For he was brought in to replace Senator George Mitchell under the guise of "improving" the ties between the WH and the Israeli government *which is what happened eventually*.

While Ross's past failures did not bar his return, it is actually interesting to see that someone with the same calibre of failures on the Palestinian side has made a come back. Yes, it's the TV celebrity Saeb Erekat who apparently didnot leave his job after the #Palestinepapers scandal.
.

MARINESNIPER

You know, the same one signed by 22 Arab States, which is sitting on Bibbi's desk, waiting to be accepted?

>> For some reason you rather lazily cite Moshe Dayan (as if a single opinion of a dead man matters), without even providing a quote or reference.

Moshe Dayan happens to be a very credible source.

The Khartoum Resolution is ceased to be of any relevance decades ago and has since been replaced with teh Arab PEace Initiative from 2002.

>> You also forget the 1974 Phased Plan, which was adopted by the PLO cum Palestinian Authority in 1974, and subsequently reaffirmed in numerous speeches by Arafat throughout the decades.

Liek the speech he gave n 1988 recognizing Israel?

the Arab peace initiative was just another proposal sent out in 2002. If you want to play this game, then you forget Ehud Olmert's peace initiative in 2008, which now superceded the Arab peace initiative. Mahmoud Abbas rejected it, without any real counter offers.

In any case, citing old peace plans does nothing to support you. I can bring up a dozen peace plans, starting with the Peel Commission, that were rejected by the Palestinians. The "Arab/Saudi peace plan" is just as dead anyway, since most of the people it involved are now out of power, deposed, dead, etc. It is about as valid as the Peel Commission partition plan.

>> The Arab peace initiative was just another proposal sent out in 2002.

No it was signed by 22 Arab states, hence it is called a Peace Initiative. It’s not a treaty because Israel have rejected it for 9 years.

>> If you want to play this game, then you forget Ehud Olmert's peace initiative in 2008, which now superceded the Arab peace initiative. Mahmoud Abbas rejected it, without any real counter offers.

False.

First of all, Olmert’s offer did not supercede the Arab peace initiative. In fact, it did not even address relations between Israel and the 22 Arab States.

Secondly, Abba did not reject Olmert’s offer.

“Contrary to the claim made by a New York Times commentator that Abbas rejected Ehud Olmert's generous proposal, the woman who was the foreign minister in his government (Tzipi Livni) has said on a number of occasions that the Palestinians did not reject this proposal and that it is sitting on the shelf waiting for an Israeli partner.”

http://tinyurl.com/36clw5c

>> In any case, citing old peace plans does nothing to support you.

False. The peace plan is still on the table. The Arab League have continue to offer it and what’s more, an increasing number of Israelis leaders are agreeing that it should form the basis of a peace treaty between Israel and the Arab League.

Meir Dagan has endorsed it
http://tinyurl.com/3dcrhav
http://tinyurl.com/3b3mczc

Security, business leaders unveil new peace initiative
http://tinyurl.com/3shd6c2

>> I can bring up a dozen peace plans, starting with the Peel Commission, that were rejected by the Palestinians.

Are you trying to be funny? The Zionist Congress also rejected it.

>> It is about as valid as the Peel Commission partition plan.

So one minute you are blaming the Arabs for rejecting the Peel Commission partition plan (which the Zionist Congress also rejected) and the next minute you’re claiming it’s not valid anyway.

Try and get your story straight.

After all, Israel not only elected 2 terrirost leaders to the highest office in the land, it offers ribbons dedicated to the Stern Gang and Irgun (2 terrorist groups) as awards to the IDF.

The IDF incidentally, began as the Haganah, which carried out hundreds of terrorist attacks and continues to do so.

>> His own Al Aqsa leader was just quoted as celebrating the death of 16-tear old American Daniel Wultz:

And the Menachen Begin Centre (decided to a terrorist leader) has just honoured the Irgun (a terrorist group) on the 80th anniversary of it’s founding.

On top of that,. 6 years also, the Israeli’s celebrated the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel, which angered the British. Not surprisingly, the Israeli Prime Minister, Netenyahu, was the guest of honor.

Of course, we cannot forget that Netenyahu was also the only political leader to have described the 911 attacks as “very good”.

But from the start of the Oslo negotiations in 1993, Arafat focused only on what he was going to receive, not what he had to give. He found it difficult to live without a cause, a struggle, a grievance, and a conflict to define him. Arafat never faced up to what he would have to do—even though we tried repeatedly to condition him. As a result, when he was finally put to the test with former President Bill Clinton’s proposal in December 2000, Arafat failed miserably. [...]

To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians—a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered Bantustans—a reference to the geographically isolated black homelands created by the apartheid-era South African government. Yet with 97 percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there would have been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not have been isolated or surrounded. There would have been territorial integrity and contiguity in both the West Bank and Gaza, and there would have been independent borders with Egypt and Jordan.

I have never met an Arab leader who trusts Arafat or has anything good to say about him in private. Almost all Arab leaders have stories about how he has misled or betrayed them. Most simply wave their hands dismissively when examples of his betrayal of commitments are cited—almost as if they are saying, “We know, we know.” The Saudis, in particular, saw his alignment with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 1991 as proof of his perfidy.[...]

Those who argue for an imposed solution claim no Israeli leader can make the hard decisions, such as giving up settlements, most of the West Bank and Gaza, and the Arab part of East Jerusalem. Yet Barak was prepared to do so; and before the Al-Aqsa Intifada, the Israeli public was ready to support him. In a recent trip to Israel, I found a far-reaching consensus—encompassing the left and the right in Israel—for acceptance of a Clinton-like solution, provided the Palestinians are truly prepared to forsake terror, violence, and the right of return to Israel

The Palestinian use of lies and disinformation has been well known for many years but, in recent days it has reached new heights, the likes of which we have not seen before.
The false reports published in the Palestinian media, or by their spokespeople in the international media, have a double purpose: on the one hand, to delegitimize Israel and, on the other hand, to distract world attention from the Palestinian Authority's deep involvement in terrorism.

