Shorter Drezner:
Billionaire supporters of Israel give $Millions every year to US politicans--and destroy any US politican (Howard Dean, Cynthia McKinney,etc.)
brave enough to suggest a more evenhanded policy toward the Palestinians. How much do the Palestinans give to US politicans?

Even Shorter Drezner:
Congress and the President are ..er.."market driven".

The best government money can buy. They'll even throw in a hug for Todd Beamer's sobbing widow for free.

Walter Russell Mead is a very smart man--except on this issue. He is taking these Arabs far too seriously when they complain about the Palestinian problem. First of all, most of these people hypocritically cannot stand the Palestinians on a person basis! Their yelling and screaming is merely a way to engage in a bit of self delusion and self pity. Arabs prefer to scapegoat and find fatuous excuses for their backwardness. it’s always somebody else’s fault. If it’s not the Palestinians, then it will be something else. We must demand that the Arabs grow up and act like adults.

Here’s what you have to do. Kill and jail the Palestinian militants. That’s all there is to it. Why is Arafat still breathing? This will improve the overall economy, and allow the Palestinian moderates the freedom to make peace with their Jewish neighbors.

Dear Dan,

If you have just figured out that Palestine is a sore on the face of American regional credibility you really are behind the curve Dan!!!

All my life, I have as a conservative and attendee of a Calvinist church been quite pro-Zionist in my views.

I think that:
(i) Isreal has an absolute right to existence
(ii) Isreal has the right to nuclear deterrent
(iii) That not only Palestinians but Isreali Arabs should be expelled from the borders of Isreal to create a demographically Jewish State (with hardship exemptions for previous marriages).

This I think is pretty hard-core support.

However even I think that Isreal is going too far. If they need to, they can build a wall on a line proposed by Ehud Barak, which cedes most of the West Bank. They can annex the Gaza and set up a resettlement fund to move the people to the West Bank or buy land from Egypt on the Sinai to form a realistic Palestinian state.

However what they are doing now is nothing less than shameful. The Palestinians ought to have their own viable state. The final status does not have to be negotiated, but it does have to be at least crudely fair.

Isreal's present policies are not that. Forget a moment about the corrupt political leadership and radicals. The average Palestinian is suffering terribly from hunger, economic poverty, and despair of ever having a viable nation-state with true sovereignty.

A unilateral imposed final settlement can work if Isreal commits itself to giving the Palestians a viable parcel of land to work with, even if it has to buy land from the Sinai penninsula to resettle them there.

What is happening now is inhumane, and it is hypcrotical given the Jewish experience in Europe. To put it simply, Sharon has gone too far.

I guess this might be the an appropriate time for me to share my most recent realization concerning the American political parties and the Israeli situation. The Republicans basically conclude that Israel is responsible for no more than 20% of the blame: the Jews want to live in peace with their Arab neighbors, and few of their citizens are nihilists. What do the Democrats tacitly, if not even explicitly, believe? They erroneously put the blame equally at 50/50. This is pure madness. I will be blunt: it makes little sense for American Jews to normally vote for a Democrat candidate. They are, however, often living in a time warp.

" a senior Western diplomat with years of experience in the Middle East told me. "
How much does get per annum to push this line to the exclusion of the historical context?

Don Williams

And how many billions have the Saudis, for example, spent on US politicians?

Wow, I'm amazed that this would be coming from Walter Russell Mead of all people. In every single thing I have ever read about the Palestinians in the Middle East, the Arabs despise the Palestinians and look upon them as Europeans looked on gypsies and thieves, and treat them as though they are human waste. They're almost universally despised. I cannot believe Mead is actually taking these nonsense claims of "bias" seriously.

Even handed?

Comon, Don, you should know better. If anything, Clinton at least, pursued a policy which was distinctly anti-Israel.

From Oslo to Camp David, Clinton has pushed Israel to the bargaining table, and pressured her to give up vital strategic and cultural assets she has no business giving away, if survival is at all on her agenda. Ehud Barak, by his giving into Bill Clinton (who, along with his staff including Jim Carville, did much to put Barak into office), has done little more than demonstrate just how empty the Palestinians' peace talk really is.

Consider Camp David;

At Clinton's insistence, Barak offered Arafat the keys to the kingdom; just about all of the West Bank and Gaza, plus East Jerusalem and even Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. How do the peace loving Palestinians respond? Where did all this capitulation to terrorist demands, and bullying of Israel get us?

Their leader, Yasser Arafat turned it all down, and gave us another few nights of headlines, filled with kids in the street throwing stones, and being shot, occasionally. He also sent his armed forces, (You recall, they're supposed to be policemen?) to fire at the Israelis, apparently hoping for an excuse to tell the rest of the world how Israel is a war-mongering nation, and to curse America for supporting her against the terrorism that the Palastinians support.

Of course that should have been a signal to about anyone with a brain that he didn't give a damn about peace. All he and his followers are interested in is the destruction of Israel, and the peace talks were a ruse.

And isn't that exactly what Hamas says in heir charter?

Article 7: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."

Article 13: "So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement ... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad [holy war]."

At what point do we stop weeping about how the west is the aggressor, and start dealing with the fact that we are under unrelenting attack by an outright insane group of people that don't WANT peace??

That said, comments here about the connection between the PLO and it's followers, and AlQuieda and it's followers should not be discounted.

Witness, please; Clinton, far from being firm with the Arabs, was giving them just what they wanted, following the World Trade Canter bombing in 1993; legitimacy, to use as a tool against us. Ironic; he's supposed to be representing US. And to boot, we were ripping Israel apart for them.

I have stated several times, that Clinton's sole purpose here was to save his legacy. But how to achieve his goal? By bowing to Arab terrorists, and bullying Israel into giving in. So, while that's going on, everything is sweetness and light. America decides to elect George W Bush, who will (rightly) support Israel and the Arabs aren't too happy.

And since Clinton also decimated our military, our ability to mount a credible defense, and had the hands of our CIA and NSA, and FBI so completely tied as to encourage attack... here come the planes.

Boom.
Boom.
Boom.
And, splat.

Sorry, I have no sympathy whatever for the Palastinians and their 'cause', nor for their defenders here in the US. Need I remind any of you that Arafat just this monring kicked a group of terorist suicide bmbers out of his office in Ramalah because he thought Israel was going to come in and take them.. They'd been there, literlaly for months.

Now, I suppose it will be argued that Arafat doesn't represent the interests of the Palastinian people. If that's true, why have they not removed him?

The purposes of Arafat in the 'peace' process have been shown over time to be nothing more than an effort to gain time to mount further attacks against us, and to gain followers. Even the most superficial of studies of the patterns invlolved with any of the Palastinian leadership, including Arifat, and his Fatah party, will show this quite clearly. It's in their charter, for god sakes...

When Israel bumps Arafat off, as they should... I can't help but wonder at the number of lives that would be saved, if they didn't also call in a massive airstrike on the resulting funeral riot.

I'm sorry, but I'm out of generousity with those people.

We have determined that Arafat is terminally unable to negotiate in good faith. So...who do you negotiate with, who do you talk to?

Until that question is settled by the Palestininan people or their elites, forget about road maps, consultation. It's moot.

The annoited representatives of the Palestinian people responded to Barak's dream of peace with lies, passive aggressive "negotiation", and then terror. Until new annoited representatives are in place, how is there to be any negotiation? And don't the Palestinians have to come up with those themselves?

P.S. When Castro dies, will al those who trumpet right of return for the Palestinians be backing up the demands of Cuban emigres wanting their sugar plantations back? I wonder.

I hate to be pedantic, but there are some syntax issues going on with this post.

First commenter to find the mistake gets a gold star.

I believe the Bush Administration has just clarified their position on the Palestinians Wednesday when he spoke to the Newspaper Association of America in Washington, D.C..

President Bush was firm and resolute in the backing of Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal plan. He described the hesitancy of the arab world and their present lack of leadership from within. He issued these words:

"Ariel Sharon came to America and he stood up with me, and he said, We are pulling out of Gaza and parts of the West Bank. In my judgement, the whole world should have said, “Thank you Ariel, now we have a chance to begin the construction of a peaceful Palestinian state.” There was kind of, silence, wasn’t there. Because the responsibility– it’s hard… it’s hard to be responsible for promoting freedom and peace when you’re used to something else. If you don’t have the aspirations of the people firmly embedded in your soul, it’s hard to take a gamble for peace, by putting the institutions of a free society in place, institutions that are bigger than the people."

He had this to say on the legacy and historical context of the Palestinians and their leaders about how history would see them:

"The Palestinian leadership has failed the people year, after year, after year. And now is the time for the world to step-up and take advantage of this opportunity and help to build a Palestinian state that is committed to principles of individual rights, and the rule of law, fairness and justice."

