Study: Most Sderot kids exhibit post-traumatic stress symptoms

Between 75 percent and 94 percent of Sderot children aged 4-18 exhibit symptoms of post-traumatic stress, says Natal, the Israel Center for Victims of Terror and War.

Natal's study, set to be released in the coming days, was based on a representative sample. The study found 28 percent of adults and 30 percent of children in Sderot have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The study was conducted by Dr. Rony Berger, director of Natal's Community Services Department, and Dr. Marc Gelkopf, with the assistance of pollster Dr. Mina Tzemach.

The town of Sderot and the western Negev as a whole have been subjected to barrages of rockets launched by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip for over seven years.

Berger emphasizes the distinction between post-traumatic stress symptoms, such as problems sleeping and concentrating, and PTSD itself, which can interfere seriously with daily life. Berger says the study found school-age children had severe symptoms of anxiety and pointed to a correlation between parent and child anxiety.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/945489.html

It annoys me when they say things like "was based on a representative sample" without specifying any specific numbers or sampling methodology. A statement like that by itself means nothing, it is empty verbiage.

That said, this doesn't seem like a surprising result.

take the short view rather than looking at this as evidence that the ongoing occupation and oppression of 4 million Palestinians is clearly untenable.

Bombing and killing Gazans in response will not solve this problem.

for Israel to do nothing when rockets rain all day and night, terrorizing civilians.

Is that what you are advocating?

Bombing and killing doesn't seem like it will solve the problem, no, because the militants are singleminded in their goals. But why would Gazans choose to make their lives even more miserable, by keeping up their "resistance"? It is just a stupid strategy that is making the average Palestinian's life much worse, rather than better.

She is advocating making conditions better in the OPT. Give them back some rights and dignity while you are at it. It is much more likely to bring about a change of attitude than bombing. You could keep up the violence too, then at least there would be a carrot and a stick in play. But this all stick and no carrot sort of deal will never work.

but any way of making conditions better in the OT makes things worse for Israelis. There didn't used to be a wall or checkpoints. They are relatively new, and do make life miserable for Palestinians, but a country has to protect its citizens first and foremost.

Were there no suicide bombings, tunneling under crossings, rockets, etc., there never would have been a wall either.

So, I am not quite sure I know what kind of carrot you think should be offered.

(BTW, the greenhouses were left in functioning order, which was a carrot, and they were destroyed, no matter what was posted on another thread).

Anything that might show good will and make Palestinians lives better or more meaningful would just endanger Israelis. But the present course is "obviously" making Israelis safer.

Continued occupation guarantees continued armed resistance & terrorism, which makes life worse for the Israelis.

Withdrawal to the Green Line, compensation/right of return for refugees, a grovelling apology and helping to set up a functional Palestinian state would probably (not certainly) end the conflict, benefitting both the Palestinians and most of the Israelis (not, to be fair, the ones living in illegal settlements).

I'm advocating ceasing a a 40+-year violent military occupation.

end the occupation, compensate the refugees, and help set up a viable Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

Nothing else will end the cycle of violence. The initiative can't & won't come from the Palestinian side - partly because the Palestinians are fragmented, and partly because if it does it won't be met with corresponding gestures from the Israelis - but Israel could, if it was willing to make the necessary territorial concessions, end the violence any time it wants to.

Unfortunately, the Israeli government & electorate have repeatedly made clear that they'd rather have settlements than peace or security.

This is analogous to giving a screaming child candy before dinner. The parent is expected to meet the demands of the child with no concessions from the child. While not a perfect analogy, it does describe what you are suggesting. The expectation is for the Israelis to make all the concessions before the violence against Israel and her citizens is halted. But, as we have seen with the disengagement in Gaza, that isn't even true. Also, this "plan" is expecting the Israelis to act unilaterally, something the Palestinians supposedly don't like.

Isn't it the responsibility of both sides to halt the violence? According to you, the answer is "no." The Palestinians are 'excused' from this because they are fragmented and even if they weren't, supposedly the Israelis wouldn't match in kind. This is nothing more than a veiled way to again blame the Israelis and pass off the responsibilities of the Palestinians.

