Annapolis: A Waste of Time and Effort?

From the desk of Marc Huybrechts on Fri, 2007-11-23 15:06

Next week a conference will be held in Annapolis, the capital city of the American state of Maryland, in an attempt by the Bush Administration to achieve an ‘independent’ Palestinian state and Arab-Israeli ‘peace’.    Does this make sense from an American perspective, or even a Western perspective?   If history is any guide, it does not make much sense, but the American left and ‘Europe’ demand American “re-engagement”, and neither has been very much guided by history in recent times.    So, President Bush still hopes to score a foreign policy victory before his time is up, and Condoleezza Rice has diligently laid the groundwork.  The invitations have been sent out and, this weekend, several Arab governments are still trying to decide whether to attend or not at a senior level.

 

Ex Ante versus Ex Post

It is of course always risky to comment ex ante, before the actual events occur.  But, in some cases speculative discussions of that nature make more sense than in other cases, simply because the past conveys much useful information about the future.  So, here goes limited commentary involving extremely low expectations.  By contrast, in the coming weeks much ex post commentary is to be expected, i.e. the usual Monday-morning-quarterbacking for which the media are famous, in order to explain the umpteenth failure.   

The Fashionable Onus 

It is now fashionable, at least in Europe and in the Middle East, to place responsibility for most international crises on the U.S. government.  They do not place it on UN inaction, not on the ‘local actors’, and certainly not on themselves, but on the U.S. government, and especially on ‘cowboy’ Bush.  How convenient, indeed.  

When William Jefferson Clinton, less than 10 years ago, intervened in Kosovo, in order to stop Milosovic from further massacring Muslims in south-eastern Europe, the European ‘allies’ (and certainly Muslim leaders in the Middle East) privately wanted the American intervention, but initially they publicly distanced themselves from it.  After all, they had been playing the card of anti-Americanism for so long now, that any association with the ‘desired’ American intervention was politically risky for them.   And, indeed, that political risk was not imaginary.  Tens of thousands of Europeans marched then through European capitals behind fashionable slogans, some even sillier than the next.  I particularly fancied the one that said “Stop Clinton bombing to protect American markets”.  No great budding economist could have been behind that one. 

The point is not to make a definitive judgment about the pros and cons of the Kosovo intervention, but the point is that European and Arab leaders wanted the US to shoulder the burden of the necessary effort.  And so it is, today, with Iran, with Taiwan, with Sudan, with North Korea….and with….Palestine.  

Prediction

Given the long list of historical precedents concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict, the most sensible prediction about the likely outcome of the Annapolis meetings goes as follows:  the meetings will not produce satisfactory results, Israel will be blamed for lack of ‘insufficient’ concessions, and the Bush Administration will be blamed for ‘failure to engage’ sufficiently.   What will be forgotten is the failure of Arab leaders to make peace with Israel, and the inability of European leaders to deliver such peace.    So, the question remains: why do George and Condi bother?

Historical markers

1) In 1947, it was the Arab bloc that rejected the UN’s partition plan for 2 states in Palestine, Arab and Jewish, living side by side.  They refused then to coexist with the nascent Jewish state – with any Jewish state in their midst - and they chose to try to wipe it off the map.  They wanted the Jews in their ‘proper place’, like the Copts, the Kurds, the Berbers, etc… But, the point is that the rejection of the UN Partition Plan was not an American decision.

2) Between 1948 and 1967, the Arab world could easily have created a Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank, since Arab states were in possession of that territory.  They did not do so.  Why not?  Ask them.  But this was not an American non-decision.    

3) After the 1967 war did not go according to their ‘plan’, the Arab bloc held its “Three-No’s” summer conference in Khartoum.  They said no to peace with Israel, to negotiation with Israel, and to recognition of Israel.  No American decision was involved there either.  

4) Between 1993 and 2000, during the famous ‘Oslo-Process’, Bill Clinton (who craves attention and loves to be liked) did his utmost best to ‘court’ Arafat (of Nobel Price fame), only to see him reject an independent Palestinian state and to start a new ‘Intifada’, i.e. a four-year bombing campaign against Israel’s civilian population.  The result was twofold: collapse of the Palestinian economy, and Israel’s decision to start building its well-known security fence (which eased the terror problem substantially).   These were not Clinton’s choices, nor America’s. 