The Palestinian collection of lies is particularly disturbing in light of the well-known phenomenon that when a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth, even if it has no basis.
Even more disturbing is the willingness of the international media to serve as the instrument for publicizing the Palestinian claims, without checking their veracity and knowing that in many cases they are without foundation. The denials, if they are published later, receive much less publicity; by then, the damage has been done.

Below are a few examples of fabrications disseminated by the Palestinians:

"The Arafat is in danger" lie
One of the most popular themes, arising from the restrictions placed on Arafat, is the fear for the life of the president. On March 31, Yasser Abed Rabo said, in an interview to the Al Jazeera television station, that a warning was received that the IDF would enter the compound in Ramallah, and that this step was planned by Sharon with the intent to kill Yasser Arafat. The same day, Hassan Asfor said to BBC radio that the IDF had broken into Arafat's offices and that the situation was dangerous, "on the brink of disaster". Also on the same day, Saeb Erekat said on Egyptian television that he was unable to make contact with Arafat and that he feared for his life. Erekat repeated this in an interview he gave to CNN on April 6.

These fears were all proven to be unfounded.

Denying Jewish connection to the Land of Israel
According to a statement issued by the Palestinian Ministry of Information, December 10, 1997: 'There is no tangible evidence of any Jewish traces/remains in the old city of Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity' ().

'The Al-Buraq Wall [Western Wall] and its plaza are a Muslim religious
property ? [It is] part if the Al Aqsa Mosque. The Jews have no relation
to it' (Arafat-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Al Ayyam [PA newspaper],
November 22, 1997).

'The Al-Buraq wall is Muslim property and it is part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque'
(Arafat's Minister of Religious Affairs, Hassan Tahboob, Interview with
Israeli Jews Agency IMRA, November 22, 1997)

'That is not the Western Wall at all, but a Moslem shrine' (Arafat,
Ma'ariv, Oct. 11, 1996).

'All the events surrounding Kings Saul, David and Rehoboam occured in
Yeman, and no Hebrew remnants were found in Israel, for a very simple
reason -because they were never there' (Arab historian Jarid al-Kidwa, on
PLO education program, June 1997 (quoted in Ha'aretz, July 6, 1997).

'Jerusalem is not a Jewish city, despite the Biblical myth implanted in
some minds ? There is no tangible evidence of Jewish existence from the
so-called 'Temple Mount Era' ? The location of the Temple Mount is in
question ? it might be in Jericho or somewhere else' (Walid Awad, Director
of Foreign Publications for the PLO's Ministry of Information, interviewed
by the IMRA news agency, Dec. 25, 1996).

'Abraham was neither Jewish nor a Hebrew, but was simply an Iraqi. The
Jews have no right to claim part of the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron,
Abraham's resting place, as a synagogue. Rather, the whole building should
be a mosque' (Arafat, quoted in the Jerusalem Report, Dec. 26, 1996).

Denial of the Holocaust
'The persecution of the Jews is a deceitful myth which the Jews have
labeled the Holocaust and have exploited to get sympathy' (PA newspaper
Al-Hayat AL-Jadeeda, July 2, 1998).

'The Nazis probably killed less than one million Jews and the Zionist
movement was a partner in the slaughter' (Quote from a book written by Abu
Mazen, Arafat's number 2 man and senior Oslo negotiator).

'[The Holocaust] is a forged claim by the Zionists regarding the alleged
acts of slaughter perpetrated against the Jews' (PA newspaper, Al-Hayat
Al-Jadidah, Sept. 3, 1997).

'It is a well-known fact that every year the Jews exaggerate what the Nazis
did to them. They claim there were 6 million killed, but precise
scientific research demonstrates that there were no more than 400,000' (PA
Television, Aug. 25, 1997).

The "massacre" lie
Almost every battle wherein terrorists are killed, is called a "massacre".
Jibril Rajoub (March 30, on MAHAD TV, a local television station in Ramallah) accused Israel of carrying out a "massacre," executing 30 Palestinians in Ramallah. The announcement was also broadcast on Al Jazeera and other stations.

The reality, of course, is different: in battles which took place on that day in Ramallah, 9 Palestinians were killed - all of them armed.

The "several priests were killed" lie
Palestinian television reported on April 2, on the basis of an official announcement by the Palestinian leadership, that a priest named Jacques Amathis had been killed and dozens of monks wounded in an IDF action in Bethlehem. The announcement was published prominently in the Italian and French media and prompted a storm of protest.

The following day the 'late" priest was interviewed by the MINSA agency and confirmed that he and the monks in the monastery were safe and well.

The "attack on holy places" lie
Arafat, in an interview to Al Jazeera television on April 3, claimed that Israel had "burned the mosque" opposite Santa Maria Church in Bethlehem and "destroyed many churches and mosques." He called upon the Christian and Muslim world to take action. MAHAD TV reported that a fire had broken out in the Omar el-Hatib Mosque in Bethlehem and that the IDF was preventing the fire brigade from reaching the site to extinguish the flames.

None of these charges has any factual basis.

The WAFA (Palestinian News Agency) Internet site reported on April 2 that the IDF had shelled the new mosque in Tulkarm after the muezzin called people to noon prayers. In fact, no such incident took place.

The "wanted terrorists are innocent civilians" lie
Jibril Rajoub claimed, in an interview with Syrian television network ANN on March 30, that the only people in the compound of the Preventive Security Services in Betouniya were people working for the service, women and civilians, and that there were no wanted terrorists there.

The truth, of course, is somewhat different. On April 2, a number of wanted terrorists were captured in the building, including senior members of Hamas involved in many terrorist activities.

The "attack on ambulances" lie
On the WAFA Internet site, it was reported on April 2 by the Palestinian Minister of Health, Riyad Al Zanoun, that the IDF had taken control of five Palestinian ambulances in Ramallah, forced their teams to strip, and taken them to an unknown site, in order to prevent them from treating the wounded.

