Palestinian Territories

One answer:Palestinians are still dreaming of the day when Israel will be wiped off the map,

and from time to time firing rockets into an Israeli city here, murdering an Israeli

family there, or sending one of their own to blow himself up along with an Israeli

bus somewhere. And Israel is still maintaining the security structure, and from time

to time taking some proactive steps, that are unfortunately necessary to protect

its citizens.

Another answer:

Israelis are dreaming of the day when Palestinian territories will be wiped off the map, and will probably succeed in this quite soon. I am not sure what the Israelis expect to happen to the Palestinians left without a viable homeland, but they do seem confident that this will come about.

According to the U.S. Department of State, Hezbollah is still a terrorist group. Here are some reasons why the U.S. classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

A History of Violence

Hezbollah's violence against the U.S. began in 1982, with the kidnapping - but eventual release - of David Dodge. The most deadly violence occurred in 1983, when Hezbollah suicide bombers attacked the U.S. Embassy and marine barracks in Beirut. These two attacks resulted in the deaths of three-hundred and four Americans. Likewise, in 1984, Hezbollah attacked the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing two Americans and twenty-two Lebanese. During this period, Hezbollah also bombed a restaurant in Spain and hijacked a Kuwaiti Airlines plane. These attacks killed eighteen American servicemen and two U.S. civilians. In 1985, the Party of God hijacked TWA flight 847, killed a U.S. Navy diver, and held many other American civilians hostage. Additionally, Hezbollah kidnapped and murdered several dozen other Americans during the 1980s.1

The U.S. Government regarded these violent attacks against U.S. and Israeli civilians as inexcusable, and began to regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. By 1997, the United States decided to officially designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group.2 The U.S. justified this designation by claiming that Hezbollah's violent activities threatened American interests.

Controversy over Hezbollah's Terrorist Label

In spite of the United States' denunciation, Hezbollah began to act less like a terrorist organization and more like a political party and began nominating candidates for national elections. The following years witnessed a steady progression in Hezbollah's political strength. Many scholars argue that Hezbollah lost its radical religious agenda during the 1990s, including the desire to create an Islamic state.3 Hezbollah's goals became more pragmatic and began to stress social and political issues, rather than constantly demand the destruction of Israel. The Party built hospitals, schools, clinics, and libraries across southern Lebanon. The Party of God's political and social activities continued throughout the 1990s and gained the support of nearly all Shi'a Muslims, along with many Sunnis and Christians.

Additionally, Hezbollah reduced violent activities after Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. Even the Israelis note that Hezbollah engages in violence only after Israel escalates its activities along the border.4 Most of the fighting on the Lebanon/Israeli border follows a "tit-for-tat" sequence, rather than continuous violence. In addition, the Party of God has refrained from attacking the U.S. in any way since 1989. Hezbollah also publically stated that the Party no longer considers the U.S. a target for violence.5

The Terrorist Label

Hezbollah's apparent transformation from violent resistance to political participant challenges the label of terrorist organization. The word terrorism invokes connotations of bloodshed and intolerance, not political participation and social programs as in Hezbollah's case. Currently, only the U.S., Netherlands, Canada, and Israel label Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

Yet, Hezbollah retains some associations that question the organization's complete separation from terrorist activates. The most dangerous of these associations is Hezbollah's cordial relationship with Iran. Iran remains a state sponsor of terrorism and a vehement enemy of the United States. The Iranian Government orchestrated most of Hezbollah's kidnappings during the 1980s and may have orchestrated the Beirut bombings.6 Iran donates $60-100 million a year to Hezbollah and the Party of God occasionally uses this money to train terrorists in Sri Lanka and Colombia. Hezbollah's close relationship with Tehran seriously questions the Party's total abandonment of terrorism.

Second, Hezbollah's practice of using human shields and kidnapping soldiers in its resistance against Israel remains problematic. Bruce Hoffman notes that terrorists often violate the rules of war, including taking civilian hostages, torturing captured soldiers, attacking embassies, and using civilians as shields.7 Hezbollah bombed embassies in the 1980s and 1990s, kidnapped, tortured, and killed many Israeli hostages, and constantly use civilians as human shields. During the 2006 War, Hezbollah frequently used residential areas as a base for its rocket attacks, hoping that Israeli Forces would hesitate to respond for fear of civilian casualties. Nevertheless, Israeli did attack the positions and many innocent Lebanese lives were lost.8 Hezbollah's violation of the rules of war and use of human shields indicates that it retains some terrorist elements.

