1. Felix Quigley said:

Saying ont thing in public, and then conspiring with others to knife Israel in the back. Anybody know the name for that? The key is in the word "conspiring" and I call it simply CONSPIRACY!

Try a little experiment here, as I did. Go to the site above of Lerner. Key in the search the word Bush. What comes out is Clinton...speaking at a big Jewish do in America in 2001. And please do not read any further unless you want to throw up.

I just do not think Aaron Lerner could be clearer. Everything that this American regime is doing in the Middle East is putting Jews in great danger.

When a President appoints people such as Rice and Ward, as well as this American ambassador guy with the peculiar name, and everything that they do, event after event, is leading to the killing of Jews, then we possibly just could call that CONSPIRING TO KILL JEWS.

There are really two possibilities in my mind.

1. These governmental appointees are conspiring in the present and future death of many Jews or
2. They are so stupid they do not know what they are doing.

Take your pick.

The other side to this is how Elmert has ordained that Arab Israelis in Jerusalem should vote in Palestinian state elections. And the connection to that is that the US Government, great "friend" of Israel, has always refused to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Well, I do not think they are stupid. I think they are conspiring against Israel. Why they are doing so we need to get to the bottom of.

2. Ted Belman said:

A conspiracy is a secret agreement between two parties to do an unlawful act. If the act is lawful then it is simply a secret agenda. I don't think we should muddy the waters with the idea of a conspiracy. It is enough that we focus on a secret agenda. The GOI has accepted the Roadmap and the fence so to that extent it is very much in the open. We all know where it is heading. What we don't know is whether the US will make the end game even worse. History shows that their promises can't be relied on. I believe that the US truly believes that such a peace agreement is in Israel's interest and obviously Israel thinks so too. What we don't know is whether there is a cabal among certain opinion makers with the goal of Israel's destruction. I personally don't think so. While there are antisemites all over including in the highest US government circles, that may wish Israel's destruction, most of the ruling elite simply want to remove the conflict and see a peace agreement as very much in the US interest.

3. Bill Narvey said:

Ted, I agree that one needn’t resort to conspiracy theories to explain American policies vis a vis Israel and so I agree with your view.

There is still the question as to why successive American administrations have failed to keep their word to the Israelis and why those administrations more often than not, lean more towards the Palestinians than Israel with the result that Israel’s security needs and indeed Israel’s very existence seem imperiled by American policy and the pressure America puts on Israel with each new American led peace initiative.

I am offering my thoughts on this ongoing debate.

I have noted before that since 1948 America has in furtherance of its own interests, pursued a core policy of solid support for Israel's existence balanced by maintaining good relations, politically and economically with the Arab states.

Peace between Israel and Palestinians and indeed throughout the Middle East is desired by Americans, not only for its moral value, but achieving that would serve America's balanced Middle East – Israel/Palestinian core policy interests.

As noted, it appears America has over the past several administrations pushed peace between Israel and the Palestinians in a way that favors the Palestinians and compromises Israel’s interests.

The lean to accommodating the Palestinians by overlooking their failures, makes sense in the broader context that if America is to pursue peace between Israel and Palestinians in furtherance of its own interests, it works at cross purposes to demand of Palestinians that which they can't or refuse to deliver on.

In the result, for America to be as insistent on Palestinians keeping their word as it is on Israel keeping its word, the peace process, be it the Road Map or the previous peace agreement initiatives would have been abandoned before the ink had dried on the agreement.

What makes things more difficult for Israel to withstand American pressures is that the Bush administration, like U.S. administrations before are supported in their policies by a substantial number of Jews as represented by various Jewish organizations. It also does not help Israel that an estimated 80% of American Jews vote Democrat.

Further, those organizations like AIPAC, B’Nai Brith and others that advocate for a strong Israel and against compromising Israel’s security needs and ultimately its chances for survival, tailor their advocacy to what they see as politically achievable given the political climate in the States.

These pro-Israel organizations in their advocacy therefore take the path of the politically possible as opposed to the more daring and difficult path of opening new paths of possibilities by swaying the American administration to alter course from a path that even putting it in its best light, still leads to pressuring Israel to some compromise on its needs and best interests.