In reality, ever since an explosive belt was discovered in a Palestinian ambulance underneath a stretcher on which a small child was lying (end of March, at the A-Ram check post), the IDF has been forced to act with extreme caution.
A similar charge, incidentally, was made on April 5 by Al Kuds newspaper, which reported that a Red Crescent ambulance was seized in El Bireh, and that IDF soldiers attacked its driver and the paramedics traveling with him.

No such incident has ever taken place.

The "attack on international aid workers" lie
In an interview with Abu Dhabi television on March 29, Arafat claimed that "there was also that incident in Hebron, that insolent and criminal incident; they even attacked and killed in the Hebron area three members of the international force: two from Turkey and one of the nurses from Switzerland."

In fact, in the incident in question, one of the Turkish members of the force was rescued, and he said, in a radio interview, that the attack was carried out by an uniformed Palestinian.

The "systematic torture of prisoners" lie
The Al Kuds newspaper reported on April 5 that the prisoners in Ofer Camp, near Givat Ze'ev, undergo torture, including breaking their fingers.

This allegation too has no basis.

Accusing Israel when terrorist actions fail
Two examples:
The WAFA news agency reported on April 6 that a person named Ali Mustafa Abu Razek, aged 30, was shot and killed by the IDF close to the Sufa Crossing. In fact, Abu Razek was a terrorist who was trying to place an explosive device and was blown up together with the device.

The WAFA agency reported on April 5 that the IDF shelled the Um Nasser neighborhood, the Al Udeh towers and the residential areas near the Salah a Din road in the northern Gaza Strip. The reality was somewhat different - the mortar shells were fired by the Palestinians themselves, but landed in their own territory.

The "spreading of pornography" lie
At the beginning of the events, IDF soldiers were accused of broadcasting pornographic films on Al Watan television in Ramallah.

This claim was thoroughly investigated by the IDF and found to be baseless.

The "use of radioactive weapons" lie
Arafat has accused Israel several times of using radioactive shells. Never was any radiation measured.

The "forging of documents" lie
On April 5 Nabil Sha'ath claimed in the Saudi 'Okaz' that Israel had forged the document seized from Arafat's office in Ramallah indicating that the Palestinian Authority was funding the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade.

The document is of course authentic, and in the meantime other documents have been found indicating the involvement of the Palestinian Authority and of Arafat in terrorism and in its funding.

The "Jenin massacre" lie
The most famous Palestinian lie of the year 2002 (up till now!) is no doubt that on the number of Palestinian casualties as a result of the fighting in the Jenin refugee camp during Operation Defensive Shield. After the capture of the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002, Palestinians claimed a massacre had occurred in in the camp, with up to 3000 deaths. Also Arafat's Chief Liar Saeb Erekat accused Israel of a "massacre" and published the number of 520 deaths, a lie happily repeated by the media.
Israel claimed that about 52 Palestinians were killed, of whom the majority were terrorists. Afterwards, independent teams of the United Nations, Human Right Watch, Cordaid and Amnesty International confirmed the Israeli estimations and concluded that no massacre had taken place. The UN reported that the number of Palestinian fatalities can be estimated at around 55. Of those, a number were civilians, four were women and two children.
This did not prevent BBC and CNN to continue repeating these claims.

The "total devastation of Jenin" lie
The damage and destruction of buildings in the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002, as a result of the fierce fighting between Palestinian terrorists and Israel Defense Forces, was described by the Palestinians as "total destruction of Jenin". Western media used terms like 'Hiroshima', 'moonlandscape' etc. The Israel Air Force published aerial pictures proving that about 6 % of the Jenin camp was destroyed.

Organizing fake funerals
Pictures have been taken by remote cameras of Palestinians organizing fake "funerals" in preparation for the UN committee's visit to Jenin. It is not difficult to guess how the UN committee's conclusions could have been influenced by these lies.

More PALESTINIAN LIES can be found at the IDF site on this subject.

These are just a few examples of the Palestinian well-planned lie-campaigns and mass misinformation being supplied to the leading world media networks. This campaign creates a picture of Israel as a cruel and inhumane country, which damages holy sites, persecutes first aid agencies in contravention of the Geneva Convention and so on.
Where is the western media's moral responsibility ? How can they air such misinformation without any proper check?

the Palestinian ones?

Lets investigate just one or two of ahmedwalid, or moishe or whatever his name is, claims, for example, he says Palestinian television reported on April 2 (year not given) that a priest named "Jacques Amathis" was killed in Bethlehem and that the Palestinian TV lied. Fact (btselem): On April 2, 2002 a priest named Jack Ass'ad was killed in the shelling of St. Mary's Church in Bethlehem - so the Palestinians told the truth with the exception that they got the name of the priest wrong, and given that priests sometimes take religious names perhaps he was known under the name Amathis.

As far as the massacre in Ramallah on or before March 30 (year?), there was an incident in 2002. 5 members of the Palestinian security forces were "found dead in a building in Ramallah" on March 30. They are listed as not taking part in fighting. From that, the most likely scenario is that they were executed while in custody of the IDF - indeed a massacre. One other person was killed that day elsewhere in Ramallah, whose participation in fighting is listed as unknown. 12 people were killed on March 29, 2002, in Ramallah, of whom 3 are listed as participating in fighting and two as not, the rest unknown. That could be considered a gun battle, but again, there's plenty of evidence that at least some of them weren't militants and no evidence one way or the other about most of them.

So, even as ahmedwalid claims the number and circumstances given by some Palestinian agency is a lie, by he himself lies about the number and circumstances.

As far as the finding of explosive devices in ambulances, there's only the IDF's word for it, and they're known to be pathological liars. It's rather telling that the human rights group btselem (and they're a very reliable source, they check their facts to the extent possible unlike the NY times which just regurgitates IDF statements without checking) released a report on attacks on ambulances by the IDF in March, 2002, and a couple of weeks later in April, 2002 the IDF somehow starts "finding" explosive devices in ambulances.

