The best way to put the Arabists out of their business of disparaging the need for Middle East democratization and liberalization is to address the one issue they are right on: U.S. acquiescence to Israeli territorial maximalists. Sharon came to Crawford last week, and when Bush asked him to abandon his plans to encircle the Arab parts of Jerusalem with Jewish settlers, he basically told the President to go screw himself.

Posted by: markus rose at April 18, 2005 01:46 PM

Sharon came to Crawford last week, and when Bush asked him to abandon his plans to encircle the Arab parts of Jerusalem with Jewish settlers, he basically told the President to go screw himself.

Markus,

Israeli territorial maximalists used to be accused of wanting the borders of the old "Greater Israel."

Now they're accused of wanting a neighborhood in the wrong part of Jerusalem. How lame.

The Arabists should be ignored, we should carry on as if they don't exist.

Posted by: TeamAmerica at April 18, 2005 05:34 PM

Markus Rose -- your comment shows the mindset that Cole has. That Israel is some bought and paid for puppet on the string of the US, and that the Israeli PM whatever his party affiliation back home will do whatever the US President orders him to do.

This is the problem of Cole and Said, that believes Israel's very existance is some massive conspiracy aimed at "oppressing" 300 million Arabs.

Palestinians have only themselves to blame. They had a chance with the Oslo accords and then prospective deal brokered by Clinton and offered by Barak. Instead of counter-offering Arafat decided he wouldn't end up like Michael Collins and launched the intifada with more suicide bombings. Giving rise to Sharon's election.

Sharon has committed to pulling out of Gaza, and part of the West Bank. The Palestinians will have to come to terms that more terror is not going to make Israel go away and that time is not on their side, they can't just launch more terror campaigns killing innocent people as a matter of direct policy and expect the Israelis to elect a man like Barak who will give even more concessions.

Instead they are stuck with Sharon (or possibly someone worse for them). They will not get the entire West Bank, or even 98% of it like Barak offered. Another intifada and they'll be lucky to get 60%.

This is a good thing. The Palestinians need incentives as a nation to bargain hard but fairly instead of clinging to the broken fantasy that "this time" a really "serious" terror campaign will break the Israelis and send them in terror into the sea. Among other things Abu Mazen or his successor will need to fight Hamas and Hezbollah and Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade like Collins fought de Valera and the IRA.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at April 18, 2005 11:34 PM

Cole responded to Karsh’s piece by calling the staff of TNR "colonialists". Reactionaries are so predicable.

Chortle! Classic line.

Colonialist!
Reactionary!

Now that's predictable, old girl.

Posted by: Benjamin at April 19, 2005 12:23 AM

"When describing Cole’s bias, Karsh of TNR notes the similarities between The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’s obsession with the imagined influence of "world Zionism" (and its corresponding ruthless Zionist cabal) and Cole’s similar obsession with the Jewish/Neocon/Likudnik cabal."

Juan Cole speaks for most liberal Democrats. Ever hear of the Daily Kos or George Soros? Some may be more subtle, but it is the consensus view. This is one of the major reasons why I argue the national Democratic Party died last November 2. The crazies run the show---and they cannot be marginalized. These folks have a lot of money at their disposal.

Posted by: David Thomson at April 19, 2005 12:31 AM

As a child of two UofM grads from the 50's & 60's I used to feel bad about loving Michigan football but not attending. I went into the Army in 1982 and I just couldn't hack sitting in front of "Prof.Cole's" etc.. I thought that I was missing out and had wasted an opportunity for a "great education". Now that I have turned 40 and seen the "lives" of other U of M grads I feel absolutely SPARED! With the blogs and starting back with WFB and Rush among others I constantly see ideas and concepts I knew about years ago being 'discovered'in the press. In Detroit and Dearborn there's been 'Arab's' living there for years and I've been eating lamb chops at La Shish since the 90's and getting the skinny from waiter's and bus boys that 'Prof.Cole' would never deign converse with ahem. I feel sorry now for little rich kids that bought into being sent to daycare at places like Ann Arbor etc.. Maybe to be a doctor or a scientist or something but to know about the REAL world you had to go there and for me that was in the Army and on my own. To dipshits like "Prof.Cole" the Arabs are the ones that are run by the dictats and love it because that's what he wants and those human beings over there that simply want one tenth of the freedom he can't show any gratitude for are 'westernized'.
Soon and I mean, very soon, the University of Michigan bubbles will be popped and the ancient obsolete dipshit status conferring diploma mills will be shut down and turned into golf courses.But as long as there are the Mr.Howell's of the right and left sending their kids there and the Dave Matthew's Abercrombie robots walking around there will be yet another class full of captured futures to subvert.

Posted by: Thad Lucken at April 19, 2005 01:55 AM

Efraim Karsh’s article is most accurate, but there’s nothing original here. Many people like me have long known that Juan Cole was flirting with anti-Semitism. Why did The New Republic wait so long to publish a piece like this one? I suspect it’s due to the fact that they wanted to destroy George W. Bush in the last presidential campaign. TNR crowd is now willing to take another look at some of those who were allies in their attempt to remove the current occupant of the White House from office. Oh well, it’s better late than never.

Posted by: David Thomson at April 19, 2005 02:38 AM

I agree with Thomson. Cole's demonization of Israel is now part of contemporary liberalism's dogma, and the Democratic party is infected by it. It is a pathological obsession with the evil Jews--the neocons and Sharon-- and will grow worse.

Posted by: Stephen at April 19, 2005 03:22 AM

Cole is definitely the left's expert on Iraq. The New Republic is starting to realize that Bush could be right about a lot of things and it is time to get on the train before it's gone. The real lefties at Kevin Drum's blog (although probably not Kevin, himself) have no clue. Last year they were all convinced Bush would cut and run. Then they knew the elections would never be held. The subject of Iraq is less and less seen there now. Israel made the best decision in years when they started the Wall. If Sharon can get it finished and avoids being too greedy about settelements around Jerusalem, the end game will be here. The Palestinians have made the wrong decision every time the opportunity offered. Now Israel needs to wait them out behind the Wall. If Syria falls, it will be all over.

Posted by: Mike K at April 19, 2005 04:33 AM

David, that's an interesting comment. I think there may be substance to it, and it's a mistake to misunderestimate the personal loathing the elitist left feels for a guy like Bush, who is so clearly a traitor to his class. Come on, he went to Andover, to Yale and Harvard, and instead of using the big words that he must have surely absorbed (even a dolt like AlGore learned some big words just by living Ivy for a while) Dubya prefers instead to "pass" as a Red State guy. He knows a lot of baseball stats, he would drink beer if he could. He drives an old pickup truck around his ranch and clears brush and mountain bikes around the back 40, rather than yachting or hanging out in Paris like somebody of his wealth and background should do.

I think personal loathing is why the smarter center-leftists hate Bush so bad. It can't be bitter policy differences, since Bush's muscular democratic paternalism (at home and abroad) is congruent with what Marty Peretz and others in the wonkish left center smart-set have been pushing for so long.

Posted by: Al Maviva at April 19, 2005 04:35 AM

Cole's got a problem with sloppy analysis, which is a little problematic for someone who's seeking expert credentials.

Nothing new there, though.

Posted by: Slartibartfast at April 19, 2005 04:51 AM

Stephen: "Cole's demonization of Israel is now part of contemporary liberalism's dogma,"

Follow the money:

Saudi halo over US academia

Posted by: Caroline at April 19, 2005 05:01 AM

Someone is finally shining a light to expose professor Cole's essential emptiness. Many thanks for the heads up.

Posted by: Gunter at April 19, 2005 05:14 AM

More on Saudi funding of America'sME studies Depts:

Saudi Fifth Column

"Yet the money the Saudis are pouring into our universities in the form of gifts and endowments is alarming: King Fahd donated $20 million dollars to set up a Middle East Studies Center at the University of Arkansas; $5 million was donated to UC Berkeley’s Center For Middle East Studies from two Saudi sheiks linked to funding al-Qaeda;9 $2.5 million dollars to Harvard; $8.1 million dollars to Georgetown; $11 million dollars to Cornell; $1.5 million dollars to Texas A&M; $5 million dollars to MIT; $1 million dollars to Princeton. Rutgers received $5 million dollars to endow a chair. So did Columbia, which tried to obscure the money’s source.10 Other recipients of Saudi largesse include UC-Santa Barbara, Johns Hopkins, Rice University, American University, University of Chicago, Syracuse University, USC, UCLA, Duke University and Howard University, among many others."

Cole got his PhD at UCLA.

Posted by: Caroline at April 19, 2005 05:26 AM

While I would never defend the Great Cole (He Speaks Arabic, You Know!), I must come to the defense of the University of Michigan. I managed to graduate from Michigan and have lived in Ann Arbor for 25 years, now within hearing distance of cheering Wolverine fans on a blessed fall Saturday, without developing a strong attraction to the cooperative bakery ...

I'm just saying.

Posted by: Brian J. Dunn at April 19, 2005 06:17 AM

“It is a pathological obsession with the evil Jews--the neocons and Sharon-- and will grow worse.”

It will indeed get worse. These fools have plenty of money. I do not consider myself a bona fide historian regarding our presidential campaigns of the last 50 years. Nonetheless, I am utterly unaware of any group that was able to obtain significant amounts of cash independent of a major political party to this extent. Maybe someone can point to an exception? And no, Ross Perot does not count. He is a second rater compared to George Soros and his buddies.

The Democrats were lucky that pollsters did not do any studies regarding the subtle anti-Semitism within its ranks previous to last year’s elections. John Kerry would not have lost by a mere 3%---but by at least 10. Aren’t there a large number of liberal Democrat Jews? Yes, and I will dodge the question whether these individuals are thoroughly guilt tripped or self hating. But they do exist. They are firmly convinced that Israel is a fascist state oppressing the Palestinians. Eric Alterman immediately comes to mind.

