No. Until the early 20th century—when Zionists pursued a policy of colonization in the area, backed by Britain and later the U.S.—Jews, Arabs, Muslims, and Christians lived together there peacefully. The establishment of the Jewish state in historical Palestine in 1948 without regard to the indigenous population created an inherently untenable situation, and the occupation of internationally recognized Palestinian territories in 1967 initiated the crisis faced by Israelis and Palestinians ever since.

The conflict is about land and water resources. The idea that the conflict is about religious differences (which are presumably eternal) is used to foster prejudice and despair about reaching a solution.

The only objective definition of terrorism is "the use of violence against civilians" and terrorism is committed by both sides in the conflict. Violence against civilians is never excusable, whether it’s committed by the U.S.-backed Israeli state, by Hamas or Hezbollah, or by individuals.

Checkpoints, settlements, Israeli-only roads, and the 80% of the wall that is on Palestinian land are illegal. They are part of the illegal occupation and “matrix of control” of Palestinians’ lives, which has provoked both nonviolent resistance and the violent resistance that threatens Israel's security. Moreover, closure policy dates from 1991 and pre-dates the first suicide bombing, which took place in 1994, so the cause and effect assumed by the question are reversed: this aspect of the occupation provoked terrorism, rather than the other way around. Furthermore, a wall to provide security could be built on Israel's border, as the International Court of Justice ruled in 2004. As it is, however, the wall is routed in such a way as to allow settlement expansion and effective annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel.

Many Palestinians would respond to this question by asking, "The right to exist how? In what form?" Right now, Israel exists as an occupying power in Palestinian territory, with illegal settlements, checkpoints, Israeli-only roads, and the wall. Even in Israel proper, Israel exists as a "Jewish state" with unequal rights for Arab Israelis. Consider this: If a man holds you down with his foot on your neck and demands that you recognize his right to exist as a man with his foot on your neck, what sacrifice of your rights, freedom, physical safety, and dignity is he demanding? What would your response be? Another response to this question might be the following: When has Israel ever been required to recognize the Palestine state's right to exist? But all such questions can actually be tabled. To move forward in the peace process, no formal words of recognition are required. In Northern Ireland, no recognition of Britain's rights was demanded, and as a result the peace process was able to move forward. Protestants and Catholics there can now discuss these formal philosophical questions over a cup or tea or other beverage of their choice.

The Oslo Accords and other "generous offers" by Israel required concessions by the Palestinians in exchange for little or no assurance of a Palestinian state. For more detail, please see Background to the Israel-Palestine Crisis by Stephen R. Shalom, Z Magazine, May 2002.

The assumption behind this question is that many, most, or all Palestinians are inhuman, terrorist monsters and that they don't value human life--even, shockingly, their own children's lives--in the same way that Israelis or Americans do. This is a racist assumption that has been repeatedly used against people whom our governments have wished us to regard as enemies and to dehumanize so as to make aggression against them seem tolerable, or even justified.

This is a good question for those of us with safe and comfortable lives to ask ourselves. If we believe that all human beings are basically more or less like us, with similar desires for the necessities and if possible some of the comforts of life for ourselves and our children, what would it take to drive us to such an action? To understand the motives of such desperate people is not the same as to excuse them. No matter how dire the circumstances, the vast majority of people don't resort to terrorist acts such as suicide bombing. But even attacks on a massive scale, such as 9/11, must be understood if we are to have any chance of preventing more of them in the future. In the case of 9/11, Osama bin Laden resented the presence of U.S. military forces near Islamic holy sites in Saudi Arabia. It cannot be argued by any moral person that attacks in which thousands of civilians were killed were justified. But whether the resentment was justified depends very much on whether you are a devout Muslim or someone who advocates an American military presence in other countries.

Independence for India and basic civil rights for American Blacks were the right of these populations even if extraordinary individuals such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King had not emerged to lead the struggle to win them. And Nelson Mandela, we must remember, was labeled and imprisoned for 27 years as a terrorist and only afterward gained his rightful reputation as a leader for democracy and equal rights. We hope such leaders will become more prominent in Palestine. In the meantime--though we don't hear about it--nonviolent resistance by Palestinians takes place continually as Palestinians simply try to pass through checkpoints to go to work, school, hospitals, neighboring villages, or their farms. The attempt to live normal lives is a daily nonviolent struggle.

Quite the contrary. Dov Weisglas, Ariel Sharon’s former chief of staff, exposed the true nature of the Gaza pullout in a candid interview in 2004 (Ari Shavit, “The Big Freeze,” Ha’aretz magazine, 8 Oct. 2004): "The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that’s necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians....The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians....The withdrawal in Samaria [i.e., the northern West Bank] is a token one. We agreed to only so it wouldn’t be said that we concluded our obligation in Gaza....On the other hand, in regard to the large settlement blocs, thanks to the disengagement plan, we have in our hands a first-ever American statement that they will be part of Israel [i.e. President Bush’s official letter to Sharon, 14 April 2004]. The significance [of what we did] is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress." Please investigate on your own or read Gaza Pullout: Hope or Hype? for more information.

Americans should care because we're paying Israel billions in aid that funds the occupation and fuels the abuses. As a result, the Israel-Palestine conflict is the number one issue driving worldwide Arab and Muslim resentment against the U.S. Even among Iraqis, living under direct occupation by the U.S., people cite the Israel-Palestine conflict as the issue of primary concern to them. Justice for Palestinians is the prerequisite to peace and security for Israel, and the resolution of this conflict is the key to rooting out terrorism at its source.

Certainly it's possible for critics of Israeli government policies to also be anti-Semitic, just as some critics of American government policies can be anti-American and some critics of sexual abuse by priests might in general be anti-Catholic. But one can't simply equate criticism of a government's actions with bigotry toward a whole people. There are many Jews--in Israel, the U.S., and around the world--who speak out and work tirelessly for justice for Palestinians. To try to dismiss them as "self-hating Jews" or their allies even as "unconscious" anti-Semites is to disrespect one of Judaism's most universally admirable traditions--that of standing up for human rights for all people. The real slur against Jews is in implying that there is something "Jewish" or "Semitic" about bulldozing to death a young woman like Rachel Corrie, or murdering a grandmother like Shaden Abu Hijleh; there is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic about opposing such inexcusable brutality.