How many 9/11 style (impact) attacks are we away from having Daniel Pipes, Boykin, and Jerry Falwell (or was it Pat Robertson?) dictating our foreign policy? One, two maybe? I mean, how many people do you think honestly believe we should nuke them all? Reading LGF and Freepers, who knows, maybe 5-10% -- right now? In the most economically, educationally, militaristically, and informationally advanced country in the history of the planet, how many people believe with little or no evidence that Saddam and Osama were in league? 70% at one point? How many people still believe it, 40-50% (don't forget to include Cheney in this group)? How many people here still believe Sadam had WMD because of some crazy conspriacy theory concoted by InstaShill -- some even on this blog?

Now, lets head over to the third-world, where undemocratic regimes are the order of the day, maybe half the population is literate, a whopping 1% are on the internet, and the entire muslim world feels like they've had several 9/11's over at the hands of America Foreign Policy (rightly or wrongly). Is it any surprise that extremists have free reign? How about we now add, that whenever moderates finaly get a leg up, America does its best to pursue policies that absolutely destroy any hope they had (c.f Iraq Occupation, Abu Ghraib). Either it was here (or crookedtimber) where I read basically no moderate movement wants anything to do with America, becacuse anti-american sentiment is nearing 100% in the muslim world. I know you're not stupid enough to believe that the primary motivating tool is life-style -- thats an extreme minority -- by far its foreign policy that is the recruiting tool Al Queda uses.

If you care at all about hearts and minds, maybe next time we head off on one of your friends misadventures, you'll take into consideration the effects on hearts and minds when they royally fuck up, before decicding to support the misadventure.

Why has their been no fatawa against Bin Laden? Because their is wide-spread support for his cause -- against American Forein Policy in the MidEast. Most people find his tactics beyond reprehensible , even if its an asymmetric war. But flipping back over to this side of the pond, you yourself have continually posted on the enormous incompetence in managing Iraq. How many Iraqi lives have died either because of Bush's domestic political manuevering or because of his absolutely, astounding, gross incompetence? Thousands no doubt. How far has he set as back in the war on terror? Years, if not a decades to undo the damage he has wrought. You know all of this. Yet, you still hold a non-zero, at last count 0.4, probability voting for Bush because you agree with his basic "philosophy" (I'll only make a snide comment here about how bush is incapable of holding any such thing for now). If you can justify Bush's unforgivable collateral damage by still possibly voting for him again (after all, they were only ragheads), im not sure where the surprise is that their is no fatawa on obl.

If you care at all about hearts and minds, maybe next time we head off on one of your friends misadventures, you'll take into consideration the effects on hearts and minds when they royally fuck up, before decicding to support the misadventure.

Is this a request to not care about hearts and minds? WMD or not, are you saying that when there are small links between a govt and terrorists that they are too small to be bothered with? How much terrorism is enough to tip you over? Are we supposed to absorb the hits because a foreign population that supported terrorists (I don't care if it was just one guy) are ignorant of how to treat their fellow man? Maybe if that nice parliament building of yours were blown to hell you'd think differently and muster up that stiff upper lip. That ignorant undercurrent has been flowing for years waiting to explode since before 1948, waiting for a excuse to flow against the West.

Ernie, here's the thing:

We have a choice, to make right now. We can try for mutual coexistence with the muslim world. Or we can try to destroy them, to kill them off.

In the short run it isn't a simple dichotomy like that, and it isn't so extreme. But in the medium run that's what it turns into. Unless we find a method for mutual coexistence, their extremists' atrocities will inflame our populations and our government's atrocities will inflame their populations and there's no obvious reason for it to reach any equilibrium short of genocide.

One method would be to arrange "zones of influence" with limited trade and no military action across the borders. We could encode all our satellite TV and such and not sell the decoders across the borders. People who cross the borders would have to understand that they are visitors and guests and have no rights beyond whatever their hosts give them.

I think this could work, except there would have to be some resolution of the palestine problem.

Another approach would be to establish friendly relations with moslem governments and their people. The deal would have to include no military attacks on either side, we let the ones who have oil sell the amount they want to sell at whatever price they can get for it, and there would have to be some resolution of the palestine problem.

What about the large links between the Likud government and settler terrorists? Maybe those links are less now that they're threatening to kill Sharon over his minor tactical readjustment.

For zionists it's no particular problem for the USA to go into genocide mode with the whole moslem world. It's the solution to a problem. But for the rest of us I think some alternatives would be better.

...establish friendly relations with moslem governments and their people.

Suddenly the raging debate about media bias in this country seems.... well, not insignificant exactly, but.... small.

I understand your feelings here, Dan, but there's a good argument to be made that we are better off with regard to media bias precisely because we DO focus on it and attempt to hold the media accountable.

I'm not sure I'd mind media bias if it were at least *intelligent* bias.