5) In 2005, Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza.  What a mistake that was!  Did the Arab World grab the opportunity for a ‘fresh start’ there?  Create opportunities for a long-suffering population?  Invest a small fraction of the petrodollars accumulating in several Arab countries’ coffers?   No, they did not.  The EU and the USA, however, did send loads of money and ‘advice’.    What happened on the ground?  Hamas kicked out Fatah, intensified its missile-launching campaign against neighboring Israeli civilian centers, Western money dried up, and despair went through the roof.  How was ‘cowboy Bush’ supposed to stop all that?  

Remaining question

Obviously, the above-mentioned historical markers were selectively chosen, and do not ‘exhaust’ the Arab-Israeli conflict, far from it.  But what does this record clearly show?  It shows that the United States cannot prevent the Palestinians and their Arab backers from making exceedingly poor choices, not once, not twice, but consistently.  It also shows that the Arab and Muslim world, despite being a ‘secure’ world bloc of about 60 countries and awash in petrodollars and euros, has not seen fit (and certainly not managed) to reach out and make a reasonable accommodation with the small Jewish state.  The Germans certainly behaved more realistically, and humbly, after ww2.  The record also shows that the Europeans cannot deliver, in part because their leaders are averse of taking on the political risks involved.  They prefer Washington to keep shouldering the burden, and thus push for its “engagement”. 

So, the question remains: given the historical record, why do George and Condi bother?  Why are they willing to set themselves up for ‘failure’, i.e. for the predictable outcome stated above?   Why don’t they let the Arabs make ‘peace’?  The latter can afford it, for they certainly have the resources and money to do so, particularly with some help from their European friends.

Remember Oslo

Submitted by Frodo42 on Sun, 2007-12-02 00:20.

Now, I won't waste too many innocent pixels over this yet-another-photoop agreement. Instead, I'll point to something practical:

 

Rather than piling up new 'agreements' and peace proposals, how about we actually *use* the ones we already have? Piling on more deflates the value of all of them.

 

What we could do, simple and practically, is to demand the Palestinians to fulfil the 5 points from the Oslo Accords. And make *any* kind of aid, be it food, medicine or whatever, be contingent on actual performance on these reasonably simple items - most notably to stop teaching children hatred of Israel and Jews.

 

Yes, it will cause suffering. But we need the firmness to avoid even worse suffering in the future. It's a lesson of responsibility to the Palestinians leadership. Badly needed, and urgent that we insist on teaching them.

Oh, Israel left Gaza. They deserve credit and support for that. But I guess that's almost too obvious to even state :)

@ Frodo

Submitted by logicalman on Sun, 2007-12-02 04:23.

Demanding the Palestinians to fulfil the 5 points from the Oslo Accords id easier said than done, given Western's spineless governments and their dependence on Arab oil.

With the Qu'ran's teachings of taqyyah and other deceptive practices, rational and contractual behavior can be hardly expected from people who brainwash their children into suicide-bombers. All one can practically say is Satan is very crafty.

An utter failure

Submitted by pet85022 on Tue, 2007-11-27 00:02.

A conference will be held in Annapolis, the capital city of the American state of Maryland, in an attempt by the Bush Administration to achieve an ‘independent’ Palestinian state and Arab-Israeli ‘peace’.The Palestinians do not want peace it would give them nothing to do. The Palestinians have proven over and over again they can not formulate and live in a stable society.
This conference will be an utter failure just like ALL the others. WHY? Because of the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.
Look at how Christians, Jews, blacks, intellectuals and artists have dealt with Islamic doctrine and history. In every case their primary ideas fail.

Christians believe that “love conquers all.” Well, love does not conquer Islam. Christians have a difficult time seeing Islam as a political doctrine, not a religion. The sectarian nature of Christian thought means that the average non-Orthodox Christian has no knowledge or sympathy about the Orthodox Christian’s suffering.

Jews have a theology that posits a unique relationship between Jews and the creator-god of the universe. But Islam sees the Jews as apes who corrupted the Old Testament. Jews see no connection between Islam’s political doctrine and Israel.

Black intellectuals have based their ideas on the slave/victim status and how wrong it was for white Christians to make them slaves. Islam has never acknowledged any of the pain and suffering it has caused in Africa with its 1400-year-old slave trade. But blacks make no attempt to get an apology from Muslims and are silent in the presence of Islam. Why? Is it because Arabs are their masters?

