MJ: The Roadmap is backward. While a final deal will require the transformation of Hamas, the PFLP, and Islamic Jihad, among others, into pure political parties with no military arm, that can only happen when the Palestinians have something to protect, i.e, an agreement. If you look at Michael Collins's career, it is instructive. After the Free State Treaty was signed, Michael did put down an IRA rebellion and used force against his own people. He didn't do to help England. He did it to protect the Irish Free State. If the Palestinians end all resistence to the Occupation up front, then any agreement they enter into actually SUPPORTS the occupation by transferring security obligation to the Palestinians and lessoning the burden to Israel of its settlements in Palestine. That's why final status, borders, Jerusalem, refugees, etc., have to be negotated first.

I've replied to your proposal but you never responded.

Yes, we do agree on the framework.

Not all settlers will be resettled, just those that are not close to old Israel.

There will be some issues that will linger no matter what is done. That's fine as long as these issues are not major issues. Gaza may be a huge obstacle since it is controlled by Hamas and is not part of the game.

Those that see a solution in terms of perfect or none will have to grow up and understand that an independent Palestinian state with huge money influx from the West and may be the East might be as far as it goes initially. And that is not a small fit; it removes Israelis from the newly established state, it helps the suffering Palestinians recover and start a normal life.

Let's keep our fingers crossed, enemies of even that are many and everywhere.

I was surprised by Olmert's acknowledgment of Palestinian suffering in his Annapolis speech - I thought it was an historic moment - and now this. I share some of syvanen's cynicism - hopes have been raised only to be dashed so many times now, and there are so many potential pitfalls - but I sincerely hope your optimism is warranted, MJ. And that Olmert can manage to bring the Israeli populace along.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

Yeah. He's such a great man

Prime minister Ehud Olmert today raised the spectre of the disintegration of the state of Israel unless a two-state solution with the Palestinians could be reached.
Drawing a parallel with the last days of the apartheid regime in South Africa he warned: "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (with Palestinians) ... then, as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."
Today's warning came in an interview with Haaretz newspaper.
The remarks were published after Olmert and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, this week agreed at a US-sponsored peace conference to resume negotiations on the creation of a Palestinian state for the first time in seven years.
Israel is sensitive to any comparison to formerly apartheid South Africa, but Olmert has aired such views before. When he was deputy prime minister under Ariel Sharon four years ago, he favoured a withdrawal from most of the territories taken in the 1967 war that would leave Israel with a "maximum" number of Israelis and a "minimum" of Palestinians.
Olmert also warned about the loss of support of the Jewish diaspora once the question became framed in terms of one man, one vote.
"The Jewish organisations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us," Olmert told Haaretz, "because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."

"Olmert also seems to have developed a genuine empathy with Mahmoud Abbas and an understanding of Palestinian suffering."

"An understanding of Palestinian suffering"? In what sense does Olmert understand Palestinian suffering? Does he think it works?

This is a huge pile of nonsense in view of the fact that the Israeli seige on Gazan civilians is an ongoing effort by various branches of Israel's government.

Good job, idiots. Your most formidable foe is more so and eliminating Hamas influence would allow the spread of the salifist ideology in the IDF-fertilized muck of Gaza. Fools.

Watching Gaza tends to make one have one's doubts about the values claimed by democratic regimes who are mum on this subject.

Given Olmert's political weakness in Israel, I doubt if he can bring anyone along.

Wordie,

I saw the program too. Watching Hagee make that speech about pre emptive strikes against Iran I thought to myself;

"This man is dangerous."

Some tume back the History Channel showed real film of Goebbles addressing an auditorium of Germans, and they stood and applauded as if in a mania, this came back to me as I watched Hagee and his audience.

It's remarkable isn't it, the similarity? And what Hagee's followers are applauding is the infliction of massive, unthinkable suffering on their fellow human beings.

lally: When I read your post last night I thought you were being too pessimistic, but the morning news is that yesterday, the U.S. withdrew from consideration at the U.N. the Mideast Peace Resolution, apparently at Israel's urging.

