If the Palestinians spoke out and demonstrated against the suicide bombers then the Middle East would be on course for peace. Israel has made concessions to the Palestinians time and time again and every concession has been met by more suicide bombings. The Palestinian terrorist groups need to agree to a permanent ceasefire and agree to recognise the state of Israel and its right to exist. Once that happens then proper peace negotiations can begin.

... when Israel responded to the most recent ceasefire by Palestinian groups by blowing up their leaders?

What are these concessions that Israel has made time and time again?

Perhaps you could explain how settlements doubled during the Oslo Process?

Perhaps you could tell us whose filthy thoughts you are parrotting now?

> when Israel responded to the most recent ceasefire by Palestinian groups
what "ceasefire" was that then?
the one where they continued to murder Jews in their homes? the one where 21 innocent people, including 8 children, were DELIBERATELY murdered on a CIVILIAN bus?

Who cares if she's Jewish?

The woman who submitted this posting could be Golda Meir's granddaughter, and that still wouldn't alter the fact that her entire posting is riddled with false logic and historical fantasy. Here are a few highlights:

POINT ONE: Let's start with her liberal and irresponsible use of the term 'genocide' and/or 'holocaust' to describe Israel's policies towards Palestinians. Below is a list prepared by The United Human Rights Council of the major 'Genocides' that occurred in the 20th century. ( http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/index2.php)

Armenian Genocide- 1915-1918 - 1,500,000 Deaths
Stalin's Forced Famine - 1932-1933 - 7,000,000 Deaths
The Rape of Nanking - 1937-1938 - 300,000 Deaths
The Nazi Holocaust - 1938-1945 - 6,000,000 Deaths
Pol Pot in Cambodia - 1975-1979 - 2,000,000 Deaths
Rwanda - 1994 - 800,000 Deaths
Boznia-Herzegovina - 1992-1995 - 200,000 Deaths

And here are the most recent numbers in regards to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict according to a report prepared by the Palestinian Monitor and Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi. ( http://www.palestinemonitor.org/index.html)


2,344 Palestinians have been killed between 29 Sept. 2000 -17 March 2003

So let's put this in perspective:

1,500,000 Armenian Christians were killed by Muslim Turks in - 3 Years.
2,000,000 Cambodians were killed by the Khmer Rouge in - 4 Years.
7,000,000 - Jews were killed by Nazi Germany in - 7 Years
And last, but definitely least...
2,322 Palestinians were killed by Israel in - 2 1/2 Years

So while the average death toll in the first three genocides is 500,000 people per year, in Palestine it's under 1000 people per year. That's a 500% difference - both mathematically and morally. In other words, one of the above examples clearly does not qualify in the 'genocide' category; can our 'Jewish Woman' friend guess which one that is?

Equally significant is that during this same period 873 Jews have been killed by Palestinians. That's nearly 40% of the Palestinian total. If one applied this same ratio to the Holocaust the Jews would have killed over 2.5 million Germans. This suggests there might just be a slight difference in these two supposedly equivalent 'genocides’, don't you think?

Another important statistic is the analysis of casualties on both sides which shows that while approximately 80% of all the Israelis killed in the violence and terrorism since September 2000 are non-combatants, the compatible figure for Palestinian non-combatant casualties is no more than 45%.
( http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0i9o0#casualties).

How did this happen? Well, because whereas one side specifically 'targets' individual or small groups of known terrorists with blood on their hands (which no one denies), the other side responds by blowing up a bus of twenty or so innocent civilians including women and children.
Which side's actions sound more 'genocidal' to our 'Jewish Woman' expert?

POINT TWO: ISRAEL GETS $9 Billion from the USA.

Here's an excerpt from an article just posted from the Atlanta Journal Constitution reporting on today's decisions by the US State Department regarding aid to Israel:

"With the fiscal year ending at midnight, the department was obliged to advise Congress of its intentions. Israel is due $9 billion in loan guarantees over three years. Spokesman Richard Boucher said, however, reductions are likely at some point over the next two fiscal years and that U.S. and Israeli officials were holding talks on the amount. No direct aid to Israel, which amounts to nearly $3 billion in military and economic aid a year, is involved. Atlanta Journal Constitution
 http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/

So I’m sorry, but it would seem that the long established figure of $3 billion in aid to Israel did not suddenly triple in size - it is merely spread out over three years - although I'm not surprised that the BBC somehow let that annoying little fact slip through uncontested.

