CarolC,

way to change the subject again! Arafat's 300 Million doesn't concern you, even though if he spent that on bettering the lot of the Palestinian refugees he could probably buy them enough land to live on. Even though he claims to be their leader while he bleeds them dry. Even thought he is the one theoretically negotiating with Israel--even though if the negotiations were successful he'd be worse off financially. Why can't you see it's a clear conflict of interest (and downright unseemly) for him to be so damn wealthy?

Also, I didn't see quotes from Israeli prime ministers saying what youclaimed. I saw Chomsky saying what you claimed, peppered with brief and doctored bits of quotes from Israelis. We all know Chomsky has no axe to grind, right?

The quotes you gave are clearly doctored. for example,

General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'

Clearly there was no threat of destruction, as Israel kicked everyone's asses. That does not mean Israel was not attacked. The rest is not a quote, until that vague bit at the end. In fact, there is no evidence that Weitzman said what the spin-doctor claims. When I see a quotation broken up by many ellipses, during which the author fills in his or her own spin, I don't trust the result.

For example, I could write:

CarolC doesn't care at all about the Palestinian situation; Arafat's behavior does not concern her because she's "too busy worrying about the several billions of taxpayer dollars that the US Pentagon has misplaced and can't account for." She does think that the Jews can all stay where they are, however: "I'm not calling for any Jews to be removed from where they are," she says.

Now in that passage the quotes are all accurate but in context they did not mean what I claimed they did. The only way you can be really sure is with what appears to be full, long quotations in full sentences, without paraphrasing by the so-called experts.

Begin's quote relates to Egypt but not Jordan or Syria. It still does not suggest Israel could have avoided war. Same for Rabin. And Dayan's quote basically states that the Syrians were so greedy for even useless land that they would shoot Israelis on bulldozers. Granted this doesn't make Israel look good, but don't both sides look equally bad? In fact, weren't the Syrians the ones who shot at unarmed bulldozer operators? So granted Dayan was a tough, coldhearted bastard, but Israel was STILL fired on first.