Thanks for restating my original point. Israel has been set up to guard our oil interests, BECAUSE we don't trust the Saudi's or any one else. And we don't trust you either. I WOULD be an idiot to come begging to Israel for Oil since, you will notice, Israel does not Posess the oil it is protecting for us. A part of my original point was infact that Israel had BETTER be on a first name basis with God once the oil DOES run out, cause we will have no further use for you then. Don't worry, it is difficult for an otherwise independent people to admit they are on the dole, and therefore indentured servants of another.

Steve, It sounds from your post as though you've spent an inordinate amount of time sequestered in the ivory tower of academia. Presumably you are aware of the hordes of mentally unstable Jihadis garrisoned in Londonistan. But consider that these individuals represent merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and that millions more of their ilk run rough shod throughout most of the Muslim world. Then query whether these people even *should* be extended the vaunted rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, and, in particular, the rights "to manifest [their] religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Ironically, the Jihadists' teachings, practices, prayers and observances are centered upon the annihilation of the very Western liberal institutions--such as the Universal Declaration--which granted them these rights to begin with, together with the institutions' proponents (i.e., you and me, and per your scheme, various world leaders). Surely, the Universal Declaration was not intended to be a Western suicide pact?

This is a responce to a few rather odd Americans who think Israel is a proxy. While the US was first to recognize Israel in 1948, Israel fended for itself in spite of an American embargo. The close relations didn't even start till the Kennedy years and then it was slow. The US more often then not held Israel back: 1956, 1967, 1973 at the end, 1983 and 1991. Israel acts on its own iniciative like bombing Osiraq. Israel was about to build its own aircraft the Lavi, it was Pressure from the first Bush admin. that halted it, and builds its own tank the Merkava, as well as its own small arms... the list goes on and on. Don't kid yourself with this notion that Israel is dependent on the USA. When the oil is done, far from that being a problem for Israel, it will singnal the end of the troubles. Wars were once waged over spices, over sugar, when oil is replaced 200 million arabs, or even 500 million which might be around by then would be as dominant in the geopolitical world as Nigeria (200 million today), the 20 million saudis would be as relevant as a forgotten country like Laos. Israel on the other hand has more listed companyes in NASDAQ than any other country bar the USA and Canada, Israel is an advinced country. The friendly relations between the US and Israel run very deep, not restricted to a Jewish community, indeed the evangelical Christian movment, a force thats been on the rise for the last thirty years is in some ways even more pro-Israel than the Jewish community. This will not change with or without oil.

"world-wide terror" Terrorism and Political Violence, an American publication, showed that in almost all years, the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States. The only terrorists that advance their political agenda by scaremonging their own citizens are in the white house, spreading affright between their people to reach their authoritarian order. cf. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/09546553.asp

"does he really expect the international community to support Israel and/or the US in the fight against terrorism, since they've shown time and time again a desire to understand and "cure" the root causes of terrorism (cute way of saying destroy the US economy and drive Israel into the sea)" "From 1945 to 2005, the United States attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more." William Blum (Rogue State published by Common Courage Press) Nobel Prize in Literature's Harold Pinter spoke of "a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed". He asked why "the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought" of Stalinist Russia were well known in the west while US state crimes were merely "superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged" You should go back to study History, Josh from Atlanta, you would know that your country between others westerners powers are at the roots of barely every terrorism past and future, if they do not provoke conflicts they just fuel them with weapons sales.

Harold Pinter is hardly a credible source for balanced thought. He is from the far left. IF what you are saying is true (I don't think it is), and you want to be persuasive, choose better resources.

1) No skin off my nose - think what you want, I don't really mind. I've given you plenty of evidence, and am going to give you more. You do what you want with it. 2) I misunderstood what you said about Lebanon. Take a deep breath and count to ten, Alex. 3) Ataturk was not a "failure", nor are Turks Arabs, nor have Muslims been around for two millenium. In fact, at the beginning of Islamic history, the only "midieval" people were westerners - Muslims and the orient in general were much more advanced than Europeans until the time of the Renaissance. This in mind, it's not unreasonable to have higher expectations of Muslims than you have. You've mixed your metaphors. The issue was whether Arabs should be coddled by Americans when America can benefit from having Israel on the battlefield with her. It shouldn't make a difference what Arabs want, as you said. At least that's consistent with not caring what Israel wants. 4) You have a mistaken penchant for equating what appears in YNET for "Israel's opinion". With more than 20 political parties, I don't see how you can point to ANY newspaper and say that represents us all. The general spoke for himself, not for all of us. Yediot Achronot speaks for itself and not for all of us. People buy newspapers not becaue they agree with their opinions, but because it's informative and entertaining. There are a wide variety of views in Israel, just as there is in the US. There is no more anti-Americanism here than there is anti-Israelism in the US - probably a lot less, by the evidence. Even papers like the New York Times, supposedly the paper of record, do not represent most Americans. Similar with Yidiot Achronot, which certainly is not the paper of record in Israel. 5) the Bush doctrine isn't as you represent it. It is that people crave democracy, and that American interests are served by the stability that democracy gives, not by the alliances America can make with dictators (buying peace). Looked good on paper, but it's now apparent that it may be cheaper to buy dictators than allow their citizens freedom to choose responsibly. So, if you define America's interests as supporting dictators to ensure your supply of oil, then I can see why you see no problem with Iran and Syria. All that need be done is give them what they want, convert to Islam as Ahmednajad suggested to Bush, and you'll sleep peacefully. But since you probably don't want to do that, and since Iran and Syria are willing to start a confligration if you do not, you have a single choice and that is to fight them and find allies who will join you. 6) I agree that the US should have allowed Iraq to fracture into 3 states, Kurdi, Shia and Sunni. The reason it didn't was that Saudi Arabia didn't want the Shia to have another state in addition to Iran, since Shia would be a threat to Sunni domination of Islam in that area. Turkey didn't want a Kurdi state. These two Muslim countries are allies of the US, but REFUSED to join hands with the US or even provide it overflight rights during the war on Iraq. These are the kinds of allies that dictate whether Israel can fight side by side with the US military? With allies like those, who needs enemies? Syria has been the safe haven for Saddam's government, and the bankrolling of the resistence to the new Iraqi government comes from there, as do fighters and weapons. Iran is also heavily involved in keeping the insurgency going in Iraq. There is a clear interest, then, in seeing who America's friends really are, and amongst them is Israel. I think in that context, America and Israel SHOULD be fighting side by side. Until the US decides to do that, I think it's proper that Israel do ITS work, and to the degree that benefits the US that's great. More than that, I think, requires the US to be at least as forthcoming as it has been for states who are at a state of war with Israel.