That certainly doesn't sound biased against the concerns and affairs of the Palestinian people to me. On the contrary, it sounds active, resolute, firm and sure.

That certainly doesn't sound biased against the concerns and affairs of the Palestinian people to me. On the contrary, it sounds active, resolute, firm and sure.

It does indeed, DeWaun... for all the complaints about mr. Bush in that area, he's certainly not the monster hte left makes him on the matter.

I just wish I shared his optimism about there beng a seperation ebtween the wishes of hte Palastinian epople, and the Palastinian leadership. I don't see any, myself. As a result I come out on a hrder line than does Mr. Bush. and I wonder if that won't be his undoing, in the end.

Hi, Dan. I think Sharon plan backed by Bush is the greatest opportunity for palestinians to get rid of their corrupt leadership and begin a democratic state building.
Do you really think that America is kicking the palestinians in the balls? I can't believe you do.

I have not yet read the Mead piece, but I couldn't help but notice that Dan did not make any mention of the fact that this President Bush is the first U.S. president to agree that the Palestinians have the right to their own sovereign state.
In other words, President W has done more to show he cares about the Palestinians than any before.
And how do these Palestinians respond to such a concession? With suicide bombers continuing to kill innocent Israelis.

How do the other Muslims of the region respond to this concession? By launching suicide attacks throughout the world.

Why should we care about them? To encourage them to continue the murder?

(1) The Arabs couldn't care less about the "rights or needs of the Palestinian people." They use them as a weapon in their relentless effort to destroy Israel--period.

(2) If the Palestinians are to receive "financial compensation" for "lost property"--is there to be similar compensation for the Jews (and Christians) driven out of their homes in Arab countries? And, if so, will this money, too, have to come from the West? Would it be too much to ask the Arabs, who care so darned much about the poor, victimized Palestinians, to throw in a couple of bucks?

(3) There are two reasons that "Millions of Palestinians are stateless." The first is that, whenever the Palestinians have been offered a state, they have rejected it. The second is that their brother Arabs don't want them as fellow citizens, but only as a weapon to use against Israel. (Think of the Arab countries--Jordan, Lebanon, and Kuwait, among others--that have driven out their Palestinian populations.)

(4) "The new Palestinian state will need financial help." Yeah, so Palestine's "leaders" can maintain and expand their Swiss bank accounts.

(5) "Many Palestinians are poor and lack skills." Maybe things would improve if they spent more time building a decent society and less time marching, yelling, shaking their fists in the air, and plotting the murder of Jews.

(6) As to Palestinian dependence on UN charity, and Mead's question about who will replace the UN as caregiver if and when "peace comes": Allow me to suggest that the Palestinians could try independence, self-reliance, individual initiative, capitalism, liberal economics, rule of law, and all that. This might even be better than living off handouts from taxpayers in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Its also ironic to note that these same people in Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, etc don't particularly like the Palestinians either. Otherwise why have they been living like they have for the past several decades? Can't tell me the other Arab countries couldn't have worked together and helped their fellow brethen out? I honestly think the US cares more about the Palestinians than any other country in the world, including the Palestinians themselves.

The Palestinians are and have always been used by other Arabs as a means of deflecting attention from their tryannies at home. Mead's latest book is disappointing and his conclusion here is ludicrous.

There is nothing, nothing, we can do concerning the Palestinians which will in any way change this situation save turning them into radioactive debris. The problem lies elsewhere - the Arabs' loser tribal culture and its political consequences - tryanny, backwardness and mass psychosis. The Palestinians' particular homicidal psychosis was created and fostered by non-Palestinian Arabs, as well as Palestinians, as a means of controlling the Palestinians and obtaining political influence over other Arabs.

Mead's proposal would foster the Middle East's status quo. Our security at home requires that this status quo be utterly overthrown. That will happen. Awful lessons in what power really is are coming. The only question concerning America's victory over terror is how many Arabs survive the experience.

Mead's preface in his latest book refers so favorably to the Council on Foreign Affairs that his co-option here is obvious. He and they are trapped inside the box of conventional thinking. They can't see outside it.

A rotation of America's foreign policy elite is coming too. They have failed to deliver security. They cannot restore security. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution, and they will be replaced by people who can do the job.

David Thomson,

You write that "it makes little sense for American Jews to normally vote for a Democrat candidate."

This gets back to where the loyalty of American Jews lies. American Jews are Americans, not Israelis, despite whatever claims Israel may make upon them. Israel may not be their single issue. Many American Jews seem concerned more about Bush's domestic policies than the differences in each party's pro-Israel policy.

But then, I live in New York, where Bush freaks out everyone around me.

The Mead piece touched on the misgivings I had about Bush's agreement with Sharon. Mostly these center around the details, which I'm reasonably sure Sharon has thought about and Bush has not.

Consider one relating to the right of return for '48 exiles. Granted this is not realistic in the context of American support for the Jewish state; in my view we might as well say so. What about the question of compensation for seized Arab property?

AM (perhaps inadvertantly) suggested a powerful reason for American leaders to discuss this issue publicly as a key issue in future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Fidel Castro will die soon; thousands of Americans have property claims against the Communist government. It would be undesirable to suggest -- by dismissing Palestinian claims for compensation out of hand -- that claims against the Cuban government should also be dismissed out of hand instead of being negotiated. Such a precedent would not matter to Israel, but it is of some important to the United States, and American interests are what the President ought to be looking after.

Now, I don't think Bush has dismissed Palestinian claims in this area. I think he hasn't considered the subject at all. His history suggests a man with a real distaste for complicated situations that require thought, giving people he likes personally (in this case, Sharon) less than they want, and simple hard work. Dramatic decisions are to Bush the simplest, easiest way to escape these situations; lack of follow-up on his part to these decisions, by now, is something we can almost take for granted (there is an interesting contrast here to Clinton, who was liable to consider all aspects of a subject from all angles as a means of avoiding decisions he knew some people would oppose).

In any event, the bottom line on the Palestinian issue is that Mead is right. I don't think much of the Palestinians either, to be perfectly truthful, and if it were possible would be perfectly content to exile the lot of them to South Georgia Island until they shaped up. But it isn't possible; we can't just hold our collective breath until Palestinian Arabs start to resemble the Wausau, Wisconsin city council. We have to deal with them now as they are, and that means suggesting ways to accomodate or at least acknowledge their interests.

“Wow, I'm amazed that this would be coming from Walter Russell Mead of all people.”

Walter Russell Mead is first, last, and foremost, a “moderate” Democrat. He’s a sharp cookie, but a so-called mainstream academic is to suppose say a lot of stupid things. Oh wowie, I guess I must reiterate my previous point one more time: the consensus viewpoint of these folks is that the blame is 50/50 regarding the Palestinian mess. This is idiotic, but that’s why we have professional academics. They keep us entertained. Also, the Palestinians are not blue eyed and blond haired. They are racial and religious minorities. It would be so much easier if they were Louisiana red necks. Can’t you see it now? How does “Bubba” Arafat sound?

“We have to deal with them (the Palestinians) now as they are, and that means suggesting ways to accomodate or at least acknowledge their interests.”

How does this sound?:

“We have to deal with them (the Nazis) now as they are, and that means suggesting ways to accomodate or at least acknowledge their interests.”

Am I exaggerating? Nope, the real Palestinian leadership is racist and nihilistic. It is very similar to the Nazis. This is why they must be either killed or jail.

“This gets back to where the loyalty of American Jews lies. American Jews are Americans, not Israelis, despite whatever claims Israel may make upon them.”

Gee whiz, I guess I should restate my position a little differently:

“it makes little sense for American Jews to normally vote for a Democrat candidate---if Israel means anything to them.”

Hey, does that float your boat a little better?

Is there an Arabic expression for "shit or get off the pot?" This country can't address the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians unless we take measures, any measure, to stop the violent conflict. Getting the Israelis settlers out of Gaza is the right thing to do. It is not by any means the only thing to do. I am great admirer of Belgravia Dispatch but "creative ambiguity" diplomacy has allowed two belligerent entities to defer settlement for far too long.

Zathras:

The problem with dealing with the Palestinians is pretty basic. There's nobody trustworthy on that side of the fence with the credibility to make a binding deal with the Isrealis. Based on his history, there's no reason to belive that Arafat will deal in good faith. And, currently, there's nobody in the Authority (other than Hamas) who isn't, in a negotiating sense, merely an alter ego for Arafat.