Posted by: David Thomson at April 19, 2005 06:21 AM

Juan Cole speaks for most liberal Democrats.

I'd say about 99% of "liberal Democrats" have never even heard of Juan Cole. And David, is there a reason you feel the need to say the same damn thing ("the Democratic party is marginalized") on every post on this blog, regardless of the subject matter?

Posted by: Stephen Silver at April 19, 2005 06:44 AM

Jim Rockford, David Thomson, Team America -- A viable, non-revanchist Palestinian state must include, in addition to Gaza, almost all of the West Bank, as well as the Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalsem. It will need to include water acquifiers that presently are controlled by and for settlers. And in the time period between now and whenever the two sides are able to overcome their VERY UNDERSTANDABLE HATRED for one another, nothing must be done that would make such a future state impossible. That means, Israel can build a wall to protect itself from terrorists, but it can't build a wall as a pretext for defacto annexation of lands that, both morally and as a practical matter, ought to belong to the Arabs.

These comments of mine are not controversal, except among those who believe that perpetual conflict with its Arab neighbors is in interest of Israel and the Jewish people -- a catagory that apparently includes each of you.

Posted by: markus rose at April 19, 2005 06:49 AM

And David, is there a reason you feel the need to say the same damn thing ("the Democratic party is marginalized") on every post on this blog, regardless of the subject matter?

I think it's because commenting on blogs is cheaper than psychotherapy.

Posted by: Swopa at April 19, 2005 07:05 AM

"I think it's because commenting on blogs is cheaper than psychotherapy."

You would know, I guess, seeing as it is the path you have chosen as well.

Posted by: docob at April 19, 2005 07:25 AM

“I'd say about 99% of "liberal Democrats" have never even heard of Juan Cole. And David, is there a reason you feel the need to say the same damn thing ("the Democratic party is marginalized") on every post on this blog, regardless of the subject matter?”

Most people have never heard of Juan Cole. However, one’s actual fame often has little bearing on how effective they are in getting their message out. John Maynard Keyes may have said it best:

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

Most liberal Democrats completely agree with Juan Cole. Few have any respect for Israel.

“And David, is there a reason you feel the need to say the same damn thing ("the Democratic party is marginalized") on every post on this blog, regardless of the subject matter?”

That’s because this is mostly a political blog. Please note that Michael Totten and his crew rarely write about Elvis Presley, the best of the Three Stooges, or how to achieve more fulfilling orgasms. It’s just not that type of blog. I find it incumbent upon me to refer to this enormous crisis facing American democracy: the increasing irrelevancy of a major political party. The Republicans need to be confronted by legitimate opposition. Instead, they are competing against losers and whack jobs. This is not a healthy development.

Posted by: David Thomson at April 19, 2005 07:42 AM

These comments of mine are not controversal... - markus rose

Are you kidding? Splitting a major city politically between two states is not controversial? Let's just split up Istanbul then, while were at it.

Posted by: d-rod at April 19, 2005 07:43 AM

Mary Madigan has given us a real bottom-of-the-barrel post here. It consists entirely of name-calling, and then further attempts to vilify by expanding on the meaning of the names. Not a single issue, or position, or even statement to criticize - just a moral judgement issued from on high.

Juan Cole is an "arabist", an "orientalist". Whoo-hoo. Sounds so sneaky, dark, evil. He is an "anti-semite" too (of course)- the great standard insult of all time, now fully in use, on a daily basis by anyone who doesnt toe the RW line. Disagree with me, especially about the middle east, and you are a Hitler.

Has it never occured to so many of these commenters that using an insult is far more a statement about the insulter, rather than the insultee. None of us accept any of you as objective pronouncers of the "truth" about someones character. What we see is your ability and willingness to engage in thoughtful discussion (nil), and your willingness to disrespect the real vicitims of real anti-semitism by hurling the term around toward anyone you disagree with, or find intellectually challanging, or when you are just too lazy to think through an issue.

Thad takes it to the next obvious step. Thank god he has been spared the debilitating experience of a good education. Nothing like a little training in scholarship and logic, or an exposure to uncomfortable facts to screw up ones gut instincts - instincts which are, of course, all one needs to navigate this world. Ignorance is bliss. Ignorance is truth. Cole is evil.

What a waste of time....

Posted by: Sami at April 19, 2005 07:54 AM

Stephen Silver,

Two things that you must remember.

First, no matter how obscure someone might be, if he or she in any way can be connected to liberals or the Democratic Party, if he or she says something inflamatory, he or she will be immediately lauded as an example of How Low the Democrats Have Sunk and Another Example of Someone the Democrats Must Sistah Souljah Before We Can Take Them Seriously.

Recall that Ward Churchill would have remained a fringe figure among a fringe segment of a fringe ideology, when conservative talking heads saw him, he immediately became the emobodiment of all liberalism and how awful liberals have become.

Despite the fact that the average person in America doesn't give a rat's ass who Juan Cole is, or what a blog is for that matter, Cole will be described as representing the viewpoints of tens of millions of people. Of course it might actually be worthwhile to do some polling and see what the average liberal actually thinks about Israel, et al. But that would deny people the chance to create strawmen they could use to demonize liberals.

Secondly, what David is trying to do is create and spread a "meme" - the idea that the Democratic Party is marginalized. I don't know how successful he will be if he's limited to the comments section of one blog, but if it's repeated enough times and read by enough receptive people in enough people, who then begin to think and repeat it, then enough people will come to believe that the Democratic Party is marginalized. And so, even if it wasn't before, the party would be marginalized by sheer weight of opinion. Because, seriously, what else could marginalize a party?

I hope that helps.

Posted by: The Commenter Formerly Known as Proud Conservative at April 19, 2005 07:56 AM

David Thomson -- it would be more effective if you ever provided evidence that the Democrats are anti-Israel. Or at least attacked counter-evidence. For instance, the way that the party leaders went on RED ALERT as soon as Dean made his comments about the next President needing to be evenhanded. If your perceptions about the party were correct, their reaction would have been the opposite.

Posted by: markus rose at April 19, 2005 08:06 AM

“Secondly, what David is trying to do is create and spread a "meme" - the idea that the Democratic Party is marginalized”

Oh wow, I’m such a despicable person. Where do I get these strange ideas? Am I snorting some illegal substances? Let’s see, I claim that the national Democratic Party is now a marginalized institution. What would possible lead me to such a conclusion? Could it be due to the fact that the Republicans have captured the presidency, the US Senate, and the House of Representatives? Are Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, or John Kerry Republicans? Nope, I think they are Democrats. And what happened to Senator Joe Lieberman during last year’s primaries? Didn’t he get his butt kicked? What are the chances of the Connecticut senator becoming the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008? What are the odds that we could dunk a basketball over Yao Ming?

Posted by: David Thomson at April 19, 2005 08:19 AM

While I would never defend the Great Cole (He Speaks Arabic, You Know!)

Actually, he doesn't even speak good arabic. He appeared on Al Jazeera with Fouad Ajami and begged to be allowed to speak English, as his arabic wasn't up to snuff.

Neither is his knowledge of Iraq. At one point Ajami finally called Cole's bluff and told Al Jazeera's audience, "I think Mr Cole should go to Iraq. Because he has not been to Iraq..."

What kind of regional scholar is it who a) cannot even speak any of the languages of the region, and b) has not even set foot in the country about which he claims great expertise?

Posted by: thibaud at April 19, 2005 08:23 AM

Note also that this bloviating joker is the head of the Middle Eastern Studies Association.

Is it any wonder that our nation's intelligence agencies are so lacking in qualified mideast analysts?

When will Congress and the state legislatures pay attention to the rot in the middle eastern studies faculties and shut down the Children's Hour?

Posted by: thibaud at April 19, 2005 08:30 AM

Sami,

Yes, I see it now. Anyone who disagrees with you is merely hurtling insults instead of discussing issues. I wish I had that type of importance!

Then again, maybe not.

Posted by: JBB at April 19, 2005 08:35 AM

Oh David, such an angry man.

Well, let's throw a couple of things out there:

- The Democrats lost the presidency by one of the smallest margins in history, winning the votes of over a hundred million people.

- Democratic Senators won more votes combined than did Republican Senators, but do not control the Senate because of issues of population density and voting habits.

And I'm not quite sure what Lieberman has to do with the Democratic Party being marginalized. Wait, yes I do! It just came to me: in order for the Democrats to be taken seriously again, Democrats would have to act just like Republicans! I get it now.

Anyway, the point is, yes, Democrats lost, and are now out of power, which sucks. But to describe the party as "marginalized" when you look at the actual numbers of people involved...well, you make it out to seem like the Democrats were trounced by a 10, 20, or 30 percent margin instead of the 2% margin they lost by. Or, say, the 2% more votes garnered by Democratic Senatorial candidates.

And look, just because you don't like Boxer, Kerry, or Kennedy has nothing to do with whether or not a party is marginalized. Recall that the good Dr. Frist attempted to convince people that AIDS could be transmitted through sweat and tears, and dear Tom Delay, well....Tom Delay. You know....

Posted by: The Commenter Formerly Known as Proud Conservative at April 19, 2005 08:39 AM

David Thomson: "Let’s see, I claim that the national Democratic Party is now a marginalized institution. What would possible lead me to such a conclusion? Could it be due to the fact that the Republicans have captured the presidency, the US Senate, and the House of Representatives?"

Yawn.

The Democrats got about 48% of the popular vote in the 2004 presidential election, and a slight majority in 2000. The currently hold slightly less than half the seats in each House. Out of power, yes. Marginalized, no.

I can't give you the stats off-hand on the state governments, but I'm sure that they aren't "marginalized" there either.

You know, you'd be much more effective in convincing others if you dispensed with your mindless hyperbole.

Posted by: VinoVeritas at April 19, 2005 08:50 AM

“Recall that the good Dr. Frist attempted to convince people that AIDS could be transmitted through sweat and tears, and dear Tom Delay, well....Tom Delay. You know....”

