"Everyone knows which government asked Washington for the warships: the same one that is now slaughtering children in Gaza and has threatened the besieged city with an Arab holocaust, the government whose deputy defense minister recently warned that the response to continued rocket attacks would be a Palestinian "shoah." The Palestinians, he brayed on state radio, are "bringing upon themselves a greater shoah because we will use all our strength in every way we deem appropriate, whether in air strikes or on the ground."

"Such an interpretation can only succeed, however, if we wear the special blinders that the Lobby would have us don, which blank out the context in which this rhetoric is being uttered. The use of the word "shoah" against the backdrop of a major military operation in Gaza – one that seems to be escalating in ferocity – amounts to the very real threat of genocide. Any alternative explanation seems on the same factual and moral plane as garden-variety Holocaust denial. If, God forbid, the Israelis ever carry out their deputy defense minister's threat, these folks will morph into little David Irvings, busily spinning out heavily footnoted disquisitions on why it never happened."

What wasn't mentioned was the reverse – AIPAC. Why is AIPAC okay? I wish you would comment on the current AIPAC trial, which is about to start. Did you know the prosecutor just left for a cushy job, on the eve of the trial starting? Americans need to know about AIPAC, so all of us can call our congresspeople and demand they no longer listen to what they say.

"We will irritate you until you leave. You thought the swamps of Galilee were filled with irritating mosquitoes, and most of you left. Wait till you see what we can do."

"We won't "attack" you, because we will lose. But, we won't let you sleep, won't let you get comfortable."

"We will encourage the left/right 'solidarity' in Europe and the US to conduct similar efforts. Never letting you get too comfortable."

"We're like the world itself, in that respect. We will irritate until you die young. You are NEVER our friend, in any way."

I don't know. Maybe its just my irritated projection.

What happened to live and let live?

What happened to the distinction between criticism and coercion, respecting free minds to discern their own conclusions?

That's Ron Paul's foreign policy. Most Americans vote against their ideals, assuming they even recognize them.

Immediately after Annapolis, the Israel government moved to expand settlements in the east Jerusalem area.

Haaretz reported that the Israeli Defense Ministry is seeking to block publication of an official report showing that the extent of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is greater than Israel has previously admitted.

According to Peace Now, since 2003, when Israel made a commitment not to build new settlements and to dismantle unauthorized settlement "outposts" under the "road map" agreement, 122 government-authorized settlements were built in the West Bank, and another 100 outposts were built with tacit government support. Bush allowed this to happen, as did Congress.

A few days after end-term Bush's visit to Jersalem, Agence France Press reported that Israel has begun constructing 66 new homes in an east Jerusalem settlement.

Bush essentially said the way to go was a secure home for a fully recognized righteous Jewish state and a separate home for a Palestinian state–he spoke of establishment of "Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people." Well, not quite; most if any Palestinians would get no right of return, but compensation. No doubt both sides to get piles of American cash to make it all happen.

Currently in Bush's Jewish state, Arabs make up 20 percent of Israel's population.

Since 2000 both sides have been enduring violence, terrorism, and hopelessness. As for the United States, continuation of the conflict has done terrible injury to all of our interests in the region. Even some Israeli hardliners are saying it–but not the
US presidential candidates on prime time TV.

"For many years the idea [of an international force] … was absolutely anathema … It was considered impossible from our point of view." In the Likud government, it was "treason" even to think of such a thing because it would keep Israel from being able to attack the Palestinians. "But we have moved." – David Kimche

————

Presumably an international force was objectionable because it would restrict Israel's discretion to enlarge settlements and expand its border outward. Maybe the zionists have finally concluded that they've grabbed all the land they can; the Palestinians are getting too uppity, and publicizing their plight on the internet. This is not "good for the Jews." So we've moved …

UN forces have served in southern Lebanon. Extending that concept to the Israel/West Bank border is very problematic, because it would tend to legitimize Israel's illegal wall, along the illegally-expanded border.

Using NATO troops is an even worse idea. NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance. It first broke its restraints under Bill Clinton's bombing of Serbia, as Kosovo remains an ongoing disaster. NATO's lost war in Afghanistan is a second disaster. NATO as global enforcer is a horrible idea, particularly for the flawed concept of a "two-state solution" (TSS).

Bottom line, the TSS is nothing but a diabolical plan to consolidate Israeli territorial gains. The Palestinian people are under NO obligation to honor an agreement made under the duress of occupation, and probably won't. TSS is just another cynical stalling tactic, inherently malevolent in intent, and serving the interests of the Israeli state.

Meanwhile, Witty is back with his "Palestinians as mosquitos" riff, which mirrors Hitler's "Jews as microbes" metaphor. Who will inherit the earth, the mosquitos or the microbes? Or will they mutually annihilate each other? Zionism was a catastrophic mistake … there's a train wreck coming; Lordy, you can see it from ten thousand miles away!

Actually, the riff is MILITANT Hamas and Hezbollah adopt a mosquito strategy, to get the Israelis to leave ("voluntarily").

Do you think they have that strategy, or a different one?

How would you characterize it?

The art is to reduce the pressure, so that each have room to breathe.

ANY ideology that is exclusivist will add pressure.

By my math a two-state solution is the means to reduce that pressure, to reduce the likelihood of conflict.

So, on the Israeli side that DOES entail having the discipline to act in a way that enhances acceptance: not expanding within or the dimensions of settlements, reducing the number and intensity of checkpoints.

I genuinely don't know what to do about Hamas though. Shelling of civilians is ongoing terror, even if at a lower level than the concentrated military power of the IDF.

Hamas won the general elections, broke out of a virtual siege that Israel imposed upon them, and no counter strategy by US-Israel has proved effective…

So Israel has been inflicting serious harm collectively in the disputed areas. Now Hamas is trying to get a cease fire. Will Hamas be cowed into accepting the dictate: Israel's right to exist, honor previous promises of the PLO/Fatah, stop all attacks on Israelis? Halevy says the last two conditions are essential, but the first demands an a priori renunciation of ideology before contact is made. Such a demand has never been made before either to an Arab state or to the Palestinian Liberation Organization/Fatah. Tough guy Halevy adds there is logic in the Hamas' position that ideological "conversion" is the endgame and not the first move in a negotiation.

Should US-Israel policy remain trying to engineer internal Palestinian politics–now at the barrel of IDF guns, while our
presidential candidates look away? Shouldn't Palestinians decide who their leadership should be? Isn't that democracy?

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/02/22/ephraim-halevy-former-shin-bet-director-favors-talks-with-hamas/