But the mass media, whether "liberal" or "conservative," offers nothing, absolutely nothing, more than content-free fluff. In a classic example of GIGO, that degrades national debate to content-free fluff. It's not that we're arguing diametrically oppposed viewpoints: we're arguing them on kindergarten terms, which bear no resemblence to reality, which means we'll never get an honest debate of events or policies.

To quote whoever it was who first came up with this one: "It's the Stupidity, Stupid!"

it happens in china too...

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4473

...as Maoism and Marxism have lost their ideological appeal, the Chinese leadership has turned to nationalism to legitimate authoritarian rule. This has included a comprehensive program of state-sponsored patriotism in the schools and mass media nurturing a sense of Chinese victimization ("a hundred years of humiliation") at the hands of the West. In recent years, these powerful emotions have focused on Taiwan and the notion that the US and Japan allegedly stole China's national patrimony.

how do you combat this? this is where media marketing and military might come together. the US needs to do a better job on the PR front before perception becomes reality or else we are going to find maintaining (nevermind promoting) US interests abroad much more difficult over the coming years & decades.

David Fleck asked, "OK, let's pick a country like Egypt. How do we establish friendly relations with both government and people given that said government and people are often hostile to each other?"

It depends on how hostile they are. It can be as difficult as staying friends with both a man and wife who're on the verge of divorce. Can be hard.

The first step is to focus on things where they both want the same thing. It would please both for us to find an adequate resolution to the problem of palestine.

That one is so important, so central, and it would do so much good, that I can safely defer suggesting other steps until we've done that one.

Well theres plenty of media bias in this side in that issue, just one example: How many times a CNN, FOX, NYT or others give air time to Arabs(muslim and not muslims) that want democracy and respect for human/women rights? Why the only characters we know from Arab world are Dictators and the respective nomenklature, warlords/gangsters of Arafat ilk(in itself promoted by western media) or the religious sort like Al-Sadr?

btw nice drudgee touch :oD

It would please both for us to find an adequate resolution to the problem of palestine

Thinking about what you've written some more, it's clear to me that we have such profoundly differing views of how the world works that further discussion is probably pointless.

(This comes from the "Economist"? Sheesh - what am I gonna find in my Shopper's Gazette next week?)

Iraq right? Iraq wrong? Y'no, if Cheney & others are right about the inevitability of another attack, then who's in our gunsights this time?

Yeah, that's a partisan shot. But this election might be about who's getting hit next, because I think that's the inevitable reaction for one of the candidates.

David,

You're telling us that $200 billion US dollars and 150,000 US troops along with probably a whole bunch of other international troops couldn't have helped solve the Israel/Palestine issue as well as won a shit-load of hearts and minds at the same time? (assuming our leaders were competent and not the idiots we currently have in office).

$200 billion US dollars and 150,000 US troops along with probably a whole bunch of other international troops couldn't have helped solve the Israel/Palestine issue as well as won a shit-load of hearts and minds at the same time?

David, I think you were right that we're too far apart on this to discuss it meaningfully.

Since Sharon's idea of a solution is to keep gaza surrounded and do occasional airstrikes, and to annex large parts of the west bank, keep the rest divided into small starving enclaves and ignore them except for occasional punitive expeditions. And he appears comfortable with leaving it there for the indefinite future.

It's telling that he gets death threats for this policy, from zionists who object to his evacuating a few settlements in gaza.

Any settlement would have to be imposed on israel, and we lack the political will. Instead we're drifting into a genocidal war with the entire moslem world.

Pinging back from http://xrdarabia.org/blog

Uh David, right! All I'm saying is, if all the America military/financial/political influence being spent in Iraq was instead spent on Israel/Palestine -- its very likely to have resolved that conflict. It would have been a tremendous strategic victory in the WoT as it would have removed one of Al Queda's primary recruiting tools.

In my mind, there is no way you could have seen the Iraq war as successful and not at the same time realized for a fraction of the total cost in blood and treasure we could have resolved one of the muslim worlds cheif complaints. I really would like to see a neo-nut try and justify prioritizing Iraq over Israel/Palestine given that there were NO WMD, and NO Al Queda.

...if all the America military/financial/political influence being spent in Iraq was instead spent on Israel/Palestine -- its very likely to have resolved that conflict...

How much influence has been spent over the last 30 years?

What's your plan?

How many US troops on the ground? And $200 billion in one year is very different from a couple billion every year.

David, the main obstacle to a palestine settlement is that the USA utterly lacks the will to promote a settlement.

Supposing we did want it settled, something roughly as follows might work:

Talk to the palestinians and suggest they ask to become a territory of the USA, with an intention toward statehood. If they do so, accept palestine as a US territory on the 1967 borders, with the promise to the PA and also to the UN that we will not give any of their land to israel.

