There will never be a solution to this mess. These people have been fighting for thousands of years. I can't possibly think of a solution that would be pleasing enough to both sides.

You should live in my part of the world, where the news coverage on all the Iraqi and Arab networks (well, except the Iraqi Christian network Ishtar) is Gaza 24/7.

This is what people said about the Brits and Irish.

"At least 40 people have been killed in an Israeli air strike on a United Nations-run school in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian medical sources have said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814054.stm

Blame Hamas for this crap!

Here is a good example of Hamas's modus operandi. They set up a mortar team next to a school crowded with refugees, fire a few rounds (acoustic mortar detectors can locate the source fairly quickly), then run before the counterstrike arrives. Innocent people pay the price — in this case, 30 killed, 55 wounded. This has happened at two different schools so far. So Hamas is not just hiding among civilians or using them as human shields, they are intentionally engineering headline-grabbing mass casualty events they can blame on Israel. Great bunch of guys.

For three frickin' years Hamas has been sending rockets into Israel, yet we hear no carping from the Arab world, or even Bill W. Yet Israel finally decides, "Enough! We've had it!" and they go on the offensive to stop this shit and what happens? People have conniption fits about Israel killing civilians.

But isn't that applying "situational ethics" to the middle east crisis?

The Palestinians do not have the luxury of choosing their own battlefield. If they were careful to place weapons and fighters in easily targeted sites away from civilians it would guarantee that they would leave their entire population without the heads of households to support the rest.

Their behavior is intentionally suicidal.

Such behaviour may be analagous to the desperate father who cannot bear the pschological burden of living and supporting his family so he kills his kids and himself, something that happens even in western nations.

Have no doubt that the Israelis would do the same in a similar circumstance. Were Iran to have a nuclear weapon and the capacity to threaten Israel, not only would many Israelis remain there, even if they could go overseas, but many Jews from around the world would go there in hopes of protecting the state with their presence. By doing so it would make it more likely that their home country would defend Israel from the expected attack. None of this suggests that either is right or wrong. Both sides are willing to commit suicide.

If their choice is war, then this line of thinking might be bought and sold at the market. I would not buy it, however, because the explanation given actually renders an understanding that many do not seem to recognize.

They are not choosing suicide alone. They are choosing to make "martyrs" of their own people, most of whom would not choose to commit suicide. They are choosing to make war and bring more destruction down on their own people.

However, in spite of Hamas' actions and propaganda (indeed the actions and propaganda of the past 60+ years), the Palestinians are not limited only to war. That is, if they want to actually create a Palestinian state without wiping out Israel. They can do it, or certainly could have done it.

Indeed, they were making steps toward it in Gaza when they elected to throw out Fatah, not to engage in war against Israel, but primarily because there was such corruption and poor delivery of services by Fatah. That was a democratic expression of the will of the Palestinian people in Gaza. While it brought Hamas to power, which caused much dismay in Israel, the US, Europe, and the UN, (which for many Palestinians was gravy), it also was a powerful statement of self-determination by the people.

However, Hamas militants have hijacked the Palestinian right of self-determination by continuing to fire upon Israel for the years since Israel's withdrawal. They knew/know what they're doing to achieve their objectives....a military response by Israel to years of attacks was inevitable. Because Hamas' objective is the destruction of Israel. Not peace. Not a Palestinian state being created in Gaza and the West Bank. But destruction of Israel. At no point can Hamas be excused for their choices.

Do not read any of this as saying more than it has. I did not say Israel should be responding as it has been. In fact, Israel seems to be making the same mistake it made before in Lebanon of going in to fight without a clearly achievable conclusion being possible, at least not without a ceasefire, a withdrawal, opening up of the borders, and risking again more bombings or suicide attacks. Israel's response was predictible, but it's hard to see how it can be a good one for bringing a fundamental change.

The world does not pay attention when rockets are launched into Israel, for years, but will bring great pressure to bear to force Israeli withdrawal. In the end, that might be what it takes...but only if such pressure is correspondingly exerted on the Palestinians to commit to a 2 state solution, not just 1 state. Maybe, when enough people have died on each side, the people on each side will be able to push for peace and recognize the need to accept the other state.

Did the world pay attention when the Palestinians were systematically removed from what is now the state of Israel?

I would not justify the actions of any of the actors in this millennial melodrama, but to see one side as superior to the other only feeds the hopelessness of both.