POINT THREE: ISRAEL GETS MONEY FROM THE USA BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS US INTERESTS.

Yes...and so what? Who do you expect the US to give money to; countries that act ‘against’ their interests? (Well actually, they’re doing that right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that’s another story).

Palestinians get generous amounts of easy money (well actually Arafat gets the money, the Palestinians just read about it) from such bastions of human rights and democracy as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, China, (as well as the US, the EU, the UN, etc.).

Saddam and Saudi Arabia gave financial aid as rewards to the families of suicide bombers. Does this bother our ‘Jewish Woman’s’ socio-economic sensibilities as well?

And let's not forget that when the State of Israel was created, the US was hardly a big supporter of the cause. In fact, the Russians were far more enthusiastic. During the 40's, 50's, and early 60's the US refused to sell Israel any military arms - those came courtesy of France. The US condemned Israel, France, and the UK for their joint operation at the Suez Canal in 1956. So this is hardly the great historical capitalist conspiracy that our 'Jewish Woman' suggests it is.

Just for once, instead of worrying about what the USA 'does' with its foreign aid, it would be interesting to look at what the Arab world 'doesn't' do with its foreign aid. When it came to the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia what did the Arab contribute to the fight for their 'brothers' survival – economically and militarily - compared to what the US and the UK did. (And don't tell me they only did it for oil). Are there any Arab peace-keeping troops you can remember risking their lives in Rwanda? How about all those vast financial and medical contributions of the Arab world to wards fighting Aids in Africa?

I don’t think so.

And it’s not as if the Saudi Arabian Princes or the Oil Barons of Kuwait don't have a bit of excess cash to spread around. Let’s face it, these guys still even keep reneging on their promises of financial support to the Palestinians, which is supposed to be their great unifying cause. Show me a list international Arab altruism. I'd love to see it and be proved wrong.

Along a similar line our 'Jewish Woman' claims that "Egypt receives $1.2 billion a year, the second largest recipient of US foreign aid after Israel because of 'this' service ('selling oil'), to the US and oil multinationals.

So Egypt's aid is all about oil is it? Funny that according to the latest US government figures, the trillion barrels of oil produced last year broke down as follows: 6% are in North America, 9% in Central and Latin America, 2% in Europe, 4% in Asia Pacific, 7% in Africa, 6% in the Former Soviet Union. Today, 66% of global oil reserves are in the hands of Middle Eastern regimes: Saudi Arabia (25%), Iraq (11%), Iran (8%), UAE (9%), Kuwait (9%), and Libya (2%).

In fact, Egypt ranks below Libya (which has only 2%). Now it would seem that if Kuwait (with whom the US is on reasonably good terms), has 9% of the world's oil reserves, and Egypt represents less than 1%, that Kuwait should be the 'second largest recipient of US foreign aid', not Egypt. Furthermore, by such logic, Saudi Arabia should far exceed even Israel in terms of helpful handouts. And if that were so, would that bring joy and justice to our ‘Jewish Woman’.

Or could it be that even she, in all her wisdom, fell victim to that all-too-common knee-jerk leftoid response: 'they're only doing it for the oil'?

POINT FOUR The so-called Arab-Israeli conflict has ‘nothing’ to do with 'religion'.

The sheer depth of denial and ignorance inherent in this comment (unless it was intended as a joke), truly takes the breath away. The fact that our enlightened 'Jewish Woman' then proceeds to condemn only Christian and Jewish fundamentalists for 'using religion to stir up hatred', confirms her status as a suicidal foot soldier in the continuing war on rationality.

Where to start?

Firstly, why does she call it a 'so-called' Arab-Israeli conflict? Is she suggesting that reports of the 'conflict' have been greatly exaggerated, or that the Israel's are claiming a major conflict where one doesn't really exist?