Then we declare a no-fly zone over israel, palestine, southern lebanon, southwestern syria, western jordan, and the eastern edge of the sinai. No more israeli airstrikes on palestine. Lebanon, syria, jordan, and egypt are also suddenly much more secure.

We put US troops into palestine, pointing out that their main function is to protect US territory and its inhabitants. Here's a delicate point, we'd like to have a lot of arabic-speaking american soldiers who aren't of arab descent, and a lot of hebrew-speaking american soldiers who aren't jewish, and I don't know where we'd get them. We'd benefit greatly from quick language courses, 800-word vocabularies that cover the basics, etc.

So we'd have forces prepared to destroy israeli military offensives into palestine, and we'd set up checkpoints on the roads rather like the israeli ones except that ours would give up to 3 hour delays for traffic to and from isolated israeli settlements instead of to everyone else, and we'd search israeli vehicles for automatic weapons and confiscate any we found. When we attributed terrorist incidents to israeli settlements we'd search those settlements and confiscate their weapons; when we attributed terrorist incidents to nearby arab communities we'd search those and confiscate their weapons. Security for both would be the responsibility of the US Army. On repeated terrorist incidents we'd evacuate farflung settlements and deport the settlers. But the "bedroom community" settlers could stay, with the publicly-announced policy that the new palestinian government would have the right to tax them.

*We would set up english-language classes as widely as we could, and english-language primary schools, and remedial education for adult palestinians whose education was disrupted under the occupation.* We point out that palestinians are now US citizens who don't (yet) get to vote for US President, and they have the right to visit the USA and work there, just like citizens of samoa.

The idea is to stop israeli attacks and also do a lot to keep palestinians *busy*. They have the legal right to live in the USA and send money home, but they need skills starting with ESL and extending to everything they're weak on. That could keep a lot of young people busy, if we do it right.

This would cut down a whole lot on attacks into israel. We would do our level best to find anyone responsible for an attack into israel and punish them. They might be tried and imprisoned in the USA to avoid jury bias. We would not allow israeli reprisals. I believe that with great prospects to prepare for and no israeli reprisals, terrorist incidents into israel would die down quickly.

We'd have to work something out about land ownership. Who actually owns what in palestine? The israelis destroyed a lot of records. The new palestinian government would have to arrange something and there isn't much chance it would be done fairly. But there isn't enough water and there's no agreement with israel about water rights -- that land isn't worth a whole lot and people with better prospects might write it off.

We'd have at least a year of excitement before too many palestinians spread the word about how hard it is to find work in the USA. But US passports and english language are worth jobs somewhere. And being unemployed in the USA is a whole lot better than being unemployed in palestine. The more palestinians who're out of the country, the better. It was no good leaving under israeli occupation -- they'd be stateless, and the israelis wouldn't let them back. We could recruit some of them into the US Army. We'll still need US soldiers who can speak arabic.

Open borders with jordan and egypt would make a big difference. Of course, they'd smuggle weapons back. We'd confiscate advanced weapons as we found them, but they needn't be a big issue. They die if they invade israel, and if they give *us* too much trouble we can stop enforcing the no-fly zone. Hide them and feel safer but don't do anything to persuade us to look for them.

There would be no right of Return. As a US territory palestine would have no right to negotiate that with israel. Israel is palestine's natural biggest trade partner; it isn't clear how that would work out. There plain isn't enough water to support the number of people who're trying to live in israel/palestine. We'd need a whole lot of palestinians to live elsewhere. Under israel they can't.

It's very hard to go from apocalyptic misery to a generally mediocre existence. After the first few years that would show up as an issue. I don't know how to describe it easily. Imagine that you have an overpowering enemy who blocks you in everything, and your whole focus is on misery and revenge. Then you get past that, and there's nobody blocking you except your own limitations, and if you just put enough hours into studying accounting and thinking deeply about it, you can be upper-middle-class. Or you can do dope and make just enough money to pay for your dope. There's something *unsatisfying* about a boring peaceful life. It lacks meaning. Perhaps we could absorb some of that by allowing lawsuits against the israeli government and individual israelis, either in the world court or in US courts. Palestinians could keep alive their sense of injustice, and when they won lawsuits we could pay them out of US money earmarked for israel. It's important those feelings not get channeled into physical attacks on israel. (If class-action lawsuits are too tame, think of something else. I'm eager for suggestions.)

Palestinians would get US-supervised fair elections. At first Hamas would win pretty much across the board. Nobody can compete with them. As that organisation fades there will be new parties. Palestinians could figure out whether they wanted to head toward closer ties with the USA like hawaii, or whether they'd rather back off like puerto rico. They could even opt for complete independence which would be pretty stupid given the difficulty of defense. Their choice.

With luck, within 5 years we wouldn't need a lot of troops in palestine, and they wouldn't be facing any violence. Israel would be far more secure as would all of israel's immediate enemies. The loss of identity palestinians suffered from losing their persecutors might start to affect israelis also. A lot of their existence depends on bein0g surrounded by enemies. It doesn't exactly make sense that they'd want to become a US state too, but it made hardly more sense for utah and they did it with good results.