As for why American administrations would fail to keep their word to Israel, again the answer I think is found by looking at America’s pursuit of its own best interests and at its core balanced Israel-Palestinian and Mid East policy which gives expression to America’s best interests in that regard.

It seems that each time America has failed to keep its word to Israel, it was probably as a result that circumstances had changed in unanticipated ways when America had given its word to Israel.

To follow through on its word, America would be strengthening Israel’s position to a point that could possibly have threatened to upset or at least compromise the balance of America’s core Israel-Palestinian/Mid East policy. America therefore opts to break its promise to Israel, whenever America perceives that its core balanced policy would be compromised if it were to keep its word.

This does not excuse America for breaking its word to Israel time and again, but does provide some explanation for why it has done so.

4. Ptah said:

I hate to bring this up, but I am sure that it has nothing to do with a conspiracy or secret agenda being pursued with bipartisian enthusiasm by both Republican and Democrat Presidents. Pu-leeze give me a break and my leg back.

Do not credit to conspiracy what can be more credibly credited to greed and ambition: One of the writers of the Federalist Papers pointed out that politicians are going to be ambitious, so we may as well have a system where the ambitious check the ambitious.

The fact of the matter is that Middle Eastern Arabs are louder, noisier, more populous, touchier, have the oil lever, and more prone to flying off the handle than Calm, cool, former Western European and American Jews. It takes quite a bit of resolve to follow through on the realization that "this guy is a bastard and needs to be put in his place": easier to go with the flow and appease, appease, appease. Politicians will read who's cool and calm, who's touchy and prone to fits, and will ALWAYS appease the latter over the former, because the former will bend over. Anyone who's read Israpundit should know that the Israeli Government doesn't act with as much insistance and intransigence as the Arab/Palestinian side does.

Now to bring up the most unpleasant fact of all: Dubya is a former drunk. I emphasize "former", but any honest former drunk will tell you that staying a "former" drunk takes a lot of brutal self-honesty THAT WAS ABSENT BEFORE THEY STARTED ABSTAINING. Fact is, being a drunk causes a lot of problems that the drunk, being drunk, cannot handle, and thus must slough off onto those around him. The process of the people around the drunk supporting the drunk by solving the prolblems the drunk creates is called becoming co-dependent, and part of the solution to the whole problem is what is called "tough love": the cutting off of the drunk and letting them crash and burn and REFUSING TO SAVE THEM WHILE HE CONTINUES HIS DRUNKEN. I recall one drunk who was driven sober when he made the mistake of hitting his son while in a drunken rage: His 4'11" wife, normally compliant and cooperative, tied him up when he dropped off to sleep, grabbed a fire iron, broke several bones and ribs in a screaming fit, sent him to the hospital, and told him, in no uncertain terms, that the free ride was over.

Here's my point: Drunks can spot co-dependents in a flash, and WILL EXPLOIT that co-dependency to the hilt. Former drunk Dubya has spotted the Israeli co-dependency, and is exploiting it for all it is worth. There's a similar one between the Paleos and the Israelis, and I approved Sharon's Gaza withdrawal initially as a "tough love" move to break that co-dependency and make the Paleos face reality. Arafat, as "chief drunk", was smart enough to see what it was really about, and reacted as a drunk would when the sweet wine was cut off from his mouth.

A warning: a co-dependent telling the drunk that they're on their own, and that no further co-dependent behavior is forthcoming, should expect a VIOLENT response: the bastard wants to have his cake and eat it too, and will RESENT having reality forced on them. They ALSO know that the initial co-dependent behavior was entered into to avoid a fight, so they'll put up a fight because they'll think "time to put the bitch back in her place AGAIN". Expect a violent reaction from Bush, Condi, the state department, and the Euros when Israel says, "No more Israeli lives for unsecured and unfulfilled promises," not only because it forces the issue into reality, but it is so blatantly and obviously TRUE.