Basically, for there to be negotiation, a peace process, and a fair settlement of Palestinian claims, and a fair monetary settlement of right to return claims, there has to be a credible person to negotiate with. Neither Isreal or the US or the UN can manufacture that credible person. The Palestinians are going to have to do it. Until they do so, I think Bush is right on this one. And, my sense is that it will take the building of that wall for the Palestinians to realize they'd better stop killing and start negotiating. This is not in the remotist part fair -- I am one of those evil 50-50 people when it copmes to asessing blame in this situation -- but nations sometimes must pay consequences when they settle on leaders who are miserable failures.

(BTW, the Cuban case was not an inadvertant cite. It strikes me the situations are pretty similar, and probably as difficult to solve.)

I don't think we disagree, AM. My point is that pretending the Palestinians don't have interests because they don't have a leader empowered to negotiate carries costs for us in the Muslim world that we ought to try to limit. If you want the Palestinians to start negotiating you have to give some idea of what you expect them to negotiate for, in some detail. In other words, if you say some things they want are impossible, you need to suggest some replacement for them. Bush hasn't.

Empowered?
He's BEEN empowered.

And they had clear indications, and generous offers.

And to add to AM's comment, show me where there's any Palastinians who don't approve of the terrorism done in their name. Have you noticed that is one thing that has seemingly gone missing, sometime prior to 1950?

Bithead:

Remember, Arafat is irrelevent, per Bush, and not to be talked to. Problem is, there isn't anyone else with the formal or informal power to speak for "Palestine". That's a key point I made, and that point was what zathras was responding to.

Zathras:

I guess I feel like there have been so many deals and so many discussions, that the general outlines of a future peace deal aren't all that hard to figure out. I'm not sure whether Israel derives much benefit from dangling a proposal right now. I think it's up to the Palestinians to back off somewhere, or at least find a way to hint that they might back off.

There is one fact that no one has mentioned - a big elephant sitting in the corner, if you will. Palestine was occupied by a foreign people, who, during the last 50 odd years, have increasingly marginalized the native inhabitants. Obviously, there are a number of details I'm leaving out (the Holocaust, the initial role of Germany and Britain, the 67 & 73 wars) but you simply cannot, in all honesty, get around the fact that the Israelis are occupiers. You may say, 'so what' 'the bible says...' 'it was a long time ago', but the major emigration phases of the Isreali occupation took place during a time in which the world was sort of in tacit agreement that the age of colonialism was over. Israel is a dinasaur. The only reason they got away with it post WW2 is the West's collective guilt over their horrendous treatment in Europe. One can't help but think that pogrom and death camp surviviors in Israel must be having flashbacks as they observe the present state of the Palestinians. Yes, Arafat is a thief and autocrat in the best Arab mold, but some of the above posters write like they are unaware that the Jewish emigration started this, not the Palestinians.

Why won't (or hasn't) Israel implemented a peace plan, exclusively and without the Palestines, by removing all settlements in the West Bank and building an impenetrable wall on the Green Line? Israel could deny the right of the return. Seems like this would satisfy most in the international community, which could then help refugees settle back into the West Bank.

Can anyone recommend (accurate) sources that describe the inhabitants of the West Bank throughout the last 150 years? I've been searching randomly but have been unsuccessful.

Why won't (or hasn't) Israel implemented a peace plan, exclusively and without the Palestines, by removing all settlements in the West Bank and building an impenetrable wall on the Green Line? Israel could deny the right of the return. Seems like this would satisfy most in the international community, which could then help refugees settle back into the West Bank.

Can anyone recommend (accurate) sources that describe the inhabitants of the West Bank throughout the last 150 years? I've been searching randomly but have been unsuccessful.

Why won't (or hasn't) Israel implemented a peace plan, exclusively and without the Palestines, by removing all settlements in the West Bank and building an impenetrable wall on the Green Line? Israel could deny the right of the return. Seems like this would satisfy most in the international community, which could then help refugees settle back into the West Bank.

Can anyone recommend (accurate) sources that describe the inhabitants of the West Bank throughout the last 150 years? I've been searching randomly but have been unsuccessful.

“Yes, Arafat is a thief and autocrat in the best Arab mold, but some of the above posters write like they are unaware that the Jewish emigration started this, not the Palestinians.”

The European Zionists paid good money for the land in Palestine. They started to move to this area long before WWII. There were few Arabs living there on a full time basis. A cynic should read what Mark Twain said concerning the backwardness of the Arabs:

http://www.shechem.org/machon/mtwain/

Also, some Jews have lived there for centuries. The real reason for the trouble is almost solely due to the racism and obnoxiousness of the Arabs who perceive themselves as better than Jews, Christians, and anybody else not Muslim. These people are as bigoted as the Nazis. The militant Palestinians have absolutely no interest in working out a deal with the Jews. What about the moderate Palestinians? Who cares? They are marginalized by the fanatics into irrelevancy. The Jews are responsible for only around 20% of the current troubles.

Why won't (or hasn't) Israel implemented a peace plan, exclusively and without the Palestines, by removing all settlements in the West Bank and building an impenetrable wall on the Green Line? Israel could deny the right of the return. Seems like this would satisfy most in the international community, which could then help refugees settle back into the West Bank.

Can anyone recommend (accurate) sources that describe the inhabitants of the West Bank throughout the last 150 years? I've been searching randomly but have been unsuccessful.

“Seems like this would satisfy most in the international community, which could then help refugees settle back into the West Bank.”

The “international community” doesn’t give a damn about the Palestinians. These folks merely want to beat up on Jews. Let’s get this straight: nobody give a crap concerning the Palestinians. They are useful only when there is some Jew bashing to be done. Are you aware that the United Nations has condemned Israel far more than any other country in the world?

"Can anyone recommend (accurate) sources that describe the inhabitants of the West Bank throughout the last 150 years?"

My link to Mark Twain refers to 1867. Is that good enough for you?

One could also read Bernard Lewis' “What Went Wrong?” Why focus exclusively on the Palestinians? The whole Arab world went looney some 400-500 years ago. It willingly embraced ludditism, anti-intellectualism, misogynism, and just about every other losing world view. They are essentially dark skinned, Louisiana red necks. A high percentage of Arabs must cease with their self pitying and scapegoating behavior. Nobody screwed them up. Contrary to the fables of the late Edward Said, the Arabs did it to themselves---long before the “imperialists” began visiting their lands.

Naive and Curious,

Start here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2004-03-25.htm

Again, AM, we don't disagree. Unilateral Israeli moves are the only way to move forward on that side. This includes the wall/fence, and the withdrawal from the Gaza settlements. But Israeli negotiating proposals now would be ill-timed. American suggestions as to the subjects that should be dealt with in future negotiations are what I was talking about. Palestinians need to understand that efforts on their part to form a government able to negotiate in good faith will be met by its having something to negotiate about.

Remember, Arafat is irrelevent, per Bush, and not to be talked to.

You may want to look at my first response in this thread to determine the reason for that. It bottom lines at " the reason he has no respect from Bush is, he's shown himself for deacdes, but particulalry in the last 20, not to have deserved it.

I like that link to the Benny Morris interview in The Atlantic. This part is really good:

“What has changed in my views is my perception of the Palestinian side during the past decade. Whereas in the 1990s I was fairly optimistic that the Palestinians had accepted in their hearts the need for a compromise and for a two-state solution, now I'm very doubtful. I don't think the Palestinians really want to agree to a two-state solution. They want a one-state solution, which means Israel's destruction and the turning of all of Palestine into one Arab majority state. That's what has changed in my thinking.”

Yup, the liberal Morris finally woke up to reality. It took a few whacks across the head, but the dude now has his head on straight. No more of that silly Oslo stuff for him.

Dear Naive and Curious,

You write:
Why won't (or hasn't) Israel implemented a peace plan, exclusively and without the Palestines, by removing all settlements in the West Bank and building an impenetrable wall on the Green Line? Israel could deny the right of the return.

For the simple reason that it is more advantageous to Isreali interests to continue the current limbo situation. As a matter of fact, the Palestinians situation becomes more desperate year after year and Isrealis occupy more land and divert more resources.

I think we can all agree that the only hope for a peaceful settlement is for a unilateral Isreali imposition of a some however controversial at least roughly fair settlement.

The Palestinians as many have noted cannot acquiesce to this out of pride and dysfunction. They cannot give up the hallucination of themselves as having some say in what happens. As a matter of fact, they have none now but they cling to the illusion of it.

Meanwhile for apologists of Isreal's gradual annexation policy, it is convenient to blame everything on the Palestinians - as if Isreal couldn't just do whatever it wanted without any permission or negotiations at all at any time. This conveniently allows them to ignore how Isreal is using the stalled negotiations in order to advance their interests indirectly.

