Yes, bb, the classical Palestinian Argument. However, when we think it through it becomes obvious that this entire argument is hopelessly reductionistic and contingent on only one central premise: “Israel has no right to exist. Therefore, whatever we (the Palestinian/Muslims) do in response is unconditionally justifiable.

We say: “Israel exists. Now let’s just make the best of it and get on with it.” They respond: “There should not be an Israel. How can we move on?” This is not a discussion. It’s an argument.

If the Palestinians can not accept the reality of the State of Israel, then the World Community has to stop playing pretend. It must simply acknowledge the fact that the Palestinians are firmly committed to their avowed goal of “wiping the State of Israel off the planet” and start dealing with this situation accordingly.

Sometimes there really are no good solutions - only appropriate ones.

I can not tell you how frustrating it is not to have the quality and breadth of news coverage that you Brits have. Even our cable news stations are pathetically myopic in scope, having the coverage depth of an 8 year-old with ADHD. How can a country be so wealthy and yet be so poor.


Yes, I would be inclined to think so as well.


Yes, this is in line with the little that I have heard, as well. It is somewhat reassuring to know that at least in some regards we all share common ground (politics is . . . politics).

The success of this puppet show will, however, depend upon a relentless application of the familiar "carrot/stick" approach. Hamas is now a legally designated governmental power which has well defined legal rights and responsibilities according to International Law. They can no longer be permitted to engage in terrorism without suffering severe consequences.


Maybe, but then again maybe not.

If I were Israel this one issue would be my deal clincher. It is not as unrealistic a proposal at it might at first appear to be.

Jerusalem is claimed as a most holy site by arguably the world's 3 largest religions. Since it can not be given to any one religion, it would make the most sense to give it to everyone. This means that Jerusalem would become the first World City; entirely under the jurisdiction of the International Community. While each religion will not like the solution, they know that it's the best deal they can get that they can always find a way to live with it.

Now, this is certainly not a new idea. But there is one more part.

Israel is fundamentally pragmatic. It wishes to exist in peace. Jerusalem may have immense religious value, but as long as the Jews are assured of having "permanent visiting privileges" they really do not have to occupy it.

As a means of securing a lasting peace while also making the most powerful symbolic gesture of peace to the Muslim world that it can, Israel then sponsors a resolution before the entire World at a meeting of the United Nations. At this meeting Israel proposes that the "sacred stewardship" for this newly designated International City be permanently granted to the Palestinian State, who would be charged to administer "this most holy city" under the sole authority of the United Nations.

This is a deal that not only can the Muslim world not refuse, if handled correctly, it could actually serve to permanently defuse the situation.

Besides, Israel may be forced to accept the fact that the Palestinians have some very legitimate complaints that will not "simply disappear," either. If Israel honestly wants to co-exist in peace, it may find out that it actually has no real choice in the matter.

With regards the press (printed media) it might be free but it isn't free from bias, so I rarely read it. I tend to stick to radio and television. The general slant is as you say on how the Western governments in particular are struggling to come to terms with Hamas' victory and what to do about exisitng funding to the Palestinians.

For the sake of clarity I will break things down into Reporters - unbiased, Spokes People - offical representatives from the various parties (and the opposition), Pundits - experts (?) but with a particular bias (typically from think tanks or from political parties), commentors - unbiased experts (typically from university departments)

The Reporters are doing what they can to report and extract the facts, unfortunately there do not seem to be many of those forthcoming.

The spokes people from the West are going for the carrot and maybe stick approach demanding that Hamas renounce all violence, and stating that funding could be in jeopardy but being non-commital as to whether it is or isn't. The Israelis seem to be much more forthright but are leaving the door open. Hamas are asking that funding continue but that because the last regime was so corrupt thay will be able to get by on far less, and that any fund they will get will go straight to the people and not to the militia.

The pundits well you can take your pick, they run the full gamut from one extreme to another.