Third, Hezbollah refuses to disarm and occasionally uses violence to fulfill its political objectives in Lebanon. In 2008, the Lebanese Government demand that the Party disarm. Instead of complying, the Party of God violently seized control of southern Beirut and portions of Druze territory. Additionally, Hezbollah forced the government to reorganize the cabinet and give the Party of God veto power over parliamentary decisions. Through violence, Hezbollah gained much of the political power it now possesses.9

Finally, Hezbollah continues to maintain a security wing known as Hezbollah International. Its former leader, Imad Mugniyah, was killed in Syria in 2008, but Hezbollah International continues to operate. This branch of Hezbollah remains extremely secretive, and Party leaders deny its existence. Over the years, however, the U.S. has pieced enough evidence to expose the terrorist practices of Hezbollah International. For example, in 1995, Singapore security forces foiled a Hezbollah International plot to attack Israeli and American vessels. Similarly, in 2001, Mexican authorities arrested a Hezbollah cell reportedly on its way to carry out attacks against Mexican officials. Likewise, in 2001, Canadian operatives reported that Hezbollah was attempting to sneak into the U.S. via the Canadian-U.S. border. Finally, Hezbollah's international branch continues to maintain relations with other known terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Iraqi militants, Hamas, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia.10 These practices indicate Hezbollah's continued status as a terrorist organization.

Conclusion

Hezbollah continues to transform socially and politically, but it retains some terrorist characteristics. Contemporary Hezbollah is very different from its radical origins in the 1980s. Nonetheless, the Party of God's association with Iran, violation of the rules of war, use of violence for political objectives, and its international branch justifies the United States' terrorist label.

1. Jeremy M. Sharp, "Lebanon: The Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah Conflict," CRS Report for Congress (August 14, 2006).

2. Combating Terrorism," The Official Report of the Cabinet-level Task Force Chaired by Vice-President George Bush (New Jersey: DIANE Publishing Co., 1987).

3. Cliff Staten, "From Terrorism to Legitimacy: Political Opportunity Structures and the Case of Hezbollah," Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution 8, no. 1 (2008): 32-49

4. Judith Harik, Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004), 167-168.

5. Rosemary Hollis and Nadim Shehadi, Lebanon on Hold (London: Chatham House, 1996).

6. Jaber, 97-143.

7. Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), 26.

8. "Hezbollah's Human Shields," The Washington Times, July 30, 2006, accessed April 22, 2011, http://www.washi ngtontimes.com/news/2006/jul/30/20060730-093558-9976r/.

9. Bilal Y. Saab, "Rethinking Hezbollah's Disarmament," Middle East Policy 15, no. 3 (2008): 94-98

10. Jeremy Goldberg, "In the Party of God: Hezbollah Sets up Operations in South America and the United States," The New Yorker (October 2003): 21-29.

It depends on what you are calling "Palestine".

If you are referring to the Palestinian Authority, which has de jure authority over both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but has only de facto authority in certain parts of the West Bank, the current leader is Mahmood Abbas (affectionately nicknamed Abu Mazen).

If you are referring to the Gaza Strip, Hamas exerts de facto control in that territory and has Ismail Haniyeh as it ruler in that territory.

Opinion: No!

That is a loaded question that will illicit responses from both extreme sides of the issue. It is a question of opinion rather than fact but I'll dive into this since controversy has never stopped me from saying what I believe. Given the conflict since the mandate for Israel was established and the fact Israel has not acted in good faith because it continually denies the right of return to the Palestinians who fled in fear during the years Israel was forming I would have to answer a resounding NO! Israel agreed to the right of return as a condition of their Statehood yet today Israel emphatically denies Palestinians that right so in my mind the conditions have not been met and the world should revoke State status and define all of the portioned lands as a united Palestinian State.

Opinion: Yes!

There are two operative parts to that question. There is the implicit question as to whether a Jewish State is something that should exist. There is the explicit question as to whether the geographical location chosen for this Jewish State is proper for its mission. Both questions should be answered in the affirmative for the following reasons.