Tom DeLay and Bill Frist are solid on the number one issue of our day: the war on terror. The Republicans are the only major party that is serious about defending our country. Democrats who control their party's national apparatus will get us killed.

“And I'm not quite sure what Lieberman has to do with the Democratic Party being marginalized. Wait, yes I do! It just came to me: in order for the Democrats to be taken seriously again, Democrats would have to act just like Republicans! I get it now.”

You obviously don’t get it. The Democrats had better start acting “just like Republicans” concerning national defense issues---or they will never again dominate our country’s political landscape. Ever heard of Scoop Jackson? It might behoove you to Google the name.

Posted by: David Thomson at April 19, 2005 08:51 AM

The Commenter Formerly Known as Proud Conservative:

Sorry, I hadn't seen your recent post before I responding to Friend Thomson. As usual, you said it far better than I, and most, could.

I don't know what your day job is, but if it doesn't invove writing, I strongly encourage you to take it up. You do have a talent.

Posted by: at April 19, 2005 08:54 AM

David, I seem to have forgotten that if Kerry had been elected president, he would currently by in the Oval Office, kneeling before Zod, I mean, Osama bin Laden, looking into the television cameras asking: "Superman, where are you?"

But we're both being hyperbolic, I hope. Not everything Bush has done has been terrible, but recall that this is the administration that cancled its annual reporting of terrorism because the global numbers were going up, not down. We are lucky to not have been attacked again as a result of increased security at home, attacks on terrorists abroad, and the general incompetence of most of our enemies. None of this has been done perfectly. Airport screening is better; port security is abysmall. Fighting terrorism in Afghanistan seems to have gone pretty well; fighting terrorism in Iraq seems to have gone poorly. And so forth. And while there is much to be said for the "reverse-domino" theory of the war in Iraq, it has yet to be demonstrated that it will work, that the end result will have been worth the cost, or that there wasn't a better way to accomplish it.

Serious, reasonable people can disagree over the best way of achieving the goal of protecting America. So long as you recognize that Boxer, Kerry, and Kennedy are actually interested in protecting America, rather than slandering them as traitorous liberals (which says a lot more about the speaker than the subject), we are at a point where we can discuss the merits of various options. Someone who really cares about America, a real patriot, is eminently willing to have a discussion of reasonable options. Someone with slavish devotion to one option puts lives at risk.

And April, you're a doll. I appreciate the compliments.

Posted by: The Commenter Formerly Known as Proud Conservative at April 19, 2005 09:14 AM

Mary Madigan has given us a real bottom-of-the-barrel post here. It consists entirely of name-calling, and then further attempts to vilify by expanding on the meaning of the names.

'Mary Madigan' quoted directly from an article written in the New Republic, a respected political magazine that leans towards the Democrat’s view of the world. I also quoted from a Lebanese blogger who has written very eloquent criticisms of Cole’s work.

The definition of Orientalism and the information in the New Criterion article was provided by Edward Said, the Arabist creator of the theory. Did you even read the article? Are you saying Said is “bottom-of-the-barrel?

I don’t object to Cole’s work because he disagrees with me. I object to Cole’s work because he represents the viewpoint of people who practice ethnic cleansing, oppression, fascism and brutality.

I object to Cole’s work because he pretends to represent the views of all people in the Middle East. That’s a lie. Many, perhaps most of the people in the Middle East object to the Islamist/nationalist campaign of oppression, racism, terrorism and ethnic cleansing. The pro-democracy, pro-tolerance, liberal voices of the Middle East are starting to be heard, and Cole and his ilk are determined to squelch them.

Posted by: mary (madigan) at April 19, 2005 09:17 AM

So TNR joins the ranks of those who have discovered Juan Cole to be nothing more than a selfserving bloviator. Well, let me just warn TNR that the Zio-Nazi Masters have long ago stopped awarding bonus money for trashing that fraud. There are simply too many people doing so.

What I want to know is how did a man whose specific area of study was the predominately Persian Shi'ite and how they faired in the Ottoman Empire become an expert on Arab nationalism? Simply because the Twelver Shi'a were a minority and Arabs are a minority in the world? That doesn't make any sense.

What you have here is a political activist who took adavantage of his expertise in Islam (a sect of Islam that he studied primarily as it existed prior to the 20th century) and the general populations lack of knowledge about Islam, and set himself up to be an expert on the entire region. He did this clearly to advance his radical leftist agenda.

Yet while increasingly discredited he remains a dangerous man. Let's not forget that Juan Cole was one of the leading lights to insinuate that the men who run Iraq the Model are CIA agents. Thus putting their lives on the line for his own reasons.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at April 19, 2005 09:27 AM

Cole's demonization of Israel is now part of contemporary liberalism's dogma, and the Democratic party is infected by it.

This is nonsense. Do you have any memory of Kerry, or any other major Democrat, trashing Israel, or taking any position the left of supporting a two-state solution (which is also Bush's position?) And if "hating the Jews" is now Democratic dogma, then why have the Dems consistantly gotten a huge majority of the Jewish vote in just about every election of the past 50 years?

From the '04 Democratic platform:

The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel and the creation of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors. Our special relationship with Israel is based on the unshakable foundation of shared values and a mutual commitment to democracy, and we will ensure that under all circumstances, Israel retains the qualitative edge for its national security and its right to self-defense. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Posted by: Stephen Silver at April 19, 2005 09:34 AM

And in the time period between now and whenever the two sides are able to overcome their VERY UNDERSTANDABLE HATRED for one another, nothing must be done that would make such a future state impossible.

As you acknowledge, Israel is not just fighting the Palestinians, it is fighting a war against its Arab/Islamist neighbors. Hamas, funded by Saudi Arabia, hopes to ethnically cleanse Israel (Palestine) of its Jewish residents. Arab nationalists have already carried out ethnic cleansing campaigns against Christians and Kurds in the Middle East. They are currently carrying out ethnic cleansing campaigns against blacks in Africa. It's what they do.

The best way to put the Arabists out of their business of disparaging the need for Middle East democratization and liberalization is to address the one issue they are right on: U.S. acquiescence to Israeli territorial maximalists

Can mass murderers seeking Lebensraum be ‘right’? Can you think of one good reason why giving them what they want would discourage them?

Can you find any evidence that an Israeli/Kurdish/Christian group hopes to ethnically cleanse Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. of all of its Muslim/Arab neighbors? If not, the hatred expressed is not in any way comparable. One side is fighting for power, influence and land. The other side, the victims of this campaign of ethnic cleansing are fighting for their survival. This is not a values-neutral conflict.

Posted by: mary at April 19, 2005 09:40 AM

“And in the time period between now and whenever the two sides are able to overcome their VERY UNDERSTANDABLE HATRED for one another”

Your moral equivalency is most noticeable. And I suspect your politically correct thinking represents the views of most liberal Democrats. Despising Israel is second nature to these people. They might not even be consciously be aware of the extent of their hostility. It’s simply false to claim that Jews hate Arabs in equal numbers. Few Jews hate their Arab neighbors and prefer to live and let live. It is the Arab world that has the monopoly on hatred.

Speaking of the John Kerry campaign. His stepson Chris Heinz may have inadvertently blurted out the truth:

“John Kerry’s stepson, Chris Heinz, 31, displayed his mother Teresa’s famous lack of rhetorical restraint at a recent campaign event with a group of Wharton students. Philadelphia magazine reports: “Heinz accused Kerry’s opponents - ‘our enemies’ - of making the race dirty. ‘We didn’t start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,’ he said, before adding, ‘I’ll do it now.’ Asked later about it, Heinz said, ‘I have no evidence. He never sold me anything.’” Heinz also reminded writer Sasha Issenberg of Pat Buchanan by saying, “One of the things I’ve noticed is the Israel lobby - the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state.”

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13364&only=yes

Posted by: David Thomson at April 19, 2005 10:15 AM

Israel is the one issue where the Democrats cannot afford to be an echo chamber of the left. They need the Jewish vote to survive. That's why they don't like to talk about Israel all that much. It's got them between a rock and a hard place. And over the past 20 years that rock is getting sharper and the space between the hard place is getting smaller.

Meanwhile, liberal Jews (like my dear old, naive parents) are squirming uncomfortably over all this left wing antisemitism. They want to believe that all "serious" antisemites are right wing neo-Nazis, and that left wingers and "oppressed" minorities are the Jews true friends. Old habits die hard.

That's the problem with us Jews....we can never count on our so called friends to act like friends, and we can never count on our so called enemies to act like enemies. The world keeps swirling and the Jews always find themselves in the center of the storm, but we can never seem to get our bearings in regards to who to align ourselves with at any given time.

Posted by: The Fop at April 19, 2005 10:35 AM

Good post. I read Tony at Across the Bay reularly however have been unable to read the TNR piece by Karsh. Perhaps, you could copy and post it to the blog or another blog?
Mike

PS I emailed Mark LeVine one of Tony's posts on Cole and still await his "informed" reply.

Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2005 11:07 AM

Markus -
Glad to see you're still a hit and run jack a** and that you've still got a clear head when it comes to "intelligent" discourse.

Anyone with a half a brain (which may be pushing it for you) understands that Sharon and Bush are in total agreement on what's going to happen and are just publically speaking the language of real politick.
Israel is going to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and most of the West Bank (real maximalist!)
and Sharon made the statement about Maael Adumim just to satiate his right flank

While Bush made his statement to satiate the ""peaceful"" Arab MEast and "eager to show how useful they are" EUnicks...

Further, the building in Maael Adumim, a city of 40,000 is not going to encircle anyone nor cut off anyone... And Ehud Barak, of all people, wrote an OpEd which says the feigned "PLO/Arab hysteria" over this is nothing but a bunch of horse sh**! They always agreed in public and private on Maael Adumim's fate etc..
You can read about it here.
http://dailyscorecard.blogspot.com/2005/04/barak-defends-maael-adumim-sharon.html

Posted by: Mike Nargizian at April 19, 2005 11:16 AM

mike -- what do you mean by 'hit and run' jackass?