You misread me, if your response is to my post. I do not see one side as superior. I believe that Israel must accept the Palestinian state (the idea of it now, and then the actual state when it is founded), must stop building new settlements on the West Bank and actually remove the Israelis living there now, and so on. Of course, Israel must see that the Palestinian people are in charge of their country, not the minority who want to wipe Israel out, so Israel can take the necessary risks of giving up land/security for peace.

To stay with your thought, though, in fact, I'd say the type of response you gave, the unwillingness to acknowledge that the Palestinians are not simply victims, feeds the conflict as much as one side being viewed as superior to the other. In your attempt not to justify, you also don't seem to be able to identify. Where are the Palestinians martyrs for peace? Sadat of Egypt was one. Rabin of Israel was one. Decades of Arafat and now Hamas have not allowed or fostered a voice for peace to be loud among the Palestinians.

Along those lines how do outsiders (UN, US, Europe, other Arab countries) support and foster democracy in Palestine, as it is in Israel, so that the will of the people is carried out by their leaders rather than the other way around as it is today? Actually, how does Israel help that process as well, since I believe it's in Israel's interest to have the Palestinian people form a democratic government?

As to the question...we have to go back over 60 years...let's see.....the UN approved the establishment of 2 states, but only the Jews agreed to the partition in order to establish their own country. Which they did. The Palestinians Arabs chose not to establish a country, but instead attacked the newly formed Israel, aided by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq. That is not seeing one side as superior, just what happened.

Did the world pay attention? Yes, in ways. Not in that particular way, though, it seems. The world was paying attention to the relatively huge, crushing forces attacking and invading Israel, intent on eliminating the Jewish state. Given what had just happened to Jews in Europe, it is not surprising that the focus was on the renewed cry of wiping the Jews out. Does that justify "the systematic removal of the Palestinians"? No, of course not. (Just a point...either that practice was not as complete as the above statement of it, since there remained in Israel in 1948 thousands of Arabs, who have grown to over a million now, I believe, or the Israelis were rather sloppy in how they carried it out, which would be surprising and inconsistent with the ruthlessness of the practice.)

In the context of the time, 1947/1948, there were millions of people in Europe who had been systematically removed from their homes (see Poles having to move west because the Soviet Union forced them to, and Germans who had to leave ancestoral homelands because the Soviet Union forced them to....Muslims and Hindus in India moving or being forced to move from their homes when India was partitioned into India and Pakistan...among other horrific examples). The practice of forcing out perceived or suspected enemies was actually common. And...it still is today (see Bosnia, Congo, Kosovo, Iraq, Sudan, among others). Does it justify it? No. Of course, that is a judgment on my part, but I'll take the heat for making a judgment about some things.

The power for the Palestinians against Israel is to challenge Israel to live up to its ideals as a democracy, rather than warring on it with the intention of destroying it. No democracy is perfect (see the US in Iraq, Israel in Lebanon), but the country can be challenged to change by returning to its core beliefs. After 60 plus years the Palestinians still don't seem to have an idea how to achieve their own state. If they could figure it out, and be willing to accept Israel's continued existance as a neighbor, they could have a country in a matter of years. War will not lead to one for decades, if ever.

Hamas doesn't have a lot of options as to where to put stuff--the Gaza strip is so densely populated that there are civilians pretty much everywhere. It has roughly the same population as the city of Phoenix (1.5 million), and Phoenix is nearly four times as large in area.

The article "1948 Palestinian exodus gives some idea of the complex history of Palestinians in Israel.

Suggesting what, exactly? That because Ghaza is crowded, emplacement of weapons and ordnance (and "stuff") in schools, mosques, etc is acceptable? That's simply intellectually lazy and masks the deliberate intent of Hamas to draw fire on such sites.

They have options. Plenty of them (as do the Israelis). I've been in Ghaza and know that to be the case...have you?

Well, Hamas is at it again...the bombing of Israel. How do they expect to garner the sympathy of the world if they continue to instigate the fighting? I sure hope Israel goes in and brings Hamas to their knees. Maybe, with any luck, there will be peace in the region.

Maybe they should just go in and nuke them. Nuke every phucking bunch of those wackos.

Sorry. It's 3:10 in the frickin' morning. I shouldn't even be up. I don't care. I'm depressed. My life sucks. Good night.

