Today I revisited some of the literally dozens of websites that list terrorist attacks in Israel. I know the evidence is gruesome, but it has a surprising tale to tell, which I reveal towards the end. Here are some examples taken from data on what is probably the most condensed web site http://lindasog.com/public/terrorvictims.htm
More detail can be found at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...m/victims.html These files are sourced from Israeli Defence Force data – nothing could be more official:

Major Terrorist Attacks in Israel

Oct 01, 2000 - Border Police Cpl. Yosef Madhat, 19, of Beit Jann, died of gunshot wounds sustained in a gun battle with Palestinian terrorists at Joseph's Tomb in Nablus.
Dec 8, 2000 - Sgt. Tal Gordon, 19, was killed when gunmen in a passing car opened fire on an Egged bus traveling south from Tiberias to Jerusalem on the Jericho bypass road
Jul 09, 2001 - Capt. Shai Shalom Cohen, 22, of Pardes Hanna, was killed ….after leaving the Adoraim IDF base south of Hebron
Nov 06, 2001 - Capt. (Res.) Eyal Sela, 39, of Moshav Nir Banim, was shot dead in an ambush by three Palestinian terrorists on the southern Nablus bypass road.
Nov 29, 2001 - 1st Sgt. Yaron Pikholtz, 20, of Ramat Gan, was killed and a second soldier was injured in a drive-by shooting incident on the Green Line, near the West Bank village of Baka el-Sharkiya
Feb 15, 2002 - St.-Sgt. Lee Nahman Akunis, 20, of Holon, was shot and killed by gunmen on Friday night at a roadblock north of Ramallah.
Mar 13, 2002 - Lt. Gil Badihi, 21, died of injuries suffered Wednesday morning in Ramallah. He was shot in the head by a Palestinian terrorist gunman as he stood next to his tank.
Feb 06, 2003 - 2nd Lt. Amir Ben-Aryeh, 21, of Maccabim, and St.-Sgt. Idan Suzin, 20, of Kiryat Tivon were killed in a shooting attack in the area of Nablus.
Mar 10, 2003 - St.-Sgt. Tomer Ron, 20, of Moshav Moledet, was killed and four soldiers were wounded - one seriously - in Hebron
Mar 12, 2003 - St.-Sgt. Assaf Moshe Fuchs, 21, was killed and another soldier wounded in an exchange of fire with wanted terrorists from the Islamic Jihad in the West Bank village of Saida
May 11, 2004 - Six IDF soldiers were killed during an IDF operation to target Qassam workshops in Gaza City
Jul 06, 2004 - Capt. Moran Vardi, 25, of Binyamina, of the Navy Seals commando unit Shayetet 13, was killed, ….. while attempting to arrest terrorists in Nablus.
Dec 8, 2005 - Sgt. Nir Kahane, 20, of Kiryat Tivon, was stabbed to death at the Kalandiya checkpoint, south of Ramallah.
July 17, 2006 - St.-Sgt. Osher Damari, 20, of Netanya was killed and six IDF soldiers wounded by an explosive device in Nablus
July 12, 2007 - Staff Sgt. Arbel Reich, 21, was killed when Hamas terrorists ambushed IDF troops engaged in anti-terror activity in the Bureij refugee camp central Gaza Strip.

There are also many entries that do not involve members of the IDF.

Here’s the thing. Notice the title, which is the same as from the defunct IDF website www1.idf.il/Dover – Attacks in Israel.

So the Israeli Defence Force, the Jewish Virtual Library (a division of the Israeli-American Cooperative Enterprise), and the Anti Defamation League, pretty heavyweight organizations, report that these events took place in Israel.

The fact is that Nablus, Jericho, Hebron, Baka el-Sharkiya, Ramallah, Saida, Gaza and the West Bank are all in or are part of the Palestinian territories.

Now what can that be telling us? What insight does it give us of Israel thinking?

Yeah Israel's borders keep growing and growing Interesting eh?

Precisely, Drewster. And our media helps feed this expansionism. So when next we hear of a terrorist attack in Israel, and think - My God, what bastards - it might be worthwhile first checking if the attack REALLY happened in Israel and not in the Palestinian territories.

A similar sort of thing happened in 1982 and for many years thereafter in Lebanon. Hezbollah, whose main reason for coming into existance was to drive the Israelis out of their country and to seek retribution for Sabra, which it succeeded in doing, was soon labelled a terrorist organization by our media. This was long before they started making incursions into Israel proper.

But more importantly, it shows me that Israel REALLY believes that its borders incorporate large parts of the Palestinian Territories, way beyond the 1949 Armistice line. No wonder that Israel has been in flagrant violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 for over 40 years. Given what we have seen here, presumably it views this vital piece of world opinion as being irrelevant, because its all Israel anyway - so what's the fuss about.

