If you look at the intelligence documents that existed prior to the creation of Israel, you'll see that political destabilization, economic decline and social fragmentation were considered natural corollaries to the partition of Palestine.

 

It was anticipated, from the beginning, that Israel would significantly disrupt the Middle East.

HYou are a sick puppy, you know that?

The PA demands something that was never theirs. If they can prove it beyond 1967 that they have any claims I am prepared to listen. In the meantime whoever is a land grabber this are the Arabs.

"I think "Apartheid" may be an apt description of the way Israel treats its Arab citizens, But I don't agree that it is "racist" for israel to try to mantain its Jewish character by limiting Arab immigration."

 

I must disagree with bwong on his statement that Israel is limiting Arab immigration. The use of the term immigration is absolutely wrong in this case and turns the facts upside down.

A quick check on the Meriam-Webster dictionary online tells you that to immigrate is to come into a country of which one is not a native for permanent residence.
So how can the Palestinian Arabs, natives of the country, be immigrating to their own homes, cities and the land they were forcefully ethnically cleansed from hardly fifty some years ago?

What Israel is blocking (not limiting) is the rightful return of these refugees. Definitely an immoral act apart from being unlawful.

look at the map..see the border in 1967 ? hamas does appear moderate when it ask for a withdrawal right? Look at the today' map and land grab.. and tell me It was MODERATE..

now read the hamas elected representative..

rock trowing as if tanks were not enough!

moderation moderation

some smart israeli one hundred years ago

[where is your sens of humour?]

Noam -

Your skewed view of the world apparently hasn't changed since I heard of you 30 years ago. Where did you get your education? From reading the Protocals of the Elders of Zion. Nothing like reading your garbage to make me feel optimistic about the power of Israel!!

JB 

 

 

"Hamas has stated unequivocally that it's intended aim is the destruction of Israel. In light thereof explain why Hamas are, 'in crucial respects', more moderate than Israel."

I think it's important to remember that though Hamas does take that stand, it does not define them. The Palestinians that voted for them backed them for other reasons; public services and whatever. Hamas, as a political organism, can change on that issue and can do so especially since it's not the stance that got them into office.

Remember- Fatah also once stated that they intended to destroy Israel and, like with Hamas now, Israel and the US viewed them as a terrorist organization.

The recent Israeli attacks against Palestinians are clearly Israel's attempt to undermine the promising talks between Abbas and Hamas regarding the 18-point plan. The 18-point plan calls for a two-state solution and is approved by 80% of Palestinians. Were the plan to be accepted by Hamas, Israel would be facing a terrible problem: the possibility of actually having to negotiate with Palestine. The renewed Israeli attacks have prompted Hammas to end its ceasefire and effectively moves the conflict out of the theatre of diplomacy and into the theatre of violence, where Israel is far superior. The destabilization of Palestine-caused by the attacks and the financial choke- gives Israel the excuse to go ahead with its unilateral “convergence plan”, which is opposed by 56% of Israelis according to a Haaretz-Dialog poll.

Canadian government is going to withold Palestinian monies.. I am an ASHAMED Canadian..

hey cyrano...

get a life....chucking the same ol same ol mindless garbage.....

the only reason the us are still there is because there's a strong jewish political presence pushing

the US lobby....why else would the US sacrifice so many to protect 4 million ppl. 

Think a little outside the square u live in!!

 

creep (and thus i shall go under) 

"I have simply asserted that the UN resolutions are not necessarily an accurate measure of world opinion, justice, or anything else for that matter."

What exactly is "necessarily an accurate measure of world opinon" or "justice"?

I'd be rather interested in the results of a detailed study on how well GA votes correlate to world opinion, but it appears to me that they are probably very very close to an accurate measure on most of the issues it undertakes. It's a different story for UNSC resolutions though, for obvious reasons.

"No, it means that it is in the interests of the *leaders* to have the occupation end. In some cases, those interests are reasonable and governed by their own country's democratic principles. In others, they are not." I'm not sure what this means. What is the standard for judging someone else's vote to be a "reasonable" one? Peole are supposed to vote for what they, not you, think is reasonable. And I'm not sure what the broader "governed by their own country's democratic principles" is supposed to mean. Apparently this is again just saying "some of these member states are not democracies" again, which is true, and not very good for most of their domestic populations in many ways, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to this issue, which I'll address more below. ""Majority rule" is neither the only nor the most important definition of "democracy." The idea that the UN is democratic when the demos is not necessarily involved is a stretch, to say the least." Well, I didn't say "the UN is democratic". I said the GA had a "democratic vote" which they did. "The UN" is essentially a world dictatorship by a handful of rich states (mostly "democracies"), who impose rules on everyone else by force that they would never agree to be bound by themselves. But it is the only real forum and mechanism by which to try to deal with international disputes through negotiation and at least a pretense toward the rule of law and such, as opposed to just through war. The line you seem to keep pushing is the idea that some members are not internally "democracies", and this invalidates any such votes, because you're concerned with the "public opinion" being represented, rather than that of "leaders". But I think, I'm not certain but I suspect, that if you were actually to look into how well the votes of "democracies" line up with the public opinion of their domestic populations, as compared with how well the votes of "dictatorships" line up with theirs - on the type of global issues taken up in the UNGA, we're not really talking about domestic policies here - I'd be surprised if you found any correlation whatever. In fact, you might even find "democracies" at the top of the list of outliers, with, for example, the US springing to mind. Such a test might even show the opposite correlation.

