This makes no sense.

I was told that B. Michael is anintelligent man. There is no evidence of that here.It is one of the most conmvoluted pieces I ever read. But it surely cotains the theme of all his articles: The Israelis are stupid and heartless.

Must be hard two adjust to having two masters all of a sudden. Dog can adjust why not you Michael?

I vote 1. Let's see the narrative simplified: Israelis are evil and only want to evilly oppress the poor hapless Palestinians. Everything Israel does is driven by sheer evilness - Israel only wants war and a side dish of evil oppression. Did I mention evil? We also have horns. Palestinians, on the other hand, are infantile morons, incapable of making decisions; fully given to the whims of the evil, evil Israelis. I am sorry, but was this drivel written by a mentally deficient 12-years-old Saudi schoolboy

As always there are those willing to publish their opinion unbound by the basic foundation of any good argument which of course is evidence or proof - take you pick. instead we are treated to the paranoid delusions of madmen that have spent years obsessing over issues that are not under their control and linking them all together in an attempt at painting a picture of the "master plan". their faith in the Israeli govt genius at playing the pals like chess pieces yet we just cant figure out a way for a peace and two state solution that will benefit Israel more then a pali civil war. conspiracy idiots can say what they want because the facts don't have to match and their is no proof, in itself convincing evidence the there is a massive governmental cover up.

This is a false analogy. 1) The Irgun is not the equivalent of Hamas. Not by any stretch of the imagination. 2) Hamas members are not merely "dissidents"; they are antisemitic, murderous terrorists. 3) The Altalena was never about establishing unity. It was an attempt to have Menachem Begin killed. 4) The reason the Irgun was able to integrate peacefully into the IDF even after the Altalena Affair and the "Season" was because of leaders like Menachem Begin who would not allow his troops to fire on fellow Jews -- immediately after the Altalena was sunk he got on the radio and commanded his men not to engage in a "milchemet achim," civil war between brothers. Hamas and Fatah are sworn enemies that do not consider each other brothers and regularly kill each other. 5) Mahmoud Abbas, or "Abu Mazen" (as is his war name), is no David Ben Gurion. He is a Holocaust denying terrorist who cofounded the terrorist organization Fatah with archterrorist Yasser Arafat and was his deputy for 40 years. He does not want peace. If he gets unity amongst the Palestinian Arabs, he will simply use it to attack Israel some more. In fact, he explicitly told his followers not to aim their guns at each other, but to aim their guns at "the occupation." So does this writer honestly believe Israel should want conciliation? In short, the very basis of this article falls far short of an intelligent analogy. Once again, YNet, why do you publish articles like these?

just who are you claiming is against reconciliation? While it is true that some Israelis (and other peoples around the world) think that the Palestinians need to get a grip on themselves, but down their more violent, terror-oriented factions and develop the more balanced approach of moderate or progressive leaders -- Just as Israelis did around the Altalena -- still, no one is in favor of ongoing bloodshed for the Palestinian people. No one wants "hatred and the exchange of fire...." We don't want terrorist in power, that is true, but we don't oppose unification "behind a single regime" so long as that regime recognizes the Jewish state's right to exist and to do so alongside a peace-loving and peace-making partner and neighbor. If they'll make a real and reasonable peace, we'll pray for them, and not for the ills the author of the opinion piece wants to whine about.

Most normal people, when presented with evidence that their ideas don't correspond to reality modify their beliefs to reflect new evidence. A small minority, however, become "true believers" which is a nice way of saying fanatic. The more their ideas are proven false, the greater the failure, the more they retreat into self-deception & delusion. Every trick of intellectual dishonesty, every disingenuous rationalization, every distortion, every misinterpretation, can be used to preserve belief in which they have a large emotional investment. It's as if they live in some alternate reality, unaffected by events that challenge their basic assumptions. Reducing these assumptions to their most basic, B. Michael believes that Israel is bad, Palestinians are good, and everything is analysed thru that intellectual filter. This is just some kind of indulgence in self-rightousness, rather than cold, rational analysis.

This is not only a very bad article it is delirium tremens

they would be behaving like Jews, not Palestinians. Then they would have the most remarkable leadership, perhaps in all of history like Ben Gurion and the early Zionists, not the worst, most corrupt murderers to ever "lead" a people anywhere at any time. They need alot they don't have. So what's your freakin' point?

Or does rightwing bullshit just sound less crappy?

A FANATIC IS SOMEONE WHO CAN'T CHANGE HIS BELIEF'S AND WON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT. SEE HOW WELL B.MICHAEL FITS IN.

Very poor analysis

at first i do not know what altelena is but while i read the article ,i remember the story of the altelena but sure the auther made it here in this article as a shewing gum of bad trade mark

The analogy between the Altalena case and the bloodshed between of the murderous terror organizations Fatah and Hammas is a distortion of the truth. After all The Irgun under the command of Menahem Begin never fought back. Furthermore, Ben Gurion has admitted that he ordered to shoot down Altalena due mislead that the Irgun has intentions to takeover the ruler ship by force. But, the facts do not confuse the author of this poor article. As long as the distortion of the truth serves his leftist political views, it is Kosher.

George Orwells 1984 comes alive. What a piece of mental contorsion presented as a journalistic article. The writer has a mental problem most likely suffering from what is called an accute case of delirious confusion. as for Ynet is not a standard to met for publication?