Is the world not ready for Carter's message? Should he be staying out of something that doesn't concern him so he doesn't get clobbered? You know, kind of like the advice you gave me. And yet, Stewart, when people stayed silent during the holocaust they got criticized because they minded their own business. We live in a global village and it's just not very loving to be a bystander watching silently a major injustice in our world. I've been waiting for Dershowitz to be mentioned. Personally I trust Norman Finkelstein's scholarship more than Dershowitz's. I also trust Michael Neumann's Case Against Israel, a rebuttal to Deershowitz's Case for Israel. Yes, Carter might not have got all the history right in his book, but his description of the current situation in Palestine is the focus. According to Finkelstein: "the historical part of Carter's book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, contains errors in that it repeats standard Israeli propaganda. However, Carter's analysis of the impasse in the "peace process" as well as his description of Israeli policy in the West Bank is accurate - and, frankly, that's all that matters." Finkelstein also discusses Kenneth Stein's resignation from the Carter Center. Stein wrote one scholarly book back in 1984, and basically was a "nonentity." And who's been to Palestine recently? I bet those who are criticizing Carter's book haven't. They blindly accept Israeli propaganda. Of course, those other voices who describe the atrocities they've witnessed in Gaza or the West Bank have been largely silenced in the mass media. Western and Israeli propaganda is achieved through a subtle control of media rather than the blatant propaganda of totalitarian states. Both kinds of propaganda are insidious in their conditioning of people's responses regarding the "enemy"! Both demonize "the other" and incite fear in the masses.

Yesterday on the CBC news there was a special on a peace camp in western Canada (Gabriola Island, BC) where they brought ten Israeli and ten Palestinian teenagers to spend two weeks with nine Canadian youth. They worked together to create a film. They learned they they really were very much alike, that their stereotypes were wrong. Some of them even became very good friends. The teaching of hatred happens on BOTH sides and both the Israelis and the Palestinians need to spend more time with their "enemies" in a safe beautiful place. If you are interested in peace in the Middle East, check out www.creativepeacenetwork.ca/camp/2006.htm Here are some of the commitments they made at the end of their stay: Israeli Delegation:
We as the Israeli delegation are committed to: We are committed to remembering the points of view that we learned about this summer and to passing on our experience to other people. We want to explain the Palestinian suffering to Israeli society and to show the films that we made as a final product of our work during our work together during the camp. We are committed to staying in touch with each other, initiate meetings and create websites that are related to peace on the internet, while spreading our word in the Israeli media and in the local newspapers. We are committed not to give up on peace and to remain open minded while not letting the circumstances change our willingness to peace and way of acting. We are committed to preserving the trust that we built together. We are committed to keeping the stories that we heard in our hearts and will never forget our ability to peace it together.With love and friendship ... The whole Israeli delegation Palestinian Delegation: 
Before we came here each of us had a certain idea about the Israelis in their heads. And it's true that a whole lifetime of ideas can't be changed in just 2 weeks but if we believe strong enough, then anything is possible. Dear Israeli delegation, we want you to know that the times we spent together, whether they were good or bad, are certainly times to remember. We learned a lot about many things, but everything we did here would be useless if we didn't build on it after we leave. Therefore we the Palestinian delegation are pointing ourselves to things that would help us to proceed with the peace process. First of all, we believe that in order to influence the world, one should start with ones own self. We all commit ourselves to keep on reminding ourselves with the importance of peace and what it means to us. If we always keep in heart why we came here and if we truly and strongly believe in what we did, then all the peace and experiences we have in our hearts would shine through and cast light upon people around us. Secondly, we promise to keep in touch with all of you in any possible way which is not very hard these days due to various and advanced means of communication. We can always chat on line and phone each other from time to time. We, the Palestinians, promise to keep dialogue alive between us and maybe we would all meet if possible. Thirdly we promise to make an effort to display our films to our communities in order to spread the word and we will try to use the skills we learned here to make more videos. Finally we know that there will be those dark moments where we feel angry and forget about all our good time and though we can't put feelings aside, we promise to always keep in mind that these were the moments that drove us to seek a change in the first place We love you all and respect you. Although we have our disagreements and different points of view, we believe in you as people and individuals. We hope that one day we will meet again. Not as young people who shared 2 weeks together, but as leaders looking for a brighter future and walking hand in hand towards our goals.