You continue to attribute beliefs to me that I do not hold and have never expressed. I have not, for example, questioned the justification of the condemnation; I have simply asserted that the UN resolutions are not necessarily an accurate measure of world opinion, justice, or anything else for that matter. Must you admit that the "example you used" does denigrate the UN I mean, think about what that's really saying. Under that definition, "international opinion is against Israel" really just means "A bunch of leaders, some elected and some not, got together and decided that it was in their country's best interests (or their own personal best interests, in the case of some dictatorships) to condemn Israel." It does sound that you imply that people wakes up in the morning just to abuse Israel.. Ev er considered that they could have voted for humanitarian ground for the palestinians? I agree with you on some point, the resolutions itself is not always accurate measures of the world opinion; take the countries whom imposes sanction or starvations on ones another or regimes such as the US or Britain sponsoring terrorism around the world.. Or countries like east-timor that genocide the population.. I dont think relevance of resolution should discredited on the account of whom is voting in favor but most likely I think a greater attention should be given to the record to the ones whom brought the resolutions.. There is other institution(s) that are more irrelevant than the UN..and most of the time , it is not singled out.

ok, ok. I agree .. I have simply asserted that the UN resolutions are not necessarily an accurate measure of world opinion, justice, or anything else for that matter

No, it means that it is in the interests of the *leaders* to have the occupation end. In some cases, those interests are reasonable and governed by their own country's democratic principles. In others, they are not. "Majority rule" is neither the only nor the most important definition of "democracy." The idea that the UN is democratic when the demos is not necessarily involved is a stretch, to say the least. Still, we are agreeing about the substantive point, which is that whatever the merits of the UN or its resolutions, world opinion (however defined) is against Israel.

You continue to attribute beliefs to me that I do not hold and have never expressed. I have not, for example, questioned the justification of the condemnation; I have simply asserted that the UN resolutions are not necessarily an accurate measure of world opinion, justice, or anything else for that matter. Since it is impossible to engage in serious discussion with someone who is hallucinating in this fashion, I will pursue this matter no further. It is an interesting mental defect, though. Cyrano seems to think that because I do not agree with every single part of his position, I must therefore be rejecting all parts. This is absurd, of course--it is the part-whole fallacy--but cyrano seems unable to shake it. Notice how persistent it is: I have explained several times that I do not hold the views he ascribes to me, and he has never cited any statement of mine that suggests that I do hold those views, but he still thinks I do. It is certainly much simpler and more manageable to cram people into one of two categories, but that doesn't make it accurate.

"Under that definition, "international opinion is against Israel" really just means "A bunch of leaders, some elected and some not, got together and decided that it was in their country's best interests (or their own personal best interests, in the case of some dictatorships) to condemn Israel."

I'd revise the understated and overly casual "A bunch of leaders" to "The leaders of all the world's nation-states", but otherwise you basically have it right. 

That's what people are supposed to do in democratic votes. They vote their interests. This is not inherently sinister.  This is the very idea.  In this case it means it is in the world's interests to have Israel's occupation end, and both international and public opinion seem to concur.

poor Trilateral Comm. Iraq has been submitted to war, bombed, occupied and one of the main reason the right justified the agression because saddam hussein did not obey the UN resolutions whom were ill funded on inexistant WMD.. If you were to compared the crimes of saddam with Israel vis-avis the palestinians, You would undertsnad a condemnation would be justified. Regardless, I dont think you could label the UN resolution and vote for peace as condemnation. The only one i see being a vitim right now are the palestinians.. Whats next are you gonna say that the WORLD is picking on Israel because it is anti-semitic..? you are a sick puppy..

Well, yes, but you're now changing the terms of debate. "Public opinion" and "international opinion" are not necessarily the same thing, depending on how we define them. That's true enough, I suppose. I think I was conflating the two because public opinion--that is, the general opinion of the people--is what I consider important. In fact, I find it hard to imagine what possible relevance "international opinion" could have, at least as you've defined it here. I mean, think about what that's really saying. Under that definition, "international opinion is against Israel" really just means "A bunch of leaders, some elected and some not, got together and decided that it was in their country's best interests (or their own personal best interests, in the case of some dictatorships) to condemn Israel." So what? If we take UN resolutions to mean that and nothing else, then they are really not relevant to any debate, and citing them as though they meant something is particularly curious. That doesn't mean we don't look to them when examining public opinion on politics. We just do so with caveats, and I think this is the extent of the issue with the UN on "international opinion" as well. It's perfectly valid to look there, but of course there can be all kinds of caveats which may be relevant, depending on the issue. I agree--my belief is just that there are a lot of caveats in the case of the UN, and that these should be stated explicitly. For countries with good, solid electoral records (Scandinavian countries, to choose a relatively neutral example), we might accept their election results without questioning them. For a country like Egypt, however, we would not blindly accept their results given their past history; we would insist on more facts, and anyone who bandied about the election results as though they meant something by themselves would be seen as naive. My view is that in this specific regard, the UN is more of an Egypt than a Denmark. So how do you suggest we do that? I asked last time. If we're not supposed to look at the UN to find "international opinion" (which you've now switched to "public opinion"), where do we look? Be specific. Just Gallup, or what? For "international opinion," irrelevant though it may be, the UN would be the place to look. For public opinion, the country's vote in the UN may be representative, but one can also look at polls, surveys, results of national elections, etc.

Really the absurd thing is to assume (without presenting any evidence) that it's valid and obvious (to look at the UN GA votes when examining international opinion). Why is it obvious? Because there's a big building with lots of flags outside? Because on the surface it has the appearance ?" The alternative must be to listen to GWB for international opinion because it has a flashy flags behind.. ( we all know he is the self-appointed spokeperson of the world..)

"Really the absurd thing is to assume (without presenting any evidence) that it's valid and obvious (to look at the UN GA votes when examining international opinion). Why is it obvious? Because there's a big building with lots of flags outside? Because on the surface it has the appearance ?"

Because the leaders of the *nations* of the world are all gathered there as representatives of their nations to state their opinions on the issue, thereby we can get an idea of *international* opinion by looking there.

"As you concede, it's not always automatically representative of public opinion."

Well, yes, but you're now changing the terms of debate. "Public opinion" and "international opinion" are not necessarily the same thing, depending on how we define them.

Britain _the nation_, chose to go to war in Iraq.  "Public opinion" in Britain was narrowly against doing so.  That, however, did not make British national policy in that case.  I would tend to consider them as somewhat different.

If we want to use these terms interchangeably and define them as having no differentiation we have to say so.