There are various ways it could go wrong. The entire world except israel agrees that israel does not own the occupied territories. If the USA claimed ownership would israel dispute it?

With USA owning palestine, israeli settlers who do terrorist attacks on palestinians are foreign terrorists. They no longer have a strategic purpose, and israel should disavow them. Maybe israel wouldn't budge on that.

Maybe too many palestinians would hold a grudge and keep doing suicide bombings etc in israel, and US crackdowns would turn palestinians against us so they'd attack our troops, and it would keep getting uglier. It's vital we give palestinians exciting opportunities and lots of hope and hard work. And when the excitement of success starts to pall we need to have other excitement available besides terrorism.

It could bring peace to israel/palestine. Sharon's approach brings only more death.

Well folks, a few facts should help better clarify the issue.

Osama masterminded 9-11 (are we agreed on that one, or would someone wanna claim it was a zionist conspiracy to defame islam?) and Osama's prime target was Riyadh. He excoriatyed the US for defiling the holy land by stationing troops there and vowed The house of Saud's destruction for permitting the same. He added the palestine question only later, more as an afterthought. So much for palestine being the sole reaosn for Islamist terror against the west.

Islamist attacks began well before Iraq. WTC'93, the USS cole bombing, the simultaneous bombing of 6 US african embassies... Washington never paid enough attention or seriousness and to the public, it was a far away thing anyway. Forgotten the moslem mainstream dancing in the streets after 9-11, distributing sweets et al...happenedned everywhere from Jordan to Egypt. To claim Iraq is now the leading cause of anti-US hatred is disingenuos.

As for forcibly solving the palestine problem, consider some food for thought: The Israelis against all odds (40-to-1 in numerical terms and 500-to-1 in landmass terms) fought and trounced 2 massive arab mobilizations in '67 ansd '73. Well, we know what happened after that but what if the arabs had won? I'm betting they would've rivalled the holocaust in savagery, if only they'd won. "push the jews into the sea" rhetoric would have beocme reality and the radical islamist fringe has shown on more than one occasion the penchant for taking the lead in events of this nature and staying there.

As for the said Arab 'heartfelt pain' for the Palestinians, consider how arab countires have treated palestinian refugees on their own soil - look at what Jordan, syria and Egytpt have done for them - how many rights, how much representation, how much 'normality' has been permitted the displaced Palestinians some 50 years after they first fled?

The bare truth is arab govt.s are self serving despotic regimes who're merely channeling anti0US and anti0jewish hatred to continue their sorry grip on power. Even if the palestine question were to be solved overnight, its not as if all will be hunky dory, these arab tinpots will have to find a new enemy to replace the old one in order to continue to divert the jihadist urge for warmongering.

The example on China clearly shows this dynamic at work in another non-free totalatarian state.

I'd be interested to hear what people think of the Arab media bias Dan discusses here in the context of the genocide in Darfur.

It's tempting to consider this situation separately from Arab terrorism which (if one excludes the state terrorism of the former Baathist government of Iraq) has after all taken many fewer lives. But what if the Darfur genocide and the Arab enthusiasm for terrorism are merely different aspects of the same phenomenon, a reflection of something basic and bestial in the Arab soul?

Arab media tend to respond to criticism of Arabs (when indeed it is not anticipating it) by asking, well, what about Israel or civilian casualties in Iraq or European imperialism 60 years ago. In other words, their preferred response is to change the subject. The idea that there might be something very wrong with Arab religion or culture or both is I fear not as commonly expressed in the Arab-language media as Dan suggests it is.

This ought to give us pause. Within the last century powerful European countries with some real grievances against both domestic enemies and neighboring countries plunged the world into many years of war and were responsible for some of the most shameful episodes in all of human history. They were no more inclined to self-examination than most Arabs are now. Germans and Russians in the last century did look the other way, or deceive themselves about some of the things their societies were doing, but we cannot escape the truth that on some level the things done in their name -- the German attacks on its neighbors, the Holocaust, Stalin's purges and his Gulag -- were things they wanted to be done. They felt perpetually humiliated and threatened, and the men of blood in their midst made them feel powerful.

How different is Arab terrorism and Arab genocide today? Arabs today are willing genocide in Darfur; they are willing terrorist attacks somewhere against most of the people on the planet. Other Arabs are choosing to look the other way, or choosing to deceive themselves about what is being done in their name, or at the very least are failing to confront the men of blood in their midst. Of course the scale of the harm they are responsible for is not what it was in the case of Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. Unless you are an African Muslim in Darfur, where it is exactly the same thing.

Violetta wrote: "As for forcibly solving the palestine problem, ... what if the arabs had won?"