If Maael Adumim doesn't cut off east Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, I stand corrected. If it does, you are a liar.

I don't know why you have to act like such a dick with me -- I find that your website is actually quite informative.

Posted by: markus rose at April 19, 2005 11:42 AM

I vaguely remembered you from a while back so either way I apologize for the hit and run jack*** comment....
I'm just tired of the "Likudnick/Neocon/maximalist" propaganda tripe.
Sharon is bending to virtually EVERYthing Bush (see State Dept/EU) wants and the Cole lie which you repeat is such nonsense a 4th grader can see through it, as I explained above.

Further, while Israel goes beyond, WAY beyond, everything on Stage 1 of the Roadmap, the Palis have not/will not done a thing. They are supposed to disarm the terror gangs not have them become part of the so-called "police force" even though the lines are virtually non existent anyway... Just mafias terrorizing Palestinians as well including the so-called PA police.

Abu Toameh told me that probably more Palestinians have died (unwritten about and unknown to Western reporters) at the hands of infighting among the Gangs/Mafias etc.. in the Territories than in the 'war' with Israel the last 4 years. When "collaborators" are hung idiotic westerners 'assume' they're "snitches" lol!! when most of the time they're either Christians who refused blackmail/graft, Palis sick of the corruption and intimidating from the mafia running their town or city, or simply a member of a rival gang that exposed the lies of the PA corruption.

And if you look at my blog I put up Barak's piece on the Maael Adumim building and the "feigned hysteria" by the PLO Spokesliars.
http://dailyscorecard.blogspot.com/2005/04/barak-defends-maael-adumim-sharon.html

ENJOY SOME TRUTH SYRUM.

Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2005 01:06 PM

Yeah you're right -- Maael Adumim was included not only in Camp David but even in the Geneva accords.

At the same time, I'm right -- it cuts off Jerusalem from the major West Bank population centers. It is an attempt to change the facts on the ground, to divide the West Bank more or less into two distinct parts. It makes it more likely that a new Palestinian state will be a revanchist one.

I think this is your goal...a revanchist terror state, whatever it takes to make the two state compromise fail, whatever it takes to be able to claim "we tried", and to make Arab transfer an option acceptable to the United states.

Posted by: markus rose at April 20, 2005 12:21 PM

"And look, just because you don't like Boxer, Kerry, or Kennedy has nothing to do with whether or not a party is marginalized. Recall that the good Dr. Frist attempted to convince people that AIDS could be transmitted through sweat and tears, and dear Tom Delay, well....Tom Delay. You know...."

And the fact that the Dems STILL can't beat those losers, well....

That should be a big flashing "Danger, Will Robinson!" right there.

To be a little more serious, the total lameness of BOTH parties should be an invitation to rational, honest discussion instead of name-calling and knee-jerking. But I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

Posted by: Mark Poling at April 20, 2005 03:50 PM

MARKUS -
Yup... see you haven't progressed, lol.

MICHAEL T - Did you read the latest lgf post on the ex BBC reporter who says the Syrian "occupation" shouldn't be called an 'occupation' and of course because it's not as bad as the Israeli 'occuption', becasue they're is no 'checkpoints', etc..

Your feelings on the article would definitely be interesting to me.

I can imagine what would happen if a Lebanese Christian lifted a violent finger towards a Syrian or Hezballah agent.
Please make sure Joumanna stays safe. It would be a true crime against humanity if anything happened to that. Knock on wood nothing does.

http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=31&x_article=872
http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=53&x_article=886

Posted by: Mike Nargizian at April 21, 2005 12:00 AM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15544_BBC_Mideast_Correspondent_Drops_the_Mask#comments

Posted by: Mike at April 21, 2005 12:57 AM

Mike -- Seeing you respect the work of CAMERA so much...

In 1947, 67% of people west of the Jordan River were non-Jewish. The partition plan called for 56% of that area to be for the Jewish state, 44% for the Arab state. We both agree that it was terrible that the Palestinians did not accept the UN 1947 partition plan, and instead chose to go to war with the nascent Jewish state. I think they were stupid not to, you think they were immoral not to.

I will make a $100 donation to CAMERA if you can give me an example of another historical instance in which a ethnic group making up the majority of a particular land, voluntarily agree to cede, without conflict, a majority of that territory to the group of people who are presently in the minority within that territory. Find me another group of people who have behaved as generously and selflessly as both you and I agree the Palestinians SHOULD have behaved, and I'll donate a hundred bucks to CAMERA.

Posted by: markus rose at April 21, 2005 12:42 PM

There was nothing controversial about the UN 1947 partition plan. Should've been a slam dunk, markus.

Posted by: d-rod at April 21, 2005 01:08 PM

Michael,
Don't know if you're reading these comments sections or not? or if Jeremy does... but your comments on the interview with the ex BBC reporter would certainly be worthwile since you're actually in Lebanon.

Markus,
You continue to prove how 'worthwhile' it is for someone of sane mind to even engage in a conversation with you... constantly meandering in 5000 different directions, making over the top assertions/assumptions, mangling the facts and trying to set up straw man.
Go to Head Heeb maybe he'll waste his time.

Take care.

Posted by: Mike at April 21, 2005 05:23 PM

markus rose,

You do realize that in 1947, zero percent of the non-Jews west of the Jordan river were "Palestinian". That right. Zero, zip, nada, zilch.

As to to your statistic, even if were true, it is irrelevant. First because demographics change. And second, because in the case of Judea/Samaria, for nearly 2000 years the demographics were changed by force, and mostly to the disadvantage of Jews. The question you need to ask is what are Arabs doing in Judea/Samaria or other lands outside Arabia in the first place? And why should anyone, particularly Jews/Israelis, be accepting of Arab/Islamist imperialist designs?

Posted by: mika. at April 22, 2005 05:03 PM

Mika,

I believe that when people use the term "Palestinian" to refer to the pre-war population of the mandate of Palestine, they are using it as a shorthand. Certainly there were people there who were ethnically and linguistically Arab, religiously Muslim (with Christian minorities), and so forth, many of whom became the ancestors of today's Palestinians. I make the caveat that I don't know how those people thought of themselves, whether as Arabs or Palestinians or whatever, but I think that we can agree that there were actual, real-live people who lived there.

And this is just a personal complaint: the argument that the Palestinian people are or were, in some way, "fictitious", as you seem to be portraying them, is dangerously close to the same dehumanizing routine that has been run time and again as an excuse to deny rights to a group of people.

By acknowledging that there were people there, many of whom were innocent civilians who had little or nothing to do with the situation, who were dealt a really lousy hand and whose descendents continue to suffer because of this history, the machinations of neighboring peoples and their corrupt leaders, we do not in any justify or excuse terrorism and extremism on the part of the Palestinians. Acknowledging factual truth doesn't justify anything, but it can help explain and lead to a better way of dealing with the problem.

I think the problem with raising the issue of the Arabs' imperialist past is just that: the past. We can agree, for example, that the Arab presence in the region is the result of violent conquest. But should we hold Palestinians now responsible for the actions of Arabs centuries ago? We should not, for example, hold Israelis born since 1948 responsible for the actions of those alive at the time, right? Can't we acknowledge that there are some people here, and some people there, and they have lots of grievances against each other, some legit and some not, which are perpetuating a conflict started by people long dead, the bulk of whom are innocent civilians who would just like to live their lives, without saying "Israel is responsible for every problem in the world" or "Palestinians are all terrorists and crazed monsters"?

Posted by: The Commenter at April 22, 2005 05:37 PM

Commenter: "I think the problem with raising the issue of the Arabs' imperialist past is just that: the past. We can agree, for example, that the Arab presence in the region is the result of violent conquest."

With any dispute between tribes/nations/peoples, I guess it's a question of how far back you want to go to determine who the "legitimate" landowners were. Even in biblical times the Jews were in and out of their "homeland" several times because of big power designs - the Egyptian captivity, the Babylonian captivity, and the forced Diaspora by the Romans in about 70 AD. Each time the Jews returned, they kicked out people that the Arabs view as their ancestors.

To the best of my limited knowledge, the Arabs were "imperialist" in the first few centuries of Islam, although they would probably describe their forefathers as zealous missionaries and settlers - kinda like the Pilgrims and their descendants.

Then Genghis Khan came along and kicked the shit out of their caliphates, after which the Ottoman Turks (who were Muslim but not Arabs) came along and buggered up the whole region, including Yugoslavia, for about 600-700 years.

After that the British and French had their shot at it, and it the past fifty years or so the Americans stumbled into the mess as well.

I’m sure there are many with better knowledge of history than me who can point out factual errors, but you get the picture - who “really” owns the “Holy Land”? A pointless question. The only relevant question is how should the land be divided now? For that I do not pretend to have the answer.

Probably the Neandertals weren't too happy about losing Europe to us Africans either. But those Frenchies had it coming.

Posted by: VinoVeritas at April 22, 2005 06:46 PM

I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M WASTING MY TIME BUT ANYWAY -
Commenter -

And this is just a personal complaint: the argument that the Palestinian people are or were, in some way, "fictitious", as you seem to be portraying them, is dangerously close to the same dehumanizing routine that has been run time and again as an excuse to deny rights to a group of people.

I don't think he said they were "fictitious" just that they were Arab tribes living in a neighborhood that's all - not that distinguishable from other Arab tribes/clans living in a town/neighborhood 10-15-20-25 miles away. They aren't a "peoples" just Arab tribes/clans etc.. who were either permanent/recent or very recent as of 1947.

Some people were living in Haifa or Jaffa and ended up in Gaza or Ramallah or Jenin.. is like stating someone who lives in a town like White Plains and ends up instead in North White Plains 20 miles away, AND NOW is a WhitePlainsian not now but 35 years from now... Do you see how insane that is?