YOU, for one, certainly haven't been to Gaza, West Bank or Israel, recently or ever. So whatever you are regurgitating is based on hearsay perpetrated by controversial sources. And I for one think, and I am as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, that your credentials are equally controversial to say the least. All you ever come up when confronted with facts or even other opinions is some form of yada-yada and Israeli propaganda. BORING!!!!

http://www.arabisto.com/p_blog.cfm?blogID=6

I have not been to Gaza or West Bank, so I make a point of reading and watching whatever I can to find out what's going on there. And so I must rely on people like Amira Hass and the Christisons and Peace and human rights workers who manage to get through to see what's happening. I understand it's harder and harder nowadays. I'm not interested in basing my opinions on the hate messages from extremists in Palestine ....... or in Israel. Hence much of what I read in the feedbacks is not of much value, but it does remind me that it is NOT ONLY the Palestinians who are so full of hate and anger... and teaching that to their children. It kind of balances out my perceptions ... the extremist stereotypes exist on BOTH sides. Then I have to remind myself that they are the MINORITY....... or I hope they are. The majority are just "nice" ordinary folks who act from fear and brainwashing - followers - who are unwilling or unable to search deeper than what they find in the mass media or in the teachings provided in their communities. But it is a fact that Israel is violating international law and human rights conventions. Now the question is do you accept those laws and conventions as being valid or not. I do. But it's obvious that for many it's a matter of choice and convenience. Israel calls the UN to enforce UN resolutions when it involves Lebanon after the last war. The USA chooses to veto whenever something goes against their wishes. I personally believe collective punishment is WRONG, even evil. It becomes a human rights issue for me to oppose the occupation and the inhumane treatment of Palestinians. The one in power is Israel so that's why I focus on Israel's oppression rather than the unacceptable methods used by Palestinians to fight back. First the Israeli oppression needs to stop and if the fighting back doesn't stop, then, I'd start focusing on the Palestinians for their crimes against humanity.

we've heard that from you already! BORING! CORNY! All your ideas are based on lack of elementary knowledge of Jewish history and presence in this land. There is plenty of evidence, though, even on ynet. Have you ever wondered about BITMUNA (in the picture) available on this site? and follow some of the links? Have you ever wondered who founded the Israeli universities, when and for whom? Try the Technion in Haifa, The Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Have you ever wondered who founded such cities as Rishon-le- Ziyon, Petach-Tikva, Kfar Saba (to name but a few), when and how? and on what lands, under what conditions? Who bought the lands and mainly when? Have you ever wondered who founded the hospitals in Israel, when and for whom? Do you know anything about the history of Hadassah? Because if you know about all these things and can still spew out so much hatred at Israelis and still feel within your rights to bash us at will, I wonder who you really are. The truth is, we have turned this land into a garden from scratch, under constant attack from the Arabs, Palestinians or otherwise. And we were at it long before the creation of the State of Israel. Way before. This land was hostile, infertile, cholera and malaria stricken. Yet the minute we turned it into a success, the Arabs wanted us out if it and the likes of you cheer them on. Not fair, Arja, not fair. You claim to be educated, don't you. I remember a talkback of yours - Nazis were also educated. Makes me wonder... And by the way, if you think that we "thrive" on US handouts, you couldn't be more wrong - we don't even get USD 500/year/per capita (which goes right back to the US) but we are worth so much more - https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/geos/is.html.

I suppose the day you might decide to focus on Palestinian crimes against humanity comes when they are done with us Jews or Israelis, and decide your own number is up, eh?

Palestinians want peace.......laugh,laugh,laugh! How many broken promises does Israel have to put up with. If they want peace, let them prove it by deeds and not by a bunch of worthless lip service. They will not be happy til they have all of Israel. Sorry, that's not going to happen....ever! Not my words. Thanks

Peace never comes after conflict. Power corrupts. Force begets force. No great mental effort is necessary to understand these things. No "portfolio", no "shingles" from praiseworthy schools required. This is commonsense. Peace is commonsense. Have some small measure of it for the sake of us all.

is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell! "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe I applaud Jimmy Carter in this age of deceit and tyranny for telling the truth especially when there is so much pressure for him to stay silent.....and that's in the land of the "free" --- where one now does need to be brave in order to speak out against all the lies, the propaganda.

63. The fool who knows of his ignorance, indeed, through that very consideration becomes a wise man. But that conceited fool who considers himself learned is, in fact, called a fool. Dhammapada, Wisdom of the Buddha translated by Harischandra Kaviratna Theosophical University Press Online Edition Are you that conceited, Arja, that you think you and you alone hold the secret to truth and knowledge? Oh, I forgot Dhimmi Carter or Uri Avneri and their ilk? Have you never heard of Dubito, ergo cogito? You are very good at regurgitating other people's stuff seasoned with some of your own gall. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt - although I much prefer the Latin version: Had you remained silent, you'd still be a philosopher.