The leaders of nations (democracies or otherwise) routinely make choices at odds with "public opinion". Bush, for example, is very proud that he "doesn't lead by opinion polls". So he seems to think rejecting "public opinion" in favor of his own "principles" is a hallmark of good leadership of a nation.

On the issue of "public opinion", elections can be one valid and obvious place to look. That doesn't mean elections are perfect or that they always wind up representing "public opinion". Sometimes they're rigged, sometimes the choices are limited by bad election rules, sometimes the financing distorts outcomes..etc. etc.  Elections have all these problems. That doesn't mean we don't look to them when examining public opinion on politics. We just do so with caveats, and I think this is the extent of the issue with the UN on "international opinion" as well.  It's perfectly valid to look there, but of course there can be all kinds of caveats which may be relevant, depending on the issue.

"Indeed, my view is that it *often* is not representative. In the case of Israel, it probably is. But you judge public opinion by looking at public opinion, not by looking at the UN."

So how do you suggest we do that? I asked last time. If we're not supposed to look at the UN to find "international opinion" (which you've now switched to "public opinion"), where do we look? Be specific. Just Gallup, or what?

I think you'll find that "public opinion" and "international opinion" happen to be well aligned on this issue anyway, no matter how we define them, and whether represented by democracies or dictatorships (except of course for the island mini-states I described, and in many ways, the US), so I still don't think this complaint is very relevant here.

That doesn't appear to be going to "moral legitimacy" in particular. It's going to what may constitute a "moderate official position" and what makes up "international opinion". Well, that's the next step. Violation of international opinion and the resolutions of the UN are taken as morally illegitimate by many people. Wrongly so, but there you are. That seems like a pretty absurd assertion on its face. I agree it's not perfect, and it's not always automatically representative of public opinion, but it is certainly a valid and pretty obvious place to look. How is it absurd? Really the absurd thing is to assume (without presenting any evidence) that it's valid and obvious. Why is it obvious? Because there's a big building with lots of flags outside? Because on the surface it has the appearance ? As you concede, it's not always automatically representative of public opinion. Indeed, my view is that it *often* is not representative. In the case of Israel, it probably is. But you judge public opinion by looking at public opinion, not by looking at the UN. It appears to me that, like with mike wanting to define "international consensus" out of existence as a concept, because it doesn't happen to be on his side here, you now may be trying to define the concept of "international opinion" out of existence for a similar reason. Well, you (like cyrano above) are imputing views that I do not hold. As I have already stated (several times now) I think that international opinion is against Israel and the US. My point is that I would like to have a consistent standard for international opinion that can be applied to all cases. Since it is obviously inadequate to rely exclusively on the resolutions of the UN, because of the major flaws and inconsistencies that bwong and I have described, something else is in order. Uh, no. That reservation must assume that the governments are in fact voting in opposition to the opinions of their public. Again you are imputing a view that I do not hold. That reservation does not ASSUME that the goverments are IN FACT voting against their populations; it simply says that they MIGHT PLAUSIBLY be doing so. It is the difference between "X is happening" and "X could very well be happening"--in other words, a huge and fundamental difference. But I think we have that piece of information, and the person who brought up the UN didn't say anything to indicate there would be disagreement with such a reservation, so this line of argument is really a straw man, no? It would be a straw man if I were pretending that public opinion was in favor of Israel, or was indeterminate, and thus invalidated the UN resolutions. Since I am not pretending this, it is not a straw man. I'm not sure why it would even come up unless grasping for straws. Because people have a very nasty tendency to pretend that the UN by itself necessarily represents international opinion and carries moral legitimacy. Such a belief is manifestly untrue, for all of the reasons we have described and you have agreed with, and needs to be checked at every opportunity.

t is an interesting tendency among some leftists--they so desperately want peace and social justice, they call for empowerment of the people, yet they seem to have a near-absolute faith in high-level governmental organizations that are quite distant from everyday people. There no dignified answer for this undignified bullshit because you cant find more distant people that the bushites!

When did this become about whether a UN resolution alone determines "moral legitimacy"? When someone else said the following: Israel's occupation is not in line with international opinion and violates international law; in that sense, Chomsky is correct that Hamas has a more moderate official position. How can we get an idea of international opinion? One way is to look at the UN: And it continues from there."

That doesn't appear to be going to "moral legitimacy" in particular. It's going to what may constitute a "moderate official position" and what makes up "international opinion".

"My assertion, first of all, is that it is simply false to suggest that looking at the UN gives us an idea of "international opinion,""

That seems like a pretty absurd assertion on its face. I agree it's not perfect, and it's not always automatically representative of public opinion, but it is certainly a valid and pretty obvious place to look. But why don't you tell me where you'd look to discover what makes up "international opinion".

It appears to me that, like with mike wanting to define "international consensus" out of existence as a concept, because it doesn't happen to be on his side here, you now may be trying to define the concept of "international opinion" out of existence for a similar reason.

"unless one takes "international opinion" as the views of governments and not their citizens."

Uh, no. That reservation must assume that the governments are in fact voting in opposition to the opinions of their public. But since that's quite clearly not the case on the issue of Israel/Palestine (except perhaps with Tuvalu of Micronesia or one of the other little Pacific state-lets that get annual "arms twistings and deal cuttings" to get them to vote with the US & Israel on the issue), this reservation needn't arise.

 
"Now, the UN generally condemns Israel for all sorts of things, which is where the "moral authority" part of the argument comes from."

It condemns it for violating the UN Charter and international law, and typically on quite solid grounds.  

"You are probably right that in this case the international consensus reflects the belief of its citizens--but my point (and bwong's, I think) was that YOU NEED THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION TOO. The majority vote of a corrupted organization is not by itself sufficient."

But I think we have that piece of information, and the person who brought up the UN didn't say anything to indicate there would be disagreement with such a reservation, so this line of argument is really a straw man, no? I'm not sure why it would even come up unless grasping for straws.

"International consensus" - I think you'd better look up the definition of the word 'consensus'."

 
The votes on the Israeli occupation are about as close to an international consensus as you'll get on any issue. If that degree of agreement is not sufficient to use the term, then we can effectively dispose of the term entirely, as it has no conceivable application in international relations.

So we can manage to avoid the categorization by effectively defining the category out of existence. There doesn't seem to much point in doing that, unless there's something to be gained by complicating the conversation on the subject.

 

"Popular opinion? Before you lay claim to the above, place the policies of Hamas in context with international consensus and popular opinion as outlined by you. Start with calling for the destruction of a member state of the UN."

Do you mean like the US call for the destruction of a member state in 2003, and its carrying out of that destruction of a member state in 2003, in direct violation of the UN Charter, and with Israel's support?

Or do you mean the 40 year call by the US for the destruction of the member state of Cuba?

Or do you mean its even longer call for the destruction of the member state of the USSR, which it was able to watch happen, after having called for the destruction of that member state for decades.

You'll have to be more specific.

 

"Then explain why "consensus" and "popularity" make extremist policies moderate."

I never said that, so why should I explain it?

But moderate is a relative term. Unless we simply appoint ourselves king of the world, declare it to mean "what I agree with" and start from there while assuming our own conclusions, we have to relate it to something to give it meaning.

We have to understand the idea of a hot and a cold temperature, and relate to such, before the idea of a "moderate" temperature can have any meaning. So for "moderate" opinions, we have to relate to the community of opinions, not just our own individual prejudices and decrees, which then goes to consensus and popularity.

"International consensus" - I think you'd better look up the definition of the word 'consensus'.

Popular opinion?

Before you lay claim to the above, place the policies of Hamas in context with international consensus and popular opinion as outlined by you.

Start with calling for the destruction of a member state of the UN.

Then explain why "consensus" and "popularity" make extremist policies moderate.  

 

 

When did this become about whether a UN resolution alone determines "moral legitimacy"? When someone else said the following: Israel's occupation is not in line with international opinion and violates international law; in that sense, Chomsky is correct that Hamas has a more moderate official position. How can we get an idea of international opinion? One way is to look at the UN: And it continues from there. My assertion, first of all, is that it is simply false to suggest that looking at the UN gives us an idea of "international opinion," unless one takes "international opinion" as the views of governments and not their citizens. Now, the UN generally condemns Israel for all sorts of things, which is where the "moral authority" part of the argument comes from. You are probably right that in this case the international consensus reflects the belief of its citizens--but my point (and bwong's, I think) was that YOU NEED THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION TOO. The majority vote of a corrupted organization is not by itself sufficient. Of course, your entire argument rests on taking Hamas's "official position" seriously...but that is another story. It is an interesting tendency among some leftists--they so desperately want peace and social justice, they call for empowerment of the people, yet they seem to have a near-absolute faith in high-level governmental organizations that are quite distant from everyday people.

Cyrano is inventing statements and falsely attributing them to me, which makes it hard to have any kind of rational discourse. bwong has it right: a UN resolution might be right or wrong, but it is not necessarily either one. Each must be evaluated on its merits, and the existence (or absence) of a UN resolution proves nothing.

"Israeli supporters can argue that the fact that there are so many UN resolutions against Israel while worse abusers escape condemnations proves that the Arab states(and others) are abusing the U.N platform for their own goals."

So what?

 

"I mean, if the U.S has managed to arms twist the Security Council into supporting the Iraq invasion,--a very real possible scenario,- Should we support it simply because the invasion now represents "international consenus"?"

No, a UNSC vote of a handful of rich states does not make an "international consensus". A GA vote of 160-2 does though.

"But what does "international consensus" prove?" It proves what the mainstream, almost universal, position is on the issue, and that on this issue Hamas' official statements fall within it, and Israel's well outside of it, thus offering an example where Hamas is more "moderate" than the US or Israel, as was the request and the point of debate in the first place. That was the issue. You're just dancing around the issue and moving the goalposts because you don't like the correct example. Now you're on to the number of vetoes for some reason. And yes, "Israel's apologists" might make all kinds of claims like those you're making and agreeing with, such as claiming to be "unfairly singled out", as if that would prove anything anyway. But being "unfairly singled out" apparently means being permitted to develop nuclear weapons arsenals without consequence, as opposed to Iran or Iraq, for example. Or, like being permitted to invade and occupy neighboring lands indefinitely, as opposed to, say Iraq, who must be immediately bombed into withdrawal and submission for the same. Your WTO analogy is also bad. That is an issue with lots of disagreement, and in many cases governments override popular opinion in their country to get onboard. That is not the case with Israel/Palestine. The case with Israel/Palestine is that the governments votes that I referred to are in line with popular opinion in their respective countries as well. So you're other new straw man topic of "anti-democratic"-ness does not fly here either.

Bwong, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Chomsky mentions the UN in this short answer pulled from the Sustainer's Forum Chomsky Chat.

I think the contextual point about the UN that Chomsky generally makes (and with full knowledge of it and other member state's short-comings) is that of the US political elites using/abusing/rejecting the UN when it does/does not conform to US foreign policy with implications for its support for Israel.

 

If you're interested in some serious dialogue with Noam Chomsky, you can pose a question in Chomsky Chat on the Sustainer's Forum

Can anyone give me Mr. Chomsky's email address?

 

Thank you.

 

Victor 

But what does "international consensus" prove?

An apologist of Israel's can also point to the fact that these countries who voted "overwhelningly" against Israel "years after years" have been strangely silent regarding worse criminals such as Sudan and Ruwanda.Not only silent, they actually went out of their ways to block condemnations against worse abuses elsewhere.

The number of vetos is a point often cited by Chomsky and parroted by others. But being a master of logic Chomsky ought to know better. The number of vetos in itself is meaningless unless you have tallied how many resolutions were passed against whom.

Sure someone who supports Israel can argue(correctly) that the disporportionate use of the veto simply reflects the disporportional number of times Israel has been condemned comparing to worse abusers thus proving that it is unfairly singled out, And indeed this point has been brought up in medium other than znet and it is hard to refute,--at least I think, seeing the record of voting.

I disagree that the legitamacy and the vested interests of the the voting members are irrelevant. They are of great importance if you are trying to present UN resolutions as some sort of "international consensus".

By the same logic one can argue the WTO also enjoy overwhelming "international consensus" simply because deligates from all over the world participate in the game. As a result protestors are anti-democratic, case closed.

I don't disagree with the substance of the resolutions. All I am saying is you need a better argument that hitting opponents over the head with the UN stick.

Incidentally, I have never condemn Hammas' refusual to recognized Israel. On the contrary, I have written several times that given the historical baggage it is very difficult for Hammas(or any Palestinian group for that matter) to loudly acknowledge Israel's "right to exist" without a way of saving face because that would be saying the Jewish settlers had a "right" to kick them out of their homes in the first place. In terms of actual actions Hammas can adopt a more moderate and pragmatic stance and I think they will provided they don't get backed to a corner by the Israeli and the American rejectionists.

"Neither I nor Trilateral was arguing against the U.N resolutions that demand Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. All I am saying is that it is not convincing to simply cite U.N resolutions without further justifications. U.N declarations are usually the products of arms twistings and deal cutting. BY THEMSELVES they have no moral legitimacy" Oh come on here. When did this become about whether a UN resolution alone determines "moral legitimacy"? That looks like a big fat straw man. The points about the UN were in response to someone asserting there could be no grounds on which Hamas could be considered more "moderate" than the US or Israel. Well, for one, its officially stated position, as cited above, is in line with the world consensus position on the conflict, expressed overwhelmingly by UN votes year after year, while the position of the US and Israel lies on the extreme fringe. You can whine about "dictatorships" and "democracies" in the UN all you want, but the fact of the matter is they all vote the same on this issue, with only two consistent exceptions: the United States and Israel. The virtually unanimous vote of the entire world isn't the product of "arms twisting and deal cutting". However, what probably is the product of "arms twisting and deal cutting" are those occasions where the US or Israel get some Pacific island mini-states like Tuvalu or the Marshall Islands to go sit on the fringe with them.

"Neither I nor Trilateral was arguing against the U.N resolutions that demand Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. All I am saying is that it is not convincing to simply cite U.N resolutions without further justifications. U.N declarations are usually the products of arms twistings and deal cutting. BY THEMSELVES they have no moral legitimacy" Oh come on here. When did this become about whether a UN resolution alone determines "moral legitimacy"? That looks like a big fat straw man. The points about the UN were in response to someone asserting there could be no grounds on which Hamas could be considered more "moderate" than the US or Israel. Well, for one, its officially stated position, as cited above, is in line with the world consensus position on the conflict, expressed overwhelmingly by UN votes year after year, while the position of the US and Israel lies on the extreme fringe. You can whine about "dictatorships" and "democracies" in the UN all you want, but the fact of the matter is they all vote the same on this issue, with only two consistent exceptions: the United States and Israel. The virtually unanimous vote of the entire world isn't the product of "arms twisting and deal cutting". However, what probably is the product of "arms twisting and deal cutting" are those occasions where the US or Israel get some Pacific island mini-states like Tuvalu or the Marshall Islands to go sit on the fringe with them.

Bwong I do agree you aren't exercising double standards in your views.. I just disagree with people who blame the UN when this peace process was removed from the UN. I also disagree that faulty members such as Israel and the US can veto the democratic processes of the UN.. and decide to violates all international laws as they want..

You helped remind me and clarify the issue of (complex) pragmatics vs. (simplistic) idealism; and my need to be more carefully considerate.  Thanks.

I was sort of going off tangent in my post. I didn't mean to say you were bashing Israel, I was making a general statement about some other people on the left.Sorry for not being clear.

I don't disagree that we should champion a multi-cultural globe. I was merely saying that Israel is not the only country that does not live up to that vision, ESPECIALLY in the region and that the fear of being overwhelmed should be understood in context of the ME.

Some people on the left, Chomsky in particular, do appear to take a very dismissive view regarding such concern and typically characterise it as "racist". I don't think that is fair.

"Most likely, most of hese undemocratic countries are undemocratic because the US interefered with these countries democratic processes.."

Maybe. But what does that have to do with the claim above that these countries lack legitimacy, whatever the reason?

You may have exaggerated the U.S's influence. It is undeniable that the U.S has a lot of clout with SOME of these dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia. It supports them at various time.. But it is not to say that they are mere U.S hand puppets.The U.S support them because it has some favour to ask for in return. In other words, the U.S clients do have autonomy and certain bargaining power. If they were mere puppets they wouldn't have voted in the general assembly to embarass the U.S. I doubt that the U.S has any influence on Iran at all.

Neither I nor Trilateral was arguing against the U.N resolutions that demand Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. All I am saying is that it is not convincing to simply cite U.N resolutions without further justifications.

U.N declarations are usually the products of arms twistings and deal cutting. BY THEMSELVES they have no moral legitimacy(There are much worse human right violators than Israel who have not gotten nearly as many U.N resolutions against them. Sudan comes to mind. Why is that? By all objective standard the occupation of the West bank, horrendous as it is, cannot be worse than the near genocide and daily rape and murder in Dalfour)

I don't think I am guilty of double standard. For example, I have been saying that the invasion of Iraq is WRONG even with U.N authorization.

On the other hand, it would be double standard to cite U.N resolutions against Israel while at the same time saying that European Jewish settlers had no right to displace the Arabs in founding Israel. After all the partition plan was an U.N resolution too!

I think the partition resolution was unjust because the U.N had no right to give away the Palestinian's land in the first place, to be consistent I cannot then turn around and say Israel is wrong JUST BECAUSE there are numerous UN resolution against it. One can argue on many moral grounds that Israel should withdraw without resorting to narrow legalism.

“I don't agree that it is "racist" for Israel to try to maintain its Jewish character by limiting Arab immigration.”

“let's not fall in the trap of single minded Israeli bashing.”

First bwong, please note when I’m posing questions, and when I’m making statements!  My questions may have implied that there is something “racist” in the sort of rules about who is eligible to vote in Israel— but I never used the word “racist”—and I think having such rules are probably the only way to keep a Jewish-Israeli state – which is part of the two-state Israel/Palestinian solution that is such a hope.

A multi-cultural globe – that also respects regional cultural differences may not be pragmatic in the near future—but “progressive thought” often means criticizing the present against some possibly unattainable “utopia” that is forever deferred and refined into the future.

From my own experience, Rabbis are often more open-minded and tolerant than other religious leaders—especially in the mid-east region.  But, noting some individual racist comments by individuals and then judging a group is prejudicial in itself (some Americans like to note that there may be more with racists attitudes among those who vote Republican—as if it follows from this that current Republican policy is somehow more racist: ending political bigotry—illogical vehement prejudice against political parities— is another non-pragmatic ideal).  However: how does one make a general comment (and almost every comment is general to some degree) without pre-judging the specifics—especially with regard to cultural differences.  Should we never generalize about cultural differences at all?

If my comments gave the appearance of “Israeli bashing,” I apologize—that was not my intent—I thought I made it clear that both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian political issue have problems—and I could endlessly sing the merits of their respective cultures.  But should the fear of stepping on toes quell legitimate questions, such as those concerning the status of migrant workers in any country who labor there, yet do not have political rights in that country?  Yes, some countries like the US and Israel may have better respect, institutionally, and among a larger population, for basic human rights than others do—but does that mean they are perfect, without possibilities for their own growth and progress too?

creep in the outback where i belong and where i'm safe good, dont come back..

Trilateral.. If a ( polite) Phillipino group tells me they sing in choir ( with no instruments of music ) because they are from the poorest slums of Manilla, I take offense of the comment if the group avoid blaming the US.. The same principle would apply if I see a palestinian whom would avoid to blame the US for the palestinian''s condition today.. I would take the latter as an insult. He did some things for peace, but he also did quite a lot for war and continued violence. May be, In the same token he did a way lot less war and continued violence than Israel and the US.. The US is to blame fo the failed peace processes and should bare responsibility. Arafat waited there, willing to negotiate, waiting up to his death..

If a country does not abide to UN resolution it should be invaded or sanctioned... Then another standard must be applied in case it is the US or Israel whom does not abides to resolutions, It becomes ok to denigrates the UN as anti-democratic.. Based on this, the democratic record of the US for the past 8 years would disqualify the US from even seating at the UN. My point was this: the votes at the UN are not really "democratic" in any way, since the members and many of their governments are not democratically elected. Most likely, most of hese undemocratic countries are undemocratic because the US interefered with these countries democratic processes..

To answer myself— and a question to those advocating a pre-1967 map: West Bank water seems more important than the land to Israel.  Israel needs water, and giving Hamas control over a significant source of water may be untenable for Israel.  “Possession is 9/10 of the law” doesn’t cut it; but access to water is something of a human right. What is the likelihood of some reasonable compensation from Israel to the Palestinians for a secured water supply? 

Perhaps cyrano doesn’t like to call what is seen as an almost empty glass, “half-full?”

Here’s a weird reversal: why doesn’t the US give its aid to the people of Israel, and not its government?

I think that despite Israel not getting aid from many sources—it getting such a lion’s share of the US aid pie is more than odd.  Although the aid might have been humanitarian at one time—it is now clearly a matter of political strategy.  Contrary to taxation without representation, Israel seems to get represented in the US without being taxed.  (While the US has a 35% corporate tax rate, Israel recently dropped theirs from 34% to 31%, although Israel’s personal tax rate is progressively higher).  I personally think the US and Israel have bloated military budgets… maybe they should spend a little more of that money on PR actions?  Why support Hamas’ governmental overhead or Israel’s?  Why not encourage some non-military investment in their economies, that would in turn help fund what their governments want.  Aid doesn’t always provide self-perpetuating sustainable employment!

No doubt, if US aid was funneled through the UN, things would be different.  This brings up the whole issue of who’s providing the dough, and who’s calling the shots.  The UN needs some change.  But, if the Israeli-Arab conflict is symbolic of (rather than inciting) some broader international “east-west” conflict, then the UN, IMO, ought to be the key broker in any resolution—this would help eliminate the appearance of the west super-power US taking sides, or rather being part of a side, in a conflict where, as I said before, both parties need to “pull out” and take a look at themselves and each other from a different perspective.

Again, a key issue seems to be immigration and maintaining a regional “purity.”  Is there some sort of Israeli-apartheid going on?  Does Israel have the right to maintain its integrity as a state where the government is culturally segregated?  There would be the worry of the popular elections in Israel going to the Arab vote—basically ending Israel’s status as a Jewish state.  Israel, being right at the heart of the Arab-League is right at the heart of policing Semitic segregation (hence the bloated military).  To what extent do nations, like private clubs, have the right to discriminate—especially when their very identity is defined by that exclusion?  I don’t deny Israel’s right to exist—but I do wonder how much land they need to maintain some sort of “proper” Jewish-Arab ratio.  I’m a little ignorant on this issue—do the West Bank settlers feel they were crowded out of Israel?  And how much real estate do the Palestinians require?

Regardless of many critics, he did more for peace than Israel and the US combined.. He did some things for peace, but he also did quite a lot for war and continued violence. In the other words the US is good when the US is telling the UN what to do, but its no longer good when the UN obey democratic votes.. or simply put, all the tyrannies you mention are ok as long as they do what the US tell them to do. I said nothing of the sort. You are describing the game as it is usually played by the United States (and, in fact, every other country), but it is not what I am advocating. My point was this: the votes at the UN are not really "democratic" in any way, since the members and many of their governments are not democratically elected. Therefore an additional check is required before supporting its resolutions--as is true for any government anywhere, even when it actually bears some resemblance to a democracy.

Smarter people than I have tried and failed to resolve this issue. The difficulty seems to be that there exist no feasible alternatives that are acceptable to a reasonable majority of both populations. If they ever decide to stop killing each other, then some sort of peaceful resolution may be possible. Until then, I presume that the violence will continue. I have always presumed that, and I have almost always been right. It is one of the few certainties in this conflict.

yet my understanding is that the US intends to give humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, while not supporting the Hamas led government. ( This give rises to some questions: Q. Will it really give humanitarian aid to palestinians? Q. To give humanitarian aid, is this not the job of the UN ? Q. While it is cutting support to hams willit continue to provide support to Israel ? BTW why does Chomsky so often frame an issue as in “the US is as bad as them,” instead of “they're as good as the US? jdcasten, its a good question.. may be its because the US isnt doing anything good ?

Chomsky does not trow a lots of information, he gives an opinion and let readers debates on the issues.. you either disagree or agree with him.. Peterson has a different style and temper, he trows you a lots of information and you think he is done and then he trows you more information your ears would drop, both style are highly effective.. you either disagree or agree with him.. Generally speaking the bloggers have fantastics styles.. I am relatively impressed with Paul Street , Leila Mouammar, Spannos spirited writings And Arafat's death was welcomed with joy for many reasons. To be frank, I welcomed it. He was a poor leader in many respects. Regardless of many critics, he did more for peace than Israel and the US combined.. I agree that the argument from UN resolutions is unconvincing. We would be eager to disobey any unjust law or resolution, especially when any number of tyrannies and dictatorships and other such have the same vote as democratically elected governments. "One state, one vote" is a pleasant fantasy, but not one that is sensible in the real world. UN resolutions may be illuminating, but further defense is required. In the other words the US is good when the US is telling the UN what to do, but its no longer good when the UN obey democratic votes.. or simply put, all the tyrannies you mention are ok as long as they do what the US tell them to do.. Id rather have the world governed by international law than be under the dictactorship of an imperialist US with pseudo peace process.. Cyrano says "between Hamas yapping and Israel starving a population, the yapping is definetely more moderate..." Perhaps so. But it is difficult to ignore a threat to kill. And when that threat is sometimes carried out, it is harder still. Palestinians were at right to elect Hamas.. hey how many comments do you see on internet telling to nuke arabs ? basically you know these are same people whom were diagnosed republicans..

if the amount of time/passion/energy went into coming up with alternative and useful methods of resolving this conflict equaled the amount of time/passion/energy analysing and intelligently bitching about this seemingly endless bitterness...it would clearly be closer to a resolution

I’m not quite sure what to make of Chomsky’s claims that “Israel at once proceeded to undermine the elections,” yet “the government is delighted with the Hamas victory,” aside from the sarcasm.

No doubt Chomsky again has an important point to make about hypocrisy with regard to not punishing a people for their government’s actions, yet my understanding is that the US intends to give humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, while not supporting the Hamas led government.  (BTW why does Chomsky so often frame an issue as in “the US is as bad as them,” instead of “they’re as good as the US?”)

Yet, that government, for whatever reasons, was democratically elected by the Palestinian people; so already, with a policy of isolationism the US is not respecting the nation of Palestine.  Consider the great bifurcated US foreign policy experiment with the two communist countries of the Soviet Union and China: a cold war arms race with one, and most favored trade partner with the other.  Of course these relationships were more complicated than simply opposition/conflict vs. integration/trade; but I think there is an important distinction between an integral marriage between opposing sides, and a war.

My fear is that isolating of Hamas, who clearly need to give the respect to Israel that they demand for themselves, will only serve to create further division, as Arab countries ally with Hamas—and place the US as more of an Israeli ally; creating further tension.

Clearly the Israeli and Palestinian governments both have their heads up their asses on a few points: why increase settlements on the west bank, and insult Palestine with demands that Israel maintain air power over it?  And close to the caustic “no Israel” policy—why would Hamas call reclamation of the West Bank only a “long-term truce” rather than steps to a permanent peace between nations?  How long Hamas?

Immigration is solidly at issue here.  Yes the settlers in America and Australia “stole” the lands of the natives—but to what extent do people wish to keep “foreigners” from immigrating to “their” lands?  Do not many mid-easterners migrate to Europe—and wouldn’t many Africans like to do the same, to get jobs were they are more plentiful, and help support their families back home?  The case is sometimes similar with North and South America.  It is not clear to me to what extent Israelis are indigenous to Israel, and to what extent they are immigrants— but like other newly established nations—they do have some economic power to help the (other) natives.  And as with the US-Soviet Union-China relations, I think economic integration is a better solution than raising barriers.

I wish Chomsky had cited the relevant press reports--his unsupported assertion is unconvincing. Indeed there is a lot of exposition missing from this, but I suppose it is to be expected in a mere blog post. And Arafat's death was welcomed with joy for many reasons. To be frank, I welcomed it. He was a poor leader in many respects. I agree that the argument from UN resolutions is unconvincing. We would be eager to disobey any unjust law or resolution, especially when any number of tyrannies and dictatorships and other such have the same vote as democratically elected governments. "One state, one vote" is a pleasant fantasy, but not one that is sensible in the real world. UN resolutions may be illuminating, but further defense is required. Cyrano says "between Hamas yapping and Israel starving a population, the yapping is definetely more moderate..." Perhaps so. But it is difficult to ignore a threat to kill. And when that threat is sometimes carried out, it is harder still.

Bwong,

I accept your point.  

I did not claim that the UN automatically carries moral authority; a look at its history belies that idea in half a minute, as you pointed out.  But the charter and the institution itself cannot be completely invalidated because it doesn't work in practice(are the principles of US democracy invalidated because they don't work in practice?).  Moreover, I only used it as a way of understanding international opinion, and what one sees in this case is virtually an international consensus against the occupation since 1967, and I find that to carry some significance, it shouldn't be easily dismissed.  Whether or not one finds fault in the individual states, the UN is one appropriate way to gauge international opinion. How would you go about it, other than making broad moral statements?

 

As for the Hamas charter which calls for the destruction of Israel.  This is obviously a concern, but the statements they have made since taking power suggest a more reasoned approach.  Hamas had no political  power in 1988 when their charter was written; they will obviously have to adjust, and Israel and the US can allow them to adjust, or pigeon-hole them, in which case nothing will be accomplished except more violence.    

i thought of joining an intelligent chit chat but...there's a few descriptions in that sentence and u aint the positives man....

too much blood spilt for any retreat, too many radicals and the killing fields keep peace away, too much US money poured to save

Israel for the US to back off now....there will never be peace and any hope is soul crushing. Eh? Tis a vicious cycle.

 

creep

in the outback where i belong and where i'm safe 

 

Mike between Hamas yapping and Israel starving a population, the yapping is definetely more moderate.. Consider this: The right of Israel to exist will only becomes reality if there is peace through negotiations otherwise Israel is merely just an occupation army abusing a population.. If there is no peace after 40 years between arab-and- israeli it is also still because the US is interfering/interfered with the peace process. The main reason why the US is interfering is because the US has been run by incompetents

How about the fact that Hamas only talks while Israel ALREADY has destroyed Palestine?

If your people are systematically evicted from your country by some foreign immigrants and your people end up spending a few generations in the refugee camps I certainly don't expect you to acknowledge loudly that the new master of the land had "the right" to kick you out in the first place.

The Native Americans have to live with the reality of the U.S and Canada. But it would be too much to force them to acknowledge "the right" of the U.S and Canada to exist. That would be saying the white settlers had the right to displace them.

Same idea here.

While I generally agree with the position that Israel must withdraw to its pre 1967 border it is a bad argument to cite UN resolutions as if they automatically carry moral authority.

Someone like Zubub would certainly argue that the UN general assembly is composed of a bunch of corrupt regimes almost all of them have horrible human right records.Israel probably smells like roses besides the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia. He would be correct.

The mere fact that there has been more UN resolutions against Israel than Ruwanda and Sudan does not in itself prove that Israel is worse. The UN is just another forum where interests and alliance drive the agenda. It would be either naive or dishonest to think that UN resolutions automatically represent higher, moral pronouncemnets based on principles.

I don't disagree with the general drift of Chomsky's point. I just don't  think we need to make the point  based on the narrow legalism of UN resolutions. More importantly, I don't think it is intellectually honest to argue this way.

We didn't stop opposing the sanctions against Iraq or the interventions in Hatti simply because the UN had apprantly spoken the last word. Chomsky himself argues the original UN partition resolution of Palestine was unjust.  Why do we expect Israel supporters to hold the UN at higher esteem?

I find a simple, moral argument much more compeling and effective..

Maybe I should repeat the question :

Hamas has stated unequivocally that it's intended aim is the destruction of Israel. In light thereof explain why Hamas are, "in crucial respects", more moderate than Israel.

Your argument regarding occupation and the international opinion regarding the same, is simplistic and selective. I don't propose to deal with it here but iterate that if Hamas' stated goal is to destroy Israel regardless, why would eg an interim long term truce, make it more moderate? 

 

 

 Mike 101,

 Palestinians living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are living under occupation. To refresh your memory:

"Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain.

Under international law the area is considered to be occupied territory.

East Jerusalem is often called Arab East Jerusalem because the majority of its residents are Palestinian, and Palestinians hope to establish their future capital there." (BBC news, feb 8, 2006)

 By the very fact that their people face an illegal occupation, the new Palestinian government, elected legitimately by Palestinians, called upon to better the lives of Palestinians, can be seen as coming from a solid position.  Unless one believes that Palestinians should possess no control over their destiny, which perhaps you do. 

What's the official position of the new Hamas leadership? 

"Mr Meshaal said he wanted to send a message to the next Israeli government that Hamas would be ready to talk if Israel met certain strict conditions.

 

Profile: Khaled Meshaal Meshaal interview transcript

 

The most important of these was that Israel must withdraw to the boundaries it had until the 1967 Middle East war, Mr Meshaal told the BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen.

Hamas would then "possibly give a long-term truce with Israel", he said.

"This is a position that Hamas could take, but not now, only after Israel recognises the rights of the Palestinians, to show and confirm its willingness to withdraw to the 1967 borders," he said.

Mr Meshaal said such a move by Israel could create conditions for the international community to find a solution for all of the region's problems."(BBC, Feb 8)

 

Meshal's position here is well in line with international opinion, Israel's occupation is not in line with international opinion and violates international law;  in that sense, Chomsky is correct that Hamas has a more moderate official position. How can we get an idea of international opinion? One way is to look at the UN:

 

"The world body(The UN), which has a large Muslim and Arab contingent, passes more than 20 resolutions criticising Israel each year.

UNGA resolutions are not binding, unlike Security Council measures.

 

Israel's relations with the United Nations are tense and often openly hostile.

The country ignores the dozens of resolutions the General Assembly passes condemning it each year."(BBC news, Nov. 4, 2003)

 So the international consensus is firmly opposed to the occupation.

Moreover, just two days ago the UN envoy to the Middle East condemned the Israeli withholding of aid to the new Paletinian government:

"- The U.N. envoy to the Middle East raised objections on Monday to Israel's decision to withhold tax funds from the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority after a Hamas-led parliament was sworn in.

Special Envoy Alvaro de Soto called the decision unhelpful and premature. Israel has long regarded the U.N. as a minor player in the Middle East peace process compared to the United States, which gave a low-key response to Israel's move. "These are monies that belong to the Palestinians and should not be withheld," de Soto told Reuters one day after Israel's cabinet announced a permanent halt to the monthly transfer of about $50 million in tax revenues Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinians." (Reuters, Feb 20)

So if you examine the official positions vis a vis international law, which seems like a fair way to begin, Chomsky's statement which rankled you seems completely sensible, and your response sounds like a ad hominem tirade. 

 

 

Mike, you can't murder arabs, jail them, steal their land and ask them to vote for you. You must also realizes, if Israelis won't negotiate peace, you can't have peace. If there is no peace Israel exist is only an occupation army.. Hamas being there now is just the result of