Frankham - PM
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 04:31 PM

1. Get rid of the word "terrorist" to define Hamas. - They should then be defined as what exactly?

2. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to exist. - Undeniable, they should.

3. For Israelis, try to understand what Hamas means. - The Israeli's fully understand what Hamas means. Hamas have stated very clearly and often what they mean - The total extermination of the State of Israel.

4. Palestinians....non-violent resistance. - Good idea, but Arafat knows he can't make any money out of that, so he's not going to advocate that line, and none of the other Palestinian terrorist groups are either.

5. UN broker the deal. - I believe they have been trying to do exactly that since 1948. How much time are you and Chomsky going to give them?

Solution: one state with equal governing powers
and Separation of Church and State. - Israel, a secular democracy has already done this, I don't think the Palestinians will ever contemplate such a move - judging by the "thousands" who turned up to see that lamb.

Perhaps a socialist/democracy or capitalist/socialist/democracy. - would depend on who you are expecting to pay for it.

A theocratic solution is doomed to failure. - True, very true, elsewhere in the region, the Government of Iran (12 old gits) are trying awfully hard to convince their population otherwise - and failing.

But Israelis have the right to worship as they choose as do Palestinians. - Also very true.

Caveat: The rest of the Arab world will not allow Israel to bomb Palestinians out of existence. It's not an option. - Does this mean that if the Israeli's are attacked once this plan of yours (or Chomsky's) is put into operation and Israel responds it becomes open season on Israeli's? The Arab nations have tried this in the past and been spectacularly unsucessfull.

The nation of Israel may not be removed without the world community
censuring it. - By God, what a deterrent eh? "world community censure". Roughly that would probably equate to what some of the world community "serious consequences" meant. But as this censure by the "world community" seems only to kick-in once Israel has been attacked and removed, it would be a fairly moot point anyway, which is just as well, as the "world community" in the form of the United Nations is pretty good in situations where all the dust has settled and the bodies are lying on the ground - Rwanda is a good example.

Noam Chomsky still makes the best sense to me. - If the above is anything to go by - He makes absolutely no sense to me - Unless, of course, as a seriously proposed solution, the destruction and erradication of the State of Israel, is seen as an acceptable solution. Maybe some do, Hamas for certain.