What is interesting is how Hussam, the 15-year-old would-be suicide bomber, changes his story a year after his arrest. Immediately after he was caught, he says that he disconnected the battery on his bomb because he thought of his family and changed his mind. A year later, he talks about how he had the guts to go through with it, but he pushed the detonation button and pushed it again...and it failed to explode. This is really strange. He's revised his own history. I can't help wondering if this is a common pattern, if this is what Arabs have done in their memory of a lot of events.

I am really confused about the occupation: how much of it is gratuitous cruelty by the Israelis, how much of it is unavoidably harsh because of the dangers posed by the Palestinians. In the film, the narrator readily accepts that the occupation is oppression, pure and simple. Even so, it is a relatively well-balanced film.

But I wonder how many Palestinian children are really being killed by Israeli forces on purpose. Although I'm very uncomfortable with targeted assassinations, I couldn't help also feeling uncomfortable when the film that showed the anger and sadness caused by the assassinations of the six Al Aqsa Brigade leaders. I couldn't help wondering if those six were targeted because of the tragedies that they've themselves had unleashed.

The film does successfully show the development of a culture that's totalitarian in how it raises its children: A certain set of values are inculcated from day one, and no other opinions or considerations are even mentioned. No one learns to think for himself. The peer pressure, and the pressure from adults and the whole culture, lead these children to be incapable of thinking any thoughts that diverge from a brutally enforced norm.

I've read that Arab culture, even well before the PLO even came into existence, had always been tremendously conformist. I've read that it's a culture in which one's reputation among one's family and neighbors is paramount, in which one is constantly watched and judged harshly by everyone and in which any deviation from the norm results in disastrous disgrace. Apart from the radicalization of late, this is not a culture that generates freethinkers and questioners.

I think that a few questions are in order here:

1. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't mind it if someone disentangled several factors: genuine cruelty by the Israelis, lies and myths generated by the Palestinian leadership, deaths or injuries caused by the Israelis because they were attacked or put in impossible situations, and deaths and injuries caused by the Palestinians against other Palestinians.

2. I would like to know if houses are really destroyed by the Israelis on a regular basis, and if they're destroyed as part of a barbaric collective punishment or to get rid of tunnel bases or arms stores.

3. Mainly, I'd like to know what alternatives the IDF really has. I think that, before you condemn anyone or any institution, you have to look honestly at the policy options available. If you cannot find a viable alternative--not just a rhetorical one but a real one--then you have no reason to condemn.

Joanne, I think a big problem finding answers to your questions lies in the ever-changing and fluid nature of "truth" when it comes to certain situations - look for example at Sabra and Shatilla or Jenin.

In both cases Israel was blamed for deeds it did not commit. In the case of the former Israel took the blame for a deed committed by Lebanese partisans - representing a faction that had been attacked brutally by Palestinian fighters in the course of a vicious civil war. As we speak violence in the Lebanese "camp" Nahr al-Bared continues. Were this Israel attacking the militants therein, and not the Lebanese army, the press coverage would be massive, it would be continuous and it would be highly problematical with regard to accuracy.

As it is I'll bet the average person here in the US doesn't even know what's going on there.

In the case of Jenin, Israel was accused of massacre. Deaths were said to be in the thousands. Of course that was completely false but both Jenin and Sabra & Shatilla remain rallying cries for radicalism and for antiIsrael sentiment in the West.

That said I think your point about the heartache is pertinent, the deaths of militants obviously affect their families as do the arrests of people suspected of terrorism. People are people!

However the attempts to attack Israelis are also real. I think it's probable that individual soldiers and police get out of line, clearly some settlers have.

I think that in fact the West Bank is a war zone. Gaza clearly is. Standards of civility that would obtain in a state of peace or within Israel herself clearly cannot be met. I also think that if the Palestinians would agree to to stop terrorizing Israel most of the problems would stop.

Finally there's the myth that Palestinians never attacked each other before the "coup" in Gaza. That's untrue. In fact internecine Palestinian violence has been ongoing for decades and many moderates were assassinated or driven away in the 1930's by the al Husseini clan. There have been hundreds of killings in the past few months alone and that is just the political stuff. Honor killings are also a problem and so is simple criminal activity.

Nevertheless I am uncomfortable with any violence. The targeted assassinations make me nervous although if somebody is coming with a bomb, or making one, I don't know what else people are supposed to do. Certainly the US wouldn't put up with a Sderot in Texas! Retaliation would be immediate and massive. But Israel is trying to live with the Arabs and has to operate within a very narrow range of options both pragmatically and morally.

I wish there was a way to protect civilian populations and the integrity of the state without inflicting any kind of violence on other people, many of whom are probably innocent themselves.

Even Juan Cole, though, appeared on CNN regarding Iraq and announced that the only way to stop the violence there was to wall off sections of the population from each other, conduct vigorous stop and search procedures and put a lot of boots on the ground to keep control. I wish I had the transcript of that comment because I almost fell out of my chair. He was describing of course what the Israelis are routinely castigated for.

In the long run the Arab/Israeli conflict will require the good will and efforts of a lot of people, a regional, multi-state effort, and it might take generations yet, and the whole area is already such a mess.

Great film, Sol, It is the proof of my last post. http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/2007/07/cultural-insanity-part-i-diagnosis.html Here is the very definition of Borderline personality: Dr. Shafiq Masalha himself said, "The boundary of their body are enmeshed with the group- It's not their body which is bombed." and The narrator quoted his research, "They were dreaming collectively...,"
Thus the borderline between the individual comes down and anything is possible.

Sophia,

I think that Israel is caught in a trap: If it holds back from going after the terrorist leaders, it puts itself in danger. But if it goes after them in any effective way, it will definitely hit innocents, since these terrorists are like needles in a haystack. They hide themselves amongst the population. Of course, the leaders of Fatah and Hamas know this and exploit it to the fullest. It's a lose-lose situation for Israel, and the Arabs well know it.

I looked at a few of the bonus tapes, which were apparently outtakes from the same film. The ones with Tomash were interesting in that he straddles the line of this dilemma. On the one hand, he says that Israel has to stop destroying houses and using too much force because it radicalizes the population. On the other hand he says that Israel has the right to defend itself. So, he's suggesting that Israel just use a lighter more precise touch. The problem is that I don't think the technology exists yet that would allow that.

I don't know where they came up with that "Tomash" business. That's Khaled Abu Toameh from the Jerusalem Post.

Oh yeah, I was wondering about that. I didn't remember the guy's name exactly, so I wasn't sure if the name was incorrect. But I knew who he was.

He wasn't very friendly to the interviewers, although I could see why, as their behavior was polite enough but not very professional. They are very young, of course, but they seemed unsure of what they were doing, and their questions were often lame. Even Shoebat, who seems like a very nice person, was beginning to lose a little patience with them.