No, I don't have THE whole truth, but you and Stewart do? Actually I was suggesting that President Carter was speaking the truth about the current situation in Palestine -- very revolutionary in this day and age. Like Carter, I am not talking about what is happening in Israel - I'm talking about Palestine and how the State of Israel is illegally occupying it. I don't deny the wonderful things Israel has done within its borders ... and outside of them on confiscated land. It's what Israel is doing to another people on that people's land that is the issue. Maybe the land wasn't 'developed' for so-called modern living. The Bedouin have been content to herd their sheep and now are being forced to leave their homes too. Who are WE to say that the land is barren and worthless when they are content to live there and love their land just the way it is. It's very patronizing to think that our so-called modern ways are better or even desirable, just as it was for the white settlers to consider the indigenous indians savages. There were Palestinian villages that have been bulldozed so that no evidence of their existence remains. Palestinian orchards have been destroyed. It wasn't as barren as Israel make it out to have been. Peace is more than the absence of war. The Mandarin language has three characters for peace. the first stands for rice in the mouth. The second stands for a woman with a roof over her head. And the third stands for two hearts beating together in understanding and friendship. Guess if Israelis and Palestinians could agree on an absence of war, it would be a beginning. It's interesting that some here believe that Palestinians don't want peace, while there are others who write about Israelis not wanting peace. I think the ordinary persons do, but the ones who want power and money, well, peace is secondary for them. Power and money come first. This is quite nicely elaborated in a book called War is a Racket written back in the mid 1930s by Major General Smedley Butler. And war continues to be a racket while the ordinary citizens pay the price.

All of the Israelis I know, although they could understand American motivations in Iraq, worried that such a war would have NEGATIVE implications on Israel. Recall, in the US' first war in Iraq, where were the scuds lobbed? That's correct, right at Israel. And, as Ray so 'eloquently' demonstrates, American involvement in the Middle East would make it that much easier for opponents to point fingers at "Israel's snake oil lobbyists" and tie everything to them, anytime ANYTHING in the Middle East went awry (even if it was muslims fighting muslims). And why would an educated Israeli think that a 'moderate, democratic Arab ally' in the Middle East would be the actual end result? Because of the bang-up example of freezing, internationally-monitored peace with Egypt? Or the only slightly less cold peace with Jordan? Sorry, most Israelis aren't that euphorically optimistic.

Ray insists on forcing an issue and connection that is mainly created in his own mind. Although he makes sure to mention 'Israel's snake oil lobbyists', the main proponents for the war in Iraq that he cites are (non-Israelis) in the Bush administration. He mentions their support for Iraq, he mentions their support from Israel, and from there, suddenly, miraculously, asserts a solid, cause-and-effect connection between neocon support for Israel and the same group's support for the issue of Iraq. Whoa Ray, proximity does not a connection make. Even assuming that the words 'supporter' and 'lobbyist' are interchangeable, all of Ray's evidence suggests (and he even admits) that the focus of the neocon interest in Iraq is a transformation in the Arab world. This is a world that is often at odds with the western world. This is a world in which Israel constitutes 1 out of 23 nations. This is a world that controls most of the world's available oil reserves. There is nothing in Ray's claims, other than the fact that a few pro-war Republicans happen to be pro-Israel, to suggest that there was a clear and organized goal of turning Iraq into 'a pro-Israel bastion'. In fact, the very fact that Ray mentions that the neocons suggested turning to Iran and Syria for help suggests that, contrary to his bombastic statement about the Iraq-Israel link, neocons were focused on Iraq (not Israel) when thinking of the Iraq issue. The positive effect for Israel was perhaps a hoped-for tangential one. Additionally, regardless of these men's purported love for Israel, there was absolutely no historical precedent that would lead them to believe that the establishment of a pro-western democracy in Iraq would lead to warm relations with Israel. Just look at the level of warmth of Israel's current peace with Egypt for reference. Why does Ray think that they would assume that Iraq would be different? Although Ray decries the Protocols-like conspiracy, his faulty logic still establishes a baseless connection subtly intended to besmirch the Israeli (and implicity the Jewish) lobby and to tarnish the legitimacy of the pro-Israeli stance of certain Republicans by attempting to forcefully patch together their respect for Israel with a bad policy regarding Iraq.