The other Refugess - Sephards, European Jews, Sudetan Germans, Muslim Indians, Hindu Pakistanis etc.. often moved HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of miles away after WWII and such, to a different country/region/language/culture and way of life. YET........ their kids/grandkids are not still called "refugees" and doled out BILLIONS IN UN/US/EU aid?

So the point stands that's this is an ARAB-ISRAELI Conflict. The Arab propaganda as a Palestinian-Israeli Conflict has become the dominant lexicon.

The Conflict before the 1970's was always the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Resolution 242 doesn't even mention the word "Palestinian" or expect a "Palestinian State" to be formed only Arab/Israeli/Jordan/Egypt/Syria are mentioned.

The PLO looked down upon by the entire Arab world was given political proffer by the Arab States and thus the term "Palestinians" as a term of last resort, believing that it was a a better political/media card to play and bcs they weren't destroying Israel militarily so the PLO's phased approach was the ONLY option.

The Arab World are still the authors of this conflict... the Palis often complain about them, even when the cameras are on sometimes...
And when you view the entire HUMUNGUS Arab Middle East trying to squeeze Jews out of even a tiny sliver of land (just like 47) it drastically changes the context of everything.

By acknowledging that there were people there, many of whom were innocent civilians who had little or nothing to do with the situation, who were dealt a really lousy hand and whose descendents continue to suffer because of this history, the machinations of neighboring peoples and their corrupt leaders,

a) many did stay
b) some no doubt got a raw deal... but the rawer deal was when their Arab neighbors turned them into pawns and dogs denying them any dignity for 1 reason only (this idea they were doing it "for them" lol....)
c) the descendants suffer for 1 REASON the Arab World..!!

AND not all left many stayed and if you ever read an article, the Israeli Arabs are scared sh** of the prospect of ever being ruled by any Arab state, especially the corrupt-inept PLO Mafia Thieves.

The point is as you stated as well in your answer... It happened, you've gotten more UN aid per capita then EVERY OTHER GROUP in the world COMBINED, you're not the only people with a grievance in the world... The Jews are there and they AIN'T leaving... DEAL WITH IT AND STOP FIN CRYING... how's that?

we do not in any justify or excuse terrorism and extremism on the part of the Palestinians. Acknowledging factual truth doesn't justify anything, but it can help explain and lead to a better way of dealing with the problem.

Posted by: Mike at April 22, 2005 06:51 PM

It cut off the rest of my answer...
Are the Palestinians who dominate UN aid, sympathy and the like worse off and 5x more deserving of attention, aid and sympathy then
1) African Blacks in Darfur and souther Sudan
2) Starving Ethiopians?
3) Tibetans
4) Taiwan - tiny island threatened by super power China
4) Descendants of Armenians murdered in Turkey

THEY RECEIVE MORE AID/ATTNENTION THAN EVEN A REAL GENOCIDE IN DARFUR RIGHT NOW!!!

WHY IS THAT??
BECAUSE ALL OF THE ARAB MONEY/INFLUENCE HATE ISRAEL AND ARE FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST IT FOR 55 YEARS... AND KEEPING THE PALIS IN CAGES FOR THIS PURPOSE...
Again an Arab-Israeli War.

Posted by: Mike at April 22, 2005 07:01 PM

See, Mike, that was my point. I said something like: acknowledging facts doesn't justify the outcome morally.

You said something like: you hate the Jews and love Palestinian terrorists!

Whoa. Seriously, calm down. If I were, in fact, "crying" about the fact that Israel isn't going anywhere, your liberal use of bold and capitalized letters probably wouldn't do much to convince me otherwise.

Posted by: The Commenter at April 22, 2005 07:27 PM

Commenter,

"Palestinians are all terrorists and crazed monsters?" Why don't you wear a Star of David on your neck, take a stroll in Gaza city, and find out.

The Arabs in Israel weren't fictitious, the "Palestinian" nationality as such, is. They were happy to be Jordanian and Egyptian nationals in 1947 and up to 1967 when Egypt and Jordan still controlled these parts. Those Arab states lost a War they started and can no longer physically claim sovereignty over these territories. What we have left are Arab nationals still antithetical to Israel. Those should be repatriated back to Arabia where they would be most at home.

I also reject your description of these people as innocent. No one calling himself/herself "Palestinian" is innocent. The "Palestinian identity" is yet another alias to another murderous Arab/Islamist movement involved in yet another Arab/Islamist territorial land grab. Nothing "innocent" or original in that.

Posted by: mika. at April 22, 2005 07:30 PM

Mika,

While it's true that the Palestinian national identity is an historical artifact, a creation of recent years, so are all national identities. Most people throughout history held a local identity. It is only within the last two hundred years that people began to think of themselves as "German" or "American". Some places, such as Afghanistan, are still in the process of developing a national identity to replace local allegiances.

Different nationalities focused on different shared traditions to form their identities. In France, it was language and the Revolution. In America, it's the Constitution. In Belgium, it's religion. Among the Palestinians, it appears that their shared history over the last 50 years has been their focal point.

I doubt that Palestinians who have grown up in the West Bank or Gaza and have lived there their whole lives would necessarily be any more comfortable in Arabia than would Jews born and raised in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would feel comfortable in Germany, Poland, or Hungary. It would not be a "repatriation" anymore than it would be to remove the population of New York to Old York.

It's true that neighboring states are full of people ethnically (a fairly worthless term), linguistically, and religiously similar people. An Arabs in Jordan, however, identify primarily as Jordanians; Lebanese in Lebanon, Iraqis in Iraq, and so forth. Simply because Spaniards and the French are ethnically, religiously, and linguistically similar does not mean that people from either side should be removed from their home without due process and expelled across the border.

I hope that I am never forced out of my home and euphamistically "repatriated" anywhere.

The goal should be, of course, the same goal as for the rest of the world: peaceful coexisting democracies in which people can live in their homes in peace. That counts for Jews who want to live in Israel without fear of being driven into the see and for Arabs who want to live in their homes in the West Bank without fear of being driven into Arabia.

I do believe that we can agree, for example, that Palestinian children are innocent. Ergo, there are people who identify as Palestinians who are innocent. Or are children who are raised to be monsters later in life responsible for the acts of their parents?

Furthermore, the notion that the Palestinian national identity is an "alias" for an Islamist movement sounds very similar to what a lot of nasty people have said about the Jews - that they're not a real people, that they have allegiance greater than their own gain, and so forth. While I haven't done a lot of interviews of Palestinians (and I'd guess you haven't either), I generally take for granted a person's national allegiance because it is so rarely a conscious choice.

Posted by: The Commenter at April 22, 2005 07:53 PM

Commenter,

We will have to disagree on all points. Israel's identity is not a recent invention. It is at least 3,500 years old. And it is an identity intimately connected to the Land of Israel, through and through. Further, I see nothing wrong in pushing back Arab/Islamic expansionism anywhere and everywhere. Israel is a good place to start, but so is Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudia, etc. You get the point. You'll find I have zero sympathy for the Islamist cause, or any consenting bodies sheltering under its covers.

Posted by: mika. at April 22, 2005 09:23 PM

hundred bucks mike. you know that camera needs it. find me another country that has behaved in more civilzed way than the arabs of palestine, under same or similar situation.

Or admit that this is conflict that can be properly demystified...two peoples fighting over the same grains of sand...neither with more entitlement than the other.

Posted by: markus rose at April 22, 2005 11:20 PM

No intellingence needed with you cowboy. But
how about Israel?

Posted by: Olympic Martyr Coffin Relay Racer at April 22, 2005 11:31 PM

Mika: "Israel's identity is not a recent invention. It is at least 3,500 years old. And it is an identity intimately connected to the Land of Israel, through and through."

Please see my post of 6:46 pm yesterday on my thoughts on that subject.

Posted by: VinoVeritas at April 23, 2005 05:00 AM

Mika,
Your statement is again partially true and partially not about the 3500yr old identity. Like most things in this conflict its more complicated than that.

Commenter -

While it's true that the Palestinian national identity is an historical artifact, a creation of recent years, so are all national identities. Most people throughout history held a local identity. It is only within the last two hundred years that people began to think of themselves as "German" or "American".

The Prussians are a lot older than 200 years. American case is different than almost every other one, so not really comparable.

Some places, such as Afghanistan, are still in the process of developing a national identity to replace local allegiances.

They're "developing it in Afghanistan"? That'll take decades if not centuries there. The entire Arab Middle East does not really have national identities... its foreign there everywhere the way it is in the West for the most part.
Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia... often times you're talking about Soviet like held together 'states' holding disparate regions of different ethnicities, tribes, clans and loyalties.

The localized clan was and still is the most notable identity in the Arab world. Michael mentioned in a post that even the secularized Muslims and Xtians in Beirut now in the tent city admitted they would have never otherwise interacted or spoken. Joshua Landis mentions in his posts how at Syrian Universities the different groups never interacted, and if a member of a different clan/tribe came around the place got silent.

Different nationalities focused on different shared traditions to form their identities. In France, it was language and the Revolution. In America, it's the Constitution. In Belgium, it's religion. Among the Palestinians, it appears that their shared history over the last 50 years has been their focal point.

Head Heeb makes this point, as in Algeria compatively, and it's true and its also a moot point in the overall context of the conflict though. The Palis have a right to self determination even if its only a shared desire for 'statehood'... However, the problem is their desire for the ENTIRE STATE and the fact that they LIE about everything regarding themselves, the 'state' and their 'history there' while not acknowledging a thing about the Jewish connection, existence or right to live in peace as well. (related to the Phillistines - are the 'Jews' Invading our "Al Asqua Mosque", Western Wall is now the wall Mohammed tethered his horse too, etc..)
The "excuse" is look how "strong the Israelis are though"
Which of course is bullshit... the Israelis teach their kids recognition of Islam, Arab history/right there etc...
War is sown in the mind and intent is all that matters... noone doubts the result if the Arabs were the stronger military party.