From ahmedwalid (maybe we should just start calling him moishe)'s scatological references elsewhere, perhaps he's among the party which defecated on the photocopying equipment in the Palestinian Ministry of Culture in 2002, or all over the homes of Gazans in 2009.

Calling me "Moishe" is that a slur at me supposedly being Jewish? If you called a black person "jamal" or a random mexican "jose" you would be labeled a racist bigot on the spot.
Calling a supposed Jew some stereotype name also makes you equally a bigoted racist.

Congrats Lyn- all your "zionist lies" that you claim but can't list, amount to nothing. But, what you do show is that you are an antisemite and bigot.

sorry neoleft, but at least admit a few points when he is right.

But it sure ain't my desparation.

>> But from the start of the Oslo negotiations in 1993, Arafat focused only on what he was going to receive, not what he had to give.

Arafat had nothgi to give other that assurances that he would deliver security. He acheived that to such an extent that even Netenyahu rang him to thank him for his efforts.

>> As a result, when he was finally put to the test with former President Bill Clinton’s proposal in December 2000, Arafat failed miserably. [...]

Had he failed miserably, Clinton woudl not have gone back to the drawing board and come up with the parameters he presented to both leaders at Taba 6 months later.

>> To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians—a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state

That's because he wasn't. What be was offered was notthign remotely close to a Palestinian state, whch is why Israeli foreign minister, Shlomo Ben Ami (who was intimately involved in the Camp David talks) said he would have rejected camp David had he been a Palestinian.

>> with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary)

BS.

This has been entirely debunked by Seth Ackerman in his article, “The Myth of the Generous Offer - Distorting the Camp David negotiations”
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

Ehud Barak admitted that he went to the 2000 Camp David talks intent on having them fail. He needed to lift the pressure off of him due to the Israeli elections that were to follow some 8 months later. Ehud Barak knew that should the talks fail, a second Intifada would break and that would give him the chance he needed to blame Arafat and use that to boost his numbers in the polls.

To begin with, the 96% of the West Bank referred to is in fact 95% minus the expanded municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, that Israel has already annexed, which made Barak’s offer more like 81% of all the West Bank. The Israelis did not include parts of the West Bank they had already appropriated. An analysis of the Israeli proposals of December 2000 published by the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) concluded that Israel:

1.only proposed to relinquish control over between 77.5-81 percent of the West Bank excluding East Jerusalem, which most likely included Israel’s retaining of the Jordan Valley.
2. wanted sovereignty over one-third of occupied East Jerusalem (including Arab villages) and all of West Jerusalem.
3. wanted control of the third holiest site in Islam, al-Haram al-Sharif (which Israel refers to as the ‘Temple Mount’), where “Israel, incredibly, also demanded Palestinian agreement to the construction of a synagogue.”

The eventual Palestinian state would have consisted of four disconnected cantons on the West Bank, and thus would not have been viable.

As is well known, Clinton and Barak knew they were offering a lousy deal, so then came up with the Clinton parameters, which were offered at Taba 6 months later.

Both leaders accepted the Clinton parameters, but baraks aid they needed more time. He called off the talks early.

Barak admitted that he made no concessions. NONE. Read his article that states he offered Arafat NOTHING.

>> I have never met an Arab leader who trusts Arafat or has anything good to say about him in private.

Most European leaders say the same thing about Netenyahu.

>> Those who argue for an imposed solution claim no Israeli leader can make the hard decisions, such as giving up settlements, most of the West Bank and Gaza, and the Arab part of East Jerusalem.

In discontiguous bantustans perhaps, but not one in history has been able to create a state from an archipeligo of bantustans.

1) Make up facts

2) respond with "I know you are, but what am I"

3) lie, lie, lie

4) use sarcasm as if that proves your point!

Nice try, but no convincing there! Were you the water boy of your debate team?

Here is an interesting quote on how much the Palestinians value their own people's lives.

Hamas MP Fathi Hammad spills the beans. (Palestinian Al-Aqsa TV)

March 15, 2008 - To enlighten those who may have harbored any doubts, Fathi Ahmad Hammad, member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said it loud and said it proud: Palestinians deliberately use women and children as human shields.

This is the transcript of his remarks:

[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."

Hammad is a leader of the Izzedeen al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, and in 2006 was elected to the Palestinian Parliament as a Hamas representative. He is also director of Al-Aqsa TV, which aired his comments on February 29.

You know, it sometimes feels as though I am the only person on Planet Earth who has taken the time to track down the Khartoum Resolution and actually read what it says.

Apparently so, because if you read it then you will see that it says something very different to the revisionist nonsense spouted by Israel.

The paragraph in question dealt exclusively with ending the Israeli occupation of arab territory, and it states very clearly that this objective would be pursued via a policy of "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it."

Or, in simple terms: If you
1) *want* peace, and if you
2) *want* recognition, and if you
3) *want* negotiations then you have to
4) agree to end the occupation first, and then
5) those things are up for grabs.

And, honestly, everything that Israel has done since 1967 suggests that it is wise indeed to get Israel to agree to end an occupation BEFORE you offer any concessions, for the very simple reason that Israeli PMs tend to pocket what you offer but then find excuses not to withdraw their army of occupation.....

the best bet is to just forget about it, way too many resources dedicated to such a tiny area. We have bigger things to worry about in this country. It's like an seo agency spending all their efforts on ebpp

Actually I took the idea of Arab unification (and added some things of my own) from the distinguished Turkish anthropologist at Harvard, Nur Yalman, who lectures on Middle Eastern affairs there. If you want to object, perhaps you should direct your objections re the idea to him.

Well if going to Iraq has created your mentality and your wisdom I think I would be smart to avoid it. LOL.

Saddam Hussein was after only one thing when he invaded Kuwait and that was the oil fields. His next victim would have been Saudi Arabia if outside forces had not intervened. He actually had already crossed the border into Saudi Arabia and took possession of a town. His stated stated justification for invading Kuwait was that the oil wells on the Kuwaiti/Iraqi border were tapping oil from Iraqi territory. Iraq was broke after all the money they spent fighting Iran and Saddam took the chance to solve their financial problems.