Diplomats said Israel, a close U.S. ally, did not want a resolution, which would bring the Security Council into the fledgling negotiations with the Palestinians. The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Khalilzad introduced the draft resolution without getting broad support from the Israelis, Palestinians and the Bush administration.

"It's not the proper venue," Israel's deputy ambassador Daniel Carmon said after Friday's council meeting. "We feel that the appreciation of Annapolis has other means of being expressed than in a resolution.

"We were not the only ones to object," Carmon said.

He added that the Americans had told the Israelis that the Palestinians also objected.

Abbas, speaking to reporters in the Tunisian capital, Tunis, said Friday that while he didn't know the details of the draft resolution it was a sign of the seriousness of the United States, which he also perceived at the Annapolis conference.

"This means, if what we have learned is verified, that there are serious steps that speak to the existence of an American position supporting the negotiations," Abbas said.

Wolff said the United States realized that "the focus, we all realized again, should be placed and remain on Annapolis and the understanding that was reached there."

"It's a momentous decision ... and rather than dilute from that and in respect to both parties in terms of what they thought would be most helpful, we reached a conclusion that it would be best to withdraw it," Wolff said.

And, predictably, Hamas responded:

GAZA, Dec. 1 (Xinhua) -- Hamas on Saturday said the U.S. withdrawal of a draft resolution it presented to the UN Security Council concerning the relaunch of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks was an indication of its unseriousness in the matter.

"The U.S. is unserious... it absolutely supports the Israeli occupation in a way that makes the counting on the biased and unfair U.S. stance strange," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told reporters in Gaza.

On Friday, the United States withdrawn a draft resolution it presented to the UN Security Council endorsing the results of recently-held Annapolis conference which set Dec. 12 as the date to resume Israeli-Palestinian talks on creating a Palestinian statehood.

Some local reports said that the withdrawal decision was to satisfy Israel which rejects a UN role in the Middle East peace negotiations.

"The American response to the Israeli occupation and the withdrawing of the draft resolution are a new proof that Annapolis meeting is failing and the U.S. administration was unserious," AbuZuhri said.

"The Israeli military escalation against the Palestinian people is the only fruit that came from Annapolis meeting," Abu Zuhri said, vowing that his organization will "continue its project of resistance against Israel."

Early on Saturday morning, Israeli missiles killed five fighters from the Islamic Hamas movement which rules the Gaza Strip, in Khan Younis city in the north of the strip.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. This action has probably undone much of the goodwill that was projected at Annapolis, and the extremists can use it to sow doubts. It didn't even take the administration a week to screw up.

But there are also reports that the Israeli High Court has delayed the plans to stop electricity to Gaza, so at least that's a somewhat positive step. 

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

Early on Saturday morning, Israeli missiles killed five fighters from the Islamic Hamas movement which rules the Gaza Strip, in Khan Younis city in the north of the strip.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. This action has probably undone much of the goodwill

Thanks, Bev. That Hagee is somethin else!!!

But really, what would be so bad about a state for both Arabs and Jews?

Also, what would be so bad about a state for both Czechs and Slovakian, Russian and Ukrainians, Serbs and Croatians, Pakistan and India, a bridge between New York and London? The answer is nothing wrong. So, what's your point?

I understand where MJ is coming from.
You can look at Palestinins as orphan child who had a very hard childhood. This child learned how to use tantrums (terrorism) to get an attention. You can’t expect this child to improve on his own, so there is no point ask him to do something. He is not really a responsible party. It only makes sense to talk to responsible adults how have custody of this child. MJ thinks that if this child get all the freedom, magically he’ll grow up to be a responsible adult. Obviously, MJ is wrong. On another hand, something has to change, because a status quo is hard for a child it’s hard for a guardian. It would be nice to find another guardian but nobody wants to take such responsibility.
Disclaimer, Any analogy including this is not exact.