Multiculturalism is bankrupt against Islam’s demand for every civilization to submit. The culture of tolerance collapses in the face of the sacred intolerance of dualistic ethics. Intellectuals respond by ignoring the failure.

Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.
We must learn the doctrine of political Islam to survive. The doctrine is very clear that all forms of force and persuasion may and must be used to conquer us. Islam is a self-declared enemy of all unbelievers. The brilliant Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tsu, had the dictum—know the enemy. We must know the doctrine of our enemy or be annihilated.

The sheiks and mullahs of conquering Islam don't give a hoot about the hearts and minds of the West (the place that used to be called Christendom). They figure, not without justification, that if they get us by the balls, our hearts and minds will follow. This phrase, by the way, usually attributed to John Wayne, is a rare example of successful cross-pollination between the West and the East. It comes from cowboy country, but even Taliban-types understand it.

We're fortunate, though. To grab us by the balls, the Islamofascists would first have to find them. Good luck.

marcfrans

Submitted by Vincep1974 on Sun, 2007-11-25 04:57.

A lot of us earlier Bush supporters are completely nonplussed with what he's been doing the past year.

I would appear on the face of things that he's given Condi Rice free reign to come up with policy and advance it.

That the State Dept would come up wiht this lame meeting is totally within their pattern of imcomptence , so that behavior is easily understood.

Back to Bush.. why is he caving?  After all , he basically told the Palestinians to go scratch during the lifetime of Yassir Arafat.

 

I've heard it suggested that the US went to great lenghts last year during the Lebanon War to give Israel the total Green Light to annihilate Hezbelloh... the US gave Israel more than 30 days to go into Lebanon and get the job done

And ISRAEL SCREWED IT ALL UP

The theory is that the US paid some unknown price to some unknown arab countries to give Israel that room to manuever.. and since israel let everyone down, the arab parties are now cashing in their debt.

 

I have no idea if that's true.. but to me it's the most plausible sort of explaination short  of total and complete policy incompetence in our Federal Govt

 

But regardless the reason. the fact they're having this meeting is disturbing to me. Nothing good has ever come from these things.

The complexity of the Middle East black hole gets worse and worse and will keep getting worse until Iran is removed as an issue. 

Why they're going to stir the ratnest in the sewer that is the Palestinian terroritories , i dont know... 

I sort of give up.  The United States does not have the cultural ability to deal with the Middle East.. why history put us in this situation is some cruel fate. Dealing with one country that has deceptive leadership is one thing... dealing with a region of over 20 countries .. all of which are totallly consistant in regards to the untruthworthiness of Arab/Muslim duplicitiy and there's no way we're going to be a positive force..  we're going to be used and then destroyed from all this.

 

Nataraja

Submitted by Vincep1974 on Sun, 2007-11-25 04:40.

My response is... yes, it's true.. many Chrisitans think the 2nd Coming is coming soon. However no one knows that for sure.

Usually when people point out the eschatological connection the motivation is to reveal some alterior motive that the Christians have.. ie: the Christians want/need the Jews to get attacked to get their religious promise.

So I'm going to assume your true motivation was to hint at that.

The End Time scenerio depicts an impotent Israel being attacked with brutal force with no hope for self-survival.

  whose policies would lead to such a condition in Israel...

The Christians who know the "Peace Process" is a delusion and say Israel should give no more land to the Arabs ? The Christians want to see a muscular Israeli military posture against the Palestinians .. to basically militarly defeat them.

or the conventional wisdom such as the Arabists in the State Department who want to give Temple Mount to Arab soverignity and establish a Palestinian State in the territories?

The policy position is simple.. if someone wants to see an Israel such as that in the End Time, then keep going with this peace process and giving the arabs everything they want. that will ensure a weak and enfeabled Israel.

 

If Christians wanted a weak Israel, then Christians would be advocating for Israels continuation of the Peace Process and demand israel make endless concessions.

Zionist Christians know the Arab-side has no interest in peace and is bent on war.

So to wrap up.. Christians DO NOT WANT harm to come to Israel.. even if that means Israel maintin her strength so that she does not get to the ppoint of weakness that the bible says she will eventually be in.