Before stating that the 'so-called' Arab-Israeli conflict had 'nothing' to do with religion, she informs us that "It is very hard for us (Jewish women?), when we have to deal with the anti-Semitism of those who claim to represent the Arab population." She follows this with "Arab governments...attack Israel because they are Jews. Anti-Semitism doesn’t strengthen the Palestinian cause; it discredits it'.

Surely all this 'anti-Semitism' and 'attacks on Jews' might have something to do with 'religions' role in the ‘so-called’ conflict?

But just to make sure, let's ask the experts. How about that peace-loving 'political organisation' otherwise known as Hamas? Here are some selections from their Official Charter: (Courtesy of Yale University's Avalon Project) the "Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement", otherwise known as the Hamas Covenant

- The liberation of Palestinian is an obligation for the entire Islamic nation, and not only for the Palestinians…" [Yousuf Abu Sneinah, an official religious lecturer, Voice of Palestine, 30 April, 1999.]

- "Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection."[Article 11

- "…the liberation of Palestine is an individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere." [Article 13]

- Article Eight:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

- Article Six:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned....

- Article Seven:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."


Hmm...let's see: ' "Islamic obligation", "Day of Resurrection", "The Prophet, the Koran, Jihad, death for the sake of Allah".....I don't know, but all that sounds vaguely 'religious' to me...

And here are a few more helpful comments from our friends at Hezbollah:

Hezbollah: Identity and goals
 http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm

- "Hezbollah is an Islamic struggle movement... Hezbollah’s ideological ideals see no legitimacy for the existence of "Israel" a matter that elevates the contradictions to the level of existence. And the conflict becomes one of legitimacy that is based on religious ideals. Another of its ideals is the establishment of the an Islamic Government."

Yes, you read that right: "...a conflict based on religious ideals."

OK, I know by now you’re probably dismissing my examples as mere products of the more 'fringe' and 'extremist' groups (Even though we all know that these very groups enjoy vast popular and political support throughout the Islamic world), but just to reassure you doubters out there, here's a quote from one of the Mid East's more mainstream leaders, The Crown Prince Abdullah from his speech of March 2002 to the Arab League.

"My brethren, the leaders of the Arab nation: my brethren, the people of our Arab and Islamic nation: God's peace and mercy be upon you. I greet all of you with the greeting of Islam. In spite of all that has happened - and what still may happen - the primary issue in the heart and mind of every person in our Arab and Islamic nation is the restoration of legitimate rights in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon."

He goes on endlessly in this vein but the important thing is how his entire message in contextualized within an 'Islamic' framework. Again, we’re trying to establish whether ‘religion’ has ‘anything’ to do with the Arab/Israeli conflict. If it didn’t, why would he feel the need to mention Islam so many times?

Question: What key event ignited (or at least was used as the excuse for igniting) the second Palestinian Intifada?

Answer: It was, of course, Sharon's infamous waddle around the Dome of the Rock - apparently the third most holy site in Islam. (The fact that it also happens to be the number one holy site for many Jews never seemed to enter into the discussion). Hours afterward, Arafat (who had been well warned about Sharon's visit) issued the following intentionally provocative statement "This is a dangerous process conducted by Sharon against Islamic sacred places."

If 'religion' really had 'nothing to do with it', why would Arafat have bothered, why would so many of Palestinians have rioted, and why would the Arab and international community have so condemned Sharon's actions in such a holier-than-thou fashion?

And who, interestingly enough, was Arafat's great mentor and not-so-distant cousin? None other than Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was well-known in the 1940s as a cheer-leader for Hitler and a Muslim ‘Holy Man’ who openly mixed Nazi propaganda with Islamic fundamentalism. In the early 1940s - a good five years before an Israeli state even existed - he made a notorious radio broadcast in which he urged on fellow Muslims to "Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and religion. That will save our honour."
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/indonesia/Story/0,2763,1014440,00.html

Any religious significance here perhaps? No...of course not...

I wonder if our 'Jewish Woman' reads the international press, because if so, she’s bound to have seen the numerous reports over the past few years regarding violent terrorists attacks committed around the globe. And what do the vast majority of these murderous acts - committed against innocent civilians in such a wide-range of countries as Kashmir, Indonesia, Algeria, Morroco, Chechnya, Kenya, The Philippines, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. - have in common?