The middle eastern countries when not complaining about the US or Israel squabble endlessly with themselves and the chance of them ever coming together for anything other than OPEC or a "Death To America" rally is pure wishful thinking. The much talked about Fatah-Hamas alliance has already started to collapse and the Arab Spring has not measurably improved the situation in that region. And since the facts in the Israel-Palestine conflict have been re-written by 50 years of endless propaganda Israel will has no reason to trust the Palestinians a give them a country which would only allow them to re-position their artillery and rocket launchers to gain further reach into Israel. Let Jordan ,Syria, and Egypt absorb the palestinians. And the world really does not need another Arab country to add to the chaos in the region. Sooner or later the Arabs are going to provoke Israel into solving the problem for good by finishing the job they started in 1967 and 1973 and damned near every country on the planet will quietly whisper "it's about time!" and move on to other concerns.

>> Saddam Hussein was after only one thing when he invaded Kuwait and that was the oil fields. His next victim would have been Saudi Arabia if outside forces had not intervened.

Saddam never threatened Saudi Arabia. In fact, the Saudi's and Saddam had good relations, with the Saudi's having just forgiven loans to Iraq in return for Iraq holding off Iran for a decade.

Cheney fooled the Saudi's into suporting DEsert Storm (and paying for it) by showing doctored satellite images of Iraq tank batllions amassed on the Saudi border.

Russian satellite images showed there weren't any.

>> His stated stated justification for invading Kuwait was that the oil wells on the Kuwaiti/Iraqi border were tapping oil from Iraqi territory. Iraq was broke after all the money they spent fighting Iran and Saddam took the chance to solve their financial problems.

Corection: The Kuwaiti's were stealing Iraq's oil and demanding immediate payment of loans to Iraq that were used to finance the war against Iran.

>> The much talked about Fatah-Hamas alliance has already started to collapse and the Arab Spring has not measurably improved the situation in that region.

The alliance was always going to be difficult, but it has not collapsed. The Arab spring has also run into difficulty, not least of which has been due to the frantic counter revolution conducted by the US and it's allies in the region.

>> And since the facts in the Israel-Palestine conflict have been re-written by 50 years of endless propaganda Israel will has no reason to trust the Palestinians a give them a country which would only allow them to re-position their artillery and rocket launchers to gain further reach into Israel.

Absolute rubbish. Israel broke teh last ceasefire in 2008 because according to Wikileaks, Hamas were benefitting from the peace.

>>Let Jordan ,Syria, and Egypt absorb the palestinians. And the world really does not need another Arab country to add to the chaos in the region.

Spoken like a true racist supremacist.

>> Sooner or later the Arabs are going to provoke Israel into solving the problem for good by finishing the job they started in 1967 and 1973 and damned near every country on the planet will quietly whisper "it's about time!" and move on to other concerns.

it sounds like you are all for Israel inflciting a genocide. Pure fanatasy mind you.

Israel can't pull of anything of he kuind without full US support. After all, Israel had their butts kicjked twice by Hezbollah and only escaped defeat in 1973 by the skin of their teeeth after Nixon ordered the biggest airlift in history of weapons to Israel.

The Palestinian Authority “sings for terror,” IDF Brigadier General Yossi Kuperwasser, director general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry, said Saturday night, 24 hours after PA terrorists slaughtered five members of the Fogel family in the Jewish community of Itamar in Samaria.

He also contradicted American claims that the Palestinian Authority is making an honest attempt to combat terror.

He revealed that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, hours after the massacre at Itamar, met with a member of a song group that contributes to an “atmosphere of terror.”

“The foundation of Fatah still is the use of terror -- which it calls resistance -- as the preferred tool to ‘free Palestine,’" he said in a special conference call with the media Saturday night. “Through songs and school textbooks and by honoring terrorists, the Palestinian Authority calls for terrorist attacks, and children are told to prepare homework on a song written by an Egyptian in 1948 calling for terror.

“That is the kind of message the Palestinian Authority public gets from its leadership, even though they say to the world, ‘We are against violence because violence doesn’t pay, but that does not mean it is not legitimate; people who commit violence are our heroes.’”

Kuperwasser (pictured) also accepted criticism from several journalists that foreign governments, especially the United States, are not receiving a clear message from Israel.

He said he will tell the Cabinet Sunday that Israel needs a clear, unified voice to negate J Street and Peace Now “blame Israel” messages. Four Kadima party Knesset Members attended the annual conference of J Street, which until recently was a favorite source of views on Israel for U.S. President Barack Obama. J Street and Peace Now’s general policy is to blame a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria as the reason for Palestinian Authority terror, ignoring the fact that there have been many more terror attacks in Israel's main cities than in Judea and Samaria and that they began long before the 1967 War..

Kuperwasser contradicted American claims that the Palestinian Authority has made a serious contribution to the reduction of terror in Judea and Samaria. “They make cosmetic moves but incitement continues shortly after every terrorist attack,” he stated.

He also said that the savage attack on the Fogel family Friday night demonstrates there is no “culture of peace” in the Palestinian Authority.

In response to a question from Israel National News on whether he could connect the attack with the removal of key security checkpoints in the area of Itamar, Kuperwasser said, “I hope not. We are investigating.”

The Brigadier General, a former senior intelligence officer of the IDF Central Command, charged that the Palestinian Authority “index of peace” shows that the Arabs are less involved in direct terror but are involved in encouraging terrorism and violence. "They are building a culture that refuses the right of Jews to live in the Land of Israel, and this ongoing phenomenon and brainwashing have a lot do with the background behind this inhumane attack [on Itamar],” he said.

No pan-arabism is racist too, as well as pan-turanism. I should have said bigoted in the case of zionism, since it claims the Jews are the 'chosen' people and therefore can look down upon the goyim.