The first point is that it isn't possible to give a rational answer to an emotionally loaded, detail-free comment such as asking if they should kill Israeli children. Are you speaking of a specific incident? If so, who appeared to be firing it? What were the casualties?

Second, yes, sometimes you do accept casualties without massive retaliation. If you are ever in Maryland, go to the National Cryptologic Museum, in a public area just outside NSA Headquarters. There is a memorial area with three airplanes, all shot down by Communist nations while collecting electronic and communications intelligence. Those three are representative of quite a few others.

Especially among military personnel, yes, you accept some casualties to avoid a larger war. Tell me, if it is rational to have a major military intervention because one side has captured a few soldiers, what should the US response have been to the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty?

The US Sixth Fleet would take casualties in doing it, but I would be confident that had they been ordered to retaliate, the relevant Israeli naval bases would be smoking ruins. IIRC, at least some of the attackers came from Haifa. Precision guided munitions were very rare at the time, and the Sixth Fleet may not have had any. An errant bomb, or an Israeli antiaircraft missile, could well have landed in a civilian area.

The US made some very bad tactical errors in sending an unescorted and essentially unarmed intelligence ship into a war zone. Three years or so earlier, electronic information gathering against North Vietnam was done by pairs of detroyers, with air support on immediate call. Their electronic capture gear was less extensive than on the Liberty, but if the US had needed that capability in the Gulf of Tonkin, that ship would have had a strong escort.

Nevertheless, Israel attacked a US Navy vessel, and the US did not retaliate. North Korea attacked and captured the USS Pueblo, and the US did not retaliate. What if the US followed Israeli doctrine in both cases?

What, Davai, would have happened next if the US destroyed the Haifa naval base as retaliation for the Liberty incident? That retaliation would have been more focused than the attacks by Israel in response to a much less serious incident. 34 Americans died and 173 were injured in that attack. Is that more of a justification to blast the base from which the attackers were known to have come, as opposed to the capture of fewer than 5 soldiers?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

It appears, however, from the first article you cite that both the Israelis and the Palestinians opposed the introduction of the Security Council resolution...

If you read the comments by Abbas that I posted in the news article (apparently made before the withdrawal), it sure sounds as if as late as Friday, he had no objections, and was seeing the UN resolution as confirmation of the Bush administration's seriousness.

I see what you're saying about the process, but perception is everything and this sends, at minimum, a mixed message to the Arab world about the seriousness of the negotiations, thus potentially undermining needed support. Once the resolution was on the table, it was a very bad move to withdraw it.

The claim that the Palestinians opposed it too appears to be no more than a CYA move; even the Haaretz article on the topic says that the U.S. withdrew it due to Israeli objections. Maybe, as lally suspects, the Israelis aren't as serious about peace as they claim to be. 

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

I'm sorry for not responding; I'm dealing with severe time constraints...

Let me ask you this question, what’s your plan B?
You say that that just might work. What if this doesn’t work ?
Look at Lebanon Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and on and on and on.
You see failed states or dictatorships in Muslim world.
What are the chances that future Palestinian state would be any different?
Why would not Lebanese mind own business and build a peaceful prosperous state instead of fighting each other and Israel?

If it does not work, then Israel would find itself surrounded by enemies---just as it is today---but it will have gained a great deal more sympathy from the rest of the world. I have very little sympathy for the Israel of today, but if an extraordinarly generous offer like the one I've proposed were rejected by a significant number of Palestinian young men (like >10%), then I would be wondering if we weren't actually dealing with psychosis. But there really shouldn't be much doubt about the likelihood of success if the whole thing is approached in the right way.

It will be important to encourage the Palestinian people to view the extreme generosity settlement as a supreme victory for the Palestinian People, one that they can celebrate for days in the street. The key is to get the pride thing going for the young males. Let Hamas take ownership of the deal, and let them parade around as if their steadfastness made the wonderful outcome possible. This is where the Israelis need to be clever. You want that to happen because it magnifies the chances of success dramatically. Let them take ownership of it.

