace would mean the revenue streams from the United States and Germany drying up. Not to mention the shiploads of free military equipment Israel gets

The one big failure of israelis, or at least the moderate non extremist ones, is the failure to take the confrontation with the illegal settlers. A confrontation in which the west could aid by outlawing all support to illegal settlements, arrest illegal settlers while passing through europe and the US. And not least declare the illegal settlers to be international outlaws.

Is it not true that Hamas was originally created and funded by Israel as a counterweight to the PLO? Now that looks like a poor decision... Similarly perhaps the US was poorly advised in supporting the Afghans against the Soviets?

Although certainly not an aim of Cast Lead, the one possibility of a surprising gift from it may just be that there is immense quiet in the WB,and clear calls in the US think tankers for true infrastrutcure support for institutions, industry and commerce, in order to create a Palestinian "area" by socio-economic default. While everyone can spend another milenium batting the political minutia back and forth, the fact is, if the WB remains absolutely silent and lays down it's arms in a freewill gesture followed by intense focus upon building a legitimate economy, the State will be achieved morally. Cast Lead was the demarcation line in all things m.e. conflict for US supporters of Israel. What this means is that just like right after you are forced to beat up someone threatening you, there is a sense of demand that they change and put up or shut up. Or as they say, the gig is up. Gaza crapped in it's own nest. There is now a separation--and this is why Egypt builds a steal fence.

Ten Worst Mistakes made by Israel and this is other then Siege of Gaza. 1. Not bombing Iran nuke plants 2. Not taking all of Gaza 3. Not finding that shite iman that allows rocket fire into Israel 4. Giving up on Gaza 5. Not destroying Hamas 6. No peace agreement 7. Not destroying Hezballoh 8. Took too long to stop suicide bombings 9.

"The opinions that Bradley B. expresses so eloquently are shared by an overwhelming majority of world public opinion.." Your right Mike the rest of the world such as yourself who are thousands of miles away of from the bombs and suicide terrorists and missiles. Your arrogant and smug suggestion that Israelis are living in a "cocoon" underscores yours and others on here ignorance by trying to dicate to Israel about what they should or should not do. This is nothing more than moral bankruptcy at its best. THe seige of Gaza is not something Israel endulges in and would rather not have to do this. However there is a captive Israeli citizen in Gaza. Israel has made it clear if he is released it will go a long way to end this seige. Now if Hamas really cared about their citizens in Gaza they would stop dictating to Israel these unrealistic demands for his release.

Yes, we should drag Hamas in front of the World Court for war crimes.... but then to be fair, we also need to do the same for Israel. As my mother says, two wrongs don't make a right.

respect for your article. I absolutely agree with you and told several government officials of Germany that this brutally stupid siege is just one thing: counterproductive. And true it is only about collective punishment yet it is so out of time that one sane man can just be ashamed seeing Gaza locked up from the world while they insist in Tel Aviv on their superficial life.

Mark said "What Gaza and Lebanon proved is that Israel is not willing to do counterinsurgency but is willing to destroy civilian infrastructure with abandon and leave devastation behind." What Mark doesn't explain is that counterinsurgency means Israel would re-occupy south Lebanon and Gaza. You can't run a counterinsurgency if you're not there in the territory with troops and civilian workers on the ground. Mark - do you want to rethink this one? What you said simply doesn't make sense. What Israel is telling Lebanon and Gaza is that they should think twice before violating Israel's borders. Hezbollah violated the international border, killed IDF soldiers, kidnapped (and subsequently murdered) 3 more, and launched a massive rocket attack on Israeli civilians to cover their attack. Hamas for 8 years repeatedly committed war crimes by firing thousands of anti-personnel rockets at Israeli civilians (a war crime). Israel's message is: it'll cost you bigtime to mess with us.

Settlements expansion is the most horrific damage Israel inflicted to itself. It is indefensible, insane idea the all nation got caught into and can not get rid off.

Bradley You are sadly right. Support for Israel has dropped away dramatically in England - we do not understand how Israel can do this , how her people can be so blind as to support this cruelty. This is collective punishment of a hlpless people. Israel disappoints.

Mr. Burston is a courageous Israeli. With great regret I must try to anticipate, ten years from now, the US's biggest mistake of the decade: 1. The war in Afghanistan 2. The war in Afghanistan 3. The war in Afghanistan . . . .10. The war in Afghanistan.