What does that possibly have to do with it? What if the japanese had won WWII? What if Hannibal had won against Rome? What if china had won the korean war?

Are you arguing that because you think that if things were different they would have been horrible, that we shouldn't try for peace now?

Did you notice that you're changing the subject?

Zathras said, "Arab media tend to respond to criticism of Arabs (when indeed it is not anticipating it) by asking, well, what about Israel or civilian casualties in Iraq or European imperialism 60 years ago. In other words, their preferred response is to change the subject."

Zionists too?

But I wasn't criticising israelis, I was proposing a solution which would be strongly to their advantage.

Read J. Thomas's purported solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, might I ask if he has actually ever spent time in the region? Spoken with Plaestinians (not US-resident Palestinians)? Is ther a single piece of evidence that palestinians want to become a US territory, have US soldiers occupy their territory, be judged n US courts etc.?

I don't have great sympathy for Israeli occupation of Palestine, but your focus seems one-sided and your solution Panglossian or Pollyannaish.

Gene, if we were to try this approach, and if the palestinians chose not to ask for US Territory status, then the plan would fail. And it would fail-safe. No harm done.

But if we follow Sharon's plan there's no place for palestinians in that plan at all.

I have presented a plan that has some possibilities. Of *course* the focus is one-sided, the two sides have shown little interest or ability in cooperating with each other, so a plan that requires very little from one side is a good start. This plan requires almost all the flexibility from the palestinians, and the israelis mostly can just react. The more we depend on them to react positively, the less likely the plan works.

So OK, what's your plan? Do you have any idea better than "Support Sharon in whatever he decides to do"?

Right, this sounds like a good approach - give all the Hamas suicide bombers US citizenship and plane tickets to New York. Hey, maybe we can provide them with free suicide belts when they land, too! Then they'd SURELY love us!

And J Thomas's solution certainly seems to work from an Israeli perspective too. We would give Hamas free rein to kill as many Israelis as they'd like, and then we'd ALSO prevent the Israelis from doing anything to protect themselves. Great plan!

AI, no one on this board is going to arrive at a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. However, its pretty cleary if the US had spent $200 billion dollars and mobilized 150,000 troops at figuring out how to fix the Israel/Palestine problem, there would have been some semblance of sucess (also assuming we had competent people running the govt., which we dont). So next time you th ink about the war in Iraq, remeber, instead of removing Al Queda's biggest recruitment tool -- we went and helped create for them an even bigger recruitment tool. Hurray for US! And since the neo-nuts are always lementing the fact that the US cant simultatenously bomb-to-the-stone-age Syria, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia at oncce -- don't tell me we cant apply our will to fixing Israel/Palestine.

Ummmm, I just wanted to apologize to Dan for participating in this thread-hijacking. In my defense, I think the resulting off-topic comments have been educating.

JT - whatever the merits of your idea, my understanding is that the Israelis will never accept any plan that includes 1967 borders, even with an American "territory". They feel that those boundaries were simply indefensible, and they would indeed be pushed into the sea.

Zath - you and Mr. Buehner have a very dark opinion of the avg. Arab (*something basic and bestial in the Arab soul?*). Gained from observation or experience?

Wish, don't tell me that the israelis can't accept the 1967 borders *with the USA* because those borders wouldn't be defensible against us!

I frankly see no way that israel and palestine can have mutually defensible borders. The search for defensible borders and "lebensraum" didn't do germany much good, why would it work for israel?

Al, Hamas has repeatedly proposed cease fires but Sharon keeps "assassinating" Hamas leaders with usually lots of civilian casualties. You seem to assume that palestinians are simply full of irrational rage and prefer to kill themselves and israelis or americans, rather than accept hope. I suppose it's possible you're right, but how would we know until they have a chance at some sort of hope?

Any solution would require lots of palestinians to live elsewhere -- there simply isn't enough water for more than about 2 or 3 million people to live a first-world lifestyle in that area, or the aquifers will get degraded. Nor is there nearly enough water in jordan. It's possible to keep more people there by turning the deserts green with american money, but I don't want to do that for long.

So any solution requires they be allowed to leave, and allowed to come back. (Any but a Final Solution, of course.) Alternatively, perhaps someone could find a way to change the topography or change the meteorology to bring in more water....

J. Thomas:

It is obvious from your 'plan' that you feel
the Israeli's are the sole cause of the Arab-
Israeli conflict.

Don't you think that Egypt, Jordan, Syria,
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq just might
be a bit at fault for invading Israel just
a few days after it was declared a country
by the U.N.?

You seem to be a typical liberal in that you
wish to punish the successful by rewarding the
aggressors.

But, I guess in your mind, it is the Israeli's
who are at fault for simply defending themselves
against murderers.

No wonder the Islamofacists are convinced they
will win. If your 'plan' is the result of
careful analysis I suggest you should request
a refund on your educational costs. You were
obviously defrauded.