A good place to start is to start talking the truth about the drunk and the co-dependent relationship, although like all "talk", the process shouldn't end there. In the meantime, this isn't going to work if only SOME of the co-dependents do it: the drunk will enlist the remaining supporters to fight the "rebels". It also won't work if some of the co-dependents don't get the memo about what is going down and why it is going down. I know this is a tough pill to swallow, but you'll HAVE to realize that Pat Roberston is your FRIEND here. YES, his comment about Sharon was tasteless and unbiblical, but look at the context: Gaza has become a lawless no-man's-land rapidly filling with terrorists that was a threat to israel, and Pat was worried about that. In this context, Pat is the brother/sister in law who is totally disgusted with their brother's drunkenness, and is motivated to help BOTH OF YOU get your lives straight. Yes, he puts his damn foot in his damn mouth, but he has no hole in his heart where Israel is. You need him, and many like him, to remind Bush and the republicans that NO LIFE WHATSOEVER is worth empty and unfulfilled promises, dammit.

I contribute to the Republican National Committee. I WILL write them to tell them no dough is forthcoming until Bush, Condi, and company, get their damned heads screwed on straight about Israel, but I can't do a thing if ISRAEL doesn't tell them ALSO to get their damned heads screwed on straight, which means that the Israeli government has to get a backbone and make the protection of Israeli Citizens as high a priority with them as the protection of American citizens by the US Government.

5. Ed D said:

Ptah, You are a man of my heart. I have always hated bullies and have physically battled more than a few. If one doesn't try to defend himself, he deserves what he gets, more bullying. I'm going to say my piece and I may offend a few Jews.

I have met Jewish kids who in school who would give his lunch to a bully so as not to get beat up. I have met Jewish people who have changed their names because they are afraid to be a Jew. In fact, most of the Jews that I know here in the US are gutless appeasers.
Certainly not all, but most.

How many Jewish parents would be upset if their child defended themselves endangering the harm of their hands because they want a surgeon in the family. I certainly have nothing against a great education but I am married to a wife who did the same. My son, as he was growing, was constantly being bullied by a kid next door and I insisted that he defend himself, even though he was wearing some expensive dental ware. He did and whipped this kid badly and came home with his lips bloody, dental ware broken and wearing the biggest smile I ever saw. He was not bothered again.

The point I'm trying to make is this, we Jews must get away from the passive demeanor we possess and get tough. Israel needs to look after her own interest and not that of the US. I promise it will survive and grow stronger for it. It's also very important that Jews, especially, the very liberal one in the US, stop some of their precious unimportant causes and stand up and be counted by challenging those who would harm us.

6. kuhnkat said:

Ptah,

I disagree with only this statement:

"... as the protection of American citizens by the US Government."

I would hope the Israeli gubmint can be reformed to the point that they care MORE for their citizens than the US gubmint cares for the US citizen. If you look around the US and the world you will see little care for US citizens. You will see a LOT of care for the APPEARANCE of care. Voila, social programs. See, we care cause we will spend your money on you!!!!!

Please wish more for the Israelis than this!! SOME of the people in the US gubmint care, BUT, most of them care only for themselves. It shows through their daily actions degrading our country to the level of cattle (if we are lucky).

Think, the Dems want to stop Bush and his Admin from protecting the people of the US from the Islamofascists????? We are a country of multiple personalities, and few of them are healthy.

7. radiorote said:

There can not be a conspiracy if the act is commited in front of one's face. The Bush Administration is at least honest in their approach by openly courting the Saud's in foreign policy and less open with the Iranians when it comes to sharing Iraq.
But it is all there. We here the Administraiton demanding Israel to "make more concessions" while merely warning the PLO not to attack Israel.
The Bush Administration's unfair competition against the Israeli defense industry is well documented. It is not so much that the US condemned Israel for selling weapons to China on moral grounds, the US which wants to monopolize armament sales to China.

8. Salomon Benzimra said:

I don't think Bush is weakening Israel any more than Israeli leftists do.

More than the Palestinian terrorists, more than the Arabs at large, more than the UN and the Europeans, the main enemies of Israel are within. To state a few names, Haaretz, Beilin, Peres, Naomi Chazan, Amira Haas, Baruch Kimmerling, Ilan Pappe, and on, and on.

This is the anti-Zionist "clan" that has shaped Israeli policies since 1993. Bush is way down on the list of anti-Israel responsibility.

