No state can control what every citizen can do, particularly if they have systematic violence agaisnt them.

That's why bombing someone's house or wedding and killing the people (such as in Iraq) can make 'terrorists' out of thin air. These people have received no justice, never will, so their only resort is to revolt and inflict similar harm.

I'm not sure about Hamas' goals but the current situation demands a restoration of the Palestinian land as decreed by the UN immediately.

As for the veto situation, don't you think it's a little disingenuous and even specious to pretend that an illegal occupation would not be the subject of more resolutions than average? Where else in the world is there an illegal occupation?

It's also reasonable to see that both cases may be true. There may be an intense focus on Israel (that is arguably well due since it's one of the only illegal occupations in the entire world), but there is still a terrible bias in the US vetos, as described here where it looks at the whole history and various cases:

http://ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff-veto.html

Also it should be noted that on nearly every occasion the US vetoed the resolution, there was not a single other nation to support their view on the subject across the whole world. If it were reasonable position you would see an even split.

STEEL,

As I've said repeatedly I am NOT going to enter into a moral debate. I shall confine myself to a few observations.

When the Israelis vacated Gaza the Palestinians were free to choose from a range of options.

One option was to focus on economic development. As I explained in my previous post, they are ideally placed to do so. Perhaps they could have become the "desert Singapore" or Hongkong.

Whenever I bring this up some people say the choice of going for economic development was not open to them; the Israelis would have blocked it.

Personally I think the Israelis would have been delighted had the Palestinians chosen the path of economic development. However we shall never know what the Israelis would have done because the Palestinians never tried.

In fact the Palestinians chose a path that was diametrically opposed. They opted to use the territory of Gaza as a platform to attack Israel.

Note: This was their choice.

The consequences – a blockade and Israeli counter-attacks – were entirely predictable.

Now I am NOT going to debate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the Palestinian choice. You may feel that the Palestinian choice was the morally and ethically correct one. So be it.

But I do point out that in Gaza the Palestinians DID have a CHOICE.

FOXY,

The Bush administration is so discredited that any successor is bound to have a better chance of bringing about not peace but a long term cease fire.

Whether Obama or McCain would be better placed to this I cannot say.

PaulL,

“It is nonsense to pretend that somehow Bush and his cabinet are comparable in their zealotry to the mullahs of Iran. There just isn’t ANY evidence to suggest it.”

I know you dismiss the relevance of past deeds but I use them only to illustrate how similar the regimes are. If one side is slightly more belligerent at this moment it shouldn’t distract us from a more complete view.

How many countries has Iran attacked since the mullahs have been in control?

What are the difference between threats on Israel and the threat to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" unless it joined the fight against al-Qaeda?

How does a country permit one of its warships to shoot down another country’s passenger airline then award the ship’s air-warfare coordinator the navy’s the Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," citing his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that allowed him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure"?

That was enough to scare the buggery out of the Iranians forcing a review of their conflict with Iraq and ultimately leading to them accepting a UN brokered ceasefire.

Middle East veteran David Hirst wrote “America would very likely discover something else: that the friend and ally it has succoured all these years is not only a colonial state, not only extremist by temperament, racist in practice, and increasingly fundamentalist in the ideology that drives it, it is also eminently capable of becoming an 'irrational' state at America's expense as well as its own.” and “Israel will remain at least as likely a candidate as Iran, and a far more enduring one, for the role of 'nuclear-crazy' state.”

If you appreciate how America and Israel are regarded by many in the world and for solid reasons then I think you might enjoy a more balanced viewpoint.

General John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command until March 2007, said, "I believe we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear. . . . There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran."

So why not let it.

Csteele,

Australians of the "Left persuasion" do tend to convince themselves that the United States is viewed as a hateful monster throughout the world.

ANOTHER REALITY CHECK.

There is no doubt that the years of the Bush administration have not been good for the US image. However a surprisingly large number of people still have a favourable view of the US despite Bush.

Here is a link to the Pew Global Attitude Survey.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=825

Surprisingly even in China 49% of the populace seem to have a favourable view of the US. In India the number is 56%.

Even more interesting is which segments of the populace have a favourable view of the US. (This is not covered in the Pew Global article. I don’t have an online link)

In Indian and China entrepreneurs and people in business are most likely to have a favourable view of the US.

European based university academics are the group least favourably disposed to the US. No surprises there. However, in Europe, people on low incomes are the most favourably disposed.

My own feeling is that after Bush the US will experience a bounce in popularity among people who are not European academics or Australian lefties.

Whatever the view of European academics, EUROPEAN BUSINESSES LOVE THE US. They are scrambling to buy up US companies and businesses.* In the process they are helping create jobs in the US. This should help mitigate the rise in unemployment due to the recession now under way.

To European businesses the current US dollar weakness is seen not as a negative but as a buying opportunity.

Attitudes towards Iran seem aligned with the US view in non-Muslim countries. See:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=826

Even in Europe people have a less favourable view of Iran than of the US.

In India and China those that do not like Iran greatly outnumber those that do.

I think Australian Lefties need to understand they do not always reflect world opinion.

*See Foreign Policy Magazine, May / June 2008 pp95 – 9

stevenlmeyer

"The best possible outcome would be a "Mediterranean Union" that includes the EU, North Africa and the Middle-East"
This is an other, bigger story I wrote only for the role which the European Union could play to support for a permanent solution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It is seemed that sooner or later the Israel (and Palestine) will become FULL member of the EU and the problem will be solved with the best possible way for both sites, Israelis and Palestinians.

EU Expansion to Israel and Palestine
With the election of a new US president, Europe could gain more control in the Middle East, but only if it simultaneously accepts more responsibility.
http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/articles/view/EU_Expansion_to_Israel_and_Palestine

Possible Integration of Israel in European Market
examing the possibility of Israeli integration into the European market.
Israel will join European agencies, programs, and working groups to bring the Israeli economy and society closer to European norms and standards, to increase the competitiveness of Israeli companies in the European market, primarily in the field of high-tech.
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-6-18/72044.html

srael's integration into the European single market - A joint working group will examine the areas in which Israel is capable of integrating into the European single market. This will lay the groundwork for an additional upgrading of relations in the future.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/MFA+Spokesman/2008/The+EU+and+Israel+upgrade+relations++16-June-2008.htm

EU, Israel set to boost economic relations
The Associated Press June 16, 2008, 2:27PM ET
Officials from the European Union and Israel were meeting Monday for talks on upgrading economic and political relations.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was to meet with Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU external relations commissioner, and foreign ministers from the 27-nation bloc.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D91BB2T00.htm

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis

You are correct. Israel has made a lot of progress in strengthening and deepening its ties with the EU. I think Israel would like to become a full fledged member. Perhaps it will happen.

Simultaneously Israel is deepening it ties to NATO.

There are also signs that Syria wants to come in from the cold. It needs investment to get its stagnant economy moving.

See:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-syria-peace_slyjun17,0,3937256.story

Perhaps "make money, not war" will finally resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.