Israel wins anyway, because it finally gets the peace it wanted and it gets to keep its historical land and it finally has the whole world admiring the Israeli people for their incredible display of good will (and not just Amercan politicians and Christian Armageddonists).

If you just hand tons of cash over to the Palestinians, the result would not be very favorable. Rampant inflation would simply waste away their good fortune. Hand them a nice chunk of cash, perhaps available over a period of time, but give them real things whenever possible. Valuable infrastructure, goods, and services should be made available at reasonable prices. The Israeli economy would boom like never before.

The Israelis should try to flood the New Palestine with helpers and advisors and enablers. They should be visable in a helpful role. You see, the Palestinians won't be hating the Israelis anymore. They will not feel humiliated and ashamed. And behind their smiles, they'll also be feeling some sincere gratitude toward the Israelis for making a joyful peace possible. They may not actually want to say it at first, but it will be there. You guys don't know what you're missing.

Guess that's all I have time for now...

3. What would be reaction of US to every day indiscriminate firing rockets on San Diego from Mexico? I don't know for sure, but again there would be hell to pay.

Of course there's no reason for the Mexicans to fire rockets at us because we aren't occupying their country, building American settlements on their land, controlling their borders, assassinating their leaders, or withholding their tax money.

You didn'r really answer my questions:

You see failed states or dictatorships in Muslim world. What are the chances that future Palestinian state would be any different? Why would not Lebanese mind own business and build a peaceful prosperous state instead of fighting each other and Israel?

If it does not work, then Israel would find itself surrounded by enemies---just as it is today---but it will have gained a great deal more sympathy from the rest of the world.

First of all, it might sounds silly for you but there is a difference between being nine mile wide country and being 100 miles wide country.
Second, Israel is not going to gain sympathy from Iran, and I'm not sure how your sympathy will help Israel if Israel would find itself surrounded by enemies. that can fire all over the country from the short distance.

In any case, Israel doesn't build settlements on Lebanise land.

Don't overlook the refugee camps in Lebanon for the Palestinian Arabs Israel won't let return. In their own way, these too are Israeli settlements.

It's realy own way. Therefore the war will continue until 10 millions Arabs get permission to return to Israel.
I got your point. Israel will have to do whatever it have to do to protect itself.

First of all, it might sounds silly for you but there is a difference between being nine mile wide country and being 100 miles wide country.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Thanks, Kathy.
It was very valuable to me to hear from Dr. Sider that the Hagee types are a minority of evangelicals.
Similarly, the Jewish zealots are a minority of our community.
Praise God for that!
MJ

Stay that rigid, and you have a handbook of how to protect yourself. It's called "History of Masada".

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Kathy,

The Hagee gang support the State of Israel because without it there can be no Rapture.

The Hagee loonies believe there must be a steady State of Isreal before they can be transported up to Heaven when End of Days arrives.

The item not publicized much about these good Christian folk is that on the Day of the Rapture if Jews haven't converted to Christianity and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior then they will be condemned to eternal damnation, burning in hell for eternity.

The bottom line is, Hagee's support of Israel isn't altruistic, its self serving.

Don't know . . . that seems to be a topic for negotiation. I assume fewer the more alternative compensation is provided for them.

The answer will be 0. Get over this. Accept the partition of British mandate into Jewish and Arab state and move on.

As you can see from my first comment in this post, I don't propose for Israel to be rigid.

I don't think he gets the line from party hq, he is asking questions that you have no answers.

If one of such group would get support from Venezuela and start to harass US border guards and one day capture 5 border guards and killed another five what would be US reaction?

Let's say that the same type of rockets that Hamas is using from Gaza.

There are no settlers in Gaza. Are you suggesting that Israel should re-occupy Gaza and put military observation posts, and unmanned launch sensors there?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

FYI, Maybe Israel should be afront to Jews everywhere, but it's not the case. Most of the Jews around the world as well many non Jews support of Israel and are proud of Israel.

I've brought this up multiple times and you've evaded the question every time without fail. 