9. Felix Quigley said:

"Twelve hours later, the US consul in Jerusalem Jacob Walles visited Abu Mazen’s office in Ramallah with an oral message from President George W. Bush. According to our sources, it was a presidential guarantee that all the Palestinian parties running for election on Jan 25 would be allowed to campaign openly in East Jerusalem, eligible voters in the city would be permitted to cast their votes through local post offices, and the voter slips of all Palestinian parties without exception would be available in the balloting booths."

I read the above on the current DEBKAfile

No Radiorite is right, it is not a conspiracy when it is done openly in front of our and everybody´s very face.

But in another sense he is not right and I will later explain why.

But first in looking at the above paragraph and there is much more which I have not taxed readers with, and they can look it up themselves. I would conclude:

1. What exactly is the status of this state of Israel?

2. When a foreign government, ie the US of A can have its representatives walk into government offices and not only lay down policy but ensure that it is carried out

3. Accepting that Israel is a sovereign national state, and not just a reaction to the Holocaust

4 In those conditions where it has lost its sovereignty what is the point of Israel!?

Let us be clear on one thing here Bill. I am arguing my political line as Felix Quigley who is an Irishman who has been around this issue for some time. My first name is not Francioco. I was studying this issue before he was born.

But unlike you Bill I am not centred on the issue of Israel alone. I am looking at the strategy of the United States internationally.

But let us stay with Israel at this point.

What exactly do you think is the purpose of Israel if the American President can decide on its policy, programme and practice. Forget tilt Bill. That is your theory, not mine. Just answer my question.

The Jewish people have a proud history of some 3000 and more years so with the above report what are they being reduced to.

The conspiracy Ted is in peoples minds and it is in the Media that manipulates those minds.

It is also here on Israpundit. In the above comments you refer to the good writing done by your contributors etc. That includes David Gerstman.

David Gerstman is the person, obviously close to you and to Israpundit, who in the discussion of the notorious Fisk, made a direct attack on Slobadan Milosevic, and as far as I could ascertain placed Milosevic in exactly the same camp as Saddam Hussein.

Where does conspiracy start in this world? It starts in my book when people do not speak up and when lies are propagated.

The lie put about by the Media about Yugoslavia is being added to by the silence of Israpundit towards Gerstmans' lies about Milosevic.

Solomon, you are talking rubbish. All of the above you mention are interweaving in their role as part of the great conspiracy against Israel. I note especially the neoLeft which I particularly study. Peres, a born conspirator, has he ever done anything openly, in front of the people of Israel, not hehind backs, not with lies attached, not with strings attached, not the prelude to a trap. His hidden contacts with Islamofascist Arabs is legendary. Yet he is only one cog. But the difference is, Solomon, that if I read the Debkafile report correctly, it is the US Presidency which is running Israel Governmental affairs. The others are bit players in the great stitch-up.

Finally when I read Bill's piece above what sticks out a mile for me, and here I notice that not one on Israpundit has taken it up, is that Bill seems to accept as fact the US vision of a Palestinian state, and also the very legitimacy of this copncept Palestinian, and Palestinian people, which underpins the whole lie (conspiracy!!!)

It seems to me that everybody or at any rate most on Israpundit has swallowed the Media lies on Yugoslavia and indeed they clearly go along with David Gerstman on that score. But you cannot do this piecemeal. So they are also on the way to swallowing the Palestinian media myth lies as well. And that Bill is where your political approach of dependence on the US power government is leading.

And really finally Ptah all your verbiage about drunks, which I find quite shallow anyway, and your point about your contribution to the Republicans etc, does not make much sense to me, when I note that you were in support of Sharon's treachery over Gaza, and you do not mention the Jews kicked out by Sharon. And you thought Sharon was right, and it was tough love and it was to make "Palestinians" face reality. And even after that analysis you still keep on talking, but I suspect in your case that will never stop. So your words should be emblazoned on Israpundit as a warning to all re confusion and a special prize should be awarded for who can make the following out.

"Here's my point: Drunks can spot co-dependents in a flash, and WILL EXPLOIT that co-dependency to the hilt. Former drunk Dubya has spotted the Israeli co-dependency, and is exploiting it for all it is worth. There's a similar one between the Paleos and the Israelis, and I approved Sharon's Gaza withdrawal initially as a "tough love" move to break that co-dependency and make the Paleos face reality. Arafat, as "chief drunk", was smart enough to see what it was really about, and reacted as a drunk would when the sweet wine was cut off from his mouth."

