In his review of Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation, Gary Kamiya writes "like him or not, Fisk is fair. He presents both sides." Kamiya's review would have been stronger if he delved deeper into Fisk's frame of reference regarding the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, rather than merely quote Fisk's statements as if they are the whole truth.

Kamiya mentions Fisk's sensitivity to "the injustice visited on 750,000 innocent Palestinians, whose lives were shattered by a chain of events set in motion by a letter written by a British statesman in 1917." This suggests that the unmentioned Balfour Declaration, and not some appallingly stupid and racist decisions on the part of Arab leaders in 1948 and thereafter, were signficantly responsible for creating the Palestinian refugee problem. It also ignores that an equal number of Jewish refugees left Arab countries at about the same time, and were absorbed by Israel rather than maintained as refugees.

Kamiya continues, "For Fisk, the key difference between the two sides boils down to this: 'The Arabs wanted their land back and then they wanted peace with Israel. The Israelis wanted peace but wanted to keep some of the Arab land.' This was a recipe for the deadlock that exists to this day." Kamiya should have critiqued Fisk's one-sided viewpoint by mentioning the organizations and leaders among the Palestinians (e.g. Hamas) and among the Islamic world (e.g. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) continue to call for the total elimination of Israel.

He quotes Fisk saying "Every claim by Osama bin Laden, every statement that the United States supports Zionism and supports the theft of Arab lands. . . ." without questioning Fisk's frame of reference that seems to define Zionism as something like "Israel's imperialistic campaign to dispossess the Palestinians." But it emphatically the right of the world's Jews to say what Zionism is -- the love of Jews for Israel and recognition of Israel's central role in Jewish history, culture, and religion.

I could mention many other places where Kamiya fails to discuss the limitations of Fisk's point of view, but I will bring up just one more. He discusses the tragedy of "Raafat al-Ghossain, a beautiful 18-year-old artist who was killed when American planes bombed Tripoli in an attempt to get rid of Ghadafi" and suggests that her papers "bear a poignant resemblance to the diary kept by another doomed young girl, a Jewish girl from Holland killed in a Nazi concentration camp more than 60 years ago." Of course, Raafat al-Ghossain's death was a sad event. But it is outrageous for Fisk or for Kamiya to suggest any kind of moral equivalence between this unintended consequence of an attempt to assassinate one man, Muammar Ghadafi, with the Nazi "final solution" in which Germany carefully devoted its resources to the Holocaust of six million Jews.

In conclusion, Salon's review of Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation suffers greatly from its failure to be critical in exposing the the author's framing biases and limitations.

Cole has some good points and some bad points. Here's one of his bad points:

"The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which should have been a big step forward for peace, was marred by the refusal of the Israelis to cooperate with the Palestinians in ensuring that it did not produce a power vacuum and further insecurity."

It looked to me like it was the Palestinian leaders who didn't cooperate with the Israelis in preparing for an orderly transition, and it was the Palestinian leaders, not Israelis, who bear the responsibility for not preventing the looting of the greenhouses and other valuable capital assets Israel left behind with the intent of helping the Palestinians advance their economy.

Juan Cole wrote: "Frustrated, the Palestinian public predictably swung to the far right. Their embrace of Hamas does not indicate that most Palestinians are dedicated to destroying Israel; polls show that most support a two-state solution and are weary of the endless violence."

Let us hope that Cole is right that most Palestinians want a two-state solution and are weary of violence. But the left-right map doesn't apply in any obvious way. Is it "liberal" or "conservative" of Palestinians to reject violence and seek peace with Israel? Even if Hamas is more "conservative" that Fatah, which is murky anyway, is it "conservative" to vote for Hamas if the reason is that Hamas eschews corruption, not because Hamas rejects Israel's right to exist?

Really, Mr. Cole, I think your argument would be cleaner if you didn't attempt to map the recent Palestinian election on a liberal-conservative axis, especially since you report immediately thereafter that the voters reject the most important plank of the party they voted for.

And really, Salon, don't you edit before you publish? A competent editor would have asked Cole to clean up this point.

Khaled Mashaal says "Our people will never rest as long as there is an occupation." He doesn't say what he means by "occupation." To his supporters, he means everything west of the Jordan River, i.e. he wants Israel to return to pre-1948 borders, i.e. non-existence. To his Euro-American audience, he wants you to think he means by "occupation" just what the Arabs lost in their 1967 war against Israel, but don't be fooled.

In the summer of 1967, and on numerous other occasions, Israel offered the Palestinian leadership exactly that — what the Arabs lost in their 1967 war against Israel — a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity; they could have brought about the end of the occupation years ago by giving the Israelis reason to believe that they would accept a permanent two-state solution.

It isn't fun being the weaker party in any conflict, and as the stronger party, Israel's occupation is not pretty. But the best way to "resist" the occupation is the way Gandhi ended the British occupation of India.