1) Why a Jewish State: Herzl explained quite well that the European concept of a nation-state was dependent on the idea that all of the people in any particular nation were of the same ethnic stock and heritage. Jews were branded by this system to be "the Other" and were regarded at best as possible equals and at worse as traitors, spies, thieves, and fifth columns. When the Dreyfus Affair turned out marches in Paris that said "Death to the Jews" on account of a kangaroo court against a particular guiltless Jew, it became clear that the Jew could not be integrated into Europe. After the Holocaust, the strongest proof that the Jew and the European Nation-State were irreconcilable, this view persists. In Europe, it is now directed at the Moslems since the Jews are not large enough of a threat to the European System. Unlike Moslems, though, which can return to their countries of origin if the discrimination becomes intolerable, the Jews did not have such a place. This is why the Jewish State is necessary. Since it came into existence it has accepted Jewish political refugees from over 50 nations and flown missions at its own expense to rescue Jews from at least 10 nations.

2) Why Palestine: Ahad Ha'am explains that the Jewish Soul is intrinsically connected to his history and in the same way that a German-American can never be as properly German as a German in Germany, the People of Israel can never be as properly Jewish if they are not in the Land of Israel. The relics in that land speak to a Jewish sensibility and character. There are also religious reasons as expounded by Rav Avraham Kook which posit that the development of a Jewish State in Israel hastens the arrival of the Messiah. There are additional political reasons why Palestine and not Europe. As explained above, the European Culture is strongly anti-Other and making a Jewish State there would have fostered much more contempt and alienation (ironically).

Note: The "No" position is incorrect about the mandate to allow Palestinians to return to Israel being provided for in the permission to Declare a State. The UN specifically provided for two state with the intent that these two states would be ethnically pure or close to pure and that remaining minority would be granted equal rights (similar to the Balfour Declaration's idea of the Jews and Arabs living together in harmony). This explains why the regions selected for the Jewish State were exclusively those with large Jewish Settlements or almost no settlement at all. The Palestinians who assert the Right of Return do so under the United Nations Declaration of Rights which is a non-binding recommendation on Member States or do so through Resolution 194 whose implementation, Israelis assert is contingent on the "practicability" and "a desire to leave peaceably with their neighbors" which is unclear in the Palestinian Case.

Answer 1

Israel from the beginning did not seek the land that was not part of the territory formed by two Hebrew Kingdoms of the past: Northern Kingdom of Israel and Southern Kingdom of Judah. Gaza was the land where the "sea people" from Greece called by Ancient Jews "Plishtim"- invaders in Hebrew - founded their five confederate cities. Later the word "Plishtim" was transformed in "Philistines" in Greek and "Palaestinians" in Latin. Although these invaders -Palestinians- were finally defeated by Israelis/Jews, they did not look at Gaza as at their land.

Answer 2

If you are referring to the Modern State of Israel, the Gaza Strip was never really a part of the Jewish State. According to UN Resolution 181, the whole of the Gaza Strip and a much larger piece of land would belong to an Arab State. During the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9, Egyptian troops were still in the Gaza Strip when Egypt agreed to a ceasefire, giving Egypt control of Gaza. In 1993, the Oslo Accords set up the Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip that would be a functionally separate state. Gaza has never bee under Israeli Civilian Control and most Israelis are quite happy with that.

The confusion as concerns "Palestine" is that it refers to two separate things.

Definition 1

The British Mandate of Palestine covered all areas between Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. It was a relatively small territory that was also bounded by the Mediterranean Sea in the northwest and has access to the Gulf of Aqabah in the south.

Definition 2

The current country of Palestine, which is ruled by the Palestinian Authority, is de jure (this means by law) a small grouping of city-states in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. De facto (this means in reality) the Palestinian Authority, the internationally recognized leadership of Palestine, has lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas as of the Summer of 2006.

Most Palestinians want a united country (that is to say that Gaza and the West Bank would become one nation, even though they are bifurcated) and many are willing to settle with Israel to create reasonable borders. On the same note, many Israelis feel the same way. The issue in both camps is that extremists routinely advocate the all-or-nothing solution and use maps of the British Mandate of Palestine to represent their side's ideal outcome.

Additional Discussion

This use of the Mandate-Map by extremist Palestinian organizations and by many in the Arab World has led to much confusion concerning the actual territories under Palestinian control and the territories which are being negotiated between Israel and Palestine for a future solution.

There are those who would prefer to not believe that there is a current recognized Palestinian government. However, almost every major international forum recognizes the Palestinian Authority as the governing authority with whom Israel must negotiate a Palestinian future. Israel has also recognized the role of the Palestinian Authority by way of the Oslo Accords in 1993.