So you're wrong.. the constinituincies are DEAD-SET AGAINST this meeting.

 

The real reason...

Submitted by loikll on Sun, 2007-11-25 04:25.

Nothing useful will be accomplished, but everyone will feel better after they eat the delicious Chesapeake Bay crabcakes.

 

 

The question was.....

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2007-11-24 19:18.

...."Why do George and Condi bother?".  But remember, it was asked in the context of predicted and predictable 'failure' and blame (in western media) for Israel and for 'cowboy' Bush. 

 

1) The LEAST sensible response came in the oneliner from 'Nataraja'.  How another failed conference, organised by an American President, could advance the 'Second Coming' and, more broadly, the goals of Christian Zionism is a great mystery.  In fact, it does not make sense.  Even, if the conference were to 'succeed', i.e. by leading to the creation of a Palestinian state, how on earth could that advance the cause of Christian zionism?  It also does not make sense to assume that Bush would have waited 7 years in order to try to appease his presumed 'constituencies'.  The observable facts show a different trend, one of Bush increasingly offending some of his erstwhile strongest constituencies.   Maybe, Nataraja should better focus on what has actually happened to the dwindling numbers of christians and jews in muslim/Arab countries over the past century, instead of worrying about any 'Second Coming'.  The ability to make honest observations in the real world is always a better guide than any religious or ideological dogmas could ever be.

2) By contrast, Andrew X and 'traveller' make a lot of sense in their comments and I agree with most of them.  But, they do not really address the question asked, beyond referring to a "crazy pokergame" (traveller) and "fertile ground for..major breakthrough" (Andrew X), which implies that they do not accept the premise of predictable 'failure' for the conference.  That is of course (still) a reasonable position to take, although it seems to go against the grain of historical experience over the past century. 

3) Kapitein Andre does not address the question asked either and, as usual, focuses on selective individual sentences instead of the big picture.   His contention that there are any (significant) "US forces stationed in Saudi Arabia" is factually wrong.  These forces are based in Kuwait (and in some smaller Gulf States).   But I think he is very right in hypothesizing that most Arab leaders do NOT want a 'two-state solution' (i.e. an independent Palestinian state next to Israel).  That makes the question even more pressing: Why do George and Condi bother?  In his last point the Kapitein does not explicitly express an opinion, but he says that the EU is not "an advocate of hard power".  Does that mean that European leaders today do no longer understand the Arab mindset?  To repeat Traveller's point: unlike most Europeans and other lefty Bill-Clinton westerners, Arabs typically do not crave to be 'loved' or liked, but they do respect power in general, and powerful leaders in particular. Whether they will admit that openly to westerners, or not, is another point altogether....  

4) Finally, Vincep1974 (still young) and Quijybo  agree with the implicit answer in the title of the article.  This conference does not make much sense from an American - and even a Western - perspective.

More for Bush/Condi

Submitted by Quijybo on Sat, 2007-11-24 21:21.

This conference is likely to be the capstone of the Bush Admin's efforts on the Israel-Arab front. I do not think anyone in the forum is under any illusions of the conflict being settled; Clinton more or less proved that the Palestinians are unable to make the concessions necessary for peace with Israel, and no Israeli leader will make another similar offer (let alone the national suicide that the Palestinians could accept), though they will hint at it to satisfy the media and shore up their hopelessly forlorn image.

These parleys are all about showing relevance. No western can solve the Israel-Arab conflict, but the form it takes changes, and to guide that change is a worthy goal in and of itself. That the Saudis even created a "peace plan", albeit one that dooms Israel, is evidence that the peace process itself changes the nature of the conflict. Whether or not it is valuable for the Saudi Dracul to engage in the pretense of recognizing the Jews as sovereign on formerly Muslim land is itself an interesting question.

It could be that the Iranian threat, primarily to the Saudis and Egyptians, is the true subtext to all this shucking and jiving before, and presumably during, Annapolis. The suggestion of acceptance of Israel by the Arab powers could weaken and isolate Iran. We are however talking about a kingdom of lies and it is very hard to ascertain what the interests the various parties see in participating, or not participating, but we can all be sure no one thinks peace is around the corner.

A waste of time indeed...for Israel at least

Submitted by Quijybo on Sat, 2007-11-24 17:11.