J.Thomas i dont cease to be surprised by that kind of opinions. They're completely contrary to any sense of self-preservation. Maybe the violence media news are too much for your stomach and you just want to stop them at any cost...

You just have to read Hamas leaders interviews in last 10 years to know that ceasefire is just a tactical step to rebuild it's shattered organisation? Did they abandon terrorism or their intended destruction of Israel? So why to let them have the previlege to choose when to start another fight? That is completely unethical behaviour , anti any rules of human self preservation, and irresponsible, and i am not talking just for the Israelis.

J Thomas,

Palestine a US teritory?

Change the meteorology of Palestine?

With a sense of reality like thatI think you have a bright future in the Democratic party.

I hear Kerry is looking for new campaign advisors....

"pragmatist", I am not interested in finding fault and assigning blame. I'm interested in finding a solution.

Since no solution can be politically acceptable in israel, any solution must proceed without political approval from israel.

No detailed solution can be politically acceptable in palestine, so they must hand over policy to a third party, one strong enough to make it stick and generous enough that they don't revolt too much.

Any solution must allow and encourage large numbers of palestinians and/or israelis to leave the area, without unacceptable international side-effects like ethnic cleansing. Hardly anyone would be in position to promote that except the USA, even if someone else could arrange for palestinians to leave and be allowed back.

It's silly for you to call palestinians the "aggressors". At this point it's a positive-feedback loop, where the israeli government makes attacks which officially retaliate for recent terrorist attacks which are retaliation for previous israeli attacks etc. Break the cycle and there's a chance to stop the violence. But stopping the violence is not a goal of the Likud regime.

????s, I have no idea how to change the meteorology of israel/palestine. I point out that unless the meteorology is changed there is not enough water for the people who live there already, and the aquifers are being degraded now.

Incidentally, it is ridiculous for israel not to allow palestinians to have sewage treatment systems when the aquifers are shared. Think about it.

If palestine were to become a US territory various necessary things would become possible which are not possible now. Israel need have no worry about military attacks from jordan, syria, egypt, or anyone else through US territory, for example. And the occupation is very bad for israel; who else could they possibly trust to occupy palestine in their place?

It would require that the PA request territory status, which I consider rather unlikely. And it would require that the USA accept it, which would be impossible unless the zionists accepted it, since basicly nothing happens in the US legislature that AIPAC wants not to happen.

So it looks like a long shot. But do you see any proposal that has even a tenth as likely a chance of working as this one?

Note that Sharon has repudiated the road map that the USA put so much faith in, so we're back to square zero again on that approach.

J Thomas:

There you go again. The Zionists are running
the US congress. So ... now that Israel has
crushed the Intifada our Congresses Zionist
masters will allow Palestine to become a US
State?

Proposing an totally irrational idiotic
solution may work when you are on the debate
team. But your 'solution' fails as soon it
it contacts 'reality'.

I have some advice for you.

Don't quit your day job. And stay away
from heavy machinery while you are still on
those medications, ok?

"pragmatist", I didn't say that zionists run the US Congress. I said they have a veto, which is a different thing.

I don't know whether zionists would allow palestine to become a US Territory or not. I haven't asked them. It seems plausible that they would not.

You say that my peace plan fails when it contacts 'reality'. But what it's hypothetically contacting here is not reality, it's hypothetical zionist obstruction. If we assume that zionists will not allow any peace then we can assume there will be no peace.

I ask again, what's your peace plan? Should we support Likud in maintaining the status quo, forcing palestinians into ever-smaller reservations while both populations increase and the water supply dwindles?

Should we support Likud in ethnic cleansing?

Should we support Likud in genocide?

Do you have some other idea?

J Thomas i think you have a problem with words meanings also...

There have been less death on both sides since begining of Staged intifada than from car accidents in my country in same period of time.

J. Thomas wrote:

"Should we support Likud in ethnic cleansing?
Should we support Likud in genocide?
Do you have some other idea?"

Do you think what the Likud is doing is either
ethnic cleansing or genocide? Silly me, I
thought that Likud was just a POLITICAL party.

I think you have confused them with HAMAS. Whose
stated goals are the destruction of Israel and
the Jewish people.

Again I suggest you immediately request a total
refund of any and all funds you spent on your
"education". You were obviously duped into
thinking you learned ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.

And do you really think the Zionists have
Veto power over the US Congress?

What are you smoking and why aren't you
sharing it?

And I do have another idea. It starts
with the Arabs recognizing the legitimate
rights of the Israelis to live in peace
within secure borders. Since the Saudis
and Syrians and Lebanese and Iraqis are
still at war with Israel from 1948, I think
those vile dictatorships - whom you so
lovingly support - should renounce terror
and violence and support peaceful negotiation.