The failure of the Isreali left can be summarized as falling for the illusion of Palestinian functionality. They negotiate with people who can not deliver, as Barak found out.

Isreal's right has blamed the Palestinians cultural and social failures is their scape-goat for excusing their own moral failure to impose a realistic settlment that creates a viable Palestinian state.

Oldman,

It isn't just the Palestinians. The other Arabs don't want a solution here - they want the problem to fester as a means of distracting their people from domestic issues.

Most any Arab with influence here is out to obstruct progress, and doing their best to make things worse rather than better.

So the Palestinians are merely a vehicle by which the dysfunctional & rather psychotic Arab culture can perpetuate its dysfunctional psychosis.

And it isn't just the Arabs. Lots of Europeans, notably the elites who have seized control of the EU, are using this mess as a means of attacking the US as well as Israel. EU funding of the Palestinian Authority is overtly serving this end.

There is no flipping way anything the U.S. does concerning the Palestinians which can break this vicious circle up. A solution here will come either as a result of success in the Bush Administration's grand strategy for remaking the whole Middle East, or forcible breaking of the Arabs' tribal culture overall.

How exactly could the US do more than Clinton did throughout the 1990s? A left-lib US administration, pushing a left-lib Israeli administration to offer Arafat more than anyone ever thought Israel could offer, was rejected at the 11th hour by Arafat. Why? No reason was ever given by Arafat, but the answer is obvious: peace with Israel would end Arafat's career. That career, as Edward Said and others have noted, is based on stealing from and assassinating his own people, seeking to overthrow Arab governments across the region, and of course slaughtering Israeli civilians around the world.

The core of the problem is Arafat. He's little more than John Gotti in a keffiyeh, and there will no peace with any Palestinian "Authority" doiminated or constrained by this man.

As Edward Said noted in June 2002 in Al Ahram (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/590/op2.htm): "If there is one thing along with Arafat's ruinous regime that has done us more harm as a cause it is this calamitous policy of killing Israeli civilians, which further proves to the world that we are indeed terrorists and an immoral movement. For what gain no one has been able to say."

There will never be peace so long as Arafat is the Palestinians' designated leader.

David, I understand that some Palestinians want a one-state solution, but I also have met Jewish Americans who want Israel to have all of the West Bank - without the Palestinians. For me personally, I'm just trying to figure out what position the U.S. should take that is just.

About the only principle in foreign affairs that I'm sure of is this: countries shouldn't acquire land through war. Looking at maps of the region over the last 50 years, it seems like Israel is expanding in size. I don't know why or how this occurring, but I'll read the sources you mentioned.

“A solution here will come either as a result of success in the Bush Administration's grand strategy for remaking the whole Middle East, or forcible breaking of the Arabs' tribal culture overall.”

That’s why we had to invade Iraq. The dominoes must fall---if we are to be safe from the Islamic fascists. A culture change has to be imposed on the Arab world. We can no longer tolerate their self pitying and scapegoating behavior. Just remember what I’ve said repeatedly---imagine the Arabs as blond haired and blue eyed. This will help you significantly to think straight about the mess in the Middle East. Imagine Sting and Madonna.

“...but I also have met Jewish Americans who want Israel to have all of the West Bank - without the Palestinians.”

You fail to make an important distinction. The Palestinians often are motivated by racism. The Jewish Americans, on the other hand, are simply exhausted by the mess. They fear the Palestinians, but hold no particular hatred of them. How would you feel if a Hell’s Angels gang beat up on you for years on end? They constantly break their word to you. Might such an experience discourage you from working out another agreement?

Naive and Curious - Just to help you understand the facts on the ground, the "settlements" around Jerusalem that Sharon proposes to keep are new suburbs, not dissimilar to the new suburbs that have sprung up in the desert around Phoenix. They have homes, roads, schools, where before there was just sand. There is no chance of those suburbs ever being turned over to the Palestinians, any more than the U.S. is going to give Scottsdale to the Navajos. I believe that what Bush and Sharon implied was that if the Palestinians are ever interested in negotiating a final settlement, Israel would consider giving to the Palestinian state some villages that are predominantly Arab in population (although that would undoubtedly be opposed by the Arab residents of those villages) as compensation for the land that Israel is going to keep.

Eshan,

I used to live in New York, on the Upper West Side, where it's not an exaggeration to say there are more Trotskyites than Republicans. But, trust me, there are plenty of Jewish Americans, especially younger ones, and especially once you get out of Manhattan, who are going to vote for W this fall. Even my rabbi is probably going to vote for W, probably the only reform rabbi in the country to do so. Israel is an important factor, but equally if not more important is 9/11 and W's strength in taking the fight to our enemies.

I am Palestinian and it is totally untrue that we are 'despised' in the Middle East. In fact, when I attended Hajj in Makka 2 years ago, every time I would mention my nationality, I would be greeted with hugs and kisses. The common Arab loves the Palestinians because our situation is the most extreme of all Arabs, who feel in many ways the same as us.

It is true that Governments have been unkind to us, such as Kuwiat expelling all Palestinians during the first Gulf War because of Arafat's support for Hussein.

It is also true that in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries there are tensions because the Palestinians are the engineers and other skilled laborors that the gulf countries are unable to produce in sufficient numbers.

"Gypies and Thieves"? Where on earth did you get that from! Besides being utterly wrong, it is offensive. Palestinians have the highest ratio of PhD per person of any nationality in the world. When you do not have land, you seek education. Many engineers in the Gulf and other Arab countries are Palestinian as we are the best educated Arabs. There may be resentment for that, but I must assure you that the common man in Arab countries loves his Palestinian brothers, or at least feels sorry for him.

Oh and as for Mr. David Thompson's comments, it is hard to refute so many comments, for policy you are of course entitled to your beliefs but you are very wrong about Palestine before the Zionists invaded and pushed many off their land.

There were a great many thriving villages and towns, despite what Mark Twain might have said. I find it funny for a foreigner to tell an American this, but have you read much Twain? His travelogues are hilarious for one common thread, he hated almost everywhere he went!

It's true that in the villages people were living the agrarian life and living in mud buildings, but in town like Nablus, Jerusalem, Yaffa, Tul Karm, Haifa, Beitlahem, and many others there was a developed economy and active life.

I think it is a window into your true intentions if you must rely on falsehoods ("there weren't many arabs living there, all land was purchased legally, etc.) to make your case. The reality is clear and all reputable historians agree that the Palestinians were pushed off of their land which they owned and others took it. Very similar to what happened in WWII in Germany, Czechslovakia and other places. This injustice needs to be addressed in any final settlement, not lied about or obfuscated or obliterated. But this was always the Zionist agenda, to take the land of Israel/Palestine for one people, and not the people who had lived there for such a long time, a new people.

Not that is a reality that all people have to accept. Many Palestinians do not want to do that which is a huge problem. But another big problem is people who pretent it is not the case, that the Palestinian has no claim to his own land. Until Palestinian side recognizes current reality, and Jewish side recognizes past history and motivations, there will be no peace there.

My understanding from reading is that Samir understates the resentment, but is correct that Palestinians are not generally despised by other Arabs. Much of the dislike of Palestinian residents in Arab countries is allegedly rooted in envy of their education and hard-working habits.

Palestinians are hated in Lebanon, though, but the Lebanese don't like each other either. There are lots of feuding factions, and not all are based on ethnicity.

At the risk of making the same point as previous commenters (too lazy to read them all), Mead's point makes no sense considering that the goal of the Palestinians, despite the assurances of their PR machine, is to destroy Israel. The "peace process" is simply an intermediate step towards that goal. Instead of providing endless links as evidence of this, all you have to do is be cognizant of the fact that Palestinian children are taught that there is no greater achievement in life than to kill as many Jews as possible. Saying that we can be both "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israeli" at the same time is like saying one could accomodate the interests of the Nazis and the Jews.

Furthermore, and at the risk of offending what I perceive as a slightly PC tone in this blog, the Palestinians are enemies of the United States, declared or otherwise. This goes well beyond the visceral reaction I got when seeing them dancing in the streets on 9/11 (I have trouble believing that these were isolated instances). People who deserve our support don't murder diplomats whose job was to distribute Fulbright scholarships, or support Saddam Hussein or make terrorist threats against us. Despite these unpleasant facts, the Bush administration, after initially deciding to stay out of the matter altogether, goes on record as supporting the creation of a Palestinian state. Then goes on record supporting a complete and unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and a withdrawal from most of the West Bank. Instead of even saying, "well this isn't everything we want, but perhaps its a good start," we get burning American flags and more threats of vengence.

Face it, the only time we'll ever get the support or even grudging approval by the Arab world is when our tanks reverse course in Iraq, and head to Israel to kill all the Jews. Yes the violence will continue, but sometimes shit happens.