I think "nuking" the palestinians in Gaza might insure that we lose any influence we have in the middle east for at least the length of the next two presidential administrations.

It would certainly leave fallout - both political and, more importantly, physical - that the world would spend years trying to clean up: the closest countries and those downwind - as the globe rotates - being the most affected. I think that would include Israel in that region.

I know you are only writing out of frustration Crew Chief, and I hope in jest, as black as such humor may be; but it does suggest the consequences of the current non-nuclear strategy being employed by Israel.

If they cannot reduce Hamas to an unsustainable level, both politically and militarily, there is a high probability that this opportunistic operation will backfire. I suspect that they are trying to tie the hands of Barack Obama or any other near-future US administration by creating both facts on the ground and agreements with the Bush administration that will be politically difficult for Obama to revise.

In this my guess is that they will not succeed in the manner expected. Not because the political calculations have not been carefully made but because Obama has had the uncanny ability to take advantage of political opportunities. He did so in his campaign and I suspect he will do so in office. This situation properly handled presents an opportunity to finally approach both sides with the sacrifices they have needed to make.

Yes, even in the midst of the killing there is opportunity. Just as Egypt was able to take steps toward peace after launching the Yom Kippur War and regaining some of their self-respect, so they weren't negotiating from a position of complete weakness, so it is possible for the Palestinians under Hamas to take the steps necessary to establish their own country (next to Israel, not in place of Israel). Whether they will choose so is the single biggest question that must be answered.

For Israel this (and Lebanon) should have shown that they cannot wipe out the opposition. Are they ready and willing to take the steps to establishing Palestine as a country? Not on their own, I don't believe. Nor should they, either. The UN, Arab countries, the EU, along with the US, must be involved to enforce a real peace, because it will not come without a price even after it's established.

Perhaps so much blood and destruction will push the change of attitude into willingness to risk.

It appears that the possibility of Israel being able to act as a partner for peace has just gotten a lot more difficult during the recent elections.

What is most discouraging is the radicalization of the youth who will lead in the future. Israelis have become more frightened by the "defeat" of Hamas - claimed by their leaders - than assured, and seem to see a different reality in the future. And they seem to expect less accommodation from an Obama administration.

If moderates have to form a coalition government with the surging right wing it will be the equivalent of John McCain having had to fix the US economy with Democratic supermajorities in both houses: a total mess.

I suspect the working government in Israel will be considerably to the right of Labor's policies, which at least spoke of peace with moderate Arabs in the West Bank.

George Mitchell will see very new facts on the ground.

And yet, Begin was the one who negotiated peace with Sadat. Nixon went to China. There is possibility when the right wing is in power, because of the expectation that the right wing won't "give it away".

Excellent observation Good Hands.

The only thing that haunts that scenario is the spectre of Rabin's assassination. When the young become radicalized they tend to become impetuous and blindered.

With diplomatic skill (a balanced appeal by the US to both sides) and a little luck (Tzipi Livni's Kadima Party, rather than a more conservative coalition, prevails in the current elections) this could still be an opportunity.

Working with Benjamin Netanyahu will be extremely difficult for anyone seeking a peace agreement, less due to his opposition - which seems firm - than to the pull of the more conservative coalition members he would have to draw on to win; unless he turns out to be a closeted Rabin.

Unfortunately I think he is more driven by ego (cursed with good looks?) than Rabin was, and therefore less prone to compromise, unless one can find a very convincing way for him to save public face, both literally and figuratively.

I'm hopeful either way.

Initially I thought the Obama administration should hold this one at arms length; perhaps that's not an option.

And, of course, the peace dance is not a solo twist, but a partner tango. Even if the Israelis would be willing, the Palestinians must be willing also. At this point they are not. Hamas is not. So saving face is not just for Netanyahu, but also for Hamas.

While neither party has the political strength - or will - to crack down on rogue elements (groups like Islamic Jihad in the case of Hamas, and illegal settlers for Israel), the Israelis have the stronger military position and the most to gain from doing so now rather than later.

The most recent flare-up is a case in point. It can be traced back to rockets being fired from Gaza in violation of the most recent ceasefire. Whether Hamas could have prevented this is questionable. That they had the will to prevent it is unlikely.

Whether Israel killing a leader of Islamic Jihad in the West Bank before the rockets were fired by them was a violation of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas in Gaza might be arguable. That Israel has the will to desist from, or delay, such anti-terrorist operations during a ceasefire is unlikely.