Abbas never said he wanted a Palestinian state cleansed of Jews. In fact, he stated that Jews woudl be welcome to stay so lond as they agreed to become citizens of the Palestinian state.

His statement about Jews in Palestine was that he would not accept Jews being part fo any peace keeping force in the region.

>> Zionism is racist - except for all the ethiopian black jews, persian jews, arab jews, white jews, and 7,000 asian jews immigrating from the burmese border.

All of who'm complain bitterly about the racist opression they live under. The Arab Jews were tricked and forced to immigrate to Israel and trated like slave labor.

>> And except for the thousands of druze arabs and bedouin muslim arabs...who serve in the Israeli army and vote.

When their villages are not being destroyed.

Other than immigrant countries, which were formed by killing off the natives (i.e. the US, Canada, Australia) - every country is pretty much based on "race" or religion. Turkey is proclaimed the country of the Turks in its constitution. Uzbekistan the land of the Uzbeks. Syria is an Arab republic. Saudi Arabia is a muslim nation. The list goes on and on.

This is the norm in international relations. Nations were and are formed by ethnic/religious/racial groups. Southern Sudan is the most recent example.

@Aravay - I can't begin to refute all your mouth-foaming invectives. You seem totally consumed with hate. It's very sad.

This is what Abbas said about wanting a Jew-free Palestine:

"I will never agree that there be Jewish soldiers in NATO, and I will never agree that there will be a single Israeli among us on Palestinian soil."

“We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,” Abbas told reporters in Ramallah.

This was reported by Khaleed Abu Toameh, an Arab, fluent in Arabic. Something, Arvy is not. I trust his reporting a lot more than claims made by some anonymous posters here.

including black, persian, arab, asian peoples, then obviously Zionism is not "racist" as you claim.

Zionism is a Jewish national movement. It embodies many races clearly. At least be correct in how you want to spew your hate.

And if you have problems with religious nationalism, I suggest you first turn your attention to Egypt or Saudi Arabia - the former the Christian Copts are being slaughtered and discriminated against. The latter, non-muslims cannot even enter entire cities. It is illegal to openly practice any religion but Islam. And, the shiites are persecuted as heretics in the eastern provinces. So, if you really care about human rights or "religious nationalism" I suggest you take up the cause of these people under dire harm. If you insist on only picking on the Jews, as you seem to do, then it appears you are just an antisemite.

After all, I’m not even a Zionist.

>> Wow, pretty racist stuff.

No it’s not. Israel would not accept Palestinians as part of a foreign troop presence in Israel.

>> An American Jewish soldier or marine can't be part of a peacekeeping force in the region?

>> Jewish soldiers have and are serving as peacekeepers in Sinai as part of the MFO there. There have been no problems and the Egyptians never voiced any issues with that.

That was AFTER a peace treaty was signed between Israel and Egypt and seeing as Israel is not occupying Egypt, that’s understandable.

How do you think the Zionist leader would have reacted to Gemran troops being part of the British Mandate?

>> It's damn bigoted to make a statement like that, especially when your people currently leech off the Israeli-Jewish economy and US economic AID, which is also paid for by Jewish Americans.

Leach of the Israeli-Jewish economy? The Israelis have destroyed the Palestinian economy and stolen their land. The Israelis are getting of easy.

As for leching, Israel leaches to the tune of 10 times what the Palestinian leach from the US.

The issue that Marine sniper brought up was that Abbas would not let Jewish NATO troops serve as peacekeepers. This is NOT the same as Israeli troops, you idiot. And yes, that is very racist.

except that people of all races convert to Judaism and are considered Jews. And except that Jews in Israel are black, Asian, Arab, European, etc.

Nice try idiot. But Jews are not a "race" as Hitler claimed. If so, explain that to the converts, the black Jews, the Persian Jews, etc.

FOAD, troll.

It seems to me like it is you who is over-simplifying what Walt was saying.

The example of the Italian-American is a poor one. Unless Dennis Ross' parents or grandparents are from Israel this doesn't really compute. Let's say that Dennis Ross' family ancestry comes from somewhere in Eastern Europe, for arguments sake - Poland, for example. He would be a Polish-American. Italian-Americans do not call themselves Catholic-Americans. Arab-americans too. One is a religion that has lots of different roots scattered all over the world (like all the major religions do), and one is a nationality that is geographically centered in one limited area with its own culture.

I find that muslims from Malaysia are very different from muslims from Egypt culturally - even though they are both from Islamic States with a high proportion of muslims. So does this make Islam a culture? Personally, I dont think so. This certainly holds true for Judaism

Regarding the zinger. It would be ok to classify a Catholic-Irish-American as such, but that doesn't give them the right to colonize Italy because that is where the Vatican is, does it? Why not? They have a strong identification with the land, no? After all, that is where the Pope lives. So why not?

Finally - I am interested in hearing your real, pragmatic reasoning, as opposed to Walt's 'bastardized' reasons....

The quote you are criticizing is from Akiva Eldar's article. Walt only quoted it. Although I can see why you were confused. Walt seems to have forgot to close the quote.

If you want entertainment, then read a Harry Potter novel.

There is nothign ncredibly complicated about these issues EVERYMAN. Israeli apologisst like to pretend that they are as a way to avoid accountability for Israel.

>> But seriously, is he unaware that the status of Judaism (is it just a religion, or an ethnicity, an ethno-religion, some sort of nebulous, unique peoplehood?) is still not universally agreed upon

So what? The debate about Judaism and what it means to be Jewish will continue to be debate indefinitely, obviously because the definition and meaning is an intensely personal one.

That hardly udermines Walt's argument - in fact, it's not even relevant.

>> As well, Walt's point shows a complete willingness to disregard the actual reasons behind why Israel wants to be recognized as a "Jewish state"

That's probably because it's irrelevant and a stalling tactic. As Abbas said, how Israel defines itself is entirely up to Israel.

No state government in the world recognized Israle as a Jewish state, and apparently, not even Israel felt the need to be recognized as a "Jewish state" until Bibbi came to power in 2009.