The number one mistake of any Israeli government of any decade was the handing over the Sinai - period.

it's not so simple, as you probably know. Sorry, but I'm not into a long debate.

I, Solovey Razboynik, dare to expose the truth. Israel's worst error is Israel.

The seriousness of an error is dependent on the number of people it affects and the subsequent degree of pain thereby inflicted upon them. By that measure, there is no contest; collective punishment is the most critical and injurious error that can be made by a victor lucky enough to have emerged from a conflict as the winner. With that one step, from victor to conqueror, he loses any credit he might have justifiably had before and during the conflict. The perception that we Israelis have, that is that we are the victim of Palestinian terrorism, is blurred and tested by our willful and willed confusion between terrorists and innocent civilians. We are found wanting by any objective ethical measure. We are also in contempt of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which in large part was forged in response to Nazi crimes against the Jews. I am ashamed that we so sinfully ignore the lessons of our recent past.

Newsflash: The opinions that Bradley B. expresses so eloquently are shared by an overwhelming majority of world public opinion.Israelis really need to break free of their cocoon in their alternate universe and honestly assess their actions and policies in Gaza, the West Bank,E. Jerusalem and elsewhere in the ME

If not blockade of Gaza Hamas would have been a much stronger as not only arms but volunteeres from many places would arrive & ... If not refusal of Egypt to take back Gaza it would be the part of a country which is responsible for it & ... If not fear of international reaction Israel would fight Hamas to the its last militant &... If Israel is on the land of Jordan size & population of New-York Hamas would declare its friendly relation with Israel & ... If Israel concedes to Hamas claims Hamas would decide to recognize Israel as a Jewish state & ... If any military response to Hamas is doomed to failure the policy of strict non-violence is to be chosen &... If Gaza is in very much need of food & space israel would provide them & ... If death roll in Gaza is much higher than in Israel Israel would reciprocate it with its own increasing death roll &... If Israel follows its high moral priciples Hamas would folow its &... Happy New Year!

Thank you Mr. Burston for writing the truth about Israel. May God bless your efforts and we pray that you continue to write for the innocent around the world that are not able to do so on their own. We are all hoping for a change. Thank you again!

Or are they excused by the 10 plagues of 4000 years ago? Seriously, remember Socrates saying: If your own family does not trust you, why should the rest of us? And supposedly all Arabs are family... especially Fatah and Hamas.

By far and away the worst error of the past four decades was not ending the occupation, not moving back to the Green Line & building settlements, all of them illegal, in the Occupied Territories. Had there been no occupation there would be no Hamas. If anyone has forgotten, Hamas became a force with which to be reckoned in the late 1980s, 20 years after the Palestinians had lived under an unkind Israeli occupation. Even after the very corrupt and corruptible Arafat recognized Israel in 1988, the settlement building and occupation continued and many people turned to Hamas since Arafat was unable to deliver freedom. It must not be forgotten that in its early years Hamas was funded by Israel which saw the Islamic group as an antidote to the secular PLO. The blame for Hamas & for all the deaths caused by Hamas must be put squarely at the feet of successive Israeli governments who seemingly valued more and more Palestinian land and Palestinian resources over the lives of Israeli citizens.

...they never have. They want all Palestinians dead. By extension, if they could make all Arabs dead they would do that also. Nevertheless, your article is right on. The colonies are one thing, but the Gaza Siege has ruined Israel's standing in the eyes of the world. And it is hard to see any future other than a very bleak one for Israel until you get a real leader who can face what Israel has become - and correct it, before it's too late.

Do the same insane thing and somehow expect different results. Israel's idea of peace whether interpreted from the right or left does not meet the minimum required for a just peace. the right only believes in greater Israel and the Pals miraculous disappearnce , and the left insisting on a Jewsih Israel w/o Pals historical rights in Palestine. Both solutions are a recipe for current and future failure. the Pals are under occupation , they have the right to resist. Can Israel maintain this forever w/0 loosing its soul. Only time will tell....

One hopes.

Lets be more humanitarian to our cousins in Gaza. Lets remove the embargo, let the world seding food medicines, if we cannot or will not do it, Lets be fair to all. Let us live a decent live as anybody else

Livni and Barak, next will be other politicians, The world community sympathy has changed from Israelis to Palestinians.

She's always going to position herself so that she is 'Israel's friend' on the spectrum of available Democratic choices. That'll be the case no matter what Israel does.