Answer the question: How will negotiations ending the occupation lead to peace?  What is the evidence that Israeli concessions will lead to a change in the Arab mindset.  Please note this is NOT an argument for maintaining the status quo.  It is an argument about trying to be realistic about what strategy Israel should take to overturn the status quo.

If you really believe that getting land and signing a treaty will lead the Palestinians to give up their goal of destroying Israel, then say so.  If you are not sure what the Palestinians will do, but think Israel needs to end its occupation regardless, then say so.

Just stop saying NOTHING about this crucial issue.

If one of such group would get support from Venezuela and start to harass US border guards and one day capture 5 border guards and killed another five what would be US reaction?

"Now, India is a democratic country with Muslim minority"
... and you're a supporter of the BJP.

"If you don't think that "it would be better if all the immigrants from Europe's former colonial territories went home", what do you propose?"

I propose that you're an asshole.

I don't follow internal Indian policy closely.

I propose that you're an asshole.

Removing settlers behind the fence but keeping military control...

That's still occupation according to international law and doesn't solve anything.

You also keep referring to withdrawing Israeli settlers to "behind the fence" as if that's the border. But it's not - that's one of the things that negotiation is supposed to resolve - and the route of the fence causes additional Palestinian suffering and economic deprivation because it cuts through their villages and separates them from their agricultural lands - all to try to seize as much land as possible for Israel. Your "solution" just perpetuates the 30-year-old problem, and would likely lead to an escalation of violence rather than the reduction you claim. All Palestinians - not just Hamas - would have nothing left to lose under your plan.

Before arguing with me about this, I suggest that you read the b'tselem articles that I posted several threads back, but which you either didn't bother to read, or simply ignored.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

I expect Abbas to do exactly what Arafat did last time around. Walk out.

No, let's not assume that

Oh golly, oh gee, does that mean you think there's no point in discussions here and you might go away?

You see, Davai, it's rather a running joke how you begin a discussion not with anything that might actually require you to defend a position, but, instead, you draw from the methods of the Organs of State Security and start asking question after question, of the general form "and when did you quit beating your wife." When the questions deal with anything that actually has real parameters and boundary conditions, such as actual weapons and military doctrine, you throw out ill-considered questions.

You appear to find it most annoying when your literal question is answered in detail and it doesn't give you the answer you were setting up, so you go off with a new set of questions. I suppose that if people would patiently answer you, show you the illogic of your questions, you might -- and I consider this not to be certain -- you might actually ask loaded questions which, if answered, would give you the answer you want the very first time! On the other paw, since the answers you want are transparently propagandistic and prejudiced, there isn't a great probability many will play with you.

So, in this case, since you didn't get to set the rules and keep changing them until reality fit your preconceptions, you now huffle off and say you won't play any more. Huffle huffle huffle.

--
Howard

Ernest was an elephant, a great big fellow,
Leonard was a lion with a six foot tail,
George was a goat, and his beard was yellow,
And James was a very small snail.

Leonard had a stall, and a great big strong one,
Earnest had a manger, and its walls were thick,
George found a pen, but I think it was the wrong one,
And James sat down on a brick

Earnest started trumpeting, and cracked his manger,
Leonard started roaring, and shivered his stall,
James gave a huffle of a snail in danger
And nobody heard him at all.

Earnest started trumpeting and raised such a rumpus,
Leonard started roaring and trying to kick,
James went on a journey with the goats new compass
And he reached the end of his brick.

Ernest was an elephant and very well intentioned,
Leonard was a lion with a brave new tail,
George was a goat, as I think I have mentioned,
but James was only a snail.

[A.A. Milne, "The Four Friends"]

Reply at the end

It would be quite wrong of me to call you an asshole, and I did not. While you may be content to take command of the English language and lead it into suicidal charges, I have too much respect for the language to use it inappropriately. Calling you an asshole would be inappropriate, since the human anus has at least one useful purpose.