J. Thomas - plase remove your head from your
bowels before you respond. It's dark in there
and its definitely effecting your rationality.

lucklucky, I believe there may have been fewer violent deaths in iraq in the last year than auto accidents in my country, also.

For that matter there have been fewer deaths in Chechnya recently (only 8% of the population) than auto accidents in my country.

There were fewer US military deaths in vietnam the worst year of the war than auto accidents in my country.

Do you have some sort of point? You have utterly failed to make it, whatever it might be.

What is your proposal?

"pragmatist" attemmpted to confuse the issue, "Do you think what the Likud is doing is either
ethnic cleansing or genocide? Silly me, I
thought that Likud was just a POLITICAL party."

No, Likud's current plan is to treat palestinians rather as the USA treated native-americans. Herd them onto small reservations without enough food or sanitation or medical care, and kill any who resist.

The Likud cabinet has discussed ethnic cleansing, to be carried out by the israeli military which is currently under Sharon's direction, and some members of Sharon's cabinet are strong advocates of that approach.

"J. Thomas - plase remove your head from your
bowels before you respond. "

"Pragamatist" you ignorant slut, you should follow your own advice. ;)

"And I do have another idea. It starts
with the Arabs recognizing the legitimate
rights of the Israelis to live in peace
within secure borders."

OK, please go into more detail. It seems pretty unlikely that lebanon, syria, or saudi arabia would attack israel -- the israeli army is far stronger than any combination of arab armies, they have the latest US military technology including secrets we would strongly have preferred they did not share with Russia.

I proposed a method to prevent arab armies from attacking israel, and a method to eliminate palestinian freedom-fighter attacks on israel, and an approach to getting palestinians interested in something else altogether. And most of it depended only on the USA, not on anybody else's short-term good will. All it needs is palestinian and israeli permission.

Your plan appears to prevent arab armies from attacking israel, on the assumption that arab nations have a change of heart entirely on their own initiative with nothing else changing first. What do you think would or should happen after that?

J. Thomas:

I am going to stop posting on this thread. It
is completely obvious you haven't a clue to the
history of the conflict by stating this:

"It seems pretty unlikely that lebanon, syria,
or saudi arabia would attack israel ..."

Please, for your own good, pick up a history
book that describes the conflict in 1948. That
is EXACTLY what happened. Along with Jordan
and Egypt.

Rewarding the Arab Dictatorships by punishing
Israel is rewarding naked agression. But, I
supppose, since it's only Jews who will be
dying, you simply don't care.

And I find it interesting that you have a
source deep with in the Israeli government.
When you post garbage like this direct quote:
"The Likud cabinet has discussed ethnic
cleansing, to be carried out by the israeli
military which is currently under Sharon's
direction, and some members of Sharon's cabinet
are strong advocates of that approach."
it convinces me - and not doubt other readers
of this thread - you are are a complete moron.
This is the exact same crap I continually see
from A.N.S.W.E.R. and Palestinain Solidarity.

Is your source for this garbage Dan Rather?

Before Bush invaded Iraq there were continual
posts that Israel would use the cover of the
invasion to 'ethnically cleanse' the West Bank.
It didn't happen. It won't happen - except, of
course, in your nasty little imagination.

J. Thomas don't bother responding with more
of your totally anti-Israel crap.

If you can't PROVE that Israel - or the Likud -
intends Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing - your
continued posting of such blood libels makes
you no different from the Nazis.

For the sake your immortal soul I hope you
stop posting such outright lies. Otherwise
you look forward to an eternity spent in
the smoking section.

I will pray for you.

""It seems pretty unlikely that lebanon, syria,
or saudi arabia would attack israel ..."

Please, for your own good, pick up a history
book that describes the conflict in 1948."

56 years ago. Now israel is far stronger than all arab armies put together, *as it was then too*. You are bringing up utter irrelevancies.

"Rewarding the Arab Dictatorships by punishing
Israel is rewarding naked agression."

Who has said anything about punishing israel? What imaginary enemies have you been talking to? Not me.

"If you can't PROVE that Israel - or the Likud -
intends Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing - your
continued posting of such blood libels makes
you no different from the Nazis."

http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.01/news2.html
Here is a member of the Likud cabinet who publicly campaigns for ethnic cleansing. It took me 3 minutes on Google to find this. I will retract the claim that he has ever discussed this in the Cabinet since my 3-minute search did not find proof and a longer search is hardly justified given your position as an american-hating zionist.

The original discussion here was about muslim opposition to the "islamist" movement. If we can foster sufficient opposition we will not in the foreseeable future find it necessary to nuke the entire middle east (except israel). I can't expect you to agree, but I claim it is also in israel's interest that the entire middle east apart from israel not get nuked. Israel would be far better off living in peace with arabs, or even living in mutual dislike, than to sit on the edge of a nuclear wasteland.