These are the fine points of interpretation that George Mitchell will have to try to hammer into hard treaties that do not leave a lot of room for misunderstandings.

That will be very tricky with two antagonists who are wily emotional dissemblers with centuries of practice.

We are still a young nation by comparison, but can use that as an advantage if we are persistent and patient.

I must admit I love Dick Cheney's quote "wretchedness cloaked in righteousness" because, as is usually the case when people are being hypocritical, it most perfectly describes his recent uncharacteristically public exposure.

It looks more like pre-emptive self-defense of his own hide - against possible war-crimes hearings - than sincere concern for the "American people". Methinks he doth protest too much. As usual he is probably hurting himself more than helping if the facts prove to be against him, as they do so far.

But back to the serious threat against US security - second only to the economic nonsense perpetrated by our own citizens against us on Wall Street and throughout the other financial institutions of usury in the US - Israel:Palestine is finally getting some serious attention.

It is clear that Netanyahu will work as hard a bargain as he can, setting the most extreme position possible in hopes of acquiring something more realistic. God only knows what he considers that realistic outcome to be. If he decides to play hardball and attack Iran within the coming years it will cause damage to the entire economic structure of the world - beginning with Israel - that will make the current mess look like a tea party. Personally I think he realizes that and is blustering. Our next greatest problem after the economy and Israel:Palestine is the relationship with China. As the more diverse nation we need to lead on that front.

More extreme than still not recognizing Israel's right to exist? Don't know how that would sound. Except maybe saying "we'll drive the Jews into the sea".

I thought extreme position taking was endemic to negotiations/bargaining in the Middle East.

The bargaining chip that he seems to have chosen is the settlements. By the measure of world opinion, as reflected in USA policy and UN statute, the settlements should not continue to grow and eventually must be removed.

Netanyahu has not agreed with that. On that account his position may be viewed as "extreme".

A future issue will be nuclear disarmament. It is clear that no serious candidate for office in Israel could be elected on a policy of disarming Israel's nuclear arsenal. That is an "extreme" position for any nation that supports disarmament. Even Livni who is reasonable about the settlements would not be on nuclear arms.

Many other countries in the middle east are waiting to see what will happen with both issues and are likely to begin nuclear capabilities - for "peaceful" uses - themselves regardless of the outcome in Israel.

But that outcome may well affect how quickly they divert resources to that goal.

The more nuclear-capable countries there are in the middle east, and the faster that happens, the sooner the issue of settlements, and perhaps Israel's future, will be removed from its own hands.

"Existential threats" and Israel's right to defend itself by expansion could then become irrelevant issues.

Buried in this wiki article on the "Iranian Revolution" are all of the problems with the current policy of the West toward Iran.

It is not surprising that a fanatically religious ruling elite would willingly expose its fellow citizens to widespread human casualties and material destruction. Rulers who would shoot their own in the street would not hesitate to harbor material that could be used in the rapid construction of weapons of mass destruction throughout populated areas.

The technology and knowledge for this is likely too widespread in Iran to be easily destroyed by neat elimination of a few concentrated targets. Perhaps Western intelligence that is honest has long come to this conclusion.

The alternative diplomatic approach will inevitably lead to the diminishment of the power of this oppressive regime, but only if the internal opposition is not marginalized by counterproductive and politically motivated measures to punish the few by threatening the many.

We are confronting a fundamental defining of values more than a tactical decision. There is a rot that has taken hold at the core of the "Iranian Revolution". Should we wait patiently while it destroys the Iranian body politic or seek to affect a cure? I believe we can afford to apply remedies rather than radical surgeries.

We may be seeing the issue of Palestine and Israel introducing itself indirectly into the debate over health care for USA citizens in the form of a threat of filibuster by a single US senator from Connecticut.

Joe Lieberman continues to suggest he will stand alone against health care for millions to achieve profits for his wealthy backers in the Connecticut-based and other insurance industry.

At the core of Lieberman's ideology is support for Christian Zionism due to their radical views on "Israel’s sovereignty over all of historic Palestine, including Jerusalem." which both he and they view as "God's work".

On top of committing the ultimate sin of not supporting Joe Lieberman's candidacy for a Connecticut senate seat against a Democrat and a Republican, Barack Obama has dared to set out an agenda in the middle east that includes discontinuing growth of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories and a divided Jerusalem.