The damage the siege and Cast lead caused Israel standing in the world and Israelis psyche out weight any benefits if at all it has generated.

10 Errors of Gaza seige: 1. Israel should not have withdrawn from NE corner opposite Sderot, giving them permanent relief. 2. IDF should have permanently seized a 5 km wide strip of Gaza north of Rafah to the sea, blocking weapons smuggling. 3. Standard practice during and after war should have been 10 175mm heavy shells into Gaza for each rocket fired. 4. No construction aid in except for surrender of rockets 5. Total ban on shipping sugar, fertilizer into Gaza, and destroy all Gaza supplies of these (Kassam fuel) 6. No foreign "aid workers" or media allowed into Gaza. Period. 7. No UN cooperation unless they permit 3rd party and live video monitoring of UN facilities 8. Freeze Road Map "obligations" unless US effectively pressures Egypt to stop Iranian arms from entering Sinai. 9. Cut all Red Cross, phone, mail, family access to Arab prisoners until Shalit also gets these. 10. 15% tax on all foreign shipments to Gaza to benefit Sderot, compensate rocket victims. NO exports.

Not to mention the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Or does that not count? The Gaza Siege is manna from heaven for which Israel's opponents are able to bludgeon Israel on a daily basis. But the biggest mistake with the siege and Operation Cast Lead is that it has enabled critics of Israel to challenge Israel's legitimacy, and has sent Israel's political leaders scurrying in the face of arrest warrants. Not to mention the fact that sanctions against Israel are being openly discussed, and in the case of the British Government, Sanctions against the illegal settlements in the West Bank has already begun. The legitmacy of the State and those who run it is the cost Israel has paid for the Siege of Gaza.

not finishing hezbollah in lebanon. this would have discredited islamic fundamentalism, would have made israel's position vs. iran stronger, and would have made israel's position with the americans stronger. destroying hezbollah could have changed the course of mid east history. there would not have been a gaza war. there would not have been a gaza siege. (hey, what about egypt? olmert's baloney war cost israel very sorely.

The more Arabs are at war with Israel and the more the Left believes Israel is responsible. Instead of blaming Israel and strengthening terror, the Left must propose real solutions to address Arab rejection of Israel.

Israelis had elected peace loving or peace initiating leaders in the past. However Arabs always undermined their efforts by suicide bombings such as the Dolphinarium attack, the Passover massacre at Netanya hotel etc., and when Israel pulled out from Gaza Arabs elected Hamas who to this day declares that they will not stop until all of Israel is theirs. Maynbe if Arabs would join forces under a peace loving leadership instead of Hamas then Israelis will feel safe to vote for a more peaceful government. After all Israel did make peace with Egypt giving back all of Sinai and with Jordan. So far Hamas and Fatah cannot make peace with each other.

You will find that the Israel voter committed just about another 110 errors voting into power just about that number of feckless, venal, and incompetent imitations of the "peoples representatives".

... just look to Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.

You don't have to be too perspicacious to know that ending the occupation should be the plan. What is the problem with faulting Israel when Israel is at fault?

What became the siege of Gaza as a result of these non-conformal organizations to the Palestinian cause, via the PLO and PA President Abbas, only indicates that the West's worldview to the threshold of pain and socio-economic pressure applied to Gaza, was inaccurate. All they had to do was accept the Quartet's three conditions proposed for acceptance into the political process. But no they endured irrespective of the Gaza Palestinians suffering, despite the inhumanity of the isolation it produced. Israel's response with the security measures has produced the uncomfortable siege of Gaza. One can't exonerate the perpetrators of Hamas and other factions when what they've done to Gaza and its people is quite similar to the Chechyan terrorists who occupied that theatre where innocent children and elderly died all in efforts of their cause for independence. It's not the right way of going about achieving independence.

The current ideological system is stacked against certain regions and towns. A reformed system would allow a chance and the potential for agreements that are impossible under the current system. I couldn't disagree with you more about Gaza. Peace and Freedom has never been available to Gaza, not since 1967. That's partly, maybe mostly, why Hamas got elected in 2006. The territory went instantly from occupation to siege with the Disengagement. Having weapons is not the same as using them. What Gaza and Lebanon proved is that Israel is not willing to do counterinsurgency but is willing to destroy civilian infrastructure with abandon and leave devastation behind. The Lebanese war made Lebanon and Hezbollah stronger, with stronger ties to Iran because Iran helped rebuild. The siege so far is just a recruitment tool for Hamas. The smuggling enriches them, just as the sanctions regime in Iran enriches the Revolutionary Guards. Happy New Year!