We don't have arguments, at least in the intellectual sense, which implies some level of equality. At some point, when I am patiently showing you the illogic of your ways, you consistently announce that you won't discuss any more, and then claim you have won the argument. Would a player simply getting up and leaving a chess game in play be consider a winner, or more likely a loser by forfeit.

Do not think that I have the slightest respect for you. I do not engage you for that reason. Rather, it is a situation where you appear to be mildly convincing about some of your absurdities, or that you have lied so blatantly that I cannot let it stand.

We have never had a meaningful argument, so it is moot to say you have won a thing. Actually, some of your inaccuracies do serve a value in presenting the facts in matters in which you flounder, so, perhaps, you have a minimal use and do qualify as an anus, after all. For that reason, I dedicate this song to you.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go" [Oscar Wilde]

Get over this.

I agree that Jewish zealots on the right and on the left are a minority of our community.
Jewish zealots on the Right don't want to change anything, Jewish zealots on the Left blame Israel for everything.

Not funny and rude. You can do better. Try again, my dearest friend Howard.

Howard,

Rather than using the word "asshole", I personally prefer "posterior opening of the alimentary canal."

Davai: The Man Who Makes Liberals Appreciate Tancredo, Dobbs and Buchanan

Sounds too long:
Howard, posterior opening of the alimentary canal.
Davai, not posterior opening of the alimentary canal.

Del

If one of such group would get support from Venezuela and start to harass US border guards and one day capture 5 border guards and killed another five what would be US reaction?

Howard, Actually we know the answer.
When 5 contractors were killed in Iraq, US leveled a nearby city. So, please don't tell me about American military manuals anymore.

As part of the occupation of Iraq, the First Battle of Fallujah, codenamed Operation Vigilant Resolve was an unsuccessful attempt by the United States Military to capture the city of Fallujah in April 2004.

The chief catalyst for the operation was the highly-publicized killing and mutilation of four Blackwater private military contractors,[5] and the killing of 5 U.S. soldiers in Habbaniya a few days earlier.[6]

On April 1, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of operations for the US military in Iraq, promised an "overwhelming" response to the Blackwater deaths, stating "We will pacify that city,"
In the opening days, it was reported that up to a third of the civilian population had fled the city

The siege forced the closing of Fallujah's two main hospitals, Fallujah General Hospital and the Jordanian Hospital, which were re-opened during the ceasefire on April 9.[35]

... As a consequence, much-needed humanitarian relief which had been held up by the fighting and blockade finally managed to enter the city,

The U.S. attacks were taking a great toll on civilians as well as the insurgents
At this point, it was estimated that 600 Iraqis had been killed, at least half of whom were non-combatants
Critics of the battle have contended that it contravened the Fourth Geneva Convention, by the use of unguided munitions targeting civilian population centres

petermschwartz52,

To be sure, they want to balance out Washington's role in all this, but I found it to be a good development. What do you make of it?

If MJ can resist the temptation to play the troll game and actually start to take his blogging seriously, I would look forward to his assessment of the Moscow proposal too.

What the fuck is wrong with you, MJ?  Is this the level of discourse (for lack of a better word) that you really want to enable beneath your own byline?  Please get a grip.

Bruce, It's your "teacher".
Would you like such a teacher for your children?

Zionista is bent out of shape because a racist idiot BUT A FELLOW JEW is being ridiculed.
Watch your language, too. Odd that someone who dubs herself ZIONISTA is the one person who uses the f-word around here. Yech.

Bruce,
Here is an example of a student of your "teacher". You children can be exactly like Sean, if they follow your "teacher".

1-They are home.
2-If you paid attention you'd know that radicalism in British Muslim communities is fed by the disaffected adolescent children of fully assimilated parents.
3- Europe has not tried to assimilate its immigrants. Jus sanguinis is still the rule in society if not in law.
4- I live in Queens NY where 46% of the population is foreign born.
They're all becoming Americanized too, quickly and well. But they're changing the country too, which is good. Still, Jus sanguinis is more foreign to this country, even at its worst, than they are. "White" is a very broad category.
Your ignorance of the world feeds your blindness about the middle east, (and vice-versa).

