I'll get into the specifics of what you've said in a little while, but you make an interesting point about "spin" and criticism by allies.

I have always thought it interesting that while Americans encourage internal debate and criticism domestically through the country's various institutions, they can be very sensitive to stepping on the toes of allies. Or rather, go ahead and step on the toes of allies, and wonder why they receive complaints.

Within the EU there is often no consensus on a variety of issues, and yet these things are worked out through compromise. By contrast, because of the lack of a formal partnership outside of the defence umbrella of NATO, the US seems to see little need to consult with its allies prior to doing many things which might upset them. Kyoto, the ICC, and the two recent decisions ot divert money away from UN Family and Population Fund and the convention against torture are all thngs which the US unilaterally and without much if any warning has done thing which if any other country did it would seem to be calculated to annoy and aggravate its partners.

Winston Churchill said, "You can always count on the United States to do the right thing - once it has exhausted all the alternatives."

I think that this statement reveals a deep understanding of the American internationalist psyche post WW2.

The other things is that I think, as I have stated before, you have developed a jaundiced view of foreign concerns over US actions from your press. In the UK at the moment and for quite a while there has been a press-led revolt against joining the Euro, as an undermining of UK sovereignty. I'm not exposed to the US press at all, so I don't know where you're sourcing your information, but America-bashing is not as common as you seem to think. Several times time you ahve complained of criticism of US policies in respect of several things, and quite honesty I don't know what you're talking about.

Two more quick things:

1. you still haven't addressed my issue of how the Israeli government is no better than Hamas, in its bombing of Gaza. The 27 July issue of the Economist talks more about how the bombing looks suspiciously planned to ruin peace talks. It points out that there had been only one suicide bombing this month prior to the attack: that the al-Aqsa brigades (the Fatah movement's militia) had declared a moratorium on suicide bombings: and how even Hamas said that it would stop killings of Israeli civilians if, amongst other things, the siege of Palestinian cities stopped. And then - whammo, a one tonne bomb on a residential area in the middle of the night, and suprise surpirse, Hamas are now saying that the streets will be filled with corpses.

2. your statement that there should be no Palestinian nation stomps over the right of self-determination of all people. I find this a unique statement from an American citizen, given your country's admirable respect for the right of people to determine their own lives and their own destiny. Even Sharon concedes that the Palestinians should have their own state (he would like it broken up into little pieces, but at least he thinks there should be a state). So, your position is to the right of Sharon's, and I have to say I'm troubled as to how to deal with that. My tone wasn't meant to be consdescending - it was simple disbelief.

quote:

There's an implicit condescending tone in the way you ask the question, but hell yes that's what I'm saying.
If giving Palestine its freedom opens up Israel to further terrorism, wars and destruction by the vulnerability it creates, then I would say absolutely NOT to an independent Palestine. Which I think is the case here.

I am an optimist - I think things have changed since the Arab wars of the sixties and early seventies, and that you overlook the silent majority of moderate Arabs who want to get on with their lives. It reminds me of the Australian concern over the "yellow peril" in the 1950s (and even today, to a limited extent) - that there are vast hordes of Asians who want to invade Australia and send the white Australians home.

Of course, Israel has historical proof of Arab animosity, because of those wars. But it is history - its common knowledge that Israel military preparedness for an Arab invasion is not good - the Arabs and the Israelis know this, and yet there is no invasion. Egypt might have a large section of its population who view Israel with susupicion and hatred - and who can blame them when they see their fellow Arabs blown up with missiles and their cities occupied. But Egypt has no desire to antagonise Israel - it would rather see peace in the region, as would most of the countries there.

You complain that Arab governments do nothing to curb their citizens from anti-Israeli rhetoric - which again sounds funny from an American, with the high value your country places on freedom of speech.

Your statement

quote:

It just buys Israel a few months or years, while Arabs consolidate for a devastating war on Israel
offers no hope for a resolution of the conflict whatsoever. While there is no resolution and no hope for Palestinians, you can expect more suicide bombings, more deaths, and no peace in Israel. The Israeli people, as well as the Palestinians, deserve more than what you envisage.