I'm the Guest (14 & 16 May posts only) who originated this thread, as I have others with references to news articles on the Mideast and other subjects of interest to me.

I had no particular "agenda" for posting this particular one, although I do at times for others I post. I thought it would be interesting for people to read the story for historical perspective, considering how involved some in the forum have been in discussions about the current situation in the Mideast. We tend to forget how dire the circumstances were for Jews in the era after WWII in Europe and the Middle East when no one would take the refugees, I think. That, more than invocations of Holocaust survivors is what drives the fears among the Israeli people, whom I believe to be quite brave and courageous as a rule.

I can find myself agreeing with both BH and CarolC, though I feel CarolC is pretty naive about politics on the ground, and seems to have a slippery grip on historic facts. Which is too bad, because she is backing the right horse in the debate, IMO.

BH, OTOH, rightly points out the political realities of our support of Israel in the region. Israel does for the US what it can't do politically itself in the region. Like the bombing of Iraq. However, I disagree with his points about the reasons why the Rabin philosophy should be abandoned. Assassinations of pro-Palestinaian state Israeli leaders will continue until (and possibly after) there is a Palestinian state. There has always been that shady right wing military element which is barely under anyone's political control in Israel. Which is why the situation is so dire. As we saw in this latest crisis, the Bush administration WAS NOT calling the shots for that shady, quasi-legal right wing military element in Israel.

The problem is, the more isolated Israel becomes in the world community (and they are currently as isolated as they have been since the 67 war IMO), the greater the danger of extra-state vigilantism on the part of the Israeli right wing paramilitarists, operating with or without CIA/US consent and knowledge.

Why is that such a major concern to the rest of the world? Well, look who is doing nuclear business in the region today with states like Iran? The Russians. Who are now one of the "group of five" who are doing the above board diplomatic negotiating (ie, the US, the UN, the EU, the Arab League and Russia) in the region and moving in more and more all the time to regain their foothold in the region. The Russians aren't going to directly threaten the US in Afghanistan (and elsewhere in the Caspian Sea oil region the Bush/Cheney oil cartel is lusting to get at), so they are making their moves to gain leverage in other oil rich regions of the Middle East.

The geopolitical dimension is rarely looked at in discussions here in Mudcat, which is dangerously naive.

And CarolC, not all of us back the Palestinian cause of statehood for "humanitarian" reasons. That is warm and fuzzy "can't we just all get along" sort of empty posturing. I back both the Palestinian and Israeli rights to exist as sovereign states because justice needs to be served in order for security and stability to take hold in the region. It is about justice and fairness, not "humanitarianism". I believe many Israelis understand the inherent unfairness of the "Palestinian settlement" made by world powers when Israel was granted statehood. They know they will never be secure if those injustices against their now neighbors, who truly were the main inhabitants of the region before WWII and British withdrawal from the region made them perpetual refugees with nowhere to go. Many Israelis understand that the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza are being held in despicable living conditions as perpetual prisoners of the state of Israel.

But until some of the Zionist leadership like Sharon get put out of power once and for all, there is truly no room in Israeli politics for reasonable, just end to Israeli occupation.

Shrill arguments where people are arguing that Jews are racist and Arabs are anti-semites are engaged in by people interested in the status quo, like Sharon and Netanyahu, Bush and Cheney. It is not the sort of arguments made by principaled, trustworthy Palestinians, including certain prominent members of Hammas (whom the Israelis will soon be doing business with, despite their most recent declaration that they will continue suicide attacks), nor by Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who responded to the recent Likud party debacle this weekend with a peace proposal which DOES include Palestinian statehood (likely with a transitional international peacekeeping force).