First, I do not besmearch the Jewish lobby. And I don't even besmearched the Israeli lobby -- unless, of course, you feel that the Israeli lobby is above criticism. The facts are facts, even if you don't like them. The Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle writings on Iraq have been discussed and debated ... and when I refer to snake oil charmers, it refers to a group -- not all -- Israeli lobbyists in the Bush Administration. But more importantly, this strategy of transform Iraq is similar to the one hatched by Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon in the 1970s when they helped give Sheikh Yassin support to organize an Islamic alternative to Arafat and the PLO. There's another major screw-up I am sure you would like to forget, trash and bash, too. :) thanks for your opinions. Ray Hanania www.hanania.com

i know both of you are not palastinians ,, iam the one realy i live a history of more than 200 years , it is when i stay with my grand mother , she lived on this land more than 100 years , her mother lived 90 years and her grandmother lived 100 years ,, my grand mother told me about her grand mother , how they lived under the othmani rule .. yes she used to tell rule not ocupation .. but israil has a history of 60 years ,, it is like my age .. after 200 years . there will be no israili child stay with her grand mother to listen about the rule of arab . but sure there will be a palastinian child stay with her grand mother to listen about the israili ocupation .. i like to say ocupation .. it is the fact . but not the rule as my grand mother used to tell about the othmani rule . as what i said to my children about the jordanian rule .. .i think israil do not belong to this middle east . .like america in iraqu still belong to that far land .. and israil belong to the history not to the land ,, let israil live on their history on many books over the land of alaska .. to do paradice over the snow , we like our land our villages as our grandma liked it befor this evil ocupation

Fatima - I am sorry that you have to live under our occupation but wasn't the ottoman rule also "occupation"?Actually it would be a lot easier for you ( and it would definitely help your cause) if you would realize that we are not going anywhere (not alaska, not uganda, NO WHERE). If you think we have no bussiness in the middle east and do not belong here, just go ask your sheiks who built the temple mount. But of course to you it's all a big jewish conspiracy, right? People like you get what they deserve. As for Hanania .... Of course this article is filled with more anti-Israel rhetoric, as always, but I do agree that nothing good for Israel has come of the Iraq war.

1. Even you concede that they are in the Bush administration. Calling them lobbyists for Israel (instead of supporters, say) is disengenuous. Calling them Israeli lobbyists is down-right inaccurate. They do not represent any formal lobby affiliated with the State of Israel. 2. Perhaps there are actual Israeli lobbyists who actively lobbied for a war in Iraq on behalf of Israel, as you seem to claim: You cited them neither in your article (which was implied in my points) nor in your talkback. If such facts indeed exist as you claim, is it not the job of the writer to substantiate his statements with a clear progression of facts instead of jumping from issue to issue (or from American admin. members to anonymous Israeli lobbyists) and tying them together based on vague personal knowledge that purportedly exists, yet is not shared, let alone properly expounded, in the article itself? If the arguments of actual Israeli lobbyists are as clearly pro-Iraq as you say, then frankly Ray, you did a horrible job of building a cohesive argument to this point. 3. Your point about Shamir/Sharon and their approach to Sheikh Yassin actually supports my argument about realism. Such a failure to make Yassin a friendly ally in the Middle East would most likely discourage a second attempt at the same type of action. (Especially when coupled with examples of similar failed attempts such as Carter-Iran) 4. Additionally, related to the same point: In your article itself, you didn't refer to a Yassin-like scenario of creating an enemy of an enemy, in an attempt to create a de facto friend. Rather, you stretched hyperbole to its limits and baselessly talked of the unprecedented creation of a pro-Israel bastion. Such implicitly active and warm support for Israel was way more than Sharon/Shamir hoped for in the 70s with Yassin.

www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/11577p-10983c.html Aug 16, 2002 The United States should attack Iraq soon to stop dictator Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons, Israeli officials said yesterday. "Postponing the action to a later date would only enable Saddam to accelerate his weapons program, and then he would pose a more formidable threat," said Ranaan Gissin, a top adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In deciding on whether to go to war, Bush said, "I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country, plus our friends and allies." Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said Saddam almost certainly would aim Scuds again at Israeli cities if the U.S. attacked, as happened during the Gulf War in 1991. "We will be one of the main targets," Ben-Eliezer told the Yediot Ahronot newspaper. More can be found at www.whatreallyhappened.com/whoiscongresslisteningto.html