It is beyond simplistic to think withdrawal from the West Bank (including the removal of settlements) and compensation of the refugees will end the violence. Hell, one of the major sticking points is compensation of the refugees; the Palestinians want ROR to Israel and Israel is wanting monetary compensation.

Unfortunately, the Palestinian government and its various factions have made it abundantly clear they'd rather have refugee status and terrorism than peace and a homeland. (An example of simplistic hyperbole from the other side.)

to be given something you already rightfully own.

The reason they (Palestinians) do not have what they want was because of war and its aftermath and their continued use by the Arab world as pawns against Israel. They are responsible for negotiating, as are the Israelis. The same could be said that the Israelis are begging for safety and security, something that is rightfully theirs, but is being withheld by the Palestinians. Both sides want something from the other and both sides need to negotiate and accept responsibility for their own actions, not the actions of the other.

No matter whose responsibility the conflict is, any initiative to end it is going to have to come from the Israeli side, because with the death of Arafat there is no-one in a position to negotiate for the Palestinians.

The Palestinian leadership *can't* halt the violence because, for a variety of reasons - noteablely but by no means solely solely because Israel has deliberately kept them weak - they don't have the popular support or the military strength to do so.

Saying "it's their responsibility, so we're not going to do anything to improve the situation" is an incredibly counterproductive approach.

As to ROR, the solution I would advocate would be for Israel to give each refugee a choice of the right to return or monetary compensation, and set the level of monetary compensation high enough that only a manageable number of refugees didn't take it.

If you really want to talk about responsibility, I would say that a) ultimate responsibility lies with the British for allowing Israel to be established and displace the Palestinians in the first place, which they never should have done, and b) that the occupier has a responsibility to end the occupation before the occupied have a responsibility to end the resistance.

But really, responsibility isn't the important question. The important question is "what course of action, if any, might lead to an improvement in the situation?" And the only possible answer is "unilateral Israeli withdrawal".

Furthermore, you are assigning all the responsibility (for ending the conflict, as neither of us said anything about the beginning of the conflict) at the feet of the Israelis and continue to excuse the Palestinians from any responsibility. Even this post, to which I am responding, assigns blame to Israel and continues to excuse Palestinians from responsibility.

You expect Israel to continue to be held hostage by demands and refusals to negotiate from the Palestinian government. Whoever is responsible for the beginning of the conflict is really a minor point at this juncture as there are no calls on the British to pony-up any money or land, or sacrifice security of national borders; nor is Israel going to be de-constructed. Blowing up pizza parlors, train rails, Seder dinners, malls and raining missiles down on civilian targets is not "resistance to occupation." Therefore, asking that attacks on the Israeli population be halted shouldn't be outside the responsibility of the Palestinian government.

Finally, if you think the only answer to "what course of action, if any, might lead to an improvement in the situation?" is a unilateral withdrawal by Israel, I have one word for you...Gaza. Whereas a greater burden may lie with Israel, to absolve the Palestinians of any responsibility for improving the situation will lead to the same situation we currently see.

The way to end this fiasco is for both sides to negotiate in good faith and expect the same for one another. It would also help if every little bump was not made into an "end of all discussions" moment.

on a daily basis? We never get around to talking about that though, because Palestinian children actually dying and dead trumps scared every time.

and I'm not calling anyone a racist, but...

Isn't it interesting that Palestinian children have suffered PTSD -- and much, much worse,ie., cripping injury and death -- for decades and it's not an issue?

Why is that status quo acceptable to so many?

We all want the conflict to end and the suffering, especially of children, to be over.

I wish people would take a closer look at the Geneva Accord. I think that can really serve as the foundation of a compromise solution that will lead to two states living side by side at peace with one another.

I think that the status quo is totally unacceptable. Neither side is ever going to get everything that it wants or even everything that in a sense it 'needs' - but the Geneva Accord could form a basis for a good possible solution. Certainly a two-state solution is necessary. Both groups living happily together in a secular state is pie-in-the-sky at present; and any other possibility than a two-state solution would result in massive injustice to one or even both parties (the continuation of the status quo - to the Palestinians; a 'one-state solution' under present circumstances - to the Israelis, and probably to some Palestinians due to the likelihood of civil war).