Arab nationalism? No.
Anti-imperialism? A bit.
Islamic extremism? Absolutely.

When the Bali bomber was recently sentenced he smiled at the courtroom, shouted 'Allah is Great', then added, "If they kill me, one million more Amrozis will emerge to continue the Islamic Jihad,". After this, naturally, he launched into a tirade against the "infidel Jews'.

If you're out there, you most wise and worldly 'Jewish Woman', please give me a list of all the times that Jewish and Christian fundamentalists have 'used religion' to 'stir up hatred' and violence in the past three years, and we'll compare to list of similar incidents launched by your innocent Islamist friends. I can’t wait.

POINT FIVE: "The Arab governments have always been on the side of the Israeli government".

This is another socio-historical whopper that truly defies explanation.

The Arab world - on a unanimous basis – has been very publicly and very proactively opposed to any form of 'Israeli government' long before an Israeli government even dared to exist. Arab leaders came out collectively against the 'Zionist' movement in the late 19th-early 20th centuries, and against the official ruling of the UN they refused to even acknowledge the existence of an Israeli state in 1947, and joined together in launching a military invasion against the newly formed - and much outnumbered and outgunned - nation in 1948.

Similar joint Arab attacks followed in 1967 and 1973, and all along they refused to accept Israel's very existence. Not a single Arab nation has ever voted in favour of Israel during over 50 years of United Nation resolutions. The majority of them refuse to even accept the physical presence of Israeli foreign representatives on their soil.

It was only after a series of massive military defeats and massive diplomatic pressure that countries like Egypt signed peace treaties with Israel - but you could hardly ever call these governments 'supporters' of Israel.

But please, once again, enlighten me as to which Arab nations - and at which points in history - have 'always been 'on the side' of the Israeli government. Clearly I have much to learn.

POINT SIX: "Palestinians – fighting without an army, without support from any state against the third largest world military power that has five times its population".

Firstly, a few revealing facts about population growth in the Mid-East:

According to a population study conducted by the US government, the Arabs living in Palestine have one of the highest birth rates on Earth and have more than tripled their numbers in the past 35 years.
The latest U.S. government estimate of the West Bank and Gaza population is 3.51 million as of 2002.

"The Arab population within Israel's borders also has a higher birth rate than do Israeli Jews and has also roughly tripled since the late 1960s. The U.S. government estimates that about 1.22 million non-Jews of Mideastern origin live within pre-1967 Israel. Add them to the Palestinians in the occupied territories and they make 4.73 million. The U.S. estimate put the number of Israeli Jews at 4.89 million. As of 2002, the population of all the territory controlled by Israel was 50.8 percent Jewish, 49.2 percent non-Jewish."

Somehow this sounds a little less alarming and alarmist (at least to the Palestinians), than an invading enemy with 'five times the population'.

But there's a far bigger issue at stake here and it's one that cuts to the very heart of how we view the 'so-called' Arab-Israeli conflict. The international community has always viewed this struggle in 'David-versus-Goliath' terms, but in the past the roles were reversed: Israel was the underdog and the Arab world was the aggressor. This was, in fact, an accurate interpretation of events, as Israel - numbering barely 500,000 at its outset - was set upon by an Arab world numbering in the tens and tens of millions and occupying a surrounding territory that was hundreds of times the size of Israel.

Due to a series of humiliating and decisive military defeats, Arab leaders decided (at least temporarily), to give up attacking Israel, and instead chose to channel all of their aggressive energy into a weapon that worked far more effectively on Western sensibilities: Palestinian propaganda.

Forget the fact that the Palestinian ‘cause’ didn’t really exist pre-1967 – a time when the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were in fact being 'occupied' by Egypt and Jordan. Forget the fact that no Arab nation has ever offered citizenship or territory to their long-suffering Palestinian brethren.

Suddenly it was no longer little Israel against the combined forces of the Arab world; it was imperialist Israel against the unloved and unarmed Palestinians.

