Bashar Assad, If you really have balls, come to Jerusalem, let the people of Israel know that Syria recognizes the state of Israel, clean up the terrorist mess in your country, stop Iran's meddling in Lebanon and Gaza and rein in Hezbolla militarism. Then only will the Israeli people start to believe you. Question is, are you up to the task?!

or they can meet at the border. Sorry, Israel does not recognize any border !

I support the peace between Syria, Israel & Lebanon. Providing it is considered as a strategic choice by the government involved. In my opinion, I think Syria is not ready for that. Tgis is only a cunning tactical move for Assad to try to avoid the proposed outcome of Harriri's assassination international court. He wants to portray himself as the man of peace. He is the same person that in one of his speech announced that he will support the culture of martyrdom against Israel & he demanded in the same speech that the arabs should teach their kids to hate the jewish state. By the way Bacchar Assad doesn't represent more than 25% of Syrian people, Therefore, his peace may not last long.

Peace ! your fears of annihilation would vanish. USA friendship is not forever, and might be at stake now waiting for your true proof of taking care of the american interests.

The State of Israel is a sovereign country and needs to makes its own decisions. Look, I love my country (U.S) and I understand why it doesn't want to engage in talks with the Syrians at this point. Nevertheless, if the Israeli government feels that it is in the interest of Israel to conduct talks with Assad, the welfare of your country must come before the interest of the United States. The U.S. is a powerful and important country and always will be. That doesn't give us the right to mandate that an important ally of ours conduct themselves contrary to their own interest.

Done Deal He and Livni already decided to give up the Golan for another one of their "peace" experiments. He's talking the usual "hard line" before he drops the bomb and sends Livni to Damascus where she will gladly sign over the Golan. Israelis are so used to The Liar but just the same chew and swallow all his bullshit. This guy is GOOD!

They are all acting and know the final results. The USA talks to Syria all the time!

But they want the Golan and I am against the giving back of most of the Golan so what is there to talk about. No preconditions ok but I don't want kadima or labor or the PM negotiateing they will give up everything. Lebanon I could care less since they don't care about us. Unfortunely the Labor Goverment in 1974 made it almost impossible to negotiate because they gave away a good portion of the Golan as a tempoary disengaement agreement. So if another war happens thank Labor.

Israel needs to learn from its history. Continuing to do what fails is insanity. Israel needs to seek the face of Hashem, Repent and turn back to Him. Talking with Assad would only be playing into the hands of the enemy. Don't give up the Land of Israel. Don't kiss the feet of the devil just to please the US.

There is no point in talking to these guys, because they do not tell the truth. Just like palestinian leadership. They are clearly and ALWAYS dedicated to the destruction of Israel, no matter what they say in public, so why bother playing these games of falsehood all the time. It is a complete waste of time and resources.

Hi C.B., You say Israel is not a vassal state. She sure acts like one though. I'm curious, did you or can you say the same thing about Mr. Bush's vision for a Palestinian state in Israel? The President's and the Republican party's pushing Israel into "disengagement" from Gaza? Thousands of Jews were displaced from their homes and farms and are left essentially destitute. This is a part of Mr. Bush's vision. Removing Jews from their homes and Bush would like to remove many thousands of Jews from the "West Bank" or Judea and Samaria. What about Bush administration and U.S. intervention in behalf of Iran and her proxy Hezbollah in the United Nation this past August? Would you say the same? That the state of Israel is sovereign and needs to make its own decisions?

I'd like to say you are wrong, that Mr. Olmert is beginning to gather the courage to stand against these tyrannies, these killers, but alas I suspect you may be right. After the brutally violent and bloody beatings at Amona and Mr. Olmert's repeated pledges that he is prepared to uproot tens of thousands of Jews from their homes, I'm sure you are on to something here. Why in the world did Israelis vote for this party, Kadima?

When the USA sold weapons to our worst enemy: Iran... Oh well Israel was involved in that too. Israel should act on its interests and its interests alone.

I agree with you in part and disagree with you in part. Obviously, the state of Israel is sovereign. So I absolutely agree with you that it is perfectly right and proper for the state of Israel to do what is in its interests regardless of the effects of its actions on the US. Just as obviously, however, the state of Israel counts on cooperation from the US government in many ways. It is not, therefore, improper for the US government to communicate what it believes is in the national interest of the US (just as it is not improper for the Israeli government to do the reverse.) Nor is it improper for the US government to declare that if the state of Israel harms US interests, cooperation will be reduced or terminated. (Again the reverse is also true.) Nor is it improper or unwise for Israel to consider the trade-offs likely to arise from a policy of helping Syria while harming the US versus a policy of helping the US. I doubt that you and I disagree about any of that. Where I suspect that you and I may disagree on whether Israel's talking to Syria seriously harms US interests. I believe it does. I suspect you may not. I believe in consequence that the US should alter its policy toward Israel if Israel reduces the pressure on Syria. Again, I suspect you may not. Reasonable minds can disagree on these issues. Where I suspect we really agree, however, is that Olmert's implying that he would talk to Syria if only Bush did not bar the way advances neither country's interest. If, on balance, talking to Syria now is REALLY in Israel's long term interest, Israel should do that. If supporting an active role by the US in the Middle East is REALLY in Israel's long term interest, then Israel should do that. What Olmert is doing is encouraging those in the US who want the US to change its policy in the Middle East by implying that the refusal by the current US administration to accept the idiotic ISG report is all that stands in the way of a major shift in Israeli policy. This undercuts current American policy, encourages Arab appeasement in the US, and does nothing to advance an Israeli-Syrian dialogue if that is advantageous to Israel. What stupidity.

