You should see the picture on the Idiotarian...

http://www.idiotarian.com/idioblog/idiotbloghome.php

It shows Masked Hamas activists stage an attack on a model of an Israeli bus during an anti-Israeli rally at the An-Najah University in the West Bank town of Nablus Monday May 26, 2003.

Apparently they see the 'Road Map to Peace' as paved with innocent Jewish civilians just as they used the grave-stones looted from centuries old Jewish cemetaries to pave roads in Jerusalem from '1948-1967?

I predict an agreement by Sharon, Abbas, and Bush, will be implemented, over the objections of a lot of people, probably in 2005 or 2006. It will offer the Palestinians slightly less than what they could have had if they had seriously negotiated with Barak in 2000. Why? Those who oppose a Palestinian state simply do not offer any politically realistic way out the present stalemate. The DeLay-Inhoufe religious fanatic wing of the Republican Party has a lot of power in this country, but not so much that Israel can get away with holding onto all of West Bank in perpetuity. Only if a new Palestinian state leads to MORE war and terrorism will the proposals of the Israeli extreme right such as transfer gain any currency.

And what would lead a street-wise person to believe that a new Palestinian state would NOT lead to more war and terrorism?

First off stefan - i heard an interesting lecture by yehuda bauer - a bigwig at yad vashem, in which he portrays the current 1999-2003 wave of anti-semitism (which would include anti-zionism and refusals to identify the genocidal anti-jewish features of radical islam, but would not include criticism of sharon, barak, et.al) as being focused in the media and intelligentsia.

as you can see from the ny times, la times and seattle putt-putt, it is clearly the case that the media has a major hard on against jews having a state of their own with any sort of normalcy, they are not criticizing an outpost settlement, or a security fence - they are demanding israel give up all it has for a promise by the PA to stop acts of violence - my god, if the PA even devoted a few bucks to security - they would catch and arrest very easily the coordinated 5 person homicide bomb team that worked it last week - anyhow, so much for the media - they have plateued at their anti-semitism for now.

as for an agreement - in the kissinger theory, now would be the opportune time, with US the sole power, for a forced settlement - the only problem is, in truth, only one side can really be forced -however painful to admit, israel can truly be forced, and many american supporters of israel would not stand in the way, because they believe that a forcing is in israel's best interests rather than the horrid status quo -

however, the palestinians at the moment cannot be forced - they are captive to radical islam - which the PA will not/cannot defang.

dealing with the PA is nonsensical - it is like a real estate deal with a seller who is not ready, willing and able to sell, a monumental waste of time. the only way to force anything on radical islam is by force - either american troops will have to intervene and have a presence as a border, or israel, by a combination security fence, annexation, partition and destabilization of the territories further, could neutralize and shift the radicals to focus on jordan. However, the cauldron of radical islam would get worse and maybe erupt in a friendly arab country - so that is why bush's plan to force a settlement now beofre it gets worse makes sense, but ought not to work - but i never say never.

anyhow, i would focus more on what unilateral steps israel can take to increase security and get america's sights on iran and syria rather than dealing with the palestinians, who seem to be a waste of time right now. as far as i know, the "road map" is the first peace plan w/o a name attached to it - probably cause they could not find anyone (rogers, ford, camp david - named after a dead guy- schultz, mitchell, tenet, zinny) who wanted to have their name joint the list.

my rantings for now.

one more thing - i am kind of schocked that rahm emanuel signed the letter applauding the road map - and saying that signs of "change" was good on the palestinian side, but that "implementation" was required by israel - i just thought a lot more of him.

Two groups of people oppose a Palestinian state: Arab rejectionists of Israel, and Zionist rejectionists of a non-Jewish state west of the Jordan. I believe those who post above me would fit in to the latter category. My point is that they are on the wrong side of history in this conflict, and the only ones who can stop an inevitable Palestinian state are the Arab rejectionists. If you believe that God gave every inch of land to the Jews, then your really ally must be Hamas and their ilk, for they are the only ones who can keep your dream alive.

How ironic.

To Markus Rose:
'Arab rejectionists of Israel'--- Isn't that a redundancy?
Besides, there are plenty of Arab rejectionists of Israel who favor a Palestinian state as a step in the eventual complete 'rejection' (I just love your euphemism) of Israel. Your pathetic attempt to stigmatize as allies of Hamas those who believe in the biblical 'promised land' (ie religious Jews) shows clearly what category you fit in.

to Wilinsky --
wow, you really throw me a fat pitch here.
Your statement that the phrase 'Arab rejectionist' is a redundancy means that you believe that all Arabs want to destroy Israel and remove Jews from Palestine. That is false. Many Arabs have recognized that Israel is here to stay and have explicitely called for a two-state solution as the only way of getting Israel to pull out of the West Bank and Gaza. The most recent example was the Saudi peace initiative. Whether you doubt the noble intentions or the honesty of not just some but all of those who accept Israel's right to exist IS ANOTHER ISSUE.

