One more thing: disregard any argument that this particular dispute defies characterisation because it is "complex". In fact it is relatively simple: there are two groups wanting the same patch of land. The reason why people fall back on the old shibboleth that this conflict is "complex" is because liberals feel more squeamish about this dispute due to the issues of Jews and anti-semitism, and don't feel as comfortable viewing this dispute in their usually way, as a simple black-white dichotomy (eg Serbia/Bosnia, South Africa, even the Falklands Islands dispute). If the Palestinians had been colonised by WASPs instead of Jews then I don't think that there would be the same hesitation and hedging.
In reality, all conflicts are complex to some degree. The two bloodiest conflicts in South African history were the difaqane (a black on black war of Zulu against Xhosa) and the boer war (white British vs white Dutch), far more blood was shed in these wars than in the struggle against apartheid. The african national congress had its own armed terrorist wing, and nelson Mandela refused to disband them until apartheid was abolished. The ANC murdered collaborators, in fact their instrument of choice was putting a tyre full of gasoline around someone's head and setting it alight. Mandela's own wife participated in at least one such murder.
You can say the same for the the Irish republicans, the native Americans, the Vietnamese. The Palestinians have done nothing that has not been done many times before by other indigenous groups trying to preserve themselves.
= new reply since forum marked as read