"David, I understand that some Palestinians want a one-state solution, but I also have met Jewish Americans who want Israel to have all of the West Bank - without the Palestinians. For me personally, I'm just trying to figure out what position the U.S. should take that is just."

The difference is that the Jews with that opnion are a minority in a liberal, democratic country. The Palesitnians you mention represent the majority of a terrorist controlled thugocracy. Remember, Israel offered Palestinians over 95% of the land they demand, including split sovereignty in Jerusalem. The Palestinians responding by turning down the offer and launching the Intifada.

There is no hope for a negotiated settlement with the current Palestinians leadership and society. There is no "balanced" approach that the U.S. could take that would help put an end to the Palestinians' refusal to accept the notion of peaceful co-existence.

Bush has done the right thing. He is the first President to state that the Palesitnians should have a sovereign state. He has also stated that Israel can't reaosnably be expected to negotiate peace with the Palestinians' terrorist leaders, and the Palestinians need to face reality with regard to some of their demands (100% return to 1949 borders & right of return).

It is sadly ironic that the best hope for the Palestnians is for Israel to finish the security fence, withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank and force the Palesitnians to suffer the consequences (economic and violent (as in civil war)) that will follow. Only when the Palesitnians understand that they suffer most when they attack Israel can we reasonably hope that they will come to the table and sincerely seek peace.

According to the Strategy Page (http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=ISRAEL.HTM) the hardships that terrorism has caused the Palesitnians to suffer are slowly beginning to turn the tide of public opinion. The current plans are well designed to continue fostering that change and represent the best chance for peace.

Mead has drunk the Koolaid.

His friends in the Arab intelligentsia are dishonest. They don't care about Palestinians. What they care about is having something to answer with when an American talks to them about terrorism.

The problem is that any real accommodation with Israel would cause Palestinians and, by extention, all Arabs and Muslims to lose face. So they continue to watch their sons and daughters blow themselves to pieces and console themselves with the promise that they are now in the Garden of Allah.

Trying to make peace with Arafat is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. He will talk about it, but he knows that if he ever really did agree to acknowledging Israel's right to exist he'd be dead faster than the next leader of Hamas.

If the Palestinians really cared about their future and prosperity they'd be clamoring for Israeli citizenship, education, decent jobs. I think a lot of them would do so now if they weren't living in a thugocracy.

You could grant every concession they ask for, but if you didn't offer for Israel to cease to exist and the Jews to leave, there would be no deal. That's the bottom line. It doesn't matter how fair and evenhanded the U.S. tries to be. There will never be any peace with the Palestinians because Arab politics won't let them settle on peace.

Anyone thinking the Palastinians want peace should read this clip

1. I don't think Palestenians are despised by
the Arab world. It's true that they are often repressed by the goverment but, based on my (admittedly limited) personal knowledge, they are not hated by the people. It's true that in Lebanon there is a delicate balance of different factions, and so there is tension between every two different groups. The palestinan problem is bothering a great many of the arabs, and I think it has become very important also for symbolic reasons (e.g., like death penalty in the U.S.).

2. As an Israeli I find some of the discussion here quite strange. It seems that some the Americans here are much more "patriotic" to Israel than the average Israeli. Even if for some strange reason you consider only Israel's interest, I think some pressure from the U.S. is good for us (since it is much better to appear as caving to US pressure than to appear
as caving to terrorism).

David Thomson, source of all reason in the world writes:

“it makes little sense for American Jews to normally vote for a Democrat candidate---if Israel means anything to them.”

Rich, American Jew, writes: "Shut the F'up." Don't tell me what my interests are. I vote my interests. My interests are peace, economic prosperity, and never again seeing Jews slaughtered like they were in the past. I vote DEMOCRAT. I SUPPORT JOHN KERRY. I THINK GEORGE BUSH'S POLICIES ARE WORKING AGAINST ALL THE THINGS I CHERISH.

So please, you can put forward your views all you want, but just don't tell me what I am allowed to think, vote, or say. I am sick and tired of right-wing nut jobs like yourself championing the view of the American Jew. We are people, we can have our views, and sometimes, perhaps even often those views will not be yours. Accept that and move on. Disagreement does not mean I am naive, it does not mean I am stupid, and it does not mean I am ignorant. It means I look at the same events as you and see them differently.

Notice: At no point in this post do I make any statement about the situation in the Middle East, so please, don't merely place my views either in one of your simplistic buckets. This goes for all you "supporters" of Israel.

Mead wrote:
"But one thing sticks in their craw: Why doesn't America care more about the Palestinians' future?"

Only fool or naive can repeat this with a straight face. Mead is neither, so I think some other factor (money? ideology?) at play here.

Those concerned Arabs, all 200 million of them, could not absorb 1 million of so-called Palestinian refugees (most of whom left their homes voluntarily) in 56 years.

3 million Israelis absorbed 800 thousand real Jewish refugees who were pushed out from Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc.

By the way, who will pay compensation to the Jewish refugees from Arabia?

Arabs are so concerned about Palis that not a single country in Arabia grants Palis citizenship.

Kuwait arabs are so concerned about Palis that they expelled all 300000 of them in 1991.

Why should the USA be concerned with people who support terrorist murder of women and children and celebrate 9/11 with a song and dance and candy for their children?

What Palis have done to deserve a state? There are many peoples out there who are much more deserving but nobody cares about them. Tibet and Cyprus (Greek and Turk parts) come to mind.

Lastly, Palis don't really have an economy outside of working in Israel, as result most of them unemployed when Israel closes the border. Yet, Palis have GNP per capita higher than in India. Why? Because UN and EU and, sorry to say, USA pump so much aid into PLO. Why Palis get so much aid compare with other refugees?

Stupid question. Because they are fighting Jews.

Rich, a self-described American Jew, wrote:

"At no point in this post do I make any statement about the situation in the Middle East, so please, don't merely place my views either in one of your simplistic buckets. This goes for all you "supporters" of Israel."

Just curious, what is the meaning of double quotes around supporters?

Do you think that none of them are really supporters of Israel?

Is it you opinion that this board has, at most, one supporter of Israel, namely yourself?

Or, in your opinion, they think they are supporters, but you know better?

Is it your position that only a simpleton can be plain supporter of Israel, while a sophisticate would have a very nuanced position that cannot characterized as support or non-support?

Kindly clarify.

1) Re Homer Pile's comment above: "Lastly, Palis[Palestinians] don't really have an economy outside of working in Israel, as result most of them unemployed when Israel closes the border. Yet, Palis have GNP per capita higher than in India "

a) According to the CIA World Factbook, the GDP per capita of India is $2600 whereas the GDP of the West Bank is $800. See http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/we.html#Econ and http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html#Econ

b) By contrast, Israel's GDP per capita is $19,500.

c) Part of the reason for the differences is that the West Bank economy has been repeatedly disrupted by
massive Israeli military incursions -- kinda hard to stay in business when tanks are running through your shop and
your customers are fleeing Israeli automatic fire.

Plus , whores in the US government have given Israel roughly $91 Billion in past aid, $3 billion /year in current aid, and massive amounts of military weapons with which to kick the crap out of the Palestinians. Plus we threw in an American Secretary of State who can say he's a "honest broker" without collapsing into helpless laughter.

2) Re Homer Pile's question to Rich: "Is it your position that only a simpleton can be plain supporter of
Israel?"
Symbolic Logic would indicate that the answer is NO. Even though Homer has demonstrated the truth of
two propositions -- ("Homer Pile is a plain supporter of Israel") and ("Homer Pile is a simpleton" --see para 1)--
it would be fallacious to conclude that "All plain supporters of Israel are simpletons". Looking at the Venn
Diagram , it seems that we can only conclude that "At least one plain supporter of Israel is a simpleton".

I don't what the Palestenians (as a jew I am somewhat sensitive to all these "shortcuts" such as Pals, Palis etc..) have done to deserve a state more than the Kurds or the Tibetans,
but I am an Israeli, and I want to live in a democracy which is not in perpetual civil war, and so it seems that a Palestenian state is the best (or even only) way to obtain that.

I also don't expect any american, Jew or non-Jew, to place Israel's interests at a priority when deciding how to vote.
I myself sure don't think of American interests when I vote in Israel and I imagine that in a country of more than 200 million people, you have bigger issues to think about than what happens in our tiny country.

In response to Homer Pile:

"Just curious, what is the meaning of double quotes around supporters?"
It did mean that I think they are not really supporting Israel with their statements and political views.

"Do you think that none of them are really supporters of Israel?"
Right. As an Israeli earlier in this thread pointed out I think that the best way to get peace for Israel and continue to have a safe place in the world for Jews is not the policies of killing all Palestinians that some of these people advocate.