During Cast Lead.

shields. And when hamas hid inside populated urban centers. According to the laws of war, their blood is on Hamas' hands.

Hamas knowingly uses its own people as shields and hides amongst them.

The warsaw ghetto fighters did not have their "families" as almost all their parents and siblings were sent to the gas chambers. By the time of the uprising, much of the ghetto was already liquidated by the Germans.

Any surviving parents, family members, etc. were mostly hiding, so they wouldn't be sent out on the next train to the death camps.

Second, the Jews fought from sewers and abandoned houses and cellars. They didn't HIDE BEHIND family members, as HAMAS does.

*************AND, the Uprising stopped the deportations to the death camps, at least temporarily. And it helped a few Jews escape death. ******So, rather than cause civilian deaths, the uprising actually stopped the Nazis from killing civilians, at least for a short while. Yes, for a time, deportations were stopped and when attempted to begin again, only a few thousand Jews out of the total number the Germans wanted, were able to be deported to death camps. The uprising saved Jewish lives, rather than place Jews directly at risk or hide behind them.

************Really, are you that misinformed? Do you have a few brain cells that are missing? I think you are just a plain old antisemite, as no one can be that willfully offensive and stupid.

But I said very clearly that Israel has US support; that the US is about the only major supporter that Israel has. So what is your point?
It's well known that Israel would like to have the US attack Iran and has said so many times. To claim otherwise is simply to fabricate untruths. In fact I think Walt pointed out that one of the few pluses of Gates' tenure was that he resisted Israeli pressures for the US to attack Iran.
Israel doesn't say too much about the Arab Spring because it doesn't quite know what to make of it. It certainly doesn't welcome anything that would put Islamic fundamentalists into power in neighboring nations. Israel's problem is that while it likes to criticize Muslim regimes for not being "democratic" it relies on Muslim dictatorships to suppress the fundamentalist elements in the neighboring Muslim countries. Egypt run by the Islamic Brotherhood will be much worse for Israel than the regime of Mubarak.
Israel defeated the Arab powers due to US military equipment and support. Israel depends upon US financial and military and diplomatic support. That is why Israel is so alarmed by anything that might lessen these. If Israel didn't need US support it would not be encouraging the Israel Lobby and other pro-Israel organizations in the US that constantly validate and encourage that support.
The constant aggression of Israel into Palestinian territory is clear evidence of its wish to shove the Arabs out. Israel's actions are illegal per what Hillary has said, yet she prevents UN condemnation of Israel. Hypocrisy and confusion on her part there.
The idea that one has to visit somewhere to understand what is going on is childish. But that is pretty much characteristic of much of what you say.
You have a closed Zionist mentality; far more closed than many commentators in Israel, in fact, so this will be my last message to you.

MARINESNIPER

9:59 PM ET

July 6, 2011

Ellerivera has fun with facts!

1) Israel has massive high support in the USA - 60-70%. More popular than Obama.

2) Israel survived its first 30 years without the US, and actually did quite well. Destroyed 5 arab armies in 1948, and destroyed 3 Arab armies in six days in 1967. All without US help. I am pretty sure Israel knows how to get along.

3) Israel has been largely neutral and quiet on the Arab changes. Not upsetting the balance of turn of events.

4) I supposed u have secret documents showing Israel wants an attack on Iran? Unlike the Wikileak documents which show EVERY Gulf Arab Nation pushing the USA to attack Iran.

5) Pushing Arabs out? Good opinions. Too bad you don't have facts.

Ellerivera- your problem is you are so filled with hate, that you use your opinion and think it is fact. Good luck with that.
REPLY

>> 1) Israel has massive high support in the USA - 60-70%. More popular than Obama.

No. Israel is placed 7th or 8th in terms of the satets Americans regard as important. That doesn't mean they have 60-70% popularity.

>> 2) Israel survived its first 30 years without the US, and actually did quite well. Destroyed 5 arab armies in 1948, and destroyed 3 Arab armies in six days in 1967. All without US help. I am pretty sure Israel knows how to get along.

False again.

a) Without the US, Israel woudl never have been recognized at the UN.
b) Israel did not destroy 5 Arab armies in 1948. It did not even confront the Jordanian army, which agreed with the British not to invade Israel. The Jordanians stopped at what the armistice line.
c) Israel got teh better of the 3 armies in 1967, but would have been defeated in 1973 had Nixon not come to its aid.

>> 3) Israel has been largely neutral and quiet on the Arab changes. Not upsetting the balance of turn of events.

False. Israel and Saudi Arabia were teh only 2 states that stood in suport. of Mubarak. So much for being a supporter of democracy.

>> 4) I supposed u have secret documents showing Israel wants an attack on Iran? Unlike the Wikileak documents which show EVERY Gulf Arab Nation pushing the USA to attack Iran.

False again.

a) Israel has thretened to attack Iran on coutless occasions.
b) Meir Dagan has warned that Bibbi's government is crazy enough to try it.
c) No Gulf Arab Nation pushed the USA to attack Iran.

>> 5) Pushing Arabs out? Good opinions. Too bad you don't have facts.

Yes, it's called ethnic cleansing. Wthout it, Israel would have an arab majority.

MARINESNIPER- your problem is you are clueless.

80% of Arabs in the ME actually support the idea pf Iran havin nukes.

Again ElleRivera - so stupid . you speak out of your rear

>> Finally, you seem to ignore that not only Israel, but the Arabs want a major attack on Iran. In fact, the Arabs want it more than Israel. Wikileaks proved th

False. Wikileaks proved that dicattors in the ME want it, not their populations.

>> The threat now posed by Tehran in the Middle East is illustrated by the decision of leaders in Saudi, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt to describe Iran as “evil”, or “an existential threat”, or a country that “is going to take us to war” in their contacts with US diplomats, which were subsequently relayed to Washington, and now leaked.

You know you're desperate when you have to quote the Saudi leadership, among the most vile in the world, as some moral high water mark.