What all that is about it will take me years, or never, to figure out!

10. Bill Narvey said:

Felix, I am responding to your #9 post.

I have isolated and numbered the comments you make that take issue with my post # 3.

1. “Let us be clear on one thing here Bill. I am arguing my political line as Felix Quigley who is an Irishman who has been around this issue for some time. My first name is not Francioco. I was studying this issue before he was born.”

I do not know what you are referring to.

2. But unlike you Bill I am not centred on the issue of Israel alone. I am looking at the strategy of the United States internationally”.

Nothing in my comment #3 gives rise to your comment.

3. “But let us stay with Israel at this point.
What exactly do you think is the purpose of Israel if the American President can decide on its policy, programme and practice. Forget tilt Bill. That is your theory, not mine. Just answer my question.”

Felix, you have not asked a question. As for my use of the word tilt, it was not expressed as a theory so again I am not clear on what you are driving at.

4. “when I read Bill's piece above what sticks out a mile for me, and here I notice that not one on Israpundit has taken it up, is that Bill seems to accept as fact the US vision of a Palestinian state, and also the very legitimacy of this copncept Palestinian, and Palestinian people, which underpins the whole lie (conspiracy!!!)”

Felix, I do accept as a fact that America and the West have a vision of a Palestinian state. I do not accept however that Palestinians have that same vision.

As for my accepting the legitimacy of the concept of Palestinian and a Palestinian people I am not sure where you are getting that from and in what context your are taking issue with me.

I have written considerably on the subject of Palestinians and that they are Arabs who have been renamed by the world, especially since the 1960’s as Palestinians.

I have also written that should Palestinians ever get their wish that Israel is destroyed, that their Arab neighbors would almost certainly shove them aside, fight over who gets the former land of Israel and Palestinians would again revert to just being Arab citizens of the one or more Arab nations that took over the former land of Israel.

Again, I am not clear on what your point is and why you are making it.

5. As for your issue with me and more specifically Ted on your view that the American ruling elite and perhaps you include the world as well as conspiring against Israel, you said near the beginning of your post # 10 that,

“My understanding of conspiracy is when the wool is being pulled over our eyes.”

From that one statement and your other comments on the subject, I am not so certain you are in agreement with Prof. Gill-White’s conspiracy theory.

Further, it appears more likely that your disagreement with Ted and myself about the existence of some conspiracy amongst those making up the American ruling elite, is more a semantical than substantive disagreement.

Felix, you seem to be quite exercised over my views, but I am for the reasons set out above, not clear at all as to why.

If you spell out what it is that you disagree with me on, I would be happy to engage you in a debate.

11. Felix Quigley said:

Bill

I asked of you a number of simple straight-forward questions. You use then a technique of listing points to which you reply. But you leave out my central questions based on the Debkafile report.

You write

"3. “But let us stay with Israel at this point.
What exactly do you think is the purpose of Israel if the American President can decide on its policy, programme and practice. Forget tilt Bill. That is your theory, not mine. Just answer my question.”

Felix, you have not asked a question. As for my use of the word tilt, it was not expressed as a theory so again I am not clear on what you are driving at."

Am I losing my marbles or is that not the central question which I ask you.

There is something very peculiar in your answer to me.

To explore this further in the hopes of some clarity you write above

"As for my accepting the legitimacy of the concept of Palestinian and a Palestinian people I am not sure where you are getting that from and in what context your are taking issue with me.

I have written considerably on the subject of Palestinians and that they are Arabs who have been renamed by the world, especially since the 1960’s as Palestinians.

I have also written that should Palestinians ever get their wish that Israel is destroyed, that their Arab neighbors would almost certainly shove them aside, fight over who gets the former land of Israel and Palestinians would again revert to just being Arab citizens of the one or more Arab nations that took over the former land of Israel.

Again, I am not clear on what your point is and why you are making it."

Basically your writing is all about accepting the US ruling establishment programme for the area and maybe that is why you did not answer my simple QUESTION above. That is my impression of your writing. I can quote at length but perhaps if I turn it around and ask you for YOUR vision it will have the same effect.