"Is it you opinion that this board has, at most, one supporter of Israel, namely yourself?"
No.

"Or, in your opinion, they think they are supporters, but you know better?"
Yes.

"Is it your position that only a simpleton can be plain supporter of Israel..."

No. I am not sure where you end up equating wrong view with simpleton. If only it was that easy. I think many times these "supporters" of Israel have other agendas in mind. Just as Arabs hold up Palestinians as victims of imperialism and a scapegoat, I think there are those in the US who use Israelis in the same way. This is dishonest and self-serving, but is not the position of a simpleton.

"...while a sophisticate would have a very nuanced position that cannot characterized as support or non-support?"
I do think that any solution to this problem will be nuanced. I place no additional value on a solution that is simple over complex. If you turn your back on complexity you will always be missing part of what is a very complicated situation. Simplicities like Palestinians are bad, or Jews are evil are not going to lead to peace.

Why do you treat complexity in a negative way? Aren't there issues in the world that require complexite, or is it your view that every solution is simple?

As an Israeli earlier in this thread pointed out I think that the best way to get peace for Israel and continue to have a safe place in the world for Jews is not the policies of killing all Palestinians that some of these people advocate.

Ah. And so that means, apparently, that you think it possible for us to come to some kind of peaceful resolution. I refer you once again to the charter of Hamas...

Article 7: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."

Article 13: "So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement ... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad [holy war]."

Tell me, how do you suppose peace can be had here?

Apparently there's something you think hasn't been tried before. What? ANd how will it deal with the above?

Forgive my tone, but I'm overwhelmed with a feeling of Deja Poo... The feeling I've heard this crap before.

Bithead,

Where did I say that Peace would include Hamas or Arafat?

I said that Peace would not include killing all Palestinians. Once you advocate killing everyone, that is no longer peace, that is genocide.

What I wish some of the Israel right or wrongers would get through their skulls is that Israel has no right under International law or any recognizable moral code to Gaza and the West Bank. These lands are the spoils of war and conquest. The fact that these were acquired in an essentially defensive war is irrelevent. Their moral duty is clear -- withdraw to something approximating the 1967 borders, while making adjustments taking into account the expansion of Jerusalem, and Israel's need for defensable borders.

The fact that Arafat cannot be trusted, or that the palestinians have decided to embrace terror as their preferred negotiating tool does not change the moral imperative. It just means that negotiating land for peace, under the current circumstances, is a fool's game, because Israel would give up the land, and not get the Peace. There is no nation that can negotiate under these conditions.

Nevertheless, Israel should not lose sight of the basic truth...no good that they do and no evil that the Palestinians do makes the West Bank settlements right. Frankly, if the polity and society of Israel could get their arms around this, it would be easier for the Palestinians to realize that there may be a way to Peace that does not involve murder and anti-semitism.

Maybe it would, AM, and maybe not. As I've said before, we need to look at this whole issue from the standpoint of what is important to us, not what matters to Israel or the Palestinians. The moral rights and wrongs of Israel's occupation of the West Bank are not our problem; neither are Jewish settlers biblical claims to the West Bank of any concern to us. Our interest lies in facilitating some settlement that dissuades the Palestinians from violence while maintaining our commitment to the survival of the Jewish state. This will not be possible if the discussion is conducted in terms of moral rights and wrongs.

AM, I have a question along those lines. Why are the Israelis expected to honor the 1967 lines, but the Palestinians have a laundry lists of further demands that absolutely bear no relation to the status quo ante bellum? Basically we are telling Israel, your responsibility is to return to the green line... plus resolve the noncontigiuty (is that a word) of gaza and the west bank which you had nothing to do with establishing... plus resolve the right of return issue that the Palestinians refuse to negotiate. Why is Israel held to such a strict legal standard?
I'm all for returning to the 1967 lines. Provided the West Bank is returned to Transjordan and Gaza is returned to Egypt. Considering there has never in the history of the world been a Palestinian state, demanding the Israel 'return' it is a logical impossibility. Thats one of the major rhetorical stumbling blocks that has had the world running in circles.

Here's something else to be addressed. Why the 1967 lines? What made them sacrosanct? Lets go back to the 1949 armistice lines and see what they said about the West Bank:

"Accordingly, Israel and Jordan had no recognized frontiers until conclusion of he Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of 1994. However, the "Green Line" of the armistice was accepted by many states as the de facto border. As this border includes several demilitarized zones, no man's lands and divided Jerusalem, it could not be the precise demarcation line for a peace time border"
http://www.mideastweb.org/isrjorarmistice1949.htm

The bottom line is that for many years the Palestinians and their collaboraters have created this impression that there is some exactly demarcated status quo ante that simply never existed. They have been very successul in planting that seed into the conventional wisdom, but the reality is far different. These lines in the West Bank were _never_ settled on, at best no mans lands meant to be temporary were adhered to. Needless to say no peace treaty has ever been adhered to since to finalize these lines legally. Again, why are we holding Israels feet to the fire of this arbitrary 1967 line, while at the same time entertaining Palestinian demands for ideas that never even existed in 1967 (an independent Palestinian state for instance). If Israel has to return to 1967 or 1949 form, shouldnt Jordan and Egypt be involved as well? And let those 2 nations sort our the Palestinian independence drive?

Rich is right to be sceptical of some of his "supporters". This sudden, new-found love for the Jews by right wing bigots , for example, seems more tied to getting money from a small group of plutocrats -- so Bush can be reelected and some people can continue to get tax cuts -- than to any sincere respect for the Jewish people
and or any sincere concern for the national interest of Israel or the US.

Americans should also be sceptical. It is one thing for Americans to suffer deaths and poverty from a necessary war --it is something else to be manipulated into disaster by con artists supporting hidden , greedy agendas
--- traitors in our midst feeding
their greed even after it bought on the deaths of 3000+ in New York.

I have no problem with the killing of Al Qaeda members who threaten this country -- but I think some of our hatred and fury should be reserved for our countrymen who created Al Qaeda by their actions abroad--and then wrapped themselves in the flag and lied about it. Some of our anger should be kept for People who --having provoked the creation of terror -- are now manipulating the "war on terror" to serve personal agendas. People who are bankrupting America and causing the needless deaths of some of her best citizens --our Army and National Guardsmen.

Hundreds of Israelis have died since Sharon sabotaged the peace talks by walking through Al Aqsa mosque with a 1000 armed men --yet our corrupt whores in the US government cheer him on.

3000+ Americans died on Sept 11 --after Bush provoked Arab fury in June 2001 by selling Sharon 53 more F16s and halting State Department protests over Sharon's use of F16s to kill Palestinan civilians. 3000+ Americans died because the US Government has long pandered to Big Oil by stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to prop up the kleptocracies --and by selling that kleptocracy massive amounts of advanced weapons with which to support it's oppression.

Who do the bigots criticizing Arabs on this board ignore the fact that much Arab poverty results from longtime US support of dictators -- of men who gave Houston favorable oil leases in exchange for kickbacks while their people got little to nothing? Why do they ignore the fact that Bush's promotion of "democracy" in Iraq seems deceitful when measured against Cheney's courtship of the dictators in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan? Does anyone really think Bush would promote real democracy in Iraq --vice having the CIA established a puppet goverment behind the scenes? Ask all those thousands of blacks in Florida who were unfairly and illegally denied their right to vote in Nov 2000.

Zathras:

Well, lets drag Machiavelli, the ultimate realist, out of his grave and ask WWMD?

The question Niccolo would first ask is this -- what does serve "American" interests in the mid east? Quite honestly, in a self-interested universe, we'd have two: we don't want a breeding ground for terrorists and we want the oil to keep flowing. What would probably accomplish that? A Palestinian state and no Israel to inflame tensions. We could work to develop a nice UN plan to dissolve Israel. Presumably, Europe would take the emigres back -- they seem in need of an increase in non-muslim population. Otherwise, surely there is somewhere in this world......

Well, no, this plan would not work. America is a democracy, and this scheme would not sit well with a large block of voters, and, as Don Williams likes to remind us, a rich group of polilitical patrons. And Machiavelli, who certainly knew the value of rich patrons to a man of affairs, would rethink.

How can we satisfy the parts of our population who are heavily invested in the idea of Israel, while satisfying the parts of the world that are inflamed by the very thought of the place? The policies that would satisfy one group would anger the rest. Satisfy the Mideast potentates -- no more rich patron. Satisfy the patrons -- terrorsim and oil worries....