Siege is term normally used in surrounding an area with the intention of capturing it. Is Egypt Israel's partner in trying to capture Gaza? Is not the action taking place on border an act of non-cooperation or a partial blockade? Egypt should share a higher cost than Israel for their actions since Gaza was part of Egypt, and they are so-called brothers. Why should Israel bear the burden of supporting Hamastan which is sworn to the destruction of Israel, a hated enemy, as opposed to support from their Islamic brothers who are far more cruel in their actions than Israel. Once again the heinous use of Palestinians as pawns by Arab League and blaming Israel.

Israel' greatest mistake is and remains a very poor record in fighting the left wing Media proxy war going on in the majority lefty dominated press (even its own like this one). Israel always misses an opportunity to make the symbolic case to trash the left: ie why should all muslim states together in the UN get more than 1 vote in anti-Israel matter? why are Arabs on the Court in the Hague able to vote against Israel? How can the head of the IAEA be Muslim and regulate Muslim nuclear sanctions? Why are new Jewish homes and communities NOT named after holocaust vanished or suicide bomber killed Jews? Why aren't Pal militants found in mosques and schools not on the internet? Why aren't UN vehicles with arms not on the internet? Why aren't Israeli lawyers constantly recording Pal violations of the Geneva conventions...etc.

Instead of just faulting Israel, let's hear some alternatives.

Are these really errors? An error, surely, is something that yields a negative result. Israel has successfully skirted negotiations, which would only have led to an agreement containing elements Israel does not want, and the year has given time for quite extensive settlement development. While it is true there has been some negative PR fallout, it hasn?t done any real harm, well, not yet.

..what other solution has Israel.? From a security point of view. No more bus bombings. No more murders in the Mall. Had Hamas not decided to fire missiles into Israel, then there would have been no siege. Yet,Israel does supply electricity and certain other essentials and allows hundreds of truly sick patients into Israel for hospital care. Yes, to us all, outside Israel, we disagree in principal with said blockade, so do many in Israel. Again, the Hamas Charter has provoked anger and certain distress, which has caused said collective punishment. Only through some major retractions and goodwill will Israel sit down with Hamas, then again, Hamas is led by Tehran. In essence, that is the major stumbling block. Good day from snowy Swiss Alps.

The 2002 Saudi Arabia peace initiative is another missed chance for Israel,Obama and the Arab League, because the Arab League could not find an alternative location for the Pals and the refugees.In stead they wanted to crowd them all in Israel.The "take it or leave it"attitude and the "all or nothing" demands of the Pals, together with the Hamas Passover attack cauised the Plan to fail,although there were good aspects to the plan.

The Arabs understood that the conflict cannot be resolved military,and the Israelis understood the conflict cannot be resolved politically.

Beautifully written piece. Israelis are better than this. Let's end this siege.

There just is no way out of this but to make friends of these People. One at a time or whatever. Nothing else makes any sense and always leads to the same or a similar conclusion. If some of them are going to get us then, they're gonna get us and vice versa. There ain't nothing you can do about it and me neither. People can't control everything and trying to control everything eventually backfires. And you want to know the truth? The people who set you up to hold the bag usually turn out to be the people that will take the money, get on a plane, and ride the hell out of there to either Las Vegas, the Virgin Islands, or Dubai. That's the plain truth Bradley. Everyone has a one way ticket Bradley. We either have fun and then suffer and die or we just suffer and die and make believe that we have fun later. But this is what the newest science is saying. Conciousness is just a fluid. It flows in and it flows out of the brain. That's right. In the end we all end up in the same soup.

1. to 10.: the thought that the israeli occupation/siege of palestinian territory is the reason for the palestinians'/hamas' unwillingness to make peace. first there was the israeli withdrawal from gaza and the palestinians could have lived in peace. but then hamas came to power (via democratic election) and started attacking israel although first there was no siege after the israeli withdrawal. only following hamas' violent behaviour the israeli siege started. nu, what would have happened without the israeli siege? ever thought of this? ever thought of the results in case hamas and other terror organizations would have been able to build up their weapons stockpile without obstacles?...