I doubt that Palestinians who have grown up in the West Bank or Gaza and have lived there their whole lives would necessarily be any more comfortable in Arabia than would Jews born and raised in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would feel comfortable in Germany, Poland, or Hungary.

Moot point, they're not going anywhere.
Though Morris now says if the war resulted in more separation there would be a greater chance for less violence today, separation like in Cyprus, for example.

It's true that neighboring states are full of people ethnically (a fairly worthless term), linguistically, and religiously similar people. An Arabs in Jordan, however, identify primarily as Jordanians; Lebanese in Lebanon, Iraqis in Iraq, and so forth.

Not true, they identify among their clan/tribe and religion more so.. Nationality there is not thought of the way it is in the West in any of these places. If you read Syria Exposed, you see that even in Syria the myth of "Syrian Nationalism/Identity" is just that. People only know their clan/tribe identity.. Alawites, etc..

The goal should be, of course, the same goal as for the rest of the world: peaceful coexisting democracies in which people can live in their homes in peace.

Considering the real prospects for peace in Northern Ireland are still slim and none in the near future, that sounds nice but its not reality in the Middle East and certainly unfortunately not for the Israelis, the peace part that is.

That counts for Jews who want to live in Israel without fear of being driven into the see and for Arabs who want to live in their homes in the West Bank without fear of being driven into Arabia.

The latter is no concern the former may not be as much as it was, unfortunately an Arab state launching or "utilizing" a "terrorist group" to launch missiles or nukes though is.

Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2005 07:17 AM

Read the speech, very interesting and well thought out. His Conclusion about the "Arab Democaracy Solution" is very well thought out as well.
http://dailyscorecard.blogspot.com/2005/04/physicist-speech-terrorism-dilemma.html

Latest post is on Israeli and Arab rule, and the impression/opinions of Arabs regarding.
http://dailyscorecard.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2005 07:32 AM

Mike,

Of course there were people we now call "Prussians" more than 200 years ago. They lived in a kingdom called "Prussia". They did not, near as I can tell, think of themselves as "Prussians" in the same way that modern Germans think of themselves as "Germans". Nationalism was a project of liberal elites starting roughly 200, maybe 250 years ago. The unification of Germany wasn't complete until 1871 and the German people are still struggling, in some ways, with creating a unified national identity. See, also: the attempts to create a "British" national identity out of English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh indentities, which hasn't gone as successfully as, say, the attempts at creating a Polish national identity.

Yes, it's true that national identities are foreign imports to the Middle East. They are foreign imports everywhere outside of Europe, and even there they are still "artificial" in the sense that a group of people tried to plan them out.

When I was an undergrad, a frequent complain was that white, black, and asian students at my university never interacted. Us and our primitive tribal identities...

The problem with this part of the argument is, I think, that neither of us have performed an actual study or examination of actual people in the Middle East and how they perceive themselves. I call this point moot as well.

But, anyway, all of this is radically off topic from my original point, which was something like: it doesn't hurt anyone to acknowledge that if you were to be born, right now, a Palestinian living in the territories, you'd pretty much be getting the shaft. I also tried to point out that people shouldn't be forced from their homes, regardless of where their grandparents lived, much less their ancestors 3,500 years ago.

I'm not quite sure how that, in any way, "justifies" terrorism.

Posted by: The Commenter at April 23, 2005 07:38 AM

Commenter,

We will have to disagree, again. I would see zero problems in the kicking of Chinese migrants out of Tibet, zero problems in the kicking of Soviet migrants out from Lithuania, the Baltic states, zero problems in the kicking of Arab muslims out of North Africa, Israel, the Levant, out of Iran, etc.

Above, I've given you examples super predatory expansionist identities. These nationalisms were and still are responsible for cultural genocide if not actual physical genocide. I'm sorry you have a soft spot such things. You've fallen for an old trap. You are kind to the cruel, and end up being cruel to kind.

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 08:34 AM

Mika,

I'm glad to know that there are still people out there proposing ethnic cleansing throughout the world. Keeps the Hague in business.

The problem with kicking all of those people out of their homes is that most of them are innocent people just trying to live their lives in their homes. Most of them are the descendents of people who either a) invaded years ago or b) were sent there (especially in the case of Russians in the Baltics) by dictators. It's hard to hold people accountable for the actions of others.

Will we, for example, remove all non-native Americans from the western hemisphere? Non-aborigines from Australia? Or perhaps we should remove the Japanese from Japan, and give the islands back to the Ainu. How far back should we go? Arabs have been living in all of those places you just described for far longer than white people have been living in America, and they appropriated the land in a far more violent way than did the Arabs in North Africa.

The other problem that arises is the same one that should sink the notion of reparations to the descendents of slaves in America: who's white? Who is black? Will we perform genetic tests to determine who needs to pay and who gets a check? Will we similarly perform genetic tests to see who gets forced out of their homes and who gets to stay? Populations always mix. Will an Iranian with 49% Arab descent and 51% Persian descent get to stay, and vice versa? Should we institute racial classes? If you have one Arab grandparent....

What about the English? The Anglo-Saxons definitely gave the shaft to the Celts who lived there, who in turn had given the shaft to the Neolithic people living there first. Who gets to keep England? Is the question even worth asking? Of course not - there are no more Anglo-Saxons, Celts, or Neolithic people living in England - only their intermarried descendents.

Or maybe we should do some tests, figure out if any humans have any DNA from the Neanderthals or any other non-homo sapiens sapiens human and give them the rest of the world, while we sequester all full-blooded humans to Africa.

Seriously, I have lived in my home for years. It is my home. My ancestors stole that land from other people and exterminated them. It was a terrible tragedy, but that doesn't change the fact that I live here now, that my parents do too, that their parents lived here, that their parents lived here, and on and on for centuries. Should I, or an Arab family living perfectly peacefully in Tunisia, or a Russian family in Lithuania, be made to suffer for the crimes of others?

Posted by: The Commenter at April 23, 2005 08:48 AM

"Should I, or an Arab family living perfectly peacefully in Tunisia, or a Russian family in Lithuania, be made to suffer for the crimes of others?"

Short answer. Yes.

You are living on stolen property. And as long as there still are living claimants to the land, you and others like you should be striped of all legal rights as nationals and removed. You are NOT a national. You are a foreign occupier.

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 09:32 AM

Mika,

I'm not really sure what to say anymore. Arabs have lived in Tunisia for centuries. How long does someone have to live somewhere before they stop being a "foreign occupier"? How long should someone's ancestors have inhabited a particular area before they can live there in peace?

Considering that only a tiny, tiny handful of people - a few Native American tribes, some Australian aborigines, maybe the Basque, the !Kung of South Africa (and there's some question as to whether these people really are authochtonous or moved to their present locations) - can demonstrate an unbroken inhabitation of their current homes, who else would you ethnically cleanse?

How many more lives would you like to destroy at gunpoint to achieve ethnic purity?

Posted by: The Commenter at April 23, 2005 09:37 AM

Of course, such measures need a collective consensus. But should such a collective agreement be reached, I would whole heartedly help support and implement such measures. And, in the case of Arab/Islamic imperialism, I would take great pleasure in doing so.

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 09:39 AM

"I'm not really sure what to say anymore. Arabs have lived in Tunisia for centuries."

Irrelevant.

Arabs lived for centuries in "Andalusia". So what?

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 09:46 AM

Mika,

That's my point. Arabs lived there, now they don't. Now Spaniards live there. They should get to live there, if that's where they want to live.

Likewise, Arabs used to live in what is now Israel. Now Israelis live there. They should get to live there, if that's where they want to live.

Native Americans used to live where I now live, now they don't. I live here. I should get to live here, since this is where I want to live.

Person 1 should not get to hurt person 2 because 700 years ago person 3 hurt person 4.

Here's the dissonance between your statements.

A: The Arabs lived in Spain, but that's no reason for them to get it "back".

B: The Arabs live in places where they didn't before, and that's a reason for other people to get the land "back".

Huh?

I use the term "back" loosely, because I don't think one can retake possession of something they never possessed. My ancestors lived in England and Germany, among other places. I guess that means they need to start making room for me.

But then, if in fact there were some sort of concensus, that would be great, right? Because history is replete with all sorts of examples of the peaceable transfer of one group of people from their homes against their will to another place.

Posted by: The Commenter at April 23, 2005 10:04 AM

Of course the words "lived for centuries in Andalusia" are really an inordinate euphemism. This was a multi-century military occupation, part of an Islamist expansionist drive to conquer the world. It very sad that you would allow these Islamic imperialists consolidate their holding in North Africa and elsewhere. Maybe you are just playing a different measure of the moral equivalency.. that "all" violence (or "all" bad words) are equally reprehensible regardless of context. Well homie, I don't that game.

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 10:12 AM

.. I don't ^play that game

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 10:15 AM

Wow. I honestly don't think I can continue having this conversation.

Mika, how far back do you need to trace your ancestor's inhabitation of your current home before you are no longer an "occupier" and become, you know, someone who gets to live in their home in peace before a nutjob like you decides that the best thing for everyone involved is if you have a gun pointed at your head and are kicked out of your home?

Anyway, like I said, I'm done. Toodles!

Posted by: The Commenter at April 23, 2005 10:23 AM

Let me see if I follow you..

We are going to create facts on ground. And once they are, well too bad.

Is that it?

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 10:23 AM

Ugh, I know I said I was done, but I can't resist. One last one...

Mika, I suppose it depends on your definition of "facts on the ground". If I were to kick you out of your house and start living there, that would rightly be considered a "fact on the ground". You'd be justified in taking your house back. If I kicked you out of your house and then my descendents lived there for 700 years, roughly 28 generations, and one day your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand niece decided she wanted to kick my descendents out, well, that's a different story.