So 'Jewish Woman' was actually right about one thing (although I don't think she intended it): this is not, nor has it ever been merely an 'Israeli/Palestinian' conflict; it is an Israeli/Arab/Islamic conflict.

It is disingenuous and ultimately dangerous to portray the situation as merely Israelis versus Palestinians. There are now 250 million Arabs living in the Middle East. They live, tightly packed, into a group of nations that have already launched three unprovoked wars against Israel in the past. They've never shown any signs of remorse - just the opposite; they blame Israel all the more for defending itself. Nor have they ever demonstrated any intention of refraining from similar aggression if, and when, the opportunity presents itself. Which one day it surely will.

Let's stop pretending that the plight of the Palestinians has nothing to do with the pathological and irrational hostility of the Arab/Islamic world towards Israel. Perhaps then, and only then, will justice seekers like our self-proclaimed 'Jewish Woman' (and her fellow 'picketers'), finally 'know the truth'.

buzzbee

Is anyone going to refute this bollocks? I'd do it myself but I've got a proper job and can't sit in front of my computer all day like some of these workshy Zionists.

> Is anyone going to refute this bollocks? I'd do it myself but I've got a proper job and can't sit in front of my computer all day like some of these workshy Zionists.

In other words, u cant be bothered to concoct a reply this time to the FACTS and figures given by buzzbee.

Yes I will refute. That's pathetic that you take only the 2000/2003 period into account and ignore all the massacres and ethnic cleansing that took place from 1948 to 2000 (and the late Edward Said - from a Christian family - was victim of one of them).

The arrogant, evil and racist zionists are the most hated people in the world. In Brazil (and you tend to ignore public opinion in the third world) we HATE Sharon and his henchmen, this opinion is partaged by the entire 3rd world. We experienced the same ordeal of the Palestinians, once we were slaves too. All the suffering and turmoil that Israel is spreading throughout the world, it will pay 10 times for it in the near future, I'm sure of that - because except for the US and Europe, everybody hopes that this racist cancer will be obliterated from the surface of earth.

The usual misinformation, half-truths and down right lies from Zionists like buzzbee and his personal cheersquad, Jamie.

In actual fact, the truth is ALWAYS different from what these Nazi Zionists claim.

While it is stated that Israel officially receives some $3 billion every year in the form of economic aid from the U.S. government, this figure is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many billions of dollars more in hidden costs and economic losses lurking beneath the surface. A recently published economic analysis has concluded that U.S. support for the state of Israel has cost American taxpayers nearly $3 trillion ($3 million millions) in 2002 dollars.

"The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion" is a summary of economic research done by Thomas R. Stauffer. Stauffer's summary of the research was published in the June 2003 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Stauffer is a Washington, D.C.-based engineer and economist who writes and teaches about the economics of energy and the Middle East. Stauffer has taught at Harvard University and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. Stauffer's findings were first presented at an October 2002 conference sponsored by the U.S. Army College and the University of Maine.

Stauffer's analysis is "an estimate of the total cost to the U.S. alone of instability and conflict in the region - which emanates from the core Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

"Total identifiable costs come to almost $3 trillion," Stauffer says. "About 60 percent, well over half, of those costs - about $1.7 trillion - arose from the U.S. defense of Israel, where most of that amount has been incurred since 1973."

"Support for Israel comes to $1.8 trillion, including special trade advantages, preferential contracts, or aid buried in other accounts. In addition to the financial outlay, U.S. aid to Israel costs some 275,000 American jobs each year." The trade-aid imbalance alone with Israel of between $6-10 billion costs about 125,000 American jobs every year, Stauffer says.

The largest single element in the costs has been the series of oil-supply crises that have accompanied the Israeli-Arab wars and the construction of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. To date these have cost the U.S. $1.5 trillion (2002 dollars), excluding the additional costs incurred since 2001, Stauffer wrote.

The cost of supporting Israel increased drastically after the 1973 Israeli-Arab war. U.S. support for Israel during that war resulted in additional costs for the American taxpayer of between $750 billion and $1 trillion, Stauffer says.

When Israel was losing the war, President Richard Nixon stepped in to supply the Jewish state with U.S. weapons. Nixon's intervention triggered the Arab oil embargo which Stauffer estimates cost the U.S. as much as $600 billion in lost GDP and another $450 in higher oil import costs.