So what then is your vision, what is the way forward. Forget Francisco Gil White for the moment please. I am not Francisco (My first name is not Francisco..get it Bill) and I am exploring here my own ideas from out of my own experience and background.
What is the future ie the way forward for Jews and for Israel? In what way can the Jewish state be saved and in what way can Jews as a nation prosper?

How do you think that we can develop a new strategy different to the present and past that allows a US President to take decisions in place of the government of another country (Debkafile report above)

12. Bill Narvey said:

Felix,

Your following comment, brings a bit, but not a lot more clarity to where you are coming from. Referring to my comments, you say:

"Basically your writing is all about accepting the US ruling establishment programme for the area and maybe that is why you did not answer my simple QUESTION above. That is my impression of your writing."

I have written extensive commentaries and analysis as you know on the subjects of the Israel - Palestinian conflict and Israel's relationship with the Americans and the world.

Sometimes I have offered my views, as I did in my post # 3 above, that seek to explain America's views and policies for the Middle East and Israel and Palestinians and reasons behind Israel being pressured by Americans to concede land and position in the context of American peace process initiatives, the most recent being the Road Map which now is all but dead.

With all due respect Felix, you are confusing my suggesting explanations for how America and the world relates to or impacts on Israel and possible reasons for Israel's own policies as amounting to my justifying the way things are.

Nothing could be further from what I have been saying.

My exploring the whys of the way things are or seem to be, by suggesting explanations is not at all promoting justifications for American policies vis a vis Israel and Palestinians.

Your question "What exactly do you think is the purpose of Israel if the American President can decide on its policy, programme and practice." suddenly makes sense for you have wrongly assumed that I have advocated that that is the way it should be.

Since your question presumes something I did not say and never have, your question becomes moot.

You now go on to say in a rather miffed fashion:

"Forget Francisco Gil White for the moment please. I am not Francisco (My first name is not Francisco..get it Bill) and I am exploring here my own ideas from out of my own experience and background."

In this regard Felix, I simply made a comment in passing based only on your one sentence that I quoted which suggested to me that when it comes to your raising the specter of conspiracy, that you may not really be saying the same thing as Gill-White and your disagreement with Ted and I, may be one on terminology only.

No offence or criticism was intended, though you have obviously taken my words that way.

Perhaps you are upset with me because you feel that I did not give your comments and analysis of your conspiracy ideas the attention you felt that they deserved.

You have mentioned before a number of times that you rely on The Debka file for much of your information and insights. I am not that familiar with that web blog.

You have addressed your conspiracy theories and the facts you find supportive of your conclusion in quite a number of different posts. In this discussion thread, you have alluded to some of your thinking on the subject, but I would have to canvass all your writing in this regard to make a more informed and considered comment.

I do note however that in your Post #1 starting this discussion thread, you note:
“When a President appoints people such as Rice and Ward, as well as this American ambassador guy with the peculiar name, and everything that they do, event after event, is leading to the killing of Jews, then we possibly just could call that CONSPIRING TO KILL JEWS.

There are really two possibilities in my mind.
1. These governmental appointees are conspiring in the present and future death of many Jews or
2. They are so stupid they do not know what they are doing.
Take your pick.”

Felix, I disagree with your premise that everything Rice and Ward do leads to killing Jews and that amounts to a conspiracy to kill Jews.

You are first making a bald faced unexplained general accusation, ie. Everything Rice and Ward Do...leads to killing Jews” and then you proceed immediately to a specific conclusion. You do not say some things they do leads to Jews being killed. You use the word everything.

One can discern intent from words and actions, especially when there is a pattern. You have failed to identify all, or at least sufficient words and deeds and show a pattern of words and deeds that resulted in Jews being killed thereby and that the death of Jews would be the forseeable and likely consequence of those words and deeds.

There is no question that as a result of Americans overlooking Palestinian terrorism and that they are continuing to arm themselves that some Israelis have been murdered and maimed. As deplorable as that is, that alone does not explain whether American policy is really seeking to aid and abet the murder of Jews, whether it assumes that Israel will ultimately get peace with Palestinians, but some Israelis in the process will have to lose their lives and limbs, or whether American policy is really based on a don't care one way or another whether Israel survives, so long as America can raise its hand in victory at the end of the day that it led the way to an Israel - Palestinian peace.