It's a serious question: when does the situation stop being "facts on the ground" and become, you know, reality, a done deal? When does it move from serious current issue to history? You seem to have posited that 700 years isn't enough. That's longer than most modern peoples have lived where they are now. How long? Do you advocate kicking all of these people, the bulk of the world's population, from their homes?

Me, I prefer to deal, yes, with living people and with the actual facts on the ground. Surprisingly enough, living people are more important to me than dead, and individual people are more important to me that ill-defined groups, tribes, or ethnicities. I tend to believe that people, not ideas, have rights.

But, serious question that you haven't answered: how long?

Posted by: The Commenter at April 23, 2005 10:36 AM

BTW, if you believe that Islamic occupation involves peaceful neighborly relations with others that are non-Muslim, it is you that is the "nut job". Either that, or you are willfully ignorant of the facts; Not only as they relate to the Israeli Arab conflict, but the facts as the relate to the whole millennia and a half of Islam's sorry existence.

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 10:40 AM

"It's a serious question: when does the situation stop being "facts on the ground" and become, you know, reality, a done deal?"

I've already given you the answer. See my post at April 23, 2005 09:32 AM

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 10:44 AM

So...anyone whose ancestors didn't cross the Bering Strait around 11,000 BC should leave the Western Hemisphere?

Posted by: The Commenter at April 23, 2005 10:56 AM

"So...anyone whose ancestors didn't cross the Bering Strait around 11,000 BC should leave the Western Hemisphere?"

Yes. If that is the collective disposition of the "natives" and they can muster the will and the resources to enforce this collective decision, all the power to them.

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 11:03 AM

As a note, though I'm not really keen on American/Canadian history, there might be some complicating issues. I do believe the "Natives" did sign claims to some large tracks of land over to the "Europeans". Since the "Natives" sold their right to these lands, I'm not sure what moral or legal right they would still have back up their claims to it.

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 11:25 AM

"You are living on stolen property. And as long as there still are living claimants to the land, you and others like you should be striped of all legal rights as nationals and removed. You are NOT a national. You are a foreign occupier."

- Posted by mika. at April 23, 2005 09:32 AM

So I should be kicked out of North America and my property returned to some Natives here were here before my ancestors - not sure which nomadic tribe - I'm sure they will have fun sorting that one out.

Because of my multi-ethnic background I get a choice of several European countries. Let's say I choose Britain. I pick out a house owned by a guy with a French-sounding name and say "Hey you lousy Norman. I want your house. Screw off because I've got Anglo Saxon blood."

He says "Yeah? Well too bad for you because I'm part Celt" And I say "Yeah? Well so am I but my clan was here before your clan." And he says "Yeah?..."

Why am I doing this? Attempting to use a reductio ad absurdum argument to a discussion that's already there, on a thread that already stale dated?

I think he's just toying with us, Commenter. I'm leaving for fairer, greener blogs - where I'll be welcomed by the natives.

Posted by: VinoVeritas at April 23, 2005 11:25 AM

And another thing! (God! I've got to stop!)

My brother is married to a woman who is part Native. Does she get to stay? Can he stay, being married to her? If she stays and he leaves, who gets the kids?

Posted by: VinoVeritas at April 23, 2005 11:33 AM

VinoVeritas,

Don't fret. I think that as long as the US keeps spending its billions on defense, you'll be safe. :)

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 11:39 AM

The Arabs on the other hand, better be ready for some ass whooping. They sure as hell have it coming.

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 11:43 AM

Vino,

Take me with you!

Posted by: The Commenter at April 23, 2005 03:42 PM

You can ran. You can't hide.

You are clearly a cowardly kufr. You cannot be trusted for any good you may intend the Muslims. Kufrs have no loyalty, nor any integrity in word or deed. You claim that your heart is with us, but your brother's swords is drawn against us. You hear and ignore the words of Allah Ta'ala. “Those who deny will wear collars and chains, yokes (of servitude) tying their hands to their necks; they will be the inmates of Hell.… They will witness Our (many) exemplary punishments! Verily, your Lord is severe in retribution”

Posted by: decendent of Shem at April 23, 2005 04:33 PM

Commenter -

Trying to insinuate that there is tribalism in the US versus the way it is in Britain or even the Middle East is well, PC INSANITY. I don't know where you grew up but in the school I went to there is always your 'clique' but everyone hung out and interacted... and if everywhere in the world people interacted as successfully as they do in the US today the world would be a much better place. In fact, behind all of the nauseating preening of all of the feckless/worthless trying to prove how "useful" they are bureaucrats at the UN and EU, everyone knows the US is the paragon for a saner different world... Its the only successful experiment in breaking down the lines in the last 500 years.
And I might add that capitalism and incentives with an opportunity for getting ahead is part of the reason for this. If immigrants can collect welfare immediately and have no incentive to take part in the culture you end up with the nightmare now facing Europe.

But, anyway, all of this is radically off topic from my original point, which was something like: it doesn't hurt anyone to acknowledge that if you were to be born, right now, a Palestinian living in the territories, you'd pretty much be getting the shaft.

LOL... of course you don't mention why that is? So its assumed of course who is to blame, lol!

I also tried to point out that people shouldn't be forced from their homes, regardless of where their grandparents lived, much less their ancestors 3,500 years ago.

Yeah, and.........

I'm not quite sure how that, in any way, "justifies" terrorism.

You must be referring Mizrahi/Sephardic Jews sending out suicide bombers all over the Middle East?
Or you mean Sudetan Germans sending suicide bombers into Czechoslavakia?
Or do you mean Sephardic Jews sending in suicide bombers into the Vatican or Spain?
Or did you mean Armenians blowing up innocent Turks?
Or did you mean Cooptic Egyptians murdering Muslim Egyptians?
Or did you mean Southern Sudanese murdering and bombing mosques in the North?
OR MAYBE..... you just were referring to Palestinian Arabs teaching kids to blow off Israeli kids' bodyparts with suicide belts packed with rat poison and nails so that any survivors are also live a life of constant infection and misery?

That must be it... because we all know the only group with world grievances are the Palestinian Arabs (who moved mainly 20-50 miles) and we know who and only who is responsible for that... and on that list of course IS NOT Palestinian Arabs either.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2005 05:07 PM

Oh and let me add that this singularly comparatively most of all 'wronged' 'peoples'/group is not only not at all responsible for themselves and their lot but they have also never terrorized or murdered other Arab groups as well.... while claiming how 'wronged' they are... as in Lebanon or Jordan....

Its kind of ironice or Orwellian (an Arab MEast specialty) if you will.
The Palis claim to be the 'Jews of today'.
They also say that Jews 'use the Holocaust' "as a sympathy weapon", to "excuse their actions".
Well, if both of the suppositions on "Jews" and "being Jews" are true... than its ironic how much indeed the Palestinians are the "jews as they describe them".

Never has any group ever monopolized through the Arab League and EU the world's attention and $$ so.

I might add, the ones speaking on the tube and demonstrating sure ain't the jews I know or have ever interacted with.
Maybe the truth is what Pipes quotes in his article... not that any 'myths/lies/exagerrations' ever emanate from the Arab Middle East of course...

Mike

Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2005 05:44 PM

"OR MAYBE..... you just were referring to Palestinian Arabs teaching kids to blow off Israeli kids' bodyparts with suicide belts packed with rat poison and nails so that any survivors are also live a life of constant infection and misery?"

Looks like markus rose just won himself a hundred bux.

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 06:20 PM

Mike,

It makes me really sad to read your stuff. Honestly. I don't know many ways I can say that acknowledging facts justifies some outcome morally. I said that, hey, if you happen to be born in the West Bank to Palestinian terrorists, life is probably going to suck for you. Does it matter who causes that suckiness? Not within the context of what I was saying, which, for the record, is:

You don't justify terrorism if you say that being born in the West Bank to Palestinian parents probably means that life is going to suck for you.

I wish, I wish, I wish, for just a second, that you could accept that when I say that, I'm not trying to blame the Jews, or say that it's ok for terrorists to blow up children, or whatever it is that you seem to think I'm saying.

You wrote: "LOL... of course you don't mention why that is? So its assumed of course who is to blame, lol!"

See, it escapes me why you'd make that assumption. No, really, why?

Honestly, I give up. You seem to think that unless I make the caveat that I think terrorism is really, really bad every time I speak, I can't speak without supporting terrorism. I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who's unable to accept the fact that sometimes we can speak without making every caveat in the world about every statement we make. Palestinians suffer, and most of that suffering is caused by other Palestinians. Does that diminish the suffering of children born to Palestinian parents? Apparently it does, because, as you seem to think, recognizing the suffering of a human being is absolutely horrible if nearby human beings are doing bad things.

I know that listening to Daniel Pipes and reading Instapundit and LGF has led a lot of people to believe some horrible things, so you might want to give that a rest, because honestly, nothing is black and white, and no matter how bad some Palestinians act, you can never say that "100% of Palestinians are 100% evil 100% of the time" unless you're a jerk. Which, for the record, I think you are. Not because I disagree with your take on the situation, which is vaguely accurate, but because I disagree with your interpretation of discourse.

I'm comfortable saying that, hey, lots of innocent Germans really got the shaft during WWII without implying that because some Germans got the shaft, then all actions by all Germans were good. Right? We can acknowledge that bad things happened to, say, German children who were killed without justifying the death camps, right?

Or, I might be totally wrong, and you might honestly believe that you can't do one without the other. And, like I said, that makes me sad.

Posted by: The Commenter at April 23, 2005 06:27 PM

I realize I was a little hazy in one part. For the record, I think that you're a jerk because you automatically assume that acknowledging suffering among Palestinian terrorism means that someone is a terrorist sympathizer and needs to be mocked and yelled at. Really, why so much hate? Stop drinking that hatorade.

Posted by: The Commenter at April 23, 2005 06:31 PM

I just made a fool of myself. "Palestinian terrorism" should read "Palestinian children". My original statements on jerkdom and hatorade, however, stand.