Israel is a problem for arabs because their media show them daily pictures of israeli bulldozers demolishing palestinian homes, israeli airstrikes killing arab children, israeli checkpoints keeping pregnant palestinian women from reaching hospitals, etc. American media doesn't show that, we only see the occasional suicide bomber. But we don't really have the technology to censor the arab media.

The USA would be better off with a fair, peaceful solution to the israel/palestine problem. So would israel. So would palestine. So would egypt etc.

But israel is not willing to allow such a thing because they are not willing to give up the west bank. Their security concerns don't really make sense. Right now are they facing more trouble from the palestinians in palestine or the ones in lebanon, syria, jordan, or egypt? It's the ones in palestine, the others don't slip past israel's borders with suicide belts etc. What's one more poor pipsqueak arab nation? No real threat. The issue is moving israeli settlers out of samaria and judea.

Some israelis claim that arabs are crazy and will never settle for less than taking over all of israel and pushing all the israelis into the sea. This is an article of faith among israelis who refuse to settle for less than all of samaria and judea.

Zath - you and Mr. Buehner have a very dark opinion of the avg. Arab. Gained from observation or experience?
I've lived in Saudi Arabia and Iran, Zath's "dark opinion" and observations match mine. I have far more respect for Iranians than Saudis; at least the Iranians work for a living.

A significant portion of the problem with the Palestinians, is that no country which has accepted them as refugees, is willing to let them become citizens. They have been used as pawns to make Israel's life miserable for the last 50+ years, and will continue to do so.

As pretty much the only country in the world that welcomes refugees, something that *might* be feasible would be to welcome them to the US. Not settlement camps, but real, honest immigration. Even the guilty ones. Alas, that idea flies in the face of the new american racism which is to demonize all things arab.

An total moron posted:

"56 years ago"

He is an idiot. Saudi Arabia, Syria,
Lebanon and Iraq are STILL at War with
Israel. Right now. Not 56 years ago.

But the dolt did retract his lie that the
Israeli cabinet ever discussed ethnic
cleansing. Even so, there is a bit
of a credibility problem for this p.o.s.

He stated another easy to contradict lie:
"... israel is not willing to allow such
a thing because they are not willing to
give up the west bank."

That wasn't 56 years ago. Barak offered
that when Clinton was President. This
guy is so totally clueless he must be
a member of Hamas. He certainly is
a supporter of terror.

This clown can't even push clever lies. And
he refuses to admit he is totally uneducated
when it comes to the middle east. He must
have been a Dean supporter. I hope he will
be totally crushed with the landslide
victory President Bush will win on November
2nd.

"Pragmatist", you are becoming incoherent with rage. Chill out, pal.

None of the nations you're talking about has launched an attack on israel for a very long time. They couldn't possibly come out even, israel can hit them a whole lot harder than they could possibly hit israel. You're talking irrelevancies. Get a square deal for palestine and you can expect everybody else to settle down to normalise relations. But you're so set that you can't give up samaria and judea that you can't even think about it. Sad.

I didn't *retract* that the israeli cabinet has discussed ethnic cleansing. I just don't want to bother to find evidence. If you like I'll agree to call it unproven.

And Barak didn't offer to give up the west bank. Barak offered to make an offer to give up much of the west bank. He wanted Arafat to agree to his proposal-for-a-proposal without ever actually making the proposal. I don't know what would have happened if Arafat had made his own proposal-for-a-proposal. Maybe they could have worked something out that way.

I'll ignore your slanders. Maybe you should take a break from blogging for a while? Get outside, take some nice walks in the fall weather? (Or if you're in the southern hemisphere, the spring weather.) You're taking this stuff too seriously. Don't let it affect your health.

Simply amazing. Someone makes an outrageous,
untrue statement. Cannot find a shred of
evidence to back up his lies. And claims
that, at best, they are unproven.

Your standard for evidence does make you fit
to be a Nationally Noted CBS Anchorman.

NOT ACCEPTABLE. You are a LIAR until you
can PROOVE your charge.

I'm sure you don't care at all since integrity
means nothing what-so-ever to you.

I prayed for you last night. I won't waste
my thought on you tonight. The murder victims
whose deaths you encourage with your
hatred need it more.

Zionist, you have no evidence that the thing you claim is untrue is actually untrue. Not a shred of evidence.

I do not claim it's true because a 3-minute search didn't find it and I didn't want to devote the time to something that no reasonable person would expect to be false, and which you would shrug off anyway.

So I do not claim it is true or false and I'm willing to call it unproven. You, with no evidence of any sort, claim that it is false and call me a liar for calling it unproven.

You have no integrity and poor logic skills.

You have gone off on this stupid tangent, probably because you can't handle the topic that you blew up over. A collection of zionists who are unwilling to give up any of samarie and judea are holding all of israel hostage -- some of them are assassins, one of those killed Rabin and they are threatening Sharon for removing settlements that have no strategic, military, diplomatic, or economic value.