Peace is not made by weak leaders like Olmert and Abbas.  Peace is not made by compromise between enemies who are inimical to it, either by ideology or by security needs.  Peace is made between a victorious nation and a defeated nation.  Israel cannot really defeat the Arabs, for many reasons.  The Palestinians would not exist as a nation (at least in their present distorted form) without Israel to define themselves against, and it seems to me that defeat is part of their national ethos and the Palestinian polis is impervious to its effects. 

 

Abbas cannot make any concessions, not with Hamas at his heels, not with his population reared on dreams of reconquista and return, perhaps merely not with Islam poisoning their worldview.  Of course, it is possible some good can come out of the summit, for the Bush Administration at least.  Getting the Saudis and the Israelis in the same room, for instance, is a big accomplishment.  The Saudis are the sponsor of the prevalent Arab suicide pill for Israel, which has been masqueraded as a reasonable offer, and they want to appear reasonable so they will likely come.  As a key US ally, vampiric though they may be, and the most important Islamic nation, just coming to a parley that involves the perfidious ex-dhimmi Jews also shows respect for US desires.  That alone is a coup for Bush.
 

Perhaps, though, the summit will lead to a renewed intifada.  The Palestinian emigration rate climbs when violence flares up, so Israel might gain as well. 

@ Marc Huybrechts

Submitted by traveller on Fri, 2007-11-23 19:07.

Yes and no.

Recently I came to the conclusion, at my very big surprise, that the US is winning in Iraq, due to the cooperation of sunni tribal chiefs and arab shia, something I never thought possible.

The attack of Israel in Syria, a couple of weeks ago, must have really shocked them, since Syria didn't even talk to much about it.
Those things are definitely known to Hamas.

I wonder if the US is not stronger today than we suspect and definitely stronger than what the media want us to believe.

It could be another crazy pokergame by Bush where he feels he has a chance to come out on top.

 

@ Kapitein Andre

 

Sorry, but Europe doesn't mean a thing in Arabia. They know and play on the predictability of the europeans but they are definitely not impressed by them.

I know personally arab leaders who are officially totally anti-american but would give their right arm to be acceptable to Bush and visit the White House.

  OK, lemme take a crack

Submitted by Andrew X on Fri, 2007-11-23 18:51.

 

OK, lemme take a crack at a defense of all this, as I am inclined to defend the administration, even if irrationally, just as others are inclined to, extremely irrationally in many cases, attack it.  And let God sort it out, if you will.

 

What happens in Annapolis may largely be the culmination of a vast part of the entire purpose for the Iraq War, a purpose that was in fact made clear from the start. It wasn’t about OIL!!!  and it wasn’t about George Bush feeling pissy and wanting to hit someone or any of that unmitigated crap that has been spewed.

 

The wars overall purpose has always been to take a sledgehammer to the entire edifice of the modern, thoroughly corrupt, rotting, dying, Middle East, whose gangrenous limbs were reaching out to bring down skyscrapers in New York. Saddam Hussein was an iron foundation of that stinking corpse.

 

The effort has been far from perfect, ugly, disheartening, three steps forward, two back, etc etc.

 

But huge steps have been made, even if the New York Times, BBC and the lot are utterly incapable of seeing it and/or reporting on same.

 

Those steps include a vast repudiation of Al Queda and it’s ilk by huge swaths of Iraqi society, and beyond, and a genuine vision of an Arab society without a tyrannical “Big Man”, something never ever seen before, something that also extends beyond Iraq.

 

Also, history shows that to fight a war with another people is in many ways to embrace them, whether by desire or not. In this sense, Iraq itself has been pulled into “the Core” of civilized societies. Much of the rest of Arabia can be, are being, brought with them.

 

Then there is the empowerment of Iran. A bad thing, many say with good reason, but it does have one salutary effect. There are actual Arabs in power who see Iran as a bigger threat than Israel. This is a concept called “sanity” among Arab rulers, a pretty new phenomena, at least as far as Israel is concerned.

 

Bottom line: It is a very different Middle East than it was every single time this has been tried before. The Palestinians are living in that very different Middle East. Now add the eight year phenomena of, for all the rage and idiocy directed at Mr. Bush, at least at this point Arab leaders et al think they have a “feel” for this guy. A year and a half from now, who the hell knows?

