Hi THT

You do raise interesting points. Some are worth a discussion.
The Israeli prisoners were soldiers in uniform and are prisoners of war. Do you want to see them 'tried'. Of course not. The Palestinians are civillian arrested and detained by the Israeli military authority in Palestinian occupied lands. Quite a difference and not a situation in which parallels should be drawn. I think the Palestinians would enjoy the right to be 'tried'.

The Israeli's themselves initially claimed they went to war in Lebanon to free their captive soldiers. In that sense it was an Israeli 'spark for war'. But strictly the Israeli's kept changing their reasons for going to war, in Lebanon, as they progressively failled to achieve each of their own stated objectives.

The suicide bombers haven't attacked Israel since before Lebanon. However I must point out I did state clearly the rockets are still falling and I abhor all violence.

Yes any argument can be argued in reverse. But my desire is for an end of all aggression. My point was clear, Arab states have shown an intent to that end while Israel continues it's same old actions that will merely disrupt any peaceful solution. You know just how easy would it have been to ban the new settlement? You can't say the new settlement was built to prevent Palestinian aggression or in retaliation for some terrorists firing rockets. It is plainly an aggressive act. Does that clarify my point?

When you call for the support of Israel at it's current limits, that include the occupied Arab states and use, by inference the argument 'spoils of war' then you cannot cry foul when you hear some Arabs chant for the destruction of Israel. For that is the same argument you support in claiming Palestinian lands as Israeli.

Do you call the occupation and suppression of a race of people a valid raeson for war? A valid reason for going to war would be to rid the oppression.

'I just make that point to illustrate how 'lofty words' spoken by winners are never quite what they seem. The 'enduring principles' they speak of, are spoken on the graves of the defeated. So such principles are always 'ethnocentric'. They apply yes..but really they only apply as long as we are the winners,'

You agree with the absurdities contained in that statement. I'd give you a great deal more credit than that. Perhaps you'd like to rephase your position in light of how you view either the Israelis and Palestinians positions as winners or losers.
I think you lose a few US friends if you start fiddling with the truths espoused by Lincoln. He is a great American hero to the vast majority of Americans.

Wow! Agree with David Boaz...Do you also agree with his version of the 'final solution'? You'd lose total cred if you do.
:-)

Regards

If nowadays, when Beirut is in fire again, one has not still understand who was, is and to be a real threat to peace in Middle East and worldwide, deliberating this topic would be useless.

Here is a test. Study each State in the Middle East. Don't consider religion or government. Now where would you choose to live if you had to pick one over the other?

If I was an Arab as sure as hell it wouldn't be Israel.

keith - you failed the test. You were supposed to omit religion and politics.

You'd also be surprised at the number of Arabs who happily reside in Israel. Muslim Arabs.