Lieberman can rise above his special interests or go down in history as the person who killed health care.

If he sees a conflict between reforming health care and his re-election - to support Israel - his choice is easy.

With the discovery of mineral deposits in Afghanistan a new and complicating possibility is developing in the middle east. Though the particular article I link is rightly cautious about the exploitability of the resource its critiques only delay - not prevent - the eventual development of such resources. Rather than becoming the world's Saudi Arabia of minerals, Afghanistan could be come the middle easts Australia of minerals. The reason this poses a complex problem for peace in the middle east is at least two-fold.

Firstly, Afghanistan's president is making it clear that he does not believe that the West can defeat the Taliban or reform Pakistan's military's dependence on Islamic fundamentalists. He is therefore seeking an accommodation at the least, and an alliance that will likely be one-sided in favor of Pakistan and it's Taliban dependents. This raises the possibility of a loose alliance of necessity dominated by the only nuclear power in the group. The US can ill afford to continue the war at current cost - both monetary and political - and, even if there is a change in administration in the USA, is not likely to be able to thwart such an alliance. There is much that a new more conservative administration could do to quicken it.

Secondly, this new alliance will no doubt involve some sort of accommodation with Iran. This brings in to play four regimes: Pakistan, Afganistan, the Taliban and Iran who normally hate each other more than they do any foreign enemy. But we have already seen how islamic leaders in the middle east can use the USA-Israel alliance to overcome their own internal contradictions to form a temporary cabal to retain hegemonies.

The latest installment in a long arduous trail toward some sort of peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people has begun with an unusual amount of hyperbole that suggests certain interested parties see a real chance - or necessity - for something to come out of this one. That may be a good harbinger.

The most interesting is the statement by a Holocaust survivor that implicitly compares Gaza to Nazi concentration camps:From the other extreme comes an attempt by a Jewish settler to insult the USA president calling him by his middle and last names without using the first. That the former statement was made on a ship leaving from the port of Famagusta, the former site of "British internment camps" for Holocaust survivors seeking to emigrate to Israel, and the latter from one of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank considered illegal by the UN, emphasizes all the more that the physical impediment to a peace agreement is territory and not security.

Building settlements will not increase the security of Israel. On the contrary, it is now clear that they are its greatest threat to security. Just as our financial system is the USA's greatest unrecognized threat to security.

A devotee of the Jewish faith has suggested where the real "existential threat" to Israel lies.

And it is not in Iran. Conflict is not "the way".

The same may be said of every other country in the middle east and the world, and of every person.

Jihad needs to take place within the individual.

Salvation can only come to someone who wants to be saved.

Likewise with Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., the greatest battle is always to control "self".

We are entering a period when the fate of the world may be in the hands of a majority within the lower house of the US Congress. They will have to behave as adults after behaving as children. It is considered socially necessary among most human cultures for women to show strength in restraint and compromise, whereas men are expected to show strength in aggression and individualism.

They are simply two sides of the same coin. It is the balance that is important. We can not be afraid of that.

Nowhere is the eventual outcome of the current turmoil in the authoritarian Arab states more important than in the USA-Israel axis that has dominated the regions politics since the founding of the "Jewish state". Whether these protests will result in true uprisings that lead to more democratic states, or decline into military states, Israeli-Arab relations could be drastically changed.

When I read that women with Louis Vuitton handbags had joined the protests in Egypt after mosque service it made me think about what would happen if the denizons of New York's fifth avenue rolled out in numbers to protest against mayor Bloomberg's snow fiasco; or if elite gays throughout the USA staged Stonewall-like demonstrations against Obama's opposition to gay marriage: it just doesn't happen...normally.

Should Mubarak quell these riots and impose yet another pro-Israel USA-friendly administration, it would likely prevent the "damage" from spreading throughout the middle east. Now that seems unlikely.

The best outcome for USA-Israel is that these protesters turn out to be dominated by better-educated and humanistic factions within these countries, who want to rebuild their own nations and do not have time for playing international politics.

But in the long run there will be international consequences. And Israel-Palestine will be high on that agenda.