make him remove mashaal and lean on the palestinians to recognize israel and stop the terror there's no way assad can agree to it and either way we win

What would your alternative plan for the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been then Steve? If you're arguing from the premise that there's no such thing as Palestine in terms of a nation-state, I agree with you. Historically, that was just a name given to the region of the Holy Land by the Romans after they conquered the region. The concept of "Palestine" and a "Palestinian state" is a fallacy created by those who wish to deny the Jewish people the right to live in their ancestral homeland. The fact is though that there are millions of Arabs living in the Land of Israel who call themselves "Palestinians" and some type of solution had to be reached for their sake and the sake of Israel. The Gaza Strip was not flawed in substance. It was gesture of peace. Unfortunately, the other side isn't interested in peace, it's interested in launching rockets into baby cribs in Sderot.

In terms of U.S. efforts in the United Nations during Israel's war against the Hezbollah, I concur with you 100% that it was foolish to pressure Israel to discontinue its bombardment of Lebanon. While, methodically foolish to attack paramilitary guerrilas from the air, it nevertheless, was the right decision to attack them. Unfortuantely Steve, the United Nations has been hijacked by the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the Non-Aligned Movement along with having Russia, China, AND FRANCE on their payroll. Admittedly, it was a disgrace to have a sovereign state defending itself (Israel) mentioned symmetrically with a terrorist organization with the instigators of the war (Iran and Syria) operating with impunity. Such is the abominable state of the U.N. currently.

I definitely agree with your points Alex, and to be quite honest, I believe it would be a monumental error to even wave "hello" to the Assad regime in Syria by either the United States or Israel. My only concern is being perceived as an imperialist power, even amongst our allies. I firmly believe that every country should pursue their national interests. Obviously, every action will have a consequences as you alluded to by saying Olmert should was the U.S. government's response to any overtures made by his governments to the Assad regime. Likewise, I agree that talking to the Syrian regime at this point is tantamount to capitulation. In a time where Assad has formed a strategic defense partnership with Iran, is forming and training his own paramilitary force comparable to Hizbullah in order to fight Israeli forces in the Golan, and most relevant to us, allowing Islamic crazies to cross in Iraq to engage our soldiers in battle, trust me, I understand the only thing we should send him is a few Tomahawks. I'm not being a jingoist, just a realist. Communication with Israel is the key, I just don't want enjoinment.

"Vice Premier Shimon Peres also referred to Israel's friendship with the United States, 'Which protects us from all threats.'" Uh no, the US cannot even protect ITSELF from all threats, or 9/11 wouldn't have happened, would it? It would be in America's interest for Israel at least to APPEAR more independent, just as N. Korea does with China. Then the US could engage in empty gestures of annoyance with Israel, all the while facilitating what is in the common interest of both countries but having plausible deniability. As Caroline Glick has pointed out, in a true "realist perspective," power counts. An Israel that even appears weak is a less valuable ally than an Israel that appears strong.

Glad to see that we agree on fundamentals. While it is no big issue, I do not believe that we should worry whether anyone perceives as "imperialism" our expressing our views on what is in the US interest. Imperialism would be threatening to invade or bomb unless Israel conformed its policy to ours. What bothers me is that I think Olmert really does not want to engage with Assad now, but instead of having the political courage to say so and why, he is using Bush as cover. That just encourages the appeasers in the US. Now I may be misreading Olmert. If indeed he wants to engage with Assad but fears crossing Bush, then he is playing his cards quite well, but he is then harming, in my opinion, the interests of the US and must bear the consequences.

The Bush administration has failed. The American people,with just cause have no respect or support for a bumbling idiot and his cronies in the middle east. We should have open talks with Syria and Iran ASAP, not doing so, will further impeed our ability to be effective.

Dear Steve and C.B. I don't think that Bush ever weighed in on pressing for the removal of Jews from Gaza. Please refer to a 10 August 2005 article in the Jewish World Review by a Tod Robberson entitled, "Israeli Settlers Seek to Become Palastinian Citizens." If you can't Google it, I would be happy to email a "pdf" copy of it. Apparently, Israeli authorities did not permit settlers to make arrangements with the PA to remain in Gaza as legitimate residents under PA "sovereignty," and the article does not indicate that Bush had anything to do with the policy. The settlers inteviewed for the piece, moreover, expressed an "It ain't your funeral" attitude toward the Israeli government's understandable but paternalistic claims that the evacuation policy was undertaken for these settlers' own safety. Don't ignore the demographics of the territorial issue. The U.S. could have annexed the Philippines just like Texas and the Rocky/Pacific territories, but imagine all those election nights when everyone would have to stay up all night to see how the Philippines' 150 or so electoral votes would go!