 

So it might very well be fertile ground right now at this moment for some sort of major breakthrough. Many, particularly at certain other blogs who shall remain nameless, simply think there is nothing to negotiate over Palestine, no way, no place, no time, no how, end of discussion. I do not agree,  

 

Are they right and I am wrong? Maybe. I don’t know.

 

But I do say give it a shot. It ain’t 1995 or 2002 over there by a long shot. And that is a very good thing.

The ugly truth

Submitted by Rob the Ugly American on Fri, 2007-11-23 18:48.

is that Arabs in the Mid-east just don't seem to want peace; they don't have much else to do, so hatred takes their minds off the fact that they have no say in how their countries are run and very little economic prospects, so who can blame them? They get fed this steady stream of anti-US and anti-Jew propaganda, made legitimate by similar propaganda that's been coming from Europe for decades. The Clinton years were dominated by the question why do Europeans hate us; the Bush years were dominated by a big shrug to this question, the knowledge that countries in decline that were once world powers (Rumsfeld's famous 'old Europe' quip) are bound to hate the upstart, and European power had declined to such an extent that maybe it didn't matter if the Europeans still hated us.

But, it does matter to the extent that the extreme anti-US and anti-Jew propaganda coming from Europe (where it's about as safe to be a Jew these days as 1930s Germany) reinforces the Arab mindset of persecution and hate. So, why Annapolis?

Because Americans don't want to be hated, and so, every so often, whether it's in the Arab world or Europe, we need to know how irrational the hatred of the natives is toward us.

In Reply to Marc Hubrechts

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Fri, 2007-11-23 17:07.

Huybrechts: ...the United States cannot prevent the Palestinians and their Arab backers from making exceedingly poor choices, not once, not twice, but consistently.

 

Agreed, however, the United States is a very important actor in the Middle East region, due in no small part to its aid to and support of various governments that face internal and external threats. Moreover, the United States considers access to Middle Eastern energy resources, in particular oil and gas, to be a major strategic national interest. Furthermore, the United States armed forces maintains a presence in several states and has occupied others e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan. Indeed, it surprises me that U.S. forces are stationed in Saudi Arabia considering the resistance of the latter's population to their presence. Perhaps there is a dual purpose, not unlike the GSFG or the Soviet tank armies hiding in the Polish forests: they ensure that the Saudi regime tows the line, but also protect it from the Islamic extremists determined to tear it down.

 

Due to the failure of Middle Eastern regionalism, including CENTO, the Arab Union and the Arab Maghreb Union, any regional cooperation will be largely U.S. or E.U.-led.

 

Huybrechts: It also shows that the Arab and Muslim world, despite being a ‘secure’ world bloc of about 60 countries and awash in petrodollars and euros, has not seen fit (and certainly not managed) to reach out and make a reasonable accommodation with the small Jewish state.

 

Resolving the Palestinian question would create further questions e.g. why did you support the Jewish State (by considering a two-state solution)? If external peace is achieved, internal discord will heighten and Islamic extremists' pursuit of political power will intensify.

 

Huybrechts: The record also shows that the Europeans cannot deliver, in part because their leaders are averse of taking on the political risks involved.  They prefer Washington to keep shouldering the burden, and thus push for its “engagement”.

 

Though not advocates of hard power, the E.U. is vital to Middle Eastern regionalism. The AMU countries have stronger bilateral relations with the E.U. than with each other or their former Arab Union partners. Furthermore, Euro-Mediterranean initiatives seem more realistic given current economic and demographic links than any other regional project.

@Vincep1974

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-11-23 16:40.

Hey,Vincep,stop beating about the BUSH and tell us all what's  really on your mind. ;-)

Annapolis disaster

Submitted by Vincep1974 on Fri, 2007-11-23 16:20.

I'm an American and I am outraged that this conference was even conceived.

There is something so fundamentally flawed in my government that it would do this.

How fucking stupid are they.  Who in the world doesn't know the Arabs want war not peace... Who in the world doesn't know the Arabs will tell any lie as long as they can get Israel to give them more and more.

More fundamentally... haven't these idiot people in my government figured out that Land for Peace didnt work for Hitler.  It didnt work in South Lebanon in 2000. It didnt work in Gaza in 2005.

Christ.. haven't these fools watched the Farfour and Nabul show?  Dont they know the future the Arabs have prepared for us?

I spit on them all.