I was just thinking, as I am not very religious what I would do if I heard voices in my head representing my "God", telling me that I had to kill all the non-believers of my faith. I would hope that instead of following through on those instructions,that I would somehow have enough sense to check myself into a medical institution to help cure my paranoid schizophrenia or whatever serious mental illness might be involved.
I still can't believe we live in a world where people blow themselves up in a crowded area all in the name of their religion. In other words there will never be a resloution to the situation in the Middle East as there are too many demons, real and unreal, influencing this madness.

It's not just voices in their heads. It's like the doctor killers, they're told it's the "right" thing to do by their spiritual leaders. Fred Phelps is another example..."God Kills Fags" well if it's good enough for God, and your pastor says that's true....who knows what the next logical connection is.

Excellent point,SeaCraig!

Yet more evidence that Glenn Beck and the Tea Party are drinking the exact same Kool-Aid as Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: the nation of Israel is “several hundred years of plotting” by the West in order to establish a stronghold in the Middle East.

I will be the first to admit that Israel has been used as an excuse to threaten and intimidate countries in the Middle East to sell us cheap oil for decades; but "several hundred years of plotting"?

I think he gives us credit for far too much intelligence and patience.

Well of course, Beck, et. al see their own radicalized thinking in the Iranian leadership. You know, the old "every time you point a finger at someone there are three pointing back at you" principle.

Glenn Beck....he's funny!

Lurking barely below the surface of the changes taking place in the Arab autocracies is the fate of a little region once called Palestine; and how we will manage events to protect our long term interests in the area.

So far most activity has centered around maintaining the relationships between Israel and those Arab countries with which it has written or unwritten understandings of toleration.

But there is no getting around the fact that every majority in the Middle East - other than Israel - has been generally opposed to the status quo in former Palestine, and the status quo ante is not an option.

The USA under Obama has chosen to attempt to serve two masters on the issue, so far. However the emerging new revolutionary movements have evolved so quickly that the rate at which they will establish policy toward Israel is very much unpredictable.

What is likely is that events will evolve much more quickly than revolutions in the pre-internet age, just as the current revolutions happened at warp speed, by the standards of previous ones - including our own.

The new orders in these countries may have long memories about who supported them and who did not. I suspect many young Israelis are as supportive of the demands of their young Arab brethren as any one else.

In other news, a recent release of FBI files sheds light on the past relationship between the USA and Israel.

Let's see....we helped Israel become a nuclear state on the down low. We ratified and helped solidify a dictator in Egypt. We support, at the risk of our own peril, a royal "dictatorship" in Saudi Arabia. We've invaded a country leaving it on the brink of either full on civil war or invasion from Iran. We've stood by and allowed the abhorrent oppression, genocide and marginalization of a native people. We flipped and supported a Charlie Sheen crazy dictator in Libya. We tacitly support oppressive leaders in Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen.

Damn we're doing a great job in the Middle East.

It is ironic that Frederick Douglass found [url=http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=110534]"new avenues for self-expression "[url] in late 1845 Ireland that he could not find in the USA of the same period.

It would be 20 years before the 3/5ths rule in the US Constitution would be rendered mute by the abolition of slavery.

The Arab countries are in the throes of their own revolutions now. How they treat their own citizens may have great bearing on how they treat others.

Israel-Palestine will be a critical "other".

Thanks for the link. That is something I did not know about!


how to get rid of blemishes
garlic breath tips
plr
private label rights

You're welcome Kathleen.

As the most recent violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis rages in the middle east, resulting from recent uprisings in arab muslim countries, both sides would do well to remember that the golden rule applies in both their religions.

And it was most cleverly stated by Hillel before Christianity's new testament was even a thought.

It does not take the arrival of any Messiah - or even belief in One - to place this rule in to effect. Individuals of their own free will must do it, or not, every day.

Likewise the demagoguery of Benjamin Netanyahu soliciting to undermine president Barack Obama with a defiant speech before the combined houses of Congress. No doubt the prospect of donations from the disparate supporters of Israeli expansionism among their campaign supporters had more to do with the enthusiastic bi-partisan reception Netanyahu's words received than any fear of the minoriy votes of the Jewish population within their corresponding districts.

The interests of the USA and Israel have been on a collision course for many years. Whether the 1967 borders is mentioned by Barack H. Obama or George W. Bush should be irrelevant. However many have hung their hat on a single letter written by GWB to negate a bi-partisan policy supported by many presidents.