Posted by: The Commenter at April 23, 2005 06:33 PM

BTW, according to the Tanakh, a child belongs to the people of its mother. Ishmael's father was Abraham, a decendent of Shem, but his mother, Hagar, was Egyptian who are decendents of Ham. His wives were also Egyptians, so his children were Hamites. Thus, Ishmael's Arab decendents are Hamites and can be anti-S(h)emites without having to skip a beat.

Posted by: mika. at April 23, 2005 06:37 PM

I said that, hey, if you happen to be born in the West Bank to Palestinian terrorists, life is probably going to suck for you. Does it matter who causes that suckiness?

Yes, it does in the real world, because that's the way the Arab Media machine have positioned this... everything is blamed on Israel, the "Nazi/Apartheid/State" when they created this problem themselves.

Also, when many Palis dare not 'tell the truth' and 'go against "the cause"' yes it matters.

When there are college campuses all over teaching students to call Israelis Nazis, yup it does. Not to mention the main Pali University where they make murals of dead Jewish bodyparts hanging from the ceiling.

You don't justify terrorism if you say that being born in the West Bank to Palestinian parents probably means that life is going to suck for you.

I agree so what's the point?
What the next step from that? Are the kids going to become terrorists because 'life sucks' or because that's what their national/cultural ethos is? Because like I said the Ethiopians, Sudanese, Tibetans and many others are far worse off. In Ethiopia the Black Jews they flew in were literally living in holes in the ground.

I wish, I wish, I wish, for just a second, that you could accept that when I say that, I'm not trying to blame the Jews, or say that it's ok for terrorists to blow up children, or whatever it is that you seem to think I'm saying.

I didn't think you were saying that. I'm saying that its E N O U G H... enough pity party... for the Palis and Arab world. Tired of hearing their bs, lies and blame everyone else.. I'm saying it. Like I said they say the "Jews" get sympathy by using the "pity" card... again, like usual its the reverse.

And btw, the Palis, their US political hacks and the like say what you said above every day.

Palestinians suffer, and most of that suffering is caused by other Palestinians.

So then you of course would agree that Israel has to defeat the predominant Pali Rejectionist/Irredentist ethos - the main underlying cause preventing any progress in this tangle causing mutual suffering?
For example -
When Israel takes out Rantisi, and the UN tries to pass an "Emergency Resolution" against them as a result -- The same week Syria murders 100 Kurds & the Genocide in Sudan is in high gear - You were DAM WELL ANGRY, and saying 'that's not right? and only damaging to ending the suffering for both... as Rantisi was the emodiment of hate/death/murder/rejection - and thus, the Israelis had every right to take out this murdering thug and try and defeat this ethos?

Btw, how many people you know who believe what you said 'you believe' above?
So you think Cole, Abuminah, Khalidi, Massad etc.. are all wrong eh?

And furthermore, if the EU and UN saw it that way, and told the Palis that's it... then the terrorism would END.... It only continues because the EU funds it, ignores the Euros going to fund rejectionism, terror and hate and continues to do so.

I know that listening to Daniel Pipes and reading Instapundit and LGF has led a lot of people to believe some horrible things,

Really? My Pali friend says he reads Pipes in the Israeli papers and agrees with most of the things he writes?????
So, I got it... you didn't really read all of my previous posts nor the Pipes link I gave you????
BEFORE you set out on your imaginative jaunt? (which I knew anyway)

so you might want to give that a rest, because honestly,

Honesty is always the best policy, I always say.
And yeah, my fingers are gettin kind a tired.

nothing is black and white,

The keyboard?
Ebony Ivory living in perfect harmony............ Ebony - I v oreee...
but I digress....

and no matter how bad some Palestinians act, you can never say that "100% of Palestinians are 100% evil 100% of the time" unless you're a jerk.

Wait, so let me see??? hmmmmmmm......
Ok, gee...... I certainly don't want to be called a jerk.

Which, for the record, I think you are.

Now I'm gettin upset....

Did you contruct that strawman out of paper or cardboard? Its a pretty BIG one...

Nice use of logical constructs and hyper emotionalism... its a nice touch.
But you have ESP so you read words backwards and found hidden meanings somewhere?

And you figured out my encryption too? How did you do it and give me away?

Now, on the other hand, I do have some Lebanese friends who really do hate the Palis.
Can you set up some couch time with you on that?

Of course you did not completely read 1 post I put up so it is nonetheless amusing talking to you and your imaginary strawman.

I might be totally wrong,

Noooo.... don't believe the hype man.

you might honestly believe that you can't do one without the other. And, like I said, that makes me sad.

Don't be sad, be glad? :---))
Listen, go have a cup a Jo turn on FX and check out Baywatch, that should cheer you up?
OR - next time you're at a bar/restaurant go up to some women, tell them that you're the COMMENTER and you have ESP.. Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2005 10:17 PM

Anyway - Spok - I've personally spoken on the phone with a Palestinian who is a moderate many times...
He by the way not only is against Gaza Unilateral withdrawal, agrees with much of Pipe's analysis on the Arab world, and also told his "liberal" "bleeding heart" Israeli friends in 93 bringing the PLO in was only going to bring upon disaster for the Jews and Palestinians.
I know whatcha ya thinkin... self player hater....
That ESP again, man?? some powerful stuff.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2005 10:25 PM

Also COMMENTER -
You should let Totten know to stop reading Glen Reynold or lgf any further as well...
I think he's brainwashed by those 'haters' too, its catchy...

Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2005 10:35 PM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15585_Palestinian_Child_Abuse#comments

Ok, ok but speaking of Rantisi and the culture of rejectionism... I mean what a coinky dink.

Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2005 10:50 PM

klimatyzacja
projektowanie wnętrz
jiddu
3d
reklama
projektowanie stron
nieruchomości
forum ludzkie
poezja
swietlica
zdrowa żywność
psycholog
agroturystyka
opony

Posted by: at June 5, 2005 01:26 PM

Have A Great WeekEnd

Posted by: viagra at July 1, 2005 03:27 PM

Order Viagra Online

Posted by: viagra at July 9, 2005 02:48 AM

Youll should use Direct TV Deals.
Youll should use Free Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV Offer.
Youll should use Direct TV Deal.
Youll should use Dish Network Deals.
Youll should use Direct TV Offers.
Youll should use Dish Network Deals.
Youll should use Direct TV Offers.
Youll should use Direct TV Deal.
Youll should use Dish Network Deals.
Youll should use Dish Network Deals.
Youll should use Free Direct TV Deals.
Youll should use Direct TV Deals.

Posted by: Free Direct TV Deals at July 17, 2005 01:22 PM

Check out How to Gamble in America :: Poker Index :: Poker Room Review :: Sports Index :: Sports Book Review :: Casino Index :: Casino Review :: Craps :: Blackjack Strategies :: Roulette :: Let It Ride :: Three Card Poker :: Video Poker :: Gambling Quotes :: Online Gambling :: Online Poker :: Draw Poker :: Poker Hand Rankings :: Texas Hold’em :: Seven Card Stud :: Seven Card High/Low :: Omaha :: Omaha High/Low :: Guide To Sports Betting :: The Basics to Wagering on Sports :: Parlays :: Teasers :: Half Point :: Sports Betting Tips & Tricks :: Money Management :: Sports Betting Terminology :: Horse Racing Tips :: Free NFL Pick :: How to Gamble in America :: Sports Betting Strategies :: Pacific Poker:: Online Gambling Forum

Also check out 100 Best Poker Rooms for all the best up to date online gambling sites.

BLOG

Posted by: How To Gamble at August 8, 2005 09:15 AM

sklep internetowy kamery cyfrowe sony panasonic minidv Kamery cyfrowe, telewizory plazmowe lgjvc Telewizory plazmowe. eeeby sony panasonic eeeby. eeeby sony panasonic eeeby.

Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at August 15, 2005 11:34 AM

canon canon aparaty sony sony
lg telefony gsm samsung samsung siemens siemens kuchnie philips philips creative sharp sharp telewizory plazmowe panasonic panasonic kamery

Posted by: Telewizory Plazmowe at August 18, 2005 05:52 AM

darmowe carrie welscott @ darmowe casey mae @ darmowe chlopcy @ darmowe ciagniecie @ darmowe ciasne @ darmowe cichodajki @ darmowe cipeczka @ darmowe cipeczki @ darmowe cipki @ darmowe cipki nastolatki @ darmowe cipki nimfomanki @ darmowe cipy @ darmowe cipy dziewczyny @ darmowe cipy erotyka @ darmowe cipy nagie @ darmowe cipy pijane @ darmowe cipy rozjebane @ darmowe cipy xxx @ darmowe clipy @ darmowe cori nadine @ darmowe cyce @ darmowe cycki @ darmowe cycuszki @ darmowe czarne @ darmowe czeszki @ darmowe dagmara @ darmowe dajki @ darmowe darmo @ darmowe darmowe @ darmowe darmowe anonse @ darmowe dildo @ darmowe doktor @ darmowe domina @ darmowe domination @ darmowe dominika @ darmowe dorota @ darmowe dupcia @ darmowe dupcie @ darmowe dupodajki dziewczyny @ darmowe dupodajki fotki @ darmowe dupodajki licealistki @ darmowe dupodajki lolitki @ darmowe dupodajki murzynki @ darmowe dupodajki nimfomanki @ darmowe dupodajki porno @ darmowe dupodajne kobiety @ darmowe dupy @ darmowe dupy porno @ darmowe duze @ darmowe dymanie

Posted by: ruben at September 8, 2005 05:07 AM

certification Russia
certyfikacja w ROSJI
Certyfikacja w ROsji

zertifizierung Russland

Certyfikacja


karp huj

Posted by: GOST at October 3, 2005 01:26 PM

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online slots
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker

Posted by: Sign My GuestBook at October 4, 2005 07:57 AM

Take your time to check out some information dedicated to tamiflu purchase tamiflu purchase




http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami1




tamiflu without prescription