What's the solution? Something rather shocking -- morality (or, since this is Machiavelli, the appearance of morality). Because, to have a prayer in the Mideast, you need hearts and minds of some of the folks in Palestine, and the heart and mind of your patrons. The only way to do this is an appeal to some kind of fairness, international law or other norms of behavior, and a belief in what's "right". So, Zathras, I do think morality is central in this issue, but think it such concern is consistant with a "Realist" worldview.

As a side note -- what's obvious from this discussion -- there are no way the Israeli settlements are in America's interests. Even if you don't buy this particular argument.

AM, that is likely not what Machiavelli would conclude... any more than wiping out the jews and helping crush England and Russia would have been the best way to placate the nazis. Machiavelli had an understanding of human nature that you are not addressing. Assuming a few hundred square miles of dirt is what is actually driving this worldwide Islamic militaristic movement is simply wrong. Rhetoric aside, does this make any sense?
The destruction of Israel would only speed the expansionist tendancies of the Islamicists. Israel is our bulwark against this. How could the destruction of, not just an idiological, but a critical _strategic_ ally make us more secure? The assumption that israel is anything but a red herring, the first step in Islamofascist expansionism is a dangerous and unsupportable one. After all, lets not forget how the Islamofascists idealogical forbearers the Nazis proceeded. First Czeck, then the world.

Mark B:

It's not like Egypt and Jordan are clamoring for their land back. They have ceded their claims to that land. So if Israel pulls out, it's the Palestinian authority that gets it. What you posit just is not going to happen.

As for the 1967 border vs other possibilities, isn't that what negotiations would be for?

The land Israel has beyond the '67 war was acquired by conquest. What other right have they to it?

Where did I say that Peace would include Hamas or Arafat?

Apparently, Rich, you missed my comment earlier, where I suggested I saw no difference between the attitudes and values being expressed by Arafat (at elast in his actions) and the general Palastinian population.

I'm quite willing to be corrected;
We seem to agree that Fatah, as a whole including Arafat supports terrorism. Hamas, similarly.

So, now, show me where the rank and file Palastinian doesn't support it. Show me where there's a push for the ouster of these people and groups.

Show me where the general Palastinian population is at variance with their leadership. I ahve no evdience that on the whole such variance exists.

Mark B:

I did not have Niccolo selling out the Israelis, albeit for different reasons than you posit. Nor do I advocate that. I do believe the settlements are a siezure of someone else's land -- excusable under the circumsances of the 1967 war -- but not excusable as long-term policy. That's my opinion, rather clearly expressed above.

Machiavelli, in the spirit of his world, dealt more in terms of potentates, rather than movements. I would have loved to have gotten his opinion of Arafat. Niccolo thought it was OK to break your word, from time to time, but did not believe it was OK to get a reputation of untrustworthiness.

Rich is right to be sceptical of some of his "supporters". This sudden, new-found love for the Jews by right wing bigots , for example, seems more tied to getting money from a small group of plutocrats -- so Bush can be reelected and some people can continue to get tax cuts -- than to any sincere respect for the Jewish people
and or any sincere concern for the national interest of Israel or the US.

Oh, please. You act like concern for Israel is something new to the right. It's not. What's changed is the leaning toward the terrorists by the American left. Have you looked at what the left has managed?

Oh, sure, Carter suddenly tried to lay claim to the title of 'middle east peace maker'. Oh, sure, the socialist left laid laurels at the peanut farmer's feet along with his Nobel Prize, but take a quick look at what happned to the leaders of Egypt and Israel as a direct result of that 'peace'. Both Rabin and Sadat were dead before the ink dried.

And of course under Clinton's watch, we've seen the most anti-Israel policy ever to come out of Washington. I've already described those events at some length. Take a look around, and you'll see where Clinton's policy got us in terms of both security for Israel and for the world as a whole. There's a faily decient reminder of the consequences of that policy in Southern Manhattan.

Sorry, your bleat of 'it's all Bush's fault' doesn't wash, Don.

I question the argument above that "keeping the oil flowing" is one of the two major US interests in the Middle East. Most of the US oil imports come from Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria.
It doesn't make sense to spend $50 billion/year to maintain military control of the Middle East just so you can buy roughly $25 billion of Saudi crude.

Americans who think they get cheap gasoline are fools -- we pay $1.70 per gallon at the pump and
another $6 per gallon every April 15. The Houston Oil Boys and their whores in government have hidden the hidden subsidy and how their corruption has distorted the free market.

If we spent even 2% of our $400 Billion/year defense budget on energy research, we would have energy independence in a few years --and our technology discoveries would have permanent value.
Meanwhile, our military activities in the Middle East are a form of consumption that has no value and has to be paid for every year. Only a lying whore for Houston like Dick Cheney would argue that this is in the national interest.

Plus, lets not forget that our food supply is dependent upon massive injections of fertilizer every spring --fertilizer from petroleum. Our waste of petroleum on SUVs is truly eating our seed corn --and will bring starvation to our grandchildren.

Don:

Putting my Machiavelli hat back on for a second, the fact that we don't get as much of our oil from the mideast as does the rest of the world does not matter that much, as long as we are exporting from somewhere. If the mideast shuts off the oil spigots, other importers, such as Europe, Japan, India, and China, will be visiting our suppliers and running up the prices.
So we do have a significant interest in keeping the oil flowing.

"So if Israel pulls out, it's the Palestinian authority that gets it. What you posit just is not going to happen."

Just as the Palestinians are not going to be allowed back into Israel in huge numbers. Why do the Palestinians get to use fantasy scenarios at the bargaining table but Israel doesnt?

"As for the 1967 border vs other possibilities, isn't that what negotiations would be for? "

Yes, it certainly would be. But one side refuses to negotiate in good faith. It is unreasonable to expect the Israelis to wait year after year and absorb attack after attack until the Palestinians by some miracle establish a government willing to negotiate in good faith. Its amazing they waited as long as they have. What other nation would agree to negotiate with a terrorist like Arafat for a decade?

"The land Israel has beyond the '67 war was acquired by conquest. What other right have they to it?"

I could ask the same thing about the American Southwest. At some point you have to ask yourself how much death a given amount of land is worth after 50 years. The 67 border could be a definite possibility... if Israel had someone to negotiate with. Why should they give it up now for absolutely nothing in return and continuing terrorist attacks? Here Israel, make a nice good will gesture to the people who will use it as a base to blow up your women and children. Again, outside the Israel context this proposal would be laughed at uproariously everywhere else on the planet.

Mark B:

I hold no brief for the alleged "Right of Return". It was an excuse for Arafat to negotiate a better deal for himself in 2000.

Israel may or may not want to negotiate a lump sum payment to family members of those displaced during 1948 some day, once the Palestininas find themselves a trustworthy leadership that is prepared to deal with Israel.

MB:

Beyond morality and immorality,we are in agreement about the short-term. I said this upthread:

"We have determined that Arafat is terminally unable to negotiate in good faith. So...who do you negotiate with, who do you talk to?

Until that question is settled by the Palestininan people or their elites, forget about road maps, consultation. It's moot."

In other words, Israel has land it has no right to, but no reasonable person to give it to. Understood. But the solution, when there is someone in palestine who will negotiate Peace, will be for Israel to cede that land. I get it. I think you get it. Sharon does not.

AM, I agree, we are in complete agreement. Except about Sharon perhaps. What is he doing that is against anything we just talked about? Evacuating Gaza is if nothing else a step in the right direction. I think we both know that their is a Likud problem that has been an elephant in the living room as well. There is indeed a portion of the Israeli population that will settle for nothing less than the whole of the land. Sharon is demonstrably not a part of that, and hence we should at least consider him a tool to stamp out that urge once and for all. This Likud vote cannot be understated in its importance. If they cant agree to this small step there is no hope of further steps anytime soon.

Don't be so stupid as to denigrate conquest.
If the arabs had conquered jewish lands in 48 or 67, there would be no talk of the arabs simply giving the land back to the jews. No, the jews would have to take it back by force.
Anyone idiotic enough to think the UN has canceled the laws of human history should look at Rwanda and the UNSCAM scandals.

Why is it topics like this make so many people so deluded from reality?

(1) There is no war - anymore. Isreal won. It has absolute power as far as disposing of Palestinian settlement.
(2) Isreal is expected to keep the upper hand.
(3) The worst that anyone can do is inconvenience Isreal with suicide bombs, etc.
(4) Isreal has the power to make a defacto or fait accompli settlement of final terms any time they wish to.
(5) They are in fact doing so now.

Let us hear no more of the perfidy of Arabs. Sadly, they are irrelevant. Isreal has almost complete power in this circumstance. The only question is what kind of final disposition Isreal wishes to impose.