Mark, Israel's proportional representation electoral system means you get the number of seats proportionate to the percentage of vote. If Likud gets 30% of the vote, then get 30% of the seats. If the Israeli Arabs ever voted together in one block, then they'd have 20% of the Knesset, or 24 seats - a HUGE voting block that would be impossible to ignore. They'd have tremendous legislative clout. However, they're too busy stabbing each other in the back (just like the Jews) and unable to unite under one flag. Well heck, that's democracy, isn't it? Going to direct elections would only mean that more Arabs from different parties would be elected. They may get more seats, but they still wouldn't be united. And, by the way, Burston is still way off base thinking that the Gaza border is the biggest mistake. Not even close. The two positive lessons from the past decade were the Lebanon and Gaza wars. Hezbollah and Hamas both back down in the face of overwhelming firepower.

Israels worst error is and remains the chronical incapability/unwillingess of the Israeli voter to elect a governement, which is HONESTLY trying to achieve a fair peace with the Palestinians. That is and remains by far THE biggest Israeli "sin" over the past decade.... ....everything else is just peanuts compared to that.

The mistakes of Gaza: 1) Not invading Gaza City years ago 2) Not eliminating Hamas 3) Abandoning Gaza and making it Juden-rein 4) Not attacking Hamas during coup 5) taking too long to respond to rocket attacks 6) taking too long to put soldiers into Gaza city 7) not taking over all of Gaza 8) not invading Hamas bunker under Hospital patient hostages 9) ending Cast lead before completion 10) not freeing Gilad Shalit

Brad Burston gets most of it right. But Sittizen has a point with his items 6 & 7. But 6, in particular would change the face of Israel like no other. It, alone, would have about 20% - 25% of the Knesset being Israeli Arabs, just like the population. I wonder how much they support the siege.

Errors? Who are you to say? More at TREASON...gather your loyalities and direct them at a free Israel.

Oslo was the worst mistake in Israel's history resulting g in the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians, the besmirching of Israel's name and the crowning of a holocaust denier as the leader of a terrorist state next door to us

10 worst mistakes: 1) Withdrawal from Gaza 2) Tolerance of Palestinian war crimes, aka the failure to have massive retaliations for illegal Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. 3) disorganized withdrawal from Lebanon that made us look like wimps and prompted Hamas to attack Israel, kidnapping and then murdering 3 IDF soldiers. 4) Accepting Palestinian lies that they support peace and a two-state solution, while Fatah official policy remains war and destruction of Israel. 5) Failure to manage Israel's water supply 6) Failure to reform the electoral system to bring in direct election of MKs 7) Failure to significantly reduce corruption in the govt and national corporations 8) failure to reduce poverty 9) failure to reform the educational system 10) Failure to follow up the Gaza blockade with a marketing campaign to show how evil Hamas is. Brad, the blockade ain't anywhere near the top top baddies. Do us and yourself a favor and go rewrite this story!

Israel acted nobly and courageously vis-a-vis Cast Lead....More was done to protect civilians than in any modern War....It is pathetic that Israel is more concerned for Palestinian life than Hamas or the entire Arab world for that matter, but Israel answered its responsibility to quite the southern front from 8 years of attacks....That was largely acheieved!!!Israel must get serious about defending this truth in the media war....It must combat the inherent racism in the Goldstone fiasco and the UN organs that have been hijacked....

and exposes Arab hypocrisy about helping them.

What Israel was trying to do in Gaza was put an end to rocket- fire into Israel. It was trying to do this while losing as few Israeli soldiers' lives as possible. You don't seem to remember that Hamas promised it would take thousands of Israeli soldiers' lives. The painfully regrettable losses of civilian life on the Palestinian side were not intentional. They were caused in great part by Hamas embedding itself in the population, and even hiding behind it. Your charge of Israeli brutality is brutally unfair. And you should be ashamed of it.

To Bradley Burston as always excellent------his shaigetz admirer Pat Riordan

3) Hamas came to power in Gaza 4)Iran has another front on Israels border 5)More resources have to be spent protecting Israel from Hamas than was spent on looking after the settlers in Gaza. 6)The siege of Gaza as a result of leaving Gaza has given ammunition to the human rights groups who do not understand Israel has to protect itself 7) The withdrwal eventually lead to operation cast lead in which life on both sides was lost.

was not the siege of Gaza, but rather witdrawing from Gaza. 1) it decreased security for Israel as a whole 2) it increaed danger to Sderot