Greenwald on the unconstitutional war in Libya, all Obama's very own:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...ibya/index.html

You're correct Bill W. And Congress should vote to either withhold funding or to legitimize the Lybian intervention. For one of the few times conservative Republicans can wholeheartedly support a bill put forward by a true conservative (of human rights) Dennis Kucinich.

However the effect of this on the Middle East Crisis is indirect at best. Overthrowing Arab dictators has not worked out well for Israel so far: Hamas, a surging Hezbollah and the current interim Egyptian military authority were all the result of democratic votes or the overthrow of authoritarian government. The resulting regimes are all supporting more aggressive support of Palestinian rights at the expense of Israeli expansionism.

One Egytian's suggestions to Obama about how to help Egypt's revolution through adjustments in US policies:The one I highlight is the one that surprises me most and is least likely ever to happen regardless of the state of our economy or the political party in power.

I think only a truly progressive third-party candidate could possibly do such a thing and only after being elected on a platform that did not address such a policy directly but realized the wisdom of it after taking office.

The ex-head of Mossad Meir Dagan has called the Netanyahu government "Irresponsible and Reckless", yet Mitt Romney before his recent official announcement had begun his campaign for the Republican nomination for president by claiming "President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus" for supporting the 1967 borders. Dagan has previously "suggested that Israel accept a nine-year-old peace initiative proposed by Saudi Arabia, offering peace with the Arab world in return for a full withdrawal from all territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war."

This is a challenge to the Netanyahu government on the level of a return of Yitzak Rabin like Lazarus from the grave.

Yet Romney continues pandering to the expansionism of the Israeli right and the fears of the Israeli left.

Romney's real argument is with a former head of the Mossad and his real target big-money USA supporters.

That may not go down well during his campaign in the general election should he manage to overcome the albatross of the Massuchusetts "Romneycare" accusations and succeed in embracing the sacred "RyanCare".

It's interesting that Obama has received some criticism about being on vacation while there was an earthquake near the nation's capitol and now a hurricane to follow.

Eric Cantor was eating dinner, at tax-payer expense apparently - during a junket to Israel - at a restaurant in Jerusalem during that same earthquake, the epicenter of which was located in his district.

And what "fact" did he "find"? There is no love lost between Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama since Obama decided to take nearly the exact same position on the prospective borders of Israel and a possible Palestinian state. Cantor has been the spearhead of an attempt to bankrupt the USA government in an effort tob both further his career and to embarass Obama.

No one asks which national interest is a priority for Cantor while Obama's patriotism is frequently and openly questioned by even moderates in the Republican party.

Change is coming at what might be called breakneck speed in the Middle East. Nothing about that change thus far seems to bode well for the status quo between Israel and the Arab world.

There is opportunity in this chaos for both sides to make progress with downside to obstinance for both sides.

The heating dispute between Turkey and Israel over the killing of Turkish citizens on a flotilla making an illegal trip to deliver aide to the Gaza Strip has put a new twist on the Arab Awakening.

Europe - with considerable pressure from Greece and some from France - resisted quickly incorporating Turkey's relatively healthy economy into the now crisis-threatened European Union.

The USA has refused to allow any serious criticism of Israel by the United Nations.

If Turkey's anger extends is more than the mere desire to re-establish its once great power as an Ottoman Empire now that it's rivals Egypt and Iran are in internal and external binds, then Israel indeed has reached an existential problem.

Turkey is claiming that it is protecting the lives of its citizens and their right to peaceful activities anywhere in the Middle East and perhaps the world. That is coming in direct conflict with what Israel considers its right to exist and to self-defense by maintaining Gaza as weak as possible even if that means denying them non-military aide. Russia and China have no real dog in this fight and are willing to stand by or murmur platitudes. Rather than the imagined existential threat of Gaza surviving Israel may have created a real one.

Unless there is some solution to the Israel problem we're headed for WW3, and now that we've armed most of the area and China seems willing to swoop in and fill the void if we don't, it will be a doozie of a war.

We can't continue to allow Israel to be the oppressor of the Palestinians. It's harming our own national security.

Chris Matthews speaking on Bill Maher mentioned something interesting that happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis: Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev said on his death bed that if Kennedy had attacked the Russian-made missles in Cuba he [Brezhnev] would have used any missle left to hit New York.

So what will happen should Israel decide to pre-emptively attack Iran as speculation, yet again, suggests may happen?

Given the little influence the USA retains on its own middle east policy, we shall simply have to wait and see.