It all came down to closing the book on the whole failed military action in Southern Lebanon. The idea behind the original plan was to recover the two captured Israeli soldiers. Without closure on the issue, it would have remained an open wound. Now, despite the unsatisfactory outcome, they can move on.

Part of the problem is that the combination of US support and US restrictions on power results in the failure of the region to reach political equilibrium. Our military support of Israel emboldens them to take otherwise untenable political positions. Our need for support from oil producing Arab "allies" prevents us from allowing them to take the sort of military action they need to make a religiously exclusive state defensible.

The logical geopolitical stance would be to properly recognize that Israeli interests are not equivalent to American interests despite the emotional post-Holocaust entreaties of folks like AIPAC. Israel's "right to exist" is no more sacred than Kurdistan's or Chechnya's.

Either way, that would be no great tragedy to American interests. It boggles my mind why the continued existance of Israel is important to us.

I suspect that a great deal of that differing definition really depends on who has the political power. If you are the occupier "hero" has a very different meaning from what it would mean if you were the occupied.

If, for instance, in 1943 a Jewish resistance fighter managed to plant a bomb in one of the Waffen SS orphanages, I imagine he would be lionized as a national hero in Israel today.

I wouldn't go that far.

If they have the will to survive and the means to do it on their own, great. They can earn the "right to exist" by demonstrating the ability to do so without American patronage. Doing so would do a number of things. Primary among them would be that they would arrive at some sort of political equilibrium with their neighbors in a manner that does not make their enemies ours. Secondarily, it would force them to make political comprimises that reflect clearer political realities.

That status quo definitely does not benefit us.

One's "right to exist" is defined by the political will and military capability to define it. We as Americans have a "right to exist" because of our historical willingness and capability to unland the Indians, intimidate the Mexicans, and harrass the British. Aside from that, no external governing body gets to decide who does and does not have a "right to exist".

Should Israel manage to establish a similar situation free of our patronage, great. If not, the Middle East is replete with extinct civilizations. History will not miss another one. The same goes double for the Palestinians.

lol. I like the translation, though it needs more "god willing"s in it.

The truly sad irony in the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict is how much they have in common. As my buddy Marty puts it "the problem with the Palestinians is that they don't realize they're Jews". He meant that both admiringly and derisively, but that pretty much sums up how a lot of Israelis feel regarding the bitter sibling relationship they and the Palestinians experience.

Unlike many of their other Arab "breatheren", Palestinians are far more educated, entrepreneurial, secular, and tied to the land. They have VERY little in common with Saudi Beduins, for instance. Even less in common with the socialist Pan Arabic rhetoric of the 1960's Egyptians.

If Israel were to become a secular state (i.e.: abandon the requirement that Israel be a "Jewish state"), a proper rehabilitation of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship might actually be possible. The Palestinians don't like the Jordanians or Syrians any better than the Jews do.

In any event, none of that is any of my business. If they want to embark on a politically untenable path and rely indefinately on the dwindling enthusiasm of American patronage, that's up to them. Eventually, though, we'll come to our senses. Hopefully for them, they will as well.

edit: And yes. For expressing this opinion, I am constantly called an Antisemite.

In fact Muslim, Christian and Jew all lived happily together for vast periods in Jerusalem.

We had more or less the same view on The Troubles. Basically both sides we're as stubborn as a mule. You know, the Irish.

I think the distinction often a difficult one to make. Though I agree that killing a kid is not the sort of thing I can agree with, I don't know how "innocent" innocents have to be.

In particular, there is a Korean patriot that is still lionized in both Koreas and China named Ahn Jun-gun. His contribution to Korean independence was the assassination of Ito Hirobumi, who was at that time the civilian Resident-General of occupied Korea and a four-time Prime Minister of Japan.

Though it is true that Ito was a non-combattant and clearly a civilian, I would argue that his instrumentality in the political infrastructure of occupation made him a legitmate target. The Japanese saw it differently.

Iranians getting the bomb actually frightens me far less than one in the hands of the Pakistanis. Say what you will about the Iranians, but they live in a very stable country with a complex economy and educated population. They have far more to lose than the Pakistanis. If anyone can be deterred, it is the Iranians.

As for a conventional or nuclear conflict between Israel and Iran (as unlikely as it is) to become the catalyst for other countries to start lobbing nukes, I would have to question the motivation. The development of a nuclear capability comes with it safeguards around operational control. No country is going to pledge itself to mutually assured incineration because of a conflict that doesn't involve them. In particular, China is never going to nuke Taiwan.

A single tear runs down my cheek for the plight of the poor Sudanese. It's not our job to prevent countries from expressing their political will. It is not our priviledge to trade American lives for the lives of others. The lives entrusted to the American government through the US military and the treasure we expend to maintain it are to be used for the protection and furtherance of American interests -- not to play wetnurse to tribal pissing matches.

Except this occurred during our lifetime and could have been completely avoided were it not for the heavy whinging of the Jews and their sympathizers. I don't understand your logic since it's basically saying that everything can be justified simply because it occurred at another time.

And that doesn't mean they're entitled to their own state, especially when it ostracizes the other people that lived there.

The only way that Israel will be dismantled is under a giant mushroom cloud. They have asserted their right to exist by repeatedly beating back their Muslim enemies. The concept that they would cease to exists is silly. If Israel was faced with that, they would wipe out the middle east, lets hope that never happens.

The main reason we can't stand down on them is our shaky relations with the rest of the Mideast. Even if we abandon Israel, we aren't really assured good relations with the Arab bloc. Our standing with the Kingdom is iffy and will depend on the how the monarchy shakes out after the king dies, and thats our best relationship aside from Israel. I think we shouldn't be so visible supporting Israel, and to be fair, we don't support them nearly like we use too. They develop most of their military tech by themselves now. One could argue we don't need access to the Mideast, that I think is crazy, regardless of "alternative energy" oil is the lifeblood of nations, and will shape the future of this planet. Not having access to the area of the world ripe with that resource is national suicide.