Keith, I accept your apology.

I fail to understand why is it so important to determine the exact percentage of American aid to Israel: so you say it is 3% of GDP - fine with me, why should going without it be a problem? just tighten one's belt, give up some luxuries and life goes on. American aid is bad - for Israel, for Australia, for Jordan, for Egypt, for the Palestinians - for everyone. It is best to have nothing to do with the yanks. Of course it is probably hard to get rid of such addictions after so many years - but it is possible.

I do not automatically support each and every action that the government of Israel and/or individual Israelis do: I support such actions that are needed to protect the lives of Israeli citizens; I do not support such actions whose purpose is to enhance the Jewish Ego by occupying territories beyond the 1967 borders.

Sometimes the intention is blurred. Sometimes Israel has to act against its peaceful interests due to internal (settlers) and external (American) pressures: the situation is very complicated and sad. On the one hand, being peaceful could save Israeli lives, but on the other hand, a civil war and/or American sanctions can cost more lives, especially when Israel almost does not have other friends.

Take for example the separating wall: it is absolutely necessary and very effective in preventing suicide bombers from reaching Israel. The trouble is that instead of placing it on the 1967 border, the settlers demand to be included and therefore aggravate the situation. Do I support the wall? yes. Am I happy about its current route? not at all, but what else can Israel do?

The moderates of Israel need your support, not condemnation. They stand alone against several fronts. They need friends around the globe, they cannot do it alone. Why would you like to push them in despair into the callous arms of Jewish and American extremists? can't you see that the more this happens, the more the Palestinians suffer as well?

David

Where do you intend for the rounded up young Palestinian men, their womenfolk and children be exiled?

To concentration camps and gas chambers?

You racist fool.

Yutusu

You didn't give me a straightforward answer to my question. I'll repeat it.
Do you support an unconditional Palestinian state?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Logic

Your comments incite hatred against and show you support discrimination against Arab, Muslim and Palestinian people. That's racism.

Well, well, what are you poor tragics who have over the last few months by your arguing in support of Israel and the status quo, with regard to the occupation and so called defence, going to do now?

Yesterday Olmert made a public declaration indicating the Arab League proposal of 2002 could be used as way forward

“We sincerely hope that at the summit of the Arab leaders in Riyadh, the positive element in the Saudi initiative will be emphasized, and would maybe allow an opportunity to strengthen the chances for negotiations with the Palestinians on its basis.”

Isn’t that a courageous step? The small change by Hamas has been recognised in Israel and they've responded in a very encouraging manner.

Where to now for you chappies? Do I hear you cheering? The attitudes you’ve displayed fly in the face of what now seems to be a complete Israeli about face. Let’s see you have the same courage as Olmert and accept the basis of any peace in the region is an end to the occupation, a defined set of borders as at ‘67, guarantees of security and a negotiated settlement to the refugee problem and the Palestinian claims of Jerusalem as it’s capital.

I see the arm twisting of the US in both small steps along with the Saudi’s diplomacy. Olmert had few options since world opinion and the propaganda war has swing so dramatically away from Israel since the carnage in Lebanon.

I love saying it: I’ve been advocating this solution for quite some time now, in the face of insults and personal attacks from almost all of you.

I have no problem with the US continuing or increasing it’s massive aid to poor little Israel as long as settlement on the above basis is agreed.

Such a settlement severely limits the influence of a nuclear armed Iran. As North Korea showed the US and the world are impotent when it comes to stopping nations becoming nuclear powers.

keith

My comments do not support discrimination against Arab, Muslim and Palestinian people. How do you manage such a bizarre line of reasoning?

In fact I objected to the discrimination by the Palestinian and Muslim governments. According to your unreason to criticize the Palestinians in any way is racism while savage criticism of Israel is OK.

You won't address my comments because they do not support your case and try to attack me for presenting them. Your accusations of inciting hatred show how far you are from logical thought.

I make one more plea for reason. Stop hating Israel. I do not hate Palestinians or Muslims in fact I like them but am not blind to the shortcomings in their society and the actions of their murderous leaders. The Palestinians do have their own state but it cannot be a satisfactory place for people to live until they accept their neighbour and put their efforts into making their state productive.

Keith,

I do not recall being asked this question before: "Do you support an unconditional Palestinian state?" - I'm afraid that I do not understand the question and will need a clarification first: what is an "unconditional state"?

I am in favour of having a Palestinian state, but certainly Olmert is not the person who can deliver anything: he is politically dead no less than his ambassador to El Salvador. He was never known to be a person that keeps his word. He promised for example that if, after a year in office, there is no progress negotiating with the Palestinians, he will withdraw unilaterally from the larger part of the West Bank. Did he? He is also now under investigation for a series of corruption charges, which is probably why he wriggles like that. The former ambassador, at least, will not go to jail.

Keith, stating for example "since world opinion and the propaganda war has swing so dramatically away from Israel since the carnage in Lebanon" shows that you are badly repeating your previous mistake of viewing Israel as a uniform entity of a single view and interest, just like watching from afar a small light in the sky that could in fact be million times bigger than our sun. You are still thinking in gross terms of a supposed conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, when the real conflict is between moderates and extremists on either side. Israel and Palestine are NOT enemies and their good interests are not in conflict: you will not be able to be constructive until you realize this reality.

Keith,

1) No one’s arguing for the status quo.

2) Olmert has made a luke-warm, non-committal comment on the Saudi plan, and you’re as giddy as a school girl (no offense to school girls). There is nothing new in Olmert’s position. When the proposal was first made at a summit in Beirut, Sharon declared his willingness to go to Beirut, or to host Saudi leaders in Jerusalem, to discuss the plan. The Arab League declined. Did they expect peace to spontaneously break out fully formed, like Athena from the head of Zeus, with no need for discussions? This was the first of many indications that the plan was Arab window-dressing and not serious.

Now Olmert says he hopes “the positive element in the Saudi initiative will be emphasized [who can argue with that?], and would maybe allow an opportunity to strengthen the chances for negotiations with the Palestinians on its basis.”

Excuse me for being unimpressed. This, Keith, is “a courageous step”? You call this responding “in a very encouraging manner” and “a complete Israeli about face”? What can I say? Olmert is playing you; you’re easy.

And btw, you’ve forgotten a minor detail: The Palestinians haven’t said they accept the Saudi plan! The Arab League cannot deliver if the Palestinians won't cooperate.

Keith: “Let’s see you have the same courage as Olmert...”

It is obvious that peace means (among other things) an end to occupation, defined borders, and guarantees of security – pretty much by definition. This is all part of 242, which Israel accepted ages ago. Recognition of the need for a settlement dealing with all of this, plus the refugees and Jerusalem, was part of the Oslo Accords. And all of these elements, with a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem and the border determined approximately along 1967 lines with minor territorial exchanges, were in the plans already proposed by Israel and the US and rejected by the Palestinians.

Keith: “I love saying it: I’ve been advocating this solution for quite some time now, in the face of insults and personal attacks from almost all of you.”

continued...