Bush admitting regret, and now this. Signs and wonders.

I hope this voice of reason actually gets listened to. We have too much "love" and NO "tough" (or "smart," as mythbuster puts it).

-- Cris
My site: Obama Wallpaper Archive

I have just one little observation from some comments above. In speaking of the US and the EU YBD said "The Palestinians have them over a barrel." I would transpose that statement to read: "Israel has the US over a barrel". Always has. (not so much the EU). Has the US ever dared to threaten to cut off the BILLIONS given annually to the state of Israel over these many decades, money that comes with few if any strings attached? Meanwhile Israel enjoys one of the highest living standards in the world and is now the second largest arms exporter in the world. Why do they need all this free help in perpetuity? Many seem to think they are our 51st. state. I'll say this, their representatives are masters of the PR game.

When was the last time a US administration dared taking any meaningful steps to get Israel to make real concessions to the Palestinians? By real I mean like stop building settlements in land seized in 1967, stop demolishing Palestinian homes without justification, stop building a wall in territory that all recognize as located on occupied territory and that is slowly choking the Palestinians to death. All we seem to hear about is how evil and retrograde the Arabs are, esp. the Palestinians, and how they will never concede anything while the Israelis are the virtuous ones with all the "generous offers".

Terrorism is a symptom of oppression and a last resort for those who perceive they have nothing left to lose. Get rid of the oppression and terrorism will quickly abate.

Look at the wrath endured by Mearsheimer and Walt when they dared to publically examine US policies toward Israel in an objective way. Even a respected organ like the Atlantic Monthly quickly withdrew their offer to publish their work in fear of retaliation.

I would say about 95% of the US Congress would never dare take any steps to invoke the ire of the Israel "lobby". Just ask Paul Finley or Charles Percy.

There will never be peace between Israel and the Arab world until Israel gives up its goal of ethnic cleansing of all the land between the sea and the Jordan. And only the United States has the power to enforce a just peace in this region.

Now I don't expect several of the posters here to agree with anything I have said but for those with an open mind perhaps some changes will become possible. And do I need to say I don't hate the Jews? I don't. I deeply respect those open minded liberal Jews, like many here, who dare speak out on these issues. In the final analysis they are the ones who just might make the difference.

I want Israel to flourish in safety and peace but this will never happen until there is true justice for all involved.

Maybe we can agree that the name-calling doesn't advance anyone's actual argument. To me, it only signals a closed mind.

I tend to agree with what Olmert said, BUT that is only part of the picture, kind of like one hand clapping.

It is no answer to the statements of Iran's President about Israel itself being a cancer, and Iran's impending nuclear weapons, to say the settlements are a cancer and Israel has the bomb.

Israel is not saying the Palestinians must be destroyed, and all their land taken. Even the settlements take up a relatively small portion of the West Bank (and no longer any part of Gaza.) And yes, I know there is a problem of contiguity, and other problems. Like I said, I mostly agree with Olmert on this, and have long thought that Israel should get out of the West Bank for many reasons.

Israel has needed the bomb, although if it ever had to use it the circumstances would be pretty hopeless.

In terms of US aid to Israel, most of it is loans. Israel has protected US security interests--especially during the Cold War.
Why the criticism of Israel's high standard of living? They took a desert and built a nation. Israel's standard of living is not dependent on loan aid, although the loans and any other aid certainly helps.

On the other hand, no one disputes that much of the aid money going to the PA has been used for military build ups, youth "education" in hate, and incitement.

The USA has given billions to Egypt, with no strings, and not much help to the US, either. Egypt remains a repressive dictatorship, which in fact sponsors continued antisemitic propaganda on state-controlled media.

Jordan is somewhat different, and offers some hope for peaceful coexistence.

Finally (for this post) the Reagan administration was pretty tough on Israel, tying loan guarantees to settlement activity. That may be a good path for Obama, but any real results will only be achieved if the Palestinian political leadership is willing to accept Israel and engage in building up a nation of peace.

"Israel is not saying the Palestinians must be destroyed, and all their land taken"

No, they would never say that but it is an unacknowledged and obvious goal of the Zionists. Since this cannot be accomplished by direct genocide it has to be done surreptitiously and is documented in the writings of many of the early Zionists. As they say, "facts on the ground" will accomplish the same goal and it has been happening for 60 years.

"In terms of US aid to Israel, most of it is
loans."

According to Mearsheimer and Walt and accompanied by extensive documentation: "as of 2005, direct U.S. economic and military assistance to Israel amounted to nearly $154 billion (in 2005 dollars), the bulk of it comprising direct grants rather than loans". They go on to point out: "...the actual total is significantly higher, because direct U.S. aid is given under unusually favorable terms and the United States provides Israel with other forms of material assistance that are not included in the foreign assistance budget." These aid packages did not begin in earnest until after the Six-Day War in 1967. The authors add: "Since 1974, some or all of U.S. military aid to Israel has been in the form of loans for which repayment is waived. Technically, the assistance is called loans, but as a practical matter, the military aid is grant." And further: "Israel became the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in 1976, a position it has retained ever since." The documentation for all this is widely available.

"Why the criticism of Israel's high standard of living?"

It isn't a criticism, just a mere statement of fact which certainly raises the question of why this uncondiditional financial aid has continued all these many decades. Israel's expansionist agenda would change in an instant if this aid were to be threatened by meaningful stipulations.

I don't mean to belabor all this but any discussion like this should be clear on what is fact and what is opinion.