1. Your quote is of a Sharon political advisor, not an Israeli lobbyist in the US. Yes, publication of a newspaper article can be thought of as an implicit lobby, however, it can also be thought of as a strategic opinion on the ME situation, which is often solicited from Israeli officials, because of their proximity to the situation, their similar bent to the US and their intelligence information. It's more than appropriate for an Israeli official being interviewed to view a potential war in the context of pros and cons for Israel. From there to claim or imply that these opinions were part of an active lobby which was the main force behind Bush's decision remains UNsubstantiated. 2. I never said that Israelis didn't think that the war wouldn't have some positive effects for Israel. I said that the people that Ray refers to cannot be referred to as Israeli lobbyists because they are not American; Ray 's argument(which actually refutes the implication in your post that Bush listened directly to Sharon's advisors) is that the driving force behind Bush's decision were pro-Israeli neocons, whom he likens to lobbyists but whom actually are not. Thus, his use of the word is tendentious. THUS (1+2) your post + Ray's article only indicate that Israelis thought that Iraq was a threat to Israel and that Bush says he will consider the threat to Israel as one consideration in waging a war. It doesn't prove that a formal Israeli lobby exists, let alone had a central effect on Bush's decision. 3. Your quote refers to a strategic threat on Israel. It in no way alludes to the idea of creating a 'pro-Israel bastion' in Iraq, which Ray in his article claims is the motivation of the Israeli lobbyists to support a war in Iraq.

Check ALL the links provided at the website at the end of my feedback. There are MANY examples of Israeli pressure on USA to attack Iraq and also Iran.

Several of the links come from clearly biased writers (the blog written from 'occupied jerusalem') and that several make assertions about Israeli opinion or position based on quotes that are only very loosely related to the assertion made. Likewise, the damning Cheney is not given a source; only the other quotes (which don't imply military action for Israel's sake) are given citations and even these citations are based on hearsay. But I'll ignore that. Instead, I'll address the credible sources within the website you linked: Note, many of the intelligence officials cited were addressing Jewish orgs, European conferences, etc. Note, different articles allude to the same comment made by Sharon political advisor Raanan Gissin. Note what comes next to that: Israel has sent the US intelligence information. There is a clear distinction btwn mil/intelligence cooperation (which the US has with Israel) and/or mil/intel analysis and commentary, and a subsequent policy recommendation, to an actual lobby. Please acknowledge this difference. The use of 'US listened to' in the context that the website presents it is deliberately inflammatory and tendentious. The US listened to Israel bc Israel has good intel info on the region. It tends to listen to and ask for Israeli information for this reason. None of these articles prove an actual Israeli lobby. Even the Cheney article (as aforementioned, sketchily backed) does not indicate active Israeli solicitation of the policy, but rather US initiation of pro-Israeli policy (aka suggestive of pro-Israeli Americans at work, NOT Israeli lobbyists).

What the articles indicate is a lot of pressure from Israeli government officals and Israeli lobby for the USA to attack Iraq before Iraq attacked Israel and to make sure that Iraq never developed nuclear weapons and even to help shape the Middle East in a favourable way for both Israel and the USA.

1. The Israeli representatives cited a threat to the region and Israel specifically in the event of Iraqi WMDs. 2. Citing a strategic assessment is not tantamount to a lobby, thus, again, your referral to an Israeli 'lobby' is a misnomer. 3. Additionally, any Israeli influence is seen to come (even in the articles with an anti-Israeli bent) from these STRATEGIC military assessments. Again, that tends to classify it less as loaded 'pressure' and more as information sharing. It is legitimate for info sharing to come with a policy recommendation (it is supposed to) and it is legitimate for a country that feels threat to say this out loud and express a desire for assistance. 4. Nonetheless and even if even if we assume that Israelis exerted the 'huge' amount of pressure on the US that you claim that they did, the onus is still on the US gov't to decide how it wants to respond to this pressure. If you think this policy is unreasonable, your indictment should be of them, NOT of Israel. In general, I feel that an ongoing argument between us is fruitless because, based on your statements and the websites that you choose to present, it seems clear that any strategic opinion presented by Israel or any public statement by an Israeli expressing hope that a threat on Israel be removed is interpreted by you as equivalent to an active and insidious Israeli lobby. Furthermore, your comments seem to imply a non-existent situation, in which the Israelis are able to sway the US as if the US is a passive actor in the international game and as if pro-Israel interests of certain American politicians overrode their interests for America (This is clearly untrue as can be seen a) by Cheney's request for Israeli restraint so as not to offend the Saudis and others - a fact conceded in the weblink the you yourself provided. b) the suggestion by supposed 'Israel lobbyists in the Bush admin' to turn to Iran, Syria for help - a fact conceded by the info provided by Ray in his talkback). You don't concede that Israeli intelligence is part of the US intel cascade, but rather insist on delegitimizing it (although it is world renowned) by insisting on inaccurately labeling it as a lobby: You do not agree to consider the possibility that the US listens to Israel because of similar intel and security information and approaches between the two nations. (In the same biased way, the website you provided expresses anger at the fact that the US didn't cowtow to thousands of American non-experts protesting by the Lincoln memorial, and instead, when considering policy, listened to strategic/mil experts, some of whom were non-American. Sorry, but when deciding on strategic and military action, it is the worldwide policy to listen to experts instead of non-experts, regardless of nationality. Untrained/uninformed average Americans have the right to express their opinion but should not be given the consulting upper hand merely by virtue of their nationality. Likewise, legitimate strategic info should not be rejected merely because it is provided by another nation, even if the nation happens to be Israel, whom you personally dislike.

