Polls show Americans may love Israel, but…

International Poll: Most Publics–including Americans–Oppose Taking Sides in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
link to worldpublicopinion.org

Americans don't want to take a side there. Ultimately, theres a desire for fair play. Unfortunately, fair play is not what is occurring in the peace process, and that is the problem that is in direct conflict with American and global desires.

First, I think your understanding of Israeli/Palestinian history is a little revisionist.

In 1948, Jordan annexed what was to possibly be Palestine. It was unclear from the wording of the mandate whether the state would be Arab or specifically Palestine.

Its a profound quandry. At that time it was unclear to the west and to Arabs/Palestinians themselves what national identity was predominant. For example, relative to the oft-quoted statement by Golda Meir "There is no Palestinian people. There never has been." She was NOT saying "there is no Arab people. Or, that the residents of the West Bank are to be permanently disenfranchised".

Its a quote that is used to revise history to the interpretation of some conspiracy, of some control of the wildly plasmic historical events.

There definitely IS a tension within Israel and elsewhere between those Zionists that seek "enough land" and those that seek "all the land".

And, it is true that the annexation of the West Bank has occurred incrementally, but VERY slowly.

Its 41 years since the occupation and only a small portion of land that the expansionists very definitely covet, has been annexed. The annexation at all is wrong, but it is NOT an example of nazi-like or even Russian-like land annexation.

In exchange for peace and recognition Israel has returned land. In exchange for the prospect of continued violence, it has refused to. Egypt does not have troops at the Israeli border, except in border administration. Similarly for Jordan.

Hamas does and shells Israel without external provocation, preceeding the blockade. Hezbollah does consider itself actively at war with Israel.

Also, I think you've got it wrong about historical US relations with Israel and specifically around the settlements.

It was NEW that Bush spoke of annexed Jerusalem as Israel, and spoke of the settlement bloc areas as Israel. NEW.

Its a very big change.

I'm also reading the Miller book. I was struck by comments about his interrelations with both Palestinian and Israeli negotiators. They EACH described to him that he was naive about the reality of the current and immediately plausible relationships.

The Palestinians, educated, humane individuals, described that they risked their lives if they did anything that appeared to be compromising to Israel in any significant way. They themselves described some among the Palestinians as murderous, fanatic, and NOT held to law.

Miller describes the Palestinian community as various (civil and fanatic), but MORE willingly to threaten and use violence than most within the Israeli community.

Its hard to know if that generalization is prejudicial or observational, conditional or unconditional.

There is no press silence on the issue. Not in the NY Times anyway.

I've personally met very gracious, intelligent, mature Palestinian leaders and negotiators. The Abrahamic test/request is clearly fulfilled "If there are ten righteous people, do not destroy them."

And, I'm dismayed that the left admires and more than passively encourages the "resistance" of Hamas, Hezbollah and others. I would think that Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Norman Solomon would support non-violent resistance nearly solely, and reject terrorist and unconditional platforms.

I think its more progressive, more humane, to fully invest in what you think is right, rather than indulge the world with your doubts.

The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam, 16 August 2007

Gaza's Future, 7 February 2008

Grab more Hills, Expand Territory, 10. April 2008

Your talk of the territorial "concessions" demanded of the Palestinians is extremely misleading and underestimates the travesty of what Israel is doing.

In a prison, prisoners "control" 90% of the prison, while prisonmasters control only 10%. It's still a prison. In the most "generous" offer by Israel and its lawyer Dennis Ross, Palestinian land would've been completely surrounded and controlled by Israelis. To fail to mention this means you've been spending too much time talking to intelligent analysts like Steve.

I've been in jails during times of dissent in which the 90% that we did "control" was a place of study, discussion, friendship-building, cross-cultural discussion, sharing.

Thats my vision of some of the best in my life.

I've also been in jail for hitchhiking and thrown in a drunk tank that was among my life's worst experiences.

This is an important point. While we all continue to press on the issue of territorial integrity (which I sense is slowly but surely being won), we must remember that the real meaning of "viable" goes beyond mere acreage.

The Magnes Zionist had a good post on this topic–
link to themagneszionist.blogspot.com

"Now, let's think of other terms besides "viable". How about "strong", "secure", "independent", "economically prosperous, with room for natural growth and expansion"; a state "that neither dominates nor is dominated by its neighbor state" (you know, the one established by Eastern Europeans), and "that has the same opportunities possessed by the other state"?"

It is this kind of TRUE viability (i.e., not dominated by its neighbor) that proponents of a two-state solution must show is still possible. I don't think it is.