This is what condie Rice and Prz Bush meant when they told Sharon that they wanted a continguous Palestinian state. They knew very wwell there could not be both a contiguous Israeli State and a Palestinian one. One had to give and they were very happy to tell Sharon that it was Israel that hzad to give. I remember when I was on Ulpan in Kfar Glickson, a kibbutz outside Binyamina and Hadera abd we could hear the shells every night, the border was was that close---almost a little more than a couple of steps. That was before the 67 War. One could have claustraphobia.

Shalom Keren, Olmert's parents are probaboy turning over in their graves when they witness what their son whom they brought up to be good rightist. As my friend says--Olmert's wife whom we know is a left winger with no love for Jews or Israel has probably put the squeeze on him--Do as I say or no sex. Sounds reasonable to me. Most men will do anything for sex.

Don;t be so cocky. Israelis were patriotic then. There were no left wing deserters who run away from the army to live in France, the US whereever, their money can buy them a place because they don;t want to fight the Palestinians. Unfortunately, the Palestinians do not want to live in peace with you and haval but Israel must remain armed and ready to fight again and again . I wish it wee not so but thems's the facts kid.

Folks, if I thought for one moment that there would be a chance for peace after withdrawal, real peace, I would support it actively. Not only do I think that the expected peace will be elusive, war will be upon us and our positions weakened. I believe this with intensity, thus my stance. I will be happy to meet you here in a year or so and admit that I was wrong.

Does anyone understand the strategy of Ehud Olmert ? Where does he want Israel to be 4 years from now ? What are the steps towards that end goal ? Please enlighten me, since I do not understand what he is proposing

I swear when I read the quotes from Olmert afterwards I stop and say to myself, my god he actually doesnt make sense. And I mean it. I really dont understand him. He makes statements that genuinely do not make sense. For example he says if talks with abbas do not occur we will "act independantly, but not alone". Huh? Then he goes on to say that he is not giving an ultimatum but he really is giving an ultimatum. Then he says "it is not respectable or appropriate" without clarifying in regards to what he is referring to. I am so confused. It's like listening to a mental patient. I have no idea how these people from chelm are running the government in Israel.

Shalom Hilda! Yes,I guess you are right! She has taken from him his own drive ,if he had had an own drive sometime!

B"H I hate to say this, but I concurred that Rabin was not murdered by the right-wing in Israel. Neither was Arafat or Sharon, who not so coincidentally suffered the same fate of brain hemmorage. But the talk of curses was the background that setup the cover. Yigal Amir may not have pulled the trigger that shot Rabin. But he pulled a trigger that allowed the entire right-wing to be disparaged for over a decade, covering for the true attacker. My comments are not to justify harm against Olmert; on the contrary, Olmert is in a very important but dangerous position. What I am trying to do, however, is to assist in navigation through these very rough waters. It starts with keeping the simple matters straight to have the clarity to see the bigger picture. I am pleading with you Olmert, for your sake, see that the dice cast to remove innocent Jews is a dice cast to remove yourself. You cannot separate yourself from these other Jews in this peril. There is no difference. Sharon thought he was disengaging other Jews, and he ended up disengaging himself from the PM position. Please, Olmert, realize the dangerous situation that you and Israel are in, and act in your interests and those of Israel to maintain the Jews living east of the security fence, if not for their sake, for your sake. We need to cut out these curses on the leadership also, because such attacks are justified to setup an environment that is dangerous to the leadership of the free world. We need to be persuasive in a peaceful manner and stop all talk and thoughts of civil war. Because with the United States (in Iraq) and Israel in Iran's crosshairs, there is no room for dispute here on petty issues. We may lose houses and material gain. But is this not much better than loss of life from a nuclear attack that is devastating for generations on either country? Let us focus as a people on getting the Iran issue resolved and working with Olmert, no matter what his weaknesses, in achieving a true peace for Israel, as only he can in the present time as the representative leader of Israel. Let us do our best to make this situation right as only we can. We do not run to do evil. But Jacob nontheless walked through Canaan towards Egypt in his process of being renamed Israel.

if you are not able to go beyond this teen-ager level, please go to MTV! your posting is childishly pathetic.

to my #52 in the linked article. As I cannot imagine a more important topic for an Israeli, I am dissappointed that so far you have not responded. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3257457,00.html

The message was sent to me and I desagree with you. There is no reason for such a reaction.

to sk: I actually agree with most of what you said about basing ones position on one's teachings and heritage...unfortunately you and I and 13 million Jews worldwide don't agree on what those teachings always means and hence we can argue over them but cannot enshrine them into the law of a secular state.... and BTW the hated supreme court justices in Israel consult Jewish texts all the time in their opinions... the fundamentalists among us just don't like their interpretations. I''' say it again Halacha has a vote at the table of Jewish debates but not a veto. Yaacov: You may be right (as we both fear) but I believe in the "iron wall" as Jabotinsky put it of IDF supremacy in the region will allow the painful compromises and risks for peace...as I've hinted before we should negotiate like optimists and prepare militarily like pessismists. (you can argue that Goldaand Dayan in 73 did the opposite -- didn't negotiate and didn't prepare).

Optimism is a trait for which man has a natural propensity. Prudence is a product of intellectual analysis. Leaders who cannot control the first and are incapable of the latter, should not be leaders.

Thanks for your reply, but I think you still miss the point. You say "unfortunately you and I and 13 million Jews worldwide don't agree on what those [Jewish] teachings always means and hence we can argue over them but cannot enshrine them into the law of a secular state.... " This is wrong in two different ways. (1) If there is disagreement about (for example) what a Jewish-inspired foreign policy might look like, it doesn't follow that the ultimate foreign policy should have nothing at all to do with ANYBODY'S Jewish beliefs. It simply means that the disagreement should argued as intelligently as possible. Sometimes one side will win; other times another side will win. In a democracy, those with winning arguments are voted into office. The fact is that SOME ideology will prevail. For Merlot, it is the ideology of Peace Now. It is essential to engage such a crack-pot ideology. Note that the US, which is officially secular, has politicians who constantly argue based on religious beliefs, and it has been around almost four times longer than Israel. (2) Israel is not a "secular state," and therefore it makes no sense to suggest that Jewish principles cannot be "enshrined . . . into the law of a secular state." While Israel lacks a constitution, it was "declared" at its founding to be a "Jewish state" and a "democratic" one. Now, if religious principles are mooted in the US, which is secular state, why on earth should they not be mooted in Israel, which is not a secular state? Finally, the "hated supreme court," as far as I can tell, bases its "rulings" on little more than the current political preferences of Aharon Barak. It's a joke of a court, in that it does not rely on precedent or statutory law. At least I never seen any reporting of it that suggests it does.

Further to my # 45. I urge you to read it and imbibe it. Life is like an algebraic equation. When the input on the left is logical and correct the answer on the right is never in doubt.