You will need to do much more than you have if you expect to have any chance of convincing me as to the truth and accuracy of your accusation and your quantum leap from that to your conclusion stated as if it were a self evident truth.

Similarly with your two suggested possibilities, they flow from your accepting as factual and complete, your accusation and the conclusion you jump to from your accusation as being true and accurate.

With what little you have presented for consideration in this regard, I take serious issue with your presumptions, assumptions, analysis and conclusions.

You make the comment at the end of your dissertation,

"How do you think that we can develop a new strategy different to the present and past that allows a US President to take decisions in place of the government of another country (Debkafile report above)”

I have not read the Debkafile report. If that report is saying that Israeli policies are dictated from the White House, which is what I think you are saying, I reject that. There is no doubt that the White House does influence Israeli political leadership thinking and does influence Israeli policies and positions, but what you are suggesting is that Israel has abdicated its sovereignty to the White House and that is just way too much to swallow without a truck load of facts and information to support that conclusion.

What you have provided is much too thin a gruel to back up your views.

You also asked me the following questions at the conclusion of your post # 12

“What is the future ie the way forward for Jews and for Israel? In what way can the Jewish state be saved and in what way can Jews as a nation prosper?

I suggest you more carefully read my many posted commentaries in various previous discussion threads at Israpundit, for I have dealt with those questions extensively many times before.

I trust my foregoing comments answers your concerns that I failed to adequately respond to your views and questions or alternatively tried to avoid answering you altogether.

13. kuhnkat said:

I think Felix is dancing around a real issue. Where does the Legitimacy for the people representing themselves as Palestinians come from?? What organisations or groups have they evolved from to claim sovereignty over people or territority??

I can understand the basic idea that there was an election held among these people and they elected Arafat, an international terrorist, as a head of state. Does this convey legitimacy for a claim on land?? NO!! Especially as there is no way to confirm that the election was not a typical Marxist, at the point of a gun/bribery election?? AND there was no attempt to insure that only residents of Israel were included.

The Bush stated we would not negotiate with terrorists. Shouldn't Israel agree with him publicly and refuse to negotiate with all of these groups that have perpetrated terrorist acts?? Arafat, Abbas, and now Hamas??? Seriously, how can you even pretend to negotiate with filth like this?? What is to be gained by the charade that they even WANT to negotiate a land for peace settlement??

Why does Israel continue the one sided negotiation game??

How about this, the rest of the world sits down with the terrorists and attempts to get a SIGNED AGREEMENT from them that Israel can then ratify, OR NOT!!!

Let's see how far the animals will go in the charade instead of Israel making all the offers to be turned down.

By negotiating Israel has given them a legitimacy they could never have gotten. It may be too late to simply deny it as should always have been done, so at least try to change the balance that is killing Israel.

14. Salomon Benzimra said:

I think we can all agree on these two points:

1. An experiment conducted under a flawed hypothesis cannot succeed.
2. If after a long, sustained effort the experiment systematically fails, chances are the hypothesis is flawed.

After 14 years of the co-called "peace process" we have only chaos and bloodshed. The basis for this whole effort was the concept of "land for peace". This concept was further redefined by the Arabs in terms of a "Palestinian people" whose land is "illegally occupied" by Israel.

The "land for peace" concept was originally agreed upon by Israel in the 1970s in its dealings with Egypt (Camp David I). Menahem Begin never thought of extending this concept to any other piece of land. But in the 1990s, when the Arabs further redefined this concept, they found an apathetic acquiescence from the Israeli side, if not an overt support from its leftist government.

This unfortunate turn of events, where Israel allowed its enemies to define the issue, led us to where we are today. That is why I can only see the U.S. administration as peripheral to a problem largely created by Israel, even though we may argue endlessly about international political pressures.

Where do we go from here? Israel should first recognize its misguided passivity. This is essentially an internal problem in which Zionism itself is at stake and the main opponents are Israeli leftists. The new government of Israel should then "define" the issue and not let others define it through historical and legal lies as has been the case for too long. Only then, we can expect to establish a solid foundation for a proper resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict.