"all too often the United States starts by dictating."

So now the United States will be 'taking' dictation.

cue the next terrorist attack on the west.

That's just for public consumption.  Barry's mindset is at least as dictatorial as any we've seen in the White House since Nixon, and I wouldn't be surprised if something quite different is shaking out (or will soon shake out) behind the scenes.

It'll be a long two years.  Then the mid-terms will offer some much-needed correctives to the O-gasm.

Garth

The first overseas leader he called after the inauguration was Abbas.

"But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people," he said."
~Zero

Assuming the Paleosimians have "prosperity and security" as a goal at all when their entire history indicates otherwise is a the hallmark of delusion.

Not only is Abbas not a man who speaks for the Paleosimians, they voted overwhelmingly for Hamas and Abbas leads Fatah which they rejected, but Abbas has never done anything to indicate that he wants prosperity and security for himself or his people.

If Zero wants to make progress, he'll have to do so from a position of Israeli security and that means the Paleosimians get the beatdown every time they launch an attack against Israel.

That was what he was elected to do ... follow everyone else. I predict that Obama will be too scared to take a single step in any direction before polling to find out what the reaction will be. He'll just follow the lead of others.

Maybe the transcripts haven't been cleared yet by the Office of the President Elect? These things take time, you know.

Obama's blank screen projecting all things to all people continues. Seems pretty clear that he will not be providing leadership and that Israel is on their own. Assume Bibi, when he takes over, will know he ought not rely on Obama for anything

I dislike his preamble with "the Arab World" and "the Muslim World". I think that cedes a lot of ground right off. Don't hear him talking about "the British World", "the Christian World", etc.

Oz - I wonder if you can explain how insulting an entire population (Paleosimians) contributes to intelligent discussion?

Further, I wonder if you can explain your proof that Palestinians don't want peace and security. Reacting against the destruction of their farms and homes isn't a sign of a rejection against peace and security.

Again, denigration and insults against people show a perception closed to the use of reason and humanity.

However, the agenda of 'settling the ME' with regard to Israel-Palestine has been a goal of all recent US presidents. So far, this has not succeeded. Obama is right, but it's been said before, that Israel is going to have to make some hard choices (ie, giving up the West Bank). However, I'm convinced that Israel will never do this - and so, the situation remains intractable.

With regard to Obama's manipulation of communication, this is finally becoming a topic of open discussion. The MSM are starting to wake up from The Dream and realize that Obama is a very calculating individual with one focus: himself. The question then moves to whether this focus on himself as The Chosen One will include policies that are good for America and the world, or, the opposite.

My concern is that, as a Marketed Man, i.e., one who is created by himself for the masses as a product for mass consumption, does he have the capacity to know and understand reality outside of this manufactured image? My concern is that he doesn't; that his knowledge of history, societal structures, economics etc is not merely inadequate but that he doesn't have the capacity to move into such analytic perspectives.

To suggest that all America does is dictate without listening is both stupid and counter-productive. Stupid because even the most intractable enemies understand that knowing what your opponent is thinking can be turned to strategic advantage; counter-productive because reinforcing the worst carricature of yourself will earn you no brownie points with those who can't stand you in the first place.

I've got to think that more than a few leaders around the world, like Putin, are licking their chops at the thought of having at the Obidiot.

Oz - I wonder if you can explain how insulting an entire population (Paleosimians) contributes to intelligent discussion?
~ET

First off, ET, there aren't any such people as Palestinians, and people who pretend otherwise are ignorant, biased against Israel, and perpetuating a lie.

I call the Arabs in the Disputed Territories Paleosimians because they are Barbarians who are deserving of ridicule. That these people attempt to lay false claim to the identity of a "Palestinian" people is merely a propaganda ploy.

If there were a people deserving of the moniker Palestinian, it would be Israeli Jews as much as anyone, but somehow the term "Palestinian" specifically excludes them from being entitled to "Palestine".

That the Paleosimians are not interested in "prosperity and security" is evident by the fact that they voted overwhelmingly for Hamas to rule them, over 80%, and they also polled over 80% in favour of the use of suicide bombers during the Second Intifada.

If I have to tell you what Hamas' position on Israel and the Jews is then, ET, you aren't informed enough about this subject to converse with me on it.

Are you wiser now, ET?

"Again, denigration and insults against people show a perception closed to the use of reason and humanity."
~ET

That is your parochial opinion.
I disagree.

I like it though, ET, that you think you have something to contribute to the discussion of the Israel question, no matter how little you know about it.

You really got a lot of people here angry at some of the silly things you said when Israel had to go in to Gaza and stop the rockets.

ET;

I don't pretend to speak for OZ. Presumably he's a big boy and can take care of himself. In answer though to your statement, "I wonder if you can explain your proof that Palestinians don't want peace and security", that they elected Hamas by a sizeable majority, an organization that makes no secret of its desire to see Israel eradicated is a clue.

"Palestinians" had a choice between Hamas and Fatah. They chose to rid themselves of Fatah who held out, dishonestly I think, hopes for "land for peace" in favour of Hamas with the following in its charter.

""Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

It is very fashionable in liberal circles to be down on your own country. This is the new sense of belonging that liberals crave. The new hip. The new "I'm cool".

Note that this attitude is quite distinct from honest and fair criticism of your own country.

Obama doesn't like America, except in so far that it has given him a cushy job, lots of money, and more freedom than he'd have anywhere else.

The chickens will come home to roost eventually.

OZ at 11:35 said; "If there were a people deserving of the moniker Palestinian, it would be Israeli Jews as much as anyone."

Oh how right you are. For those who don't know, after an uprising by the Jews against Roman occupation, the Romans called the land a Latin word that escapes me at the moment that meant "land of the Phillistines", an extremely small minority who lived in the area. It was intended as an insult to the Jews who were the overwhelming majority.

Over time and through translation from Latin, the word morphed into "Palestine". Hence, the original "Palestinians" were Jews.

Pure rhetoric.

Obama's words mean nothing.

Palestinian...
A title adopted by the nomadic arabs who had migrated to the area in the 30's....
Prior to 1967....they were Eygptian (Gaza) or Jordanian (West Bank)........
Many still hold those passports......

Further to my post at 12:03pm and to clarify the term "Palestine", the Ottoman Empire existed from 1299 to 1923. Throughout that time, they didn't refer to the area as "Palestine". It was merely a relatively small piece of the larger whole.

When the British carved up the territory after the WW1, they didn't even think about calling any of it "Palestine", nor did Arab "Palestinians" living on the east side of the Jordan river. As far as I can recall, "Palestine" wasn't mentioned until sometime after either the Six Day or Yom Kippur wars.

Oz - nothing you have said is based on fact but merely on your biased opinion.

Palestine was called such, under the British Mandate post WWI. The people who lived there are now called 'Palestinians'. That is a factual reality. Just as, at one time, there were no such people as 'Canadians' or 'Americans' but we now use those terms to define a population is specific geographic areas.

No, the people living there under and post British mandate were not, and are not now, Barbarians. Kindly define the term. The fact that they voted for Hamas was for its social service infrastructure, against the corruption and failures of Fatah. Do you think they should have chosen Fatah's corruption and incompetence?

I'm surprised that you don't know the real reason why they voted for Hamas; don't know that Hamas was busy for years doing what Fatah was not - namely funding and providing schools, health centres, social services. You don't seem to know very much about the situation in the ME.

A poll? Conducted by whom? And do you seriously think that anyone in that environment of fear would NOT support the Hamas government, which had turned to repression to maintain its control?

Israel' had' to go in to stop the rockets? It has failed to do so and has instead, increased the attraction of Islamic fascism in both the West Bank and Gaza. If Israel really wanted to stop the rockets, it would deal with the economic and political issues; and would enable a Palestinian state. But that means giving up the West Bank and it won't do that.

bob c - your repetition of the rhetoric of Islamic fascists is irrelevant. One can find exactly the same rhetoric, with the opposite view, that Israel is the only 'righteous' owner of the whole land base, among orthodox Jews. And exactly the same rhetoric of rejection of Others; refusal to allow any non-Jew, and specifically Arab, to own or live on that land.

And, no, the original 'philistines' were not Jews. The term has an ancient history of existence in that area, referring to non-semitic non-Judaic tribes in that area - long, long before the Roman era. The two groups were in constant conflict with each other. The Romans conquered this part of the ME and called the whole area, not the different tribes (Judaic and other) 'Palestina'.

Sasquatch - sorry, but the post WWI British mandate called the area Palestine. I doubt if a 1930's passport has any validity. People resident in the Palestinian lands do not have passports; they only have travel documents.

I think the name of these non-Judaic people who've been living in the region for centuries is totally irrelevant to the political decisions. To assert that 'because they didn't live there 3,000 years ago, they now have no right to the land' is rubbish; the same could be said for Canada and the USA and the rest of the world for that matter.

To claim that 'because the people living there in 1948 did not have a particular 'distinct nationality', they have no right to have one now, is equal rubbish; the same could be said for the rest of the pre-nation world.

The facts are; the Palestinians were and are living there. For centuries. Under Ottoman, under British, and etc governance. Since Israel does not want them within its national identity, for their numbers would nullify the required Jewish majority, and since these people were living in that area, owned property, paid taxes - then, they have a right to a land base in that area. In other countries, we removed that right and sent the current inhabitants to 'reservations'. We don't do that anymore.

Therefore, my view is that a Palestinian state is the best solution but, one that is economically embedded within the Israeli economy, and a democracy. Together, these two states would pose an important obstacle to Islamic fascism. As it is now, Islamic fascism is using this situation to increase its fascist membership. Will Israel enable a Palestinian state and a robust Palestinian economy? My view is - no. It won't give up the West Bank.

"we heard god speak here today, god in the flesh, the voice of god"

spoken by a congressman.

About Obama? No

They are about MacArthur when he spoke to congress on his return to the US. He recieved 30 standing ovations - even some of his longtime enemies cried openly.

And then his popularity plummeted and he went nowhere politically after that.

BO's popularity was 76% at the time of the inaugural. 5 days later it's 65%.

ET sorry
Your theology is an act of faith....
I have acquaitances who now claim to be Palestinians---1 with an Eygptian birth certificate and passport and 2 others with Jordanian documentation....
When confronted with the reality that Jewish imigrants purchased land from absentee landlords in the 30's.....their response is.....
SEE SEE....THAT IS HOW THE JEWS STOLE OUR LAND....THEY BOUGHT IT.....
They may not be barbarians but they are not the sharpest knives in the drawer....they fail to associate letting their backyard be a launching pad for rockets, having any association with their house getting whacked......

Sasquatch;

Thanks for the clarification as to when the word "Palestine" resurfaced. It's ironic that it was nomads in the '30s, and not those Arabs who could trace their lineage far back in history who started using the term.

If you can enlighten me, I've always wondered whether the distinction between those Arabs who left Israel when war broke out in 1948, and those who chose to stay, was that the former group were the ones with no deep roots to the area and those who stayed had roots tracing back long, long before the 1930s.

It seems logical to me that those who fled when hostilities broke out in '48 would most likely be the ones who only had only 20 years of history in the area, and that those who stayed would more likely be the ones who had far deeper roots. If so, then the Arab "Palestinians" largely never left, and those who speak of the "right of return" are the relative Johnny come latelies to the area.

sasquatch - your two friends, with their current Egyptian and Jordanian passports cannot also be Palestinian 'citizens'. Jordan, for example, has a clear rule that if any Jordanian citizen applies for Palestinian documentation, he instantly loses his Jordanian citizenship.

Your two friends's ancestral families may have originally been from the Palestine area but they are not now, legally, Palestinians. It's the same for someone who was born in Canada but whose ancestors came, from, eg, Italy.

Equally, some of the land from Palestinians who fled in 1948 became the property of the state, because of the law of 'absentee ownership' where the Palestinian owner had to return to live there, but since this was impossible due to Israeli border restrictions, the land went to the state and was sold. The situation of 'absentee landlords' is another issue, stemming from the old Ottoman landowner's rule which gave title to the elite rather than the peasantry.

As for your comment about 'sharpest knives' that's trivia. Exactly how is a population without power supposed to stop a government? Those people who were against the Iraq War in the US or the Afghan War in Canada weren't able to stop it.

Mr President - listen carefully - very carefully please.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!

Did you hear that? That is the sound of one of your embassies being attacked by radical Islamic jihadists.

Its obvious, Mr. Pepsodent President, that not only have you not been listening, you have not been observing either. You have been so busy running for President since you arrived in the Senate 2 years ago that bad things happening to America by Islamic terrorists have run completely under your radar.

What you don't get is that you cannot have a conversation with an enemy that wants you dead because of your way of life, your religion, your beliefs. There are only two ways to make peace with this enemy - change to their way of life and belief or - destroy them.

They are the ones who fly big planes into tall buildings. Lets sit down and have tea with them. They are the ones who blow up embassies. Lets join hands and sing cum-baya. They are the ones who murder innocent women and children. Make sure you send them birthday card and cake.

Make no mistake about it folks - the war on terror is over.

Obama's middle name of Hussein was verboten to use during the campaign, but added for the inauguration. His middle name led to much of the meme of him being a muslim during his campaign.

You would think that Obama would have chosen any different venue for his FIRST interview than the Arab news organization that he did. The man is nothing less than a total fool.

He also gave Rush Limbaugh another two days of meat for a radio feast.

One could almost believe, because the the obvious backlash that could be expected from his decisions in the first week in office, that there must be some method to his foot-in-mouth affliction. Alas, I think it is because he is totally clueless, and already overwhelmed by the demands of the office.

ET;

You need to re-read my post. I didn't say anything even close to your sloppy characterization. I pointed out the existence of Philistines when I said they were, "an extremely small minority who lived in the area." Clearly, I indicated their existence as predating the Romans re-naming of the place. Perhaps we've discovered why you have the whole issue so screwed up in your head. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

As far as you saying, "your repetition of the rhetoric of Islamic fascists is irrelevant. One can find exactly the same rhetoric, with the opposite view, that Israel is the only 'righteous' owner of the whole land base, among orthodox Jews. And exactly the same rhetoric of rejection of Others; refusal to allow any non-Jew, and specifically Arab, to own or live on that land" allow me to deconstuct it point by point.

1/ The quotes I gave came from the Hamas charter, clearly written and communicated before Gazans voted them into power. Hamas isn't a fringe group, but rather an overwhelmingly elected government.
2/ Orthodox Jews are only a fraction of the Jewish population, NOT its elected government. Whatever their views on the subject are, they are tempered by the majority of non-orthodox. That's a huge difference even if you can't figure it out.
3/ There are 1.5 million Arabs living in Israel today. Guess what? They own their own land and houses, a testament to points one and two.

If your misreading of what I wrote is any indication, you really need to go back and re-read some history, a little slower than you apparently did the first time.

ET - nothing you have said is based on fact but merely on your biased opinion.

Palestine was called such, under the British Mandate post WWI. The people who lived there are now called 'Palestinians' except for the Jews, by you and other anti-semites.

The real reason that the Paleosimians voted for Hamas? They were getting more suicide bombers through to Israel than Fatah was.

You question the poll that showed Paleosimians voted for suicide bombers? Your paltry opinion is not of more weight than a well known poll. You say in one paragraph that the Paleosimians voted for Hamas because of Hamas' social services and then ask "who in an environment of fear would NOT support the Hamas government, which had turned to repression to maintain its control?"
Get your story straight, ET. You are being silly and contradicting yourself.

Israel 'had' to go in to stop the rockets?
YES.
It has failed to stop the rockets?
Because people like you prevent Israel from achieving a secure outcome.

"And, no, the original 'philistines' were not Jews."
~ET

And who, but you ET, has suggested they were? Have you missed taking your lithium today or does the great "teacher" have a reading comprehension problem?

"I think the name of these non-Judaic people who've been living in the region for centuries is totally irrelevant to the political decisions."
~ET

If it's so irrelevant than why did you argue about it in the first place, Et?
Again with the silliness on your part, ET. I say calling them Paleosimians is a better name.

"To claim that 'because the people living there in 1948 did not have a particular 'distinct nationality', they have no right to have one now, is equal rubbish; the same could be said for the rest of the pre-nation world."
~ET

To claim that they aren't entitled to it because they are Barabarians, people who would sacrifice any hope for a prosperous secure future at their altar of hatred for the Jews, is more valid than claiming the Paleosimians are entitled to nationhood.

"The facts are; the Palestinians were and are living there."
~ET

No, Arabs who claim to be Palestinians are living in the Disputed Territories. They aren't Palestinians and more of these peoples apparently live outside the Disputed Territories then inside them. Yasser Arafat, for decades the "head Palestinian" was born in Cairo and was a Colonel in the Egytian Army before founding the PLO.

"Since Israel does not want them within its national identity, for their numbers would nullify the required Jewish majority, and since these people were living in that area, owned property, paid taxes - then, they have a right to a land base in that area."
~ET

Says you. I say they gave the land up when they left in 1948 and don't have a right to it.

"In other countries, we removed that right and sent the current inhabitants to 'reservations'. We don't do that anymore."
~ET

Who is "we" amd what claim does any anti-semite have to speak for Israel?

The rest of your comment, ET, is nonsense since it ignores the reality of the Paleosimian position regarding the Jews. That the Paleosimians want to drive the Jews into the sea.

Barbarian = people who use men, women, and children as suicide bombers and blow up ice cream and pizza parlors. Barbarians use women and children as human shields. Barbarians kidnap soldiers and civilians, torture and murder them, and then use the body parts as bargaining chips. etc.

how and why some people are so wilfully deluded they would argue on behalf of a ruined ruinous with nary a redemptive value people over the welfare of a demonstrably truly great deserving people eludes my understanding...

i truly pity the average palestinian joe six pack.....if such a forgivably abject self lacerating creature exists...he hasn't one chance in a thousand.....he has chosen dishonour ignorance and death in all it's forms...and so he shall have it.

bob c- I think you are the one with the reading problem; my reply to you was to your reference that the 'original philistines' were Jews. I wasn't talking, to you, about their history in the area.

Where did I say that Hamas was a 'fringe group'? My reply was to your view that they were elected for their fascism, when I was saying that they were elected by, unlike Fatah, they were providing social services.

Equally, your view that those who left in 1948 were 'recent'; while those were stayed had been there longer is pure speculation; I think a factual data base has more merit.

Orthodox (and Conservative) Judaism has an important voice in the Israeli political decisions; that includes the insistence that the West Bank is, by 'god's word', the property of Israel.

Oz-your post is filled with bias, pure rubbish and hatred; there's not one item, not a shred of data or truth in your remarks and I won't even bother answering it. I suspect, moreover, that your name of 'OZ' is a new one and that you post here quite frequently using another name (ID); someone with whom I won't interact because he, like you, has moved outside of the use of facts and reason.

ET-your post is filled with bias, pure rubbish and anti-semitism; there's not one item, not a shred of data or truth in your remarks and I won't even bother answering it.

That you asked for an explanation for my term, Paleosimians, I won't even bring up again.

Furthmore I won't deign to bring up your silly irrelevant reference to the Philistines either.

That you, ET, yourself make up facts and ignore the atrocities that these Paleosimians perpetrate against a civilized people, Israel, and against Americans who have come to aid them shows you are the bearer of hatred, not I.

As to my nic being other than what I always post here under, I won't dignify that with any need to defend myself.

john begley - there's no such thing as 'good' or 'evil' people (plural). There are only good and evil individuals; good and evil ideologies; good and evil actions.

To characterize a whole population as either good or evil is the essence of, not merely ignorance, but its effect as 'racism'. Such views have been held by many over the years and that doesn't make them any more valid now than they were in years long past.

Why did the West save Hamas? Barry Rubin
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA and other GLORIA Center publications or to order books, visit http://www.gloriacenter.org.

he says this and more: (emphasis his)
The world demands peace but isn’t prepared to do too much to help. The West’s basic stand is to keep Hamas ruling Gaza, comparable to ensuring continued Taliban rule in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. Thanks to such international “support” Gaza’s people will be able to “enjoy” a dictatorial regime dedicated to spending the next century fighting—and losing–wars.

Remember, that the Hamas regime was not elected as such. Yes, it won an election but then seized total power by a bloody coup against the PA. Now, it imposes a radical Islamist regime on its unfortunate subjects. Hamas has no policy for creating jobs or raising living standards. Its educational system doesn’t teach useful skills or civic virtues but indoctrinates children with the ambition to become suicide bombers.

So the world should consider. Is this the kind of regime you want to save and succor? Do you want to keep Hamas in power when even most Arab states would like to see it fall? Why talk about a peace process while following a policy ensuring no peace process can succeed.
Aid money to rebuild in Gaza and sustain Palestinian society must be kept out of Hamas’s hands. Not only would Hamas use such funds for military purposes, it would also steal them from being used for real relief. For example, Hamas cries there is not enough fuel but that is because it diverts gasoline from civilian purposes for its own use.
we should remember the aims of the two sides. Israel’s goal is very modest: security for its citizens, no cross-border attacks. Hamas’s goal is the destruction of Israel, wiping out its citizens, revolution throughout the Middle East, treating women as chattel, and the creation of what it considers to be Allah’s government on earth.

Knowing that, you can decide which side to support.

ex-liberal - I agree with what Barry Rubin wrote.

Indeed, Hamas was not elected for its current repressive rule and its fascism - and those here who claim that it was are quite incorrect - but for its social welfare activities in Gaza and against Fatah corruption.

Once elected, it immediately began a coup against that corrupt and ineffectual Fatah and moved that 'set' out to the West Bank. Hamas now runs Gaza with a totalitarian rule which effectively dispossesses the Palestinians there of an voice or power. It's a fascist gang that happens to locate itself in Gaza but it certainly isn't doing the people there any good.

What would be best? Yes, take it out. However, I don't think that this can be done that easily militarily because of its ties, whether in the public eye or in actual fact with both Iran and also, with Islamic fascism.

I maintain that the best strategy, a much slower and more difficult task admittedly, is to enable the Palestinian people themselves to have a robust economy in the West Bank and Gaza, within a state of their own, and Hamas will lose its power to terrorize their own people.

no matter how many words are used or how many lives are lost israel will not cease to exist. all around her might, but not israel.

Obama's outstretched hand seems to be handing over the keys to the United States of America. Talk about a deathwish. He's already being called a traitor. Wait 'til he actually starts giving concessions to America's "traditional" enemies.

New presidents usually talk to their allies first, before negotiating with their "enemies". His strategy might very well be effective, but it's going to alienate a huge chunk of Americans.

Looks to me O H B's first interview sets a bad precident:
He starts by bending over...not good.

Oz, I've stopped reading your posts.

Obama is saying to the Republians that their decision on his so-called 'stimulus package' (which many are saying isn't actually a stimulus and in addition, has serious flaws)...shouldn't be based on 'political partisanship'.

Neat. He is effectively saying that IF you disagree with him, it is because YOU are the problem. It isn't the case that Obama's programs are wrong. No, YOU are the problem; YOU are biased.

Quite the strategy. Watch for it. As a narcissist, he can't admit error. He'll be using this strategy a lot. YOU are the problem. Not him or his actions.

'Palestinians' don't want peace. Their stated goal is the illumination of Israel, period.
The US brokered a deal in 2000 that would have given Palestinians control over most of the disputed lands.
Arafat killed the deal.

Won't negotiate.
Won't stop attacking.
Won't survive.

ET at 2:55 said, "bob c- I think you are the one with the reading problem; my reply to you was to your reference that the 'original philistines' were Jews."

Although it's unlikely that you intended it, thank you for confirming my point ET. To make sure that anyone who might be reading this gets it, here is the relevant part of my 2:03pm post you refer too.

"For those who don't know, after an uprising by the Jews against Roman occupation, the Romans called the land a Latin word that escapes me at the moment that meant "land of the Phillistines", an extremely small minority who lived in the area. It was intended as an insult to the Jews who were the overwhelming majority."

So what we've got here ET is a clear distinction being made on my part between "minority" Philistines and "majority" Jews, with you mischaracterizing my words not once, but twice.

If I were you at this point, I'd cop to a comprehension problem. The only alternatives to that are intellectual laziness on your part that calls into question how much faith people should have in your opinions or that you intentionally chose to misquote me at least once betraying a dishonesty to your arguments. Admittedly, it isn't a great choice, but I'd rather someone thought I had occasional bouts of dyslexia or some such rather than that I was intellectually lazy and/or dishonest. Sorry, but you put yourself here.

In response to your second question, "Where did I say that Hamas was a 'fringe group'?" How about in your 12:55 post to OZ where you try to refute his argument that their radical views are widely supported throughout Gaza by saying, "I'm surprised that you don't know the real reason why they voted for Hamas" "namely funding and providing schools, health centres, social services.".

How about in the same post where you try the same with me by saying, "bob c - your repetition of the rhetoric of Islamic fascists is irrelevant. One can find exactly the same rhetoric, with the opposite view, that Israel is the only 'righteous' owner of the whole land base, among orthodox Jews."

Sorry ET, but you can't have it both ways. If you want to argue that Gazans don't share the extreme views of Hamas, then Hamas is on the perifery or the fringe of mainstream Gazan thought. Pick another word to describe it if you prefer, but it's baldly contradictory to then ask me where you've ever suggested such a thing.

Last but not least, your statement, "Equally, your view that those who left in 1948 were 'recent'; while those were stayed had been there longer is pure speculation."

You see, again the comprehension problem rears its head. I quite clearly said, "I've always WONDERED (my emphasis so you don't miss it this time) whether the distinction between those Arabs who left Israel when war broke out in 1948, and those who chose to stay, was that the former group were the ones with no deep roots to the area and those who stayed had roots tracing back long, long before the 1930s." and it sailed right over your head.

The operative word is "wonder" which is defined as "to think or speculate curiously". Yes ET, I was speculating. I commend you for figuring that out, yet wonder why you couldn't see that I made a point of saying so upfront. I'm going to stick with the thought that you can get help with this problem, otherwise I'm left to conclude that you're a semi-informed person who grasps at fallacious arguments to defend the indefensible. I prefer to think better of you. If I'm wrong, you might consider the first rule of holes. When in one, stop digging.

BO is a weak sister. He's not near as smart as his minions in the press make him out to be or as he thinks he is. Even our ethically and morally impaired press will get tired of covering for him: Sooner rather than later, it appears.

First phone calls were to the middle east. First live interview was on Al Arabya. One of his first Executive Orders was to shut down Gitmo. If this was the leader of one of our allies, we be doing intel estimates about him turning.