But, we can all clearly note, there is not a whisper of regime change for this defiance. At least not from our media. So much for any respect for universal standards.

Curiosity leads me to ask, though ... at the time of these incidents, was that locations being occupied by Israel, and since relinquished to Palestine?

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

Until recently (pulling out of Gaza 3 years ago), Palestinian occupied (don't skin me alive for using that term) land was always referred to as the "disputed" territories from the Israeli perspective. The West Bank still is.

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
-----------------
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --President George W. Bush.
-----------------
-----------------
Everything about the War on Terror(ism) is aggravating.

Who SHOULD the land belong to?

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

Darn good question Spare. It cuts right through to the core. And if you don't get the balance right in answering, you can be sure that some or other side will seek retribution.

My gut reaction would be to say that the land SHOULD belong to the ancestral occupiers - the people who have been there for millenia. But we know that this is too simplistic. If we applied it, then:

1) the blacks would have to give South Africa back to the San people ('Bushmen'), and we all know that's not going to happen. They chased the San out between 1000 and 200 years ago, and the little fellows had to make do with the Kalahari desert
2) closer to home we would have to hand Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York State back to the Iroquois. And we all know THAT's not going to happen. This dates back to 230 years ago.
3) In 1948 the UN took land from what are now called the Palestinians and gave it to (mainly) European Jews who had suffered horrendously during WW II. That was 60 years ago. I think it would be impossible to turn that back, and up until 1967, folk seemed to have been slowly getting used to the fact. But then ....
4) ..... in 1967 Israel grabbed more land, land that NO-ONE had ever given them. And they have hung onto it in defiance (with US support) of UNSC 242.

I believe that the right thing would have been to have accepted Sadat's proposal of 1971. Yes, I know - most Americans have no idea of what I am talking about. Israel would have been recognised by the Arabs. A Palestinian country would almost certainly have existed now. I cannot predict that peace would have reigned, but the Intifadas would almost certainly (at worst) have been less severe and might never have happened at all.

But Israel and the US dropped that golden ball. And they should shoulder the blame.

If there is a downfall of Israel, I predict that it will be because that country was not satisfied with what they were legally given.

UNSC 242: "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war .... "

So the land should belong to those people who for some 2500 years lived under the yoke of foreign occupiers.

Today we call them the Palestinians. They still live that way.

As regards Resolution 242, in contrast to your knowing LIE, it fully Foresaw Israel making a small adjustments in IT'S favor to the 1967 Line and called for NEW negotiated "secure and recognized" borders, recognizING the old ones were Not. (for Israel)

Resolution 242; What it REALLY means

Which is Why Klipkap put/Tried this M-E string 'up here' instead of where it belongs.
It's been shot to hell in that section.

__________________

good post , why shouldn't it be their favor , they were attacked .

__________________
Aint but three things in this world thats worth a solitary dime,
But old dogs and children and watermelon wine.
Tom T. Hall
http://www.politicalforum.com/group.php?groupid=43

Ok -- let me see if I got this right.

In 1948, the UN awarded land to the new state of Israel. The Arab neighbors attacked immediately, in an attempt to wipe them out. They were repulsed.

In 1956, Britain, France, and Israel attacked Egypt AFTER Egypt had nationalized the Suez Canal and closed it to foreign traffic.

In 1967, Egypt kicked out UN peacekeeping troops who, after the Suez crisis, had established a buffer zone. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria amassed 100,000 troops, and 1,000 tanks on Israel's southern border. Egypt then broadcast into the Palestinian area (West Bank, Gaza strip, and east Jerusalem) that all Arabs should leave to avoid being ground under the oncoming onslaught. After 4 days, the area was virtually empty. Israel, rather than waiting to be attacked, launched a peremptory strike on the joint forces. In common parlance, Israel kicked their ass ... practically eliminating both the Egyptian AND Jordanian air forces in a single day. As the war continued, Israel took possession of the area deserted by the Arabs.

So, we must recognize Israel's claim to the disputed areas ... based on two factors: historical precedent, but more importantly, land conquered during war. So, Israel's claim, on the surface, would seem to be valid, and Arab demands to get it back as not much more than begging.

All of that notwithstanding, I'm curious why, when Israel agreed to return the disputed land to the Palestinians, AND to recognize a separate Palestinian state, their offer was met with mortars and attacks. I'm curious why, when Israel pulled back to within its original borders, there were immediate missile attacks, military intrusions, kidnappings, and bombings from the Palestinian area. I'm also curious why the Palestinians are so adamant about the disputed area, but say nothing about the parts of the former Palestinian area that lie in Jordan and Lebanon. Why the selective recall?

But, one thing I'm not curious about ... about which side is pressing the attack today, and who is responsible for the ongoing violence.

Maybe you can clear up my misconceptions.

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan