I try and remember to do the same when I've appreciated someone else's post, especially when it is especially informative or has a new angle or perspective. On occasion, I've publicly acknowledged several whose posts are normally anti-Israeli (Salma, Mikesailor and "Matty Groves") for the thought put into them, the challenge or the unusual sentiment. In general, posting is a rough way to go, particularly since people are anonymous and therefore have room to be at their most hostile without any real recriminations. I also read and post on Maan News. The news is far more limited there than here on Ynet and the columnists, i.e., Uri Avnery, always negative about our country. A frequent poster with whom I correspond privately tells me that I'd be shocked to discover how anti-Israel and anti-Jewish are Arab websites. Posters on Maan are far less educated and far less interesting than on Ynet. Everyone should get a taste, however.

So, Robert, Myth trumps truth and the collective trumps all individual rights. So, then bigotry is correct, discrimination is correct, brutality and theft are to be accepted because your 'myth' gives you license. Your racism is showing Robert. Perhaps you should try to escape your comfortable cocoon of myth and look at all people, not just Jews, as God's creations. But of course, to perform such an act of will, you would be contraverting your tribe's orthodoxy and risk becoming excommunicated from your beloved collective. Truly pathetic.

I'm surprised once again for a guy with your undoubted intelligence who occasionally adds something of real worth to our posts for you to be so numb regarding your reading and replying to certain posts; in this case, mine. I don't know what happened to your reading comprehension but you do make assumptions about where my passage was heading and what could be gleaned from the post but you are so far off in left field that I cannot even begun to remedy your errors. Please try reading again and put your "objective" glasses on. I always try to learn something from posts even when the poster's perspective is considered unfathomable, basic facts are incorrect or totally one-sided, context is missing, language is confusing, etc. In Mikesailor's case, this is a good illustration of a person who is so keyed up with his own point of view that he is unable (on this occasion certainly) to read a post objectively (mine, in this case) with the accurate reading comprehension of the average college (USA) junior. This is also an example of how passion and a crystallized perspective (specifically, Mike's anti-Israeli rants) can obstruct intellectual objectivity and reflection. In general, it's important for all of us (including me) to keep our wits about ourselves while attempting to comprehend the political activities which are taking place in the world around us. Our very survival (as Marcella pointed out whether or not we agree with her premises) may depend upon it.

I didn't say I want you to go, this is not in the plan Z, you can stay. you're welcome Yossef. TODA ;)

The two state "solution" is actually the first step in the wish of the Palestinians ,Arabs and others for Israel to disappear completely. They only have 22 other states-they need more.

Genetic tests show that almost all Jews, including Ashkenazim, share a common ancestry with Palestinian 'Arabs'

Moshe Dann is so right in his analysis. Locking on to a Plan A solution that is clearly not going to work is foolishness. From the point of view of conflict resolution processes, rigid attachment to any one solution to almost any complex problem can guarantee failure. Why is this so? The most effective road to resolution of complex situations involves three main steps. The first is to clarify the underlying concerns of both parties. The second step is to revisit the concerns list and for each party to identify the most potent concern or several concerns for them. For Israel this might be that the country remain Jewish and be safe from physical threats so that its people can devote their energies to thriving—building strong families, a strong economy, and good lives for all its citizens, Arab and Jewish. Palestinian leaders however seem mainly dedicated to wiping Israel off the map. Malicious goals usually have a valid underlying concern though--which may be to regain a sense of personal pride and power. The third step is to create a solution responsive to these key concerns. One-state, with ANNEXATION, fits the bill. LAND FOR PEACE, that is, WHEN ISRAEL CONTROLS THE LAND, THERE WILL BE PEACE. With Israel controlling all the land there will be peace, safety, and a chance for everyone to enjoy personal pride in the good lives they can build for themselves and their families, and even to be empowered as citizens with voting rights. The key though is that Israel has to get tough. Arab citizens who act hostile to the state must lose their citizenship and be punished for treason.