If Isreal chooses what Appalled Moderate refers to the appearance of morality, it can secure its long term interests and minimize its inconvenience. Whatever the long term stated goals of anti-Zionists, it is a fact that suicide bombing has been a long term escalating situation. If Isreal were to make a modestly livable final imposition, it would find its inconvenience from suicide bombing decreased.

Or it can continue to impose a final disposition of the issues in a manifestly unfair and immoral fashion and obtain these gains at the cost of continuing unrest and public disturbance.

My solution is annex Gaza, pull back to the Barak final offer, expel and resettle all Isreali Arabs / Palestinians to Sinai, give them a fund to build a country, and erect a wall around Isreal.

Other solutions may exist, but the problem is that neither side is really looking for a solution - just an excuse to pursue an unobtainable or unsustainable end state.

"If Isreal were to make a modestly livable final imposition, it would find its inconvenience from suicide bombing decreased. "

There is ample evidence to dispute this, sadly. By any measure the Palestinians had significantly better (and improving) living conditions before the current uprising. They were ruled by the PA. The current intifadah has both increased the Israeli deaths and the suffering of the Palestinian people. How can this be explained?

"just an excuse to pursue an unobtainable or unsustainable end state"

Bingo. The difference is that the majority of Israelis would settle for an equitable peace, as the Clinton brokered deal that Arafat walked away from showed. Some Israelis wouldnt, but they would be powerless. The majority of Palestinians _oppose_ an equitable deal, and those that do have the utter power to derail it. Hence Israel has the moral authority to impose a peace of their choosing. I cannot understand the argument for Israel giving away the negotiating chips they have in the face of guaranteed continuation of violence. What will they be able to negotiate for at some future date under those circumstances?

What will they be able to negotiate for at some future date under those circumstances?

Not seeing any other answer, I'm forced to respond:

An end to their very existing... both as a country, and as living beings. Which is what the Arabs have wanted all along.

“Oh and as for Mr. David Thompson's comments, it is hard to refute so many comments, for policy you are of course entitled to your beliefs but you are very wrong about Palestine before the Zionists invaded and pushed many off their land.”

I will for the sake of the argument concede Samir's point. Still, the Jews have been willing to work things out. The past could have been buried long ago. He also conveniently ignores the racism and contempt for others felt by the Arab world. The polls show that the hard core Zionists do not represent the majority of Jews. Most desire to live in peace with their Arab neighbors. It is therefore primarily the fault of the Palestinian leadership that these contested issues have not been resolved.

Samir seems to be a sane and decent man. But does he hold any political power? I dare suspect that the Palestinian militants would murder him if he truly tried working for peace and a just settlement. No, even if Benny Morris’ views are accepted as accurate---the Jews are responsible for no more than 20% of the current problem. The ball is in the court of the Palestinians and they must choose to build a peaceful land for themselves.

"The ball is in the court of the Palestinians and they must choose to build a peaceful land for themselves."

"It's one thing to favor the Israelis in the conflict -- it's another thing to do it while simultaneously kicking the Palestinians in the balls."

President Bush has decided to validate what he has called the changes that have taken place on the ground in the region over the course of the past many years, endorsing for all intents the settlements on the West Bank and putting the post-1948 boundaries back upon the table once again. President Bush referred to the settlements as "existing major Israeli population centers," which has changed the situation there materially and drawn the open ire of the Palestinians.

The Israeli "disengagement" plan boils down to the following general notions:

Firstly, the Israelis have given up on the possibility of reaching an agreement with any Arab and/or Palestinian leaders, believing that nothing can come from such discussions. Israel has said it is prepared to negotiate with new Palestinian leaders once they have renounced terrorist activities and all levels of violence. Israel will then withdraw from the Gaza Strip and from four large West Bank settlements by the end of 2005. When it does so, Israel has promised to leave the houses and buildings that are vacated in operating condition.

From the Gaza, Israel intends to move all settlers and troops, but it will keep a residual force along the Gaza/Egypt border on the East, for Israel has an obvious and reasonable concern that military force could move into the Gaza from Eypt and then on to Israel given the narrow geography of the Gaza. Israel has said that it will not allow "a foreign security presence" in the Gaza, but it will allow "international humanitarian assistance" there. The Gaza will continue to be enclosed on all sides.

According to the Sharon government, "Israel will supervise and guard the external envelope on [the Gaza] and will maintain exclusive control in the air space of Gaza and will continue to conduct military activities in the sea space of the Gaza Strip."

This is wholly unacceptable to those living in the Gaza, given that 1.2 million people live in an area as small as the Gaza is. The Gaza is approximately 24 miles long and at its widest is but 7 miles "deep." For most of the remaining area it is but 4 miles "deep" giving an area of just over 100 square miles. To put this in perspective, the city of Suffolk where we live, is approximately 430 square miles with a population of only 68,000; so we are four times as large as the Gaza with a population just a bit over 1/20th the size. Conditions in the Gaza are hellish. It is little wonder that Hamas and Hezb'ollah find ready converts to their terrorist cause.

In the West Bank, Israel intends to withdraw from four large settlements there, but settlers will remain in others. Israel will abandon all of its established bases in the West Bank. It will ease remaining restrictions upon Palestinian travel across the West Bank, but it is Israel's stated intention to finish the "separation barrier" it has been working on for some while, which will when completed divide Israel from the West Bank entirely.

"This is wholly unacceptable to those living in the Gaza, given that 1.2 million people live in an area as small as the Gaza is. The Gaza is approximately 24 miles long and at its widest is but 7 miles "deep." "

And again, why do the Palestinians problems become Israels problems? Why does the 1967 status quo ante apply only to the Israeli position but the Palestinians get to keep heaping concerns on the table. 'Palestine' did not exist in 1967, why arent we asking Egypt and Jordan to help ease this overpopulation since they were the other parties to the previous reality?
Palestians have developed concerns in the last 40 years? Yeh, well so have Israelis, like the population centers in the West Bank. Again, why do 'new' Palestinian interests get to be on the table but not Israeli?

"Conditions in the Gaza are hellish. It is little wonder that Hamas and Hezb'ollah find ready converts to their terrorist cause."

Perhaps you have the causation backwards.

"it is Israel's stated intention to finish the "separation barrier" it has been working on for some while, which will when completed divide Israel from the West Bank entirely"

You state that like its an accusation instead of an eventuality.

"Palestinians are hated in Lebanon, though, but the Lebanese don't like each other either."

Palestinians are hated in Lebanon and Syria because they tried to do to those countries the same things that they now do to Israel.

The response, especially in Syria, was far more brutal, and the Palestinians learned that it is better to provoke Israel, a country with some scruples about the use of force.

Which, in turn suggests that were the Israeli government to take the gloves off, the attacks would stop.

It is imperative for the Israelis to assassinate Yasser Arafat the very next time he is connected with an act of terrorism. This would help bring peace to the region. The rest of the world will scream for a few days---and that would be the end of it. The Palestinian moderates need to feel safe from their more militant “brothers.”

As has been argued already (Zath, Hols, Thoms and Bits - hell even the OM) the nihilism of the people in question is the temple-well here.

Sorry, Samir - I'm touched and feel for you, but something in the pit of my stomach says that it's far too late. At some point you have to put the dog to sleep.

You want statehood? Then demonstrate the ability to prosper. Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?

"But we could, if only..." If only what? One of the most pwerful nations ever to exist wasn't willfully attempting to surpress your very existance?

Careful before you take *that* bait, friends...

David Thomson,

Sorry, I didn't mean to nitpick. It's just that some people are touchy about that sort of thing.

DBL,

I've lived in Manhattan four and half years now, and I've pretty much learned to avoid talking politics with strangers. My ex-girlfriend, a Columbia grad, said I was the most conservative person she knows, and I always considered myself a liberal! (Though moderate is probably more appropriate, these days.)

Oldman,

Obviously Israel has demographic concerns with any "right of return," but all current citizens are supposed to have equal rights regardless of race. Must that be abandoned, and the Israeli Arabs expelled? I certainly hope not.

I've lived in Manhattan four and half years now, and I've pretty much learned to avoid talking politics with strangers. My ex-girlfriend, a Columbia grad, said I was the most conservative person she knows, and I always considered myself a liberal! (Though moderate is probably more appropriate, these days.)

Which would seem to show how far left the baseline has swung, anymore.

Eshan Shah-Jahan,

Well I'm afraid it has come down to this. I mean, who really thinks that Isrealis and Palestinians could really live in one country in peace?

I would advocate creating out of purchased land, maybe on the Sinai Peninsula a sufficient extension for a new Palestinian homeland. I think Egypt would allow this if somebody sweetened the pot enough in this latter day Louisiana purchase. I do not advocate an annexation of Jordanian or Egyptian land.