Look, arguing with Arja is a waste of time. Here is why it is such a waste of time. Arja wrote me and asked me supply her with articles that would tell her about the Israeli side of the story. Now this would make sense if Arja was your average person caught up in all the information out there. However, that is not the case. Arja is a graduate student and instructor at one of our looney, liberal American Universities. Now tell me. A graduate student is not capable of properly researching the Israeli-Palestinian situation? She needs to ask someone to tell her where the pro Israeli information is as if it is so obscure and hidden that a graduate student with all the resources of a university could not have found it herself? This was one of the mose disingenuine and phoney requests I have ever received. I would expect it from some of the Iranian students I met at the local university who have be kept ignorant of world affairs. So Arja is really an over educated, liberal with no intention what so ever of paying any attention to anything that may shed some light on the Israeli side of the issues. As far as she is concerned, the Jewish loby is so powerful that somehow they convinced the US to go to war in Iraq. Did she ever hear of Oil? Of course not. That would be too obvious. Some day her students are going to grow up and wake up and realize what a crock they have been getting from her in her classes. They'll probably ask for their tuition back.

Oh yes, OIL and MONEY... of course, that's what rules the American way of life . As I drive through the USA I see that. Yet, I have to admit the Americans are all very friendly ... as I'm sure are the Israelis.... except when one gets on the topic of politics. So the Weapons of Mass Destruction ploy wasn't the REAL reason for Bush to take the Americans into Iraq, though the Israeli government seemed to have intelligence info to indicate that it was a danger? Stewart, I never said the US went to war FOR the Israelis alone, but I am saying that the Israelis put pressure on the USA to do that. It did provide an opportunity for the war racketeers and the oil men to make a lot of money while the USA professed to bring liberty and democracy to the Iraqis AND at the same time help the State of Israel. PS... you got some of the personal information about me wrong. Perhaps I misled you by giving you only partial bits and pieces out of sequence and context. But I was correct not to trust you, wasn't I?

Once broken, often impossible to earn. I think I can trust in observation as read clearly and with an open mind. Some truths: Americans, for the most part, are foolish and wasteful, thus our unending need for more and more of (anything and everything). We have this deep seated desire to "do good" which also involves promulgating(sp) peace and stability everywhere which is what we perceive we have here in the states. We were implored, not just by Israel, but also by "moderate" states in the ME to help with the destabilizing effects of a "Saddam-regime". Did he not attack Kuwait? Did he not attack Iran? Was he not threatening other neighbors? The issue is not about WMDs, perhaps oil to a greater extent, but it's about that deep need for America to "do good". A last truth - there are compelling arguments that "occupation" exists, to some degree, everywhere. Or at least one can argue the point. Arja and I, we both occupy native lands here. The Turks occupied what is now Palestine. Now Israel does. The Mongols at one time occupied most of China. What it's about is not the occupation, rather it is about what the occupiers do to better the lives of the occupied. A quote - "what man is a man that does not try to make the world a better place?". A fair statement I think.

just blogs in the grindings of gog and magog. jeepers creepers,

A graduate student should not have trouble researching both sides of the issuses. The fact that you haven't, demonstrates how biased you actually are. Furthermore, to lead people to believe that you naively haven't found information supporting Israel, is even more disingenuous since obviously finding this information is well within your ability and resources. You obviously have some agenda or ax to grind, and have decided to get on the kick Israel bandwagon along with those other great, liberal looney toon countries like Norway. What is so ironic is that slowly but surely Scandanavia and Europe are being taken over by the Muslims. This is a fitting result for their one sided policies.