1) Again, do you deliberately confuse what I say. Where did I say Arab? I said Moslem and meant Moslem. Pakistanis are not Arabs; Uzbeks are not Arabs, Kurds are not Arabs. Kuwaitis of course are Arabs. 2) Ataturk wanted to create a secular modern state. What is Turkey now but another nest of fundamentalist Muslims, who are no friends to secularism? 2) As you say, the Bush doctrine may have looked good on paper but has been a failure (though as I say, the US tried it before under Wilson and it failed then as well.) Don't reinforce failure is the first principle of tactics. The US should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now and let them disintegrate; they are not worth the blood of a single American soldier. 3) The Moslems have been around considerably longer than a millennium. To be sure they were far more culturally advanced than Europeans around 800 CE. They have not been more culturally advanced for centuries, and I feel no hesitation in calling them medieval even if all that is meant by that is Islamic medievalism. 4) The idea that Syria and Iran are going to forcibly convert the US to Islam is so absurd that I will not dignify it further. If they try, we do not need Israel to defend ourselves. 5) You want me to ignore what I see by saying they are the views of a minority. Then why do I seldom if ever see rebuttals.

1) I'm talking about Arabs. Ataturk and Turkey are not Arab, and can't be used as proof of your point. 2) Modern Turkey has a moderately Islamist government today, the first ever. Just as Bush's fundamental Christian backers don't make America fundamentalist Christian, given the evidence that America is NOT fundamentalist Christian, the same is true of fundamentalist Muslim backers of Turkey's government. The vast majority of Turkish Muslims are very secular. 3) Arguably so. My point was that the failure in Iraq was due to aligning America's diplomatic thrust with the interests of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and that it would serve America well to look out for its own interests prior to those of erstwhile allies who are not willing to support America when it needs it, unlike Israel, which does, has and will support America as much as it can. 4) Didn't you say that Moslems were around for two millenium? Look at what you wrote. What you call the rest of Islamic history is your prerogative. 5) I did not say that Iran and Syria would forcibly convert America. I said that they would be satisfied with nothing less, and that leaves you with no option but to fight. Read what I wrote. 6) Believe what you want, Alex - you will anyway.

u guys don't see nothing wrong here. is this the future u imagined for urselves and children?

isn't that the real reason that Israel will not negotiate and decide to keep land that doesn't belong to them. Somehow My money will be used to continue making war over there.

It never ceases to amaze me how antisemites can turn off ther intelligence in order to maximize the opportunity for someone to kill or hurt jews. In 1948 there were no occupied territories and the arabs attacked Israel. In 1956 there were no occupied territories and the egyptians tried to strangle Israel closing the Suez Canal. In 1967 there were no occupied territories and the arab armies took positions on the borders of Israel announcing they would attack and destroy it. So giving back occupied territories has NOTHING to do with peace or the real cause of war. The real reason of war between palestinians and israelis, between arabs and israelis, is that palestinians and arabs allways wanted to destroy the very existence of Israel. And there are some people who want to take from Israel the strategic advantage of the heights of Golan and the West Bank. May all those who wish bad things to Israel have these same bad things happen to them

Maybe it's too early in the day or late at night in Israel so I'm surprised no one else rebuked you . The places you mentioned I don't want to get in to a back and forth discussion about. That's for others who know the region and history. What I do know is that Jerusalem was never the capital of any other people or place except the state of Israel. It changed hands many times due to invasion by others but it is and will always be the capital of Israel

Americans gradually are begininng to turn away from Israel, regardless of what our government is doing. Some sense that USA's perpetual political, military and economic support has cost us plenty. They also are asking: how does continual expansion of West Bank settlements promote peace? Until Palestine is a thriving democracy amongside Israel the anti-Israel feelings here will increase. Among other things, those Palestinians whose lands were taken etc need compensation to help assuage their bitterness and pain - and for the sake of justice. I have a special admiration and fondness for Israel, but it's time you heard what's happening over here. Turning a 2-soldier kidnapping into a war hasn't helped Israel's image at all. R. L. R.