I question that what you suggest in the balance of your post is feasible though. Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinians and Sharon is the elected leader of Israel. Wishing we could negotiate with someone other than those two, I fear is wishful thinking. I don't question that it would be desirable but I don't see it happening as long as Arafat and Sharon draw a breath.

If you read my post again (haven't gotten those new glasses yet, have you?) you will see that I put that as a second possibility after I mentioned Sharon and Arafat. What I would have an objection to would be if we negotiated with only Sharon and not Arafat. I think that would not work, and if Arafat can't be a part of negotiations, I don't think Sharon should be either.

I think the hateful language requirement you would impose goes both ways though. I don't think the Israeli leadership is any more guilty of that than Arafat and his spokespeople.

That wasn't a requirement. That's what I would like to see. The vast majority of the hateful language I've been reading and hearing in the past few weeks, especially, has been aimed toward Arabs and Palestinians and not toward Jews or Israel.

Nor do I understand why you believe Arafat is less a hardliner than Sharon is though. I think they both are.

Please show me where I said I believe Arafat is less a hardliner than Saron.

Personally, I am leaning more toward our (the U.S.) washing its hands of the whole thing, and letting them duke it out. Whoever is the strongest wins the war. That's what has happened in other major conflicts, and I think it may be the only way they can be settled. An unpopular view on the Mudcat, of course, but so be it.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that idea, as long as we really remove our support for both sides. That means no more foriegn aid from the US to Israel. (Or to the Palestinians.) And also, no more veto support (for Israel) from the US delegation to the UN.