Hi Teribus,

I don't believe belicose threats should be ignored but taken in context with proper intelligence. We heard the same rhetoric from
Saddam about the US and Noriega for that matter. It comes with the
territory. But to act pre-emptively on such measely information is
the action of a "loose cannon". The truth is if the assaults that
were so loudly proclaimed from certain Arab quarters were in fact a
real threat, there would be substantial military intelligence to back it up. The USSR was not going to get involved in that regardless of
the rhetoric. The ability to mount such an attack wasn't there. It seems to me if there was going to be an assault on Israel, it would be quietly executed without verbal fanfare. The rest is politics.


" What is expected is that the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours declare that they recognise the state of Israel, that they will guarantee Israels territory and that they will live in peace with their neighbours - SAY IT AND ACTUALLY MEAN IT."

I believe that this could be accomplished if the Palestinians had
political parity with the Israelis. Israel will not allow this.

"Partition was offered during the British Mandate period 20% of Palestine to the Jews, 80% to the Arabs, 100% of the part of the Mandated territoty known as Trans-Jordan to the Arabs. The Jews accepted this, the Arabs did not."

If this is the case, the assumption could be that somehow the British got in the way. Sort of like Bush attempted to "democratize" Iraq.
But why wasn't it accepted? This is a worthwhile
study. Could there have been extenuating reasons for it's rejection?
Which Arabs accepted it and which did not? Which Arabs are we talking about Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanians or whom?

The problem with demonizing enemies is that a true picture of their
goals is not truly realized. Rhetoric is cheap. Belicose language
has been used by every dictator or hegemonic power in history. I remember the language of WWII which wasn't so moderate as well.

So it must be concluded that Israeli expansionism is a fact of life.
It is their "manifest destiny". Is this in their best national interest? If so, how? Does anyone think that this will stop suicide bombers? It's simplistic reason to label, demonize and say that
the "other guy" is crazy.

As to the making of WWIII, the Mid-East is just the powder keg to do it. Pre-emptive strikes and expansionism can cause it.

Frank