Implying that "religious Jews" all agree with the settlers aim of resettling all of biblical Israel -- which of course would require expanding Israeli borders into present day Iraq -- is pathetic and offensive.

Finally, you missed my point which is simply that since the other options -- ethnically cleansing the West Bank, giving the parts of the West Bank with a large Arab population to Jordan, perpetual Jewish suzerainty over a large, disenfranchised Arab population -- are all POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, the only VIABLE POSSIBILITIES for the future are a continued stalemate with a small amount of continued settlement activity or a new Palestinian state. And the only people who can keep the stalemate going are basically Hamas. You and Tom DeLay may disagree with me, but I guarantee you that Sharon, Netanyahu, Eliot Abrams and the editors of Commentary do not.

I said "And the only people who can keep the stalemate going are basically Hamas."

Upon further reflection, I see I am wrong about this -- Arafat, Sharon, Bush -- any of these weasils can and likely will keep the stalemate going -- for a little while.

The redundancy quip was just a little joke, but IMO is not far from the truth, and certainly not as much of a joke as the Saudi 'peace initiative' you cite.

I was more serious in my assertion that those who believe the Land of Israel was given by God to Jews can be characterized as religious Jews, but, as you remind me by your inclusion of Tom DeLay as a Hamas ally, of course, some Christians believe this as well. I didn't say anything about 'settlers' or the political movement of Greater Israel or extending Israel's borders to Iraq. I am perfectly aware that some religious Jews support Land for Peace, but I don't know of any religious Jews who don't believe the Land of Israel was given to Jews by God. And I seriously doubt that Sharon or Netanyahu would agree with you that those who believe this are allies of Hamas.

You accuse me of missing your point, that a Palestinian state is inevitable because all other options are politically impossible. I think I got that alright. I just don't agree with it. And even if a Palestinian state is forced on the world by the Quartet, I think how this state comes into being, and under what conditions is extremely important. The road map and timetable you mention in your first comment here is a recipe for more terrorism and constitutes a serious threat to Israel's continued existence. I understand you believe it is inevitable, but what I don't understand is why in the world would you be so sanguine about the creation of yet another terrorist Arab dictatorship?

By your use of heavily loaded words (every inch, ethnic cleansing, disenfranchised, holding on to the West Bank in perpetuity, religious fanatic wing) and by trying to link some political opinions you dont agree with to the terrorist organization Hamas, you have identified the hate groups which are your allies.

Both of us are using "charged" language under the pretext of calling a spade a spade. For example, "ethnic cleansing" simply means a policy of transferring or compelling the transfer of Arabs from areas under Israeli suzerainity to one of the other Arab states.

Settlers and those who support their views are allied with Hamas in the sense that they share a common understanding of the intractibility of the conflict between Arabs and Jews, as well as an opposition under all circumstances to having more than one state west of the Jordan, as the United Nations intended when it granted statehood to Israel. They also share an opposition to all efforts within Israel, Palestinian society and the international community to effect a two state solution. And last but unfortunately not least, they are both God's little darlings. (Is my extreme prejudice for secular humanism evident enough?)

Most religious Jews do believe God gave Israel to the Jews, but this does not necessarily mean specific borders. And though I haven't studied it in any detail, I understand that Zionism was and continues to be a controversal idea among some Orthodox Jewish communities.

Another Arab dictatorship on the West Bank and Gaza would be a disaster for its citizens, which is why I have supported American (and, to be fair, Israeli) efforts to marginalize Arafat and insist that the Palestinian Authority become a non-corrupt and democratic institution. You and I disagree on how much of a threat a Palestinian state, even if it was a dictatorship, would be to Israel. In fact, as I'm sure you know, defending the territorites and their settlers are a huge security burden for Israel. I would go further and assert that Israeli security bares little relation to the amount of territory it holds. In fact, the moment when Israel was in the most mortal danger -at the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War - just happened to be the time when it had control of the most territory that it ever has held. Present day Israeli military dominance in contrast to all of the Arab states put together is so overwhelming --the six day war of 1967 would be a six-hour war today.

Regarding the speed of implementation required by the roadmap -- the best way for Israel to reduce pressure on it to make what it feels is a premature withdrawal is to implement a settlement freeze. Then, Israel insisting on slowing down the process would not be seen as a means of further de facto annexation.

Arafat's actions in the last three years have not raised any questions whatsoever regarding his committment to peace in the Middle East.

Arafat's actions have answered them.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=411038