There are more problems in Europe, but the Europeans are more to blame than anyone.
There are problems in the middle east, but along with all the corruption in the arab states, Israel is right at the center. And remember, MJR argued that Arab democracy will be bad for Israel. And hasn't that been the argument all along?
Paranoia, defended by racist arguments.

I'm not going to play with Davai's twisting and lies. Even assuming Wikipedia is authoritative, I suggest that anyone who believes that Davai is being accurate, on such things as when the major damage occurred (See Second Battle of Fallujah), actually look at the three Battle of Fallujah articles there, perhaps at some links, and decide for yourself who is twisting history.

It should be obvious that whenever Davai is given a very specific response, he abruptly changes the subject to something quite different where he can regain, in his limited grasp, control. That often manifests itself as a barrage of loaded questions, a declaration he has won the argument, or much hand-waving.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The Jews are a distinct historic people connected with a specific territory for 4000 years. The Palestinians are not. Although there is an Arab people that are called "Palestinians", such a thing did not exist before 1948, when the Arabs rejected the name "Palestinian". Then , the word "Palestinian" meant "Jew".
Time for a pop-quiz....Let's say you are a speechwriter for Abbas. You want to tie your current leader to great Palestinians of history. Give me some names of great Palestinians of the past (one condition--you can't do like Arafat and claim Jesus was a "Palestinian"....if you asked him who he was and where he lived he would say "A Jew from Galilee and Judea")

I still don't understand what your point.
Do you support two state solution or not, do you advocate "the right of return" or not?

Hi Peter, just saw your nice note. I enjoyed doing the show. Moyers is a great man and it was a privilege to be interviewed by him.

I think the Russian involvement might be a good thing. As Daniel Levy points out. Olmert wants to be pressured by the US (so he can tell his coalition partners that he has no choice but to dismantle settlements, etc) but Bush (Abrams) won't do it. So Russia and the EU both help Olmert by leaning on him. We'll see.

Never get too optimistic about the Middle East!

It's really as simple as this: if Israel makes an all-out effort to turn the New Palestine into the most economically advanced and prosperous of all Arab states, then it will succeed in obtaining a peaceful and happy future for itself.

Iran's 'problem' with Israel would automatically disappear if the Palestinians were happy with the price that they got for the land they sold to the Israelis.

Rose-colored glasses...
Putin is returning Russia to the status of an authoritarian state. Russia's economic improvement in recent years is largely due to the big increase in the price of oil. In order to maintain a high price for oil, it is in Putin's interest that there be ongoing turmoil in the Middle East. Do you seriously think that he wants Arab/Israeli peace under those conditions?

Please specify what I said that was "absurd".

Question for the non-negotiators---How's that occupation working out for you?

I think it's hard to argue rationally that the Palestinian people--a small group--deserve a country and that Jews--a small group--do not.

If Israel was a dictatorship like Syria or Iraq under Saddam, Jews could run a country being a small minority.
I don't think that it makes any difference whether the Palestinian people are a people or not.

I agree that Arabs lived in Eretz Israel before 1948. This does not mean that they had a unique national identity. The only people who have lived in Eretz Israel since ancient times who have a unique national identity are the Jews. Now, the question is, since I oppose the "2-state solution" and "territories for peace" (which would never bring peace as more and more people, including Tony Blair are beginning to realize, at least under current conditions), the question then becomes what to do about the Arabs living in Judea/Samaria and Gaza. I have stated in the past, that Judea/Samaria should become a condominium under joint Israeli/Jewish-Arab rule with Israeli law applying to the Jews living there and Arab rule to the Arabs in conjuction with the Arab state east of the Jordan River currently called "The Kingdom of Jordan", although it may eventually come under the rule of someone else other than the current Hashemite monarchy. If and when the security situation improves, the Israeli military presence can be greatly reduced and the roadblocks opened and free passage can be granted to Arabs not just in Jude