The commentators are the interesting ones:

First: Apparently the last regime run up a huge deficit, meaning that there is potenitally no money to pay the 100K+ government employees i.e. the income of 1M+ people, which could through the region into total chaos even before Hamas has settled in if funding is pulled immediately.

Second: If the West withdraws funding, then the likely replacement will be Iran given Hamas' links there to.

Third: It took Fatah 20 years to reach its accomodation with Israel don't expect miracles overnight.

Fourth: Hamas have not formed their government yet, keep your powder dry and the region stable.

Hello everyone on this thread I see that you're doing politics especially about the Glbl Nw Wrld Dsrdr Am I allowed to participate ?

Thank you ! As a autochtonous northafrican, shokingly nonmoslem, I found the debate about the efficiency of the war against terror interesting, but unfortunatly incomplete. What you really need to know objectivly in the West, is that Islamism, Islam and terror are exactly the same thing.
Before getting into any kind of protest, whether emotionnal or factual, let me please explain : by its own nature, Islam cannot be perceived, believed and venerated outside the Group of moslems = the Umma.

The social nature of every religion is the most obvious and visible aspect of the religious phenomena. The problem begins when this social "veneration" is not only deeply rooted inside a religion, which is by itself a problem, but also transports values in total contradiction with Ethical Human Life.

Please note that I'm not even speaking about complex and modern moral like equality, -universal - justice , free speech, freedom of faith, democracy etc.... It's only about the bare minimum honesty, self respect, respect of reality, i.e objective simple direct facts, mental equilibrum...

These things, wich every human child is blessed with (after all, children until a certain age, or bad experiences are naturally as innocent as intelligent, curious and open-minded) suddenly disappears as this moslem child grows inside a society-THESE actual societies - where double-language, hypocrisy, cheating, hate, perpetual "justifications" of failures, "civilized" and "religious" unequal rights between men and women, or arabs and "others", are the rule, the standards, not the exception ! The result is sad : a mass of humans, the only real wealth of a nation, unable to dream, to think, and to do anything good or productive, living with frustration that one day or another will turn necessary to something very bad...

I'm not trying here to isult or to exagerate, just look at the UN regionnal devloppement reports made by "arab intellectuals" themeselves.

So in what does this concern you, in democratic world ? simple : bad policies (from strategical point of view), corrupt politicians (the petro-$ for the petropuppets), arrogant irrationnal view of the outside world (folkloring, then mystifying, then obscurazing, then culpabilizing, then submitting), and arrogant irrationnal view of the inner "western world" (science is a "white race" miracle, but almost no politician supports the public reschearch, the teaching and "glorification" of science/rationnality/philosophy, litterature and propaganda of the "dangers" of science, no real lessons learnt from WW2 about the inside mechanism of faschism etc... ) have weakened the democracies, and obliged them to rely more on energy policies taken outside their borderline ! Democratic countries are not even sovreign, to defend or even to claim they are democracies !

So here is the real clash of the "UFOs" : a humanly developped civilizations (I'm using right now 100% of western product) is obliged to submit to a kind developped and Intelligently Designed (yes ID strikes again ) faschist religious NATIONS (not state or organiszation, but whole nations !) in order to physically survive. Worse : Democracy, that have not been really taught (ppl think democracy = elections, which are not event part of democracy, only a tool... for ex), is attacked on it's own natural lands.


I hope that you understand what I'm trying to say : the existence of Islam-umma is a vicious circle that can only be broken by introducing religion choice is the MEandAfrica area. Monopoly is always desastrous, even when applied to religion.

PS0 : excuse me for my barbaric english, i'm better in french.
PS1 : if my ideas seems brutal, i'm totally open to criticism, even brutal one. I have not enough time to demonstrate my ideas so it seems like an attack, sorry again...
PS2 : NATION : I'm of course talking about the majority of the population, there are always exceptions... but contrary to a democracy, where every exception counts, other system of governance do not recognize that...

good night and good luck