"The 1973 oil crisis, all in all, cost the U.S. economy no less than $900 billion, and probably as much as $1,200 billion," he says.

As a result of the oil embargo the United States created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to "insulate Israel and the U.S. against the wielding of a future Arab 'oil weapon'." The billion-barrel SPR has cost U.S. taxpayers $134 billion to date. According to an Oil Supply Guarantee, which former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger provided Israel in 1975, Israel gets 'first call' on any oil available to the U.S. if Israel's oil supply is stopped.

Stauffer's $3 trillion figure is conservative as it does not include the increased costs incurred during the year-long buildup to the recent war against Iraq in which Israel played a significant, albeit covert, role. The higher oil prices that occurred as a result of the Anglo-American campaign against Iraq were absorbed by the consumers. The increase in oil prices provided a huge bonus for the leading oil companies such as British Petroleum and Shell, who are major oil producers as well as retailers. The major international oil companies recorded record profits for the first quarter of 2003.

The Washington Report seeks to "provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states." The monthly journal is known for keeping close tabs on the amount of U.S. taxpayer money that goes to Israel and how much pro-Israel money flows back to Members of Congress in the form of campaign aid.

The journal's website, www.wrmea.com, has an up-to-date counter at the top that indicates how much official aid flows to Israel. While the counter currently stands at $88.2 billion, it only reflects the minimum, as it does not include the many hidden costs.

"The distinction is important, because the indirect or consequential losses suffered by the U.S. as a result of its blind support for Israel exceed by many times the substantial amount of direct aid to Israel," Shirl McArthur wrote in the May 2003 issue of Washington Report.

McArthur's article, "A Conservative Tally of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: $97.5 Billion - and Counting" tallies the hidden costs, such as interest lost due to the early disbursement of aid to Israel and funds hidden in other accounts. For example, Israel received $5.45 billion in Defense Department funding of Israeli weapons projects through 2002, McArthur says.

Loans made to Israel by the U.S. government, like the recently awarded $9 billion, invariably wind up being paid by the American taxpayer. A recent Congressional Research Service report indicates that Israel has received $42 billion in waived loans. "Therefore, it is reasonable to consider all government loans to Israel the same as grants," McArthur says.

Support for Israel has cost America dearly - well over than $10,000 per American - however the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been extremely costly for the entire world. According to Stauffer, the total bill for supporting Israel is two to four times higher than that for the U.S. alone - costing the global community an estimated $6 to $12 trillion

Point 1.

Genocide - yes, given the parameters you suggest, the figures would indicate that the situation has not reached genocidal proportions [yet].

However, given that Palestinaian casualties over the past 50 years are considerable greater than these - this is a mute point and one that would produce shrill denouncment as a 'denier' were it to be applied to examining accurate numbers of jewish casualties from WWll!

Since dec 87, 4389 Palestinian civilian casualties have occured as the result of israeli military action. At least 5 times that number have sustained injury. These figures are a total from the figures produced by buzzbee
 http://www.palestinemonitor.org/index.html
and from B'tselem
 http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Total_Casualties.asp

In addition to these are the figures from the numerous wars in which israel has fought; the period between 29-38 in which numerous actions were taken by the underground zionist groups; the period of 47-53 and another wave of terror unleashed, this time by the new israeli military machine, against the civilian population of Palestine; the period leading up to the 67 war and into the 70's where numerous israeli meddlings, interventions, provocations and actions sought to 'break up' Palestinian resistance.

To attempt to get a grasp on the numbers involved, you can do no better than to use this resource, which has collated figures from several leading authorities and news archives:
 http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

As for the usual dreary division into combatants and non combatants, well the reasoning that is applied to that is no more than the circualr argument that; all those we kill are terrorist because we only kill terrorists ...

"So while the average death toll in the first three genocides is 500,000 people per year, in Palestine it's under 1000 people per year. That's a 500% difference - both mathematically and morally .."

..what peculiar morality you have that can be deduced so mathmatically ..

.. it's ok, we didn't kill them all ..

no justice no peace