I don't care for Marine sniper. However, I don't care for you making up facts either.

False again.

a) Without the US, Israel woudl never have been recognized at the UN.
EXCEPT for the fact that the Soviet Union also recognized Israel. And that UN recognition does not determine statehood. Was the US recognized by UN vote? Or Canada?

b) Israel did not destroy 5 Arab armies in 1948. It did not even confront the Jordanian army, which agreed with the British not to invade Israel. The Jordanians stopped at what the armistice line.

EXCEPT that Israel did fight the Jordanian army. It engaged in multiple battles and was able to hold on to Western Jerusalem against the British led Arab Legion. The Jordanians only stopped when they couldn't get any more gains. And yes, there was a Jordanian invasion of Mandate Palestine. The West Bank, which was not a part of Jordan in 1948, was invaded by Jordan and occupied.

c) Israel got teh better of the 3 armies in 1967, but would have been defeated in 1973 had Nixon not come to its aid.

False. The airlift was a counter to the Soviet Airlifts constantly being sent to the arab countries. The 1973 war was a cold-war struggle in many ways. To boil it down the way you do is unsophisticated and shows the bias of a simpleton on your part. Man for man, Israel won the war. Israeli forces crossed the Suez canal into Egypt and crossed into syria by the end of the war. Israeli artillery was within shelling distance of Damascus and Cairo.

The US airlift came after Israeli forces began rolling up Arab forces. It also came after Soviet airlifts to the arabs.

To view a war in such a bubble is just idiotic and simple. US forces were not fighting for Israel, as they did for Kuwait. Also, your analysis ignores the cold war, where the US and soviets were arming eachother's enemies.

the Arab countries indeed want an attack on Iran. The wiki leak documents prove it.

From the LA Times: Leaders of oil-rich Arabian Peninsula monarchies who are publicly reluctant to criticize Iran have been beseeching the United States in private to attack the Islamic Republic and destroy its nuclear facilities, according to a series of classified diplomatic cables released by the WikiLeaks website.

"That program must be stopped," one Nov. 4, 2009, cable quotes Khalifa as telling Gen. David H. Petraeus, then head of U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for U.S. military activity in the Middle East. "The danger of letting it go is greater than the danger of stopping it."

In a May 2005 meeting, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed al Nahyan, deputy supreme commander of the armed forces of the United Arab Emirates, urged a U.S. general to use "ground forces" to take out Iran's nuclear program. Another cable noted that even though the military official was urging the U.S. to attack, the federation did not honor U.S. requests to interdict suspicious shipments transiting its shores to Iran. A February 2010 cable attributes Bin Zayed's "near obsessive" arms buildup to his fears about Iran.

"I believe this guy is going to take us to war," Bin Zayed told a U.S. delegation in April 2006 of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "It's a matter of time. Personally I cannot risk it with a guy like Ahmadinejad. He is young and aggressive."

In December 2009, Bin Zayed told a U.S. official, "We know your priority is Al Qaeda, but don't forget Iran. Al Qaeda is not going to get a nuclear bomb."

I unfortunately think that the reason you are unable to see that Arabs and Israelis might have a common interest is that you only want to hate on Israel. This leads me to think you are just a bigot masquerading as some type of "activist."

>> EXCEPT for the fact that the Soviet Union also recognized Israel. And that UN recognition does not determine statehood. Was the US recognized by UN vote? Or Canada?

Without the US to brobe and lobby the UN, there would not have been the numbers to pass the resolution.

Truman made the resolution a reality and paid for it through bribery and pressure on member state representatives. Former US envoys, like those from Liberia, the Phillipnes and Guatemala, have admitted to this in their memoirs, that the US pit pressure on them or their countries to vote for the resolution instead of abstaining or voting with the Arabs.

>> EXCEPT that Israel did fight the Jordanian army. It engaged in multiple battles and was able to hold on to Western Jerusalem against the British led Arab Legion. The Jordanians only stopped when they couldn't get any more gains.

False. The British had concluded a deal with the Zionists that there would be no confrontation between the Jordanian Arab army and the Jewish forces. This is why Glubb later called the '48 war, the phony war.

Glubb imposed on the Arabs, the partition plan. In a meeting between Ernest Bevine, the Labor Govt's foreign secretary, and Tafig Abul-Huda, the Jordanian PM and Glubb. Bevine asked Abul Horda, what he planned to do. Abul Horda, we plan to send the Arab Legion to protect and keep the Arab part of Palestine. Bevin said that seemed the sensible thing to do, but do not invade the Jewish part.

>> And yes, there was a Jordanian invasion of Mandate Palestine. The West Bank, which was not a part of Jordan in 1948, was invaded by Jordan and occupied.

I never disputed that the Arab territory of the partition was invaded. That’s what Glubb and Abdul-Huda told the Bevine, who accepted it.

>> False. The airlift was a counter to the Soviet Airlifts constantly being sent to the arab countries.

False. The US convinced the Soviets not to take part in the 1973 conflict. It had nothing to do with cold war struggles. Israel threatened to use nukes of Nixon did not come to their aid.
>> US forces were not fighting for Israel, as they did for Kuwait.
They didn’t have to. They sent the biggest airlift in history of arms to Israel, which they did not do in Kuwait. After all, the reason the US got involved in Kuwait was to justify installing basis in Saudi Arabia.

>> Also, your analysis ignores the cold war, where the US and soviets were arming each other's enemies.

Like I said, the Cold war had nothing to do with 1973. The US and the Soviets came to an agreement that meant the Soviets were not to get involved.

Soviets did not have a 1973 agreement with the US. They mobilized their paratroopers to invade Israel. The whole war was a fight of US/Western and Soviet proxies in most ways.

You have a simpleton's views on this war.

The Jordanians lost Eilat and South-east Palestine that they invaded in 1948. The Jordanians also invaded the west bank. They chose to stop when they realized that the Israeli forces would (a) destroy them after the egyptian army was destroyed and (b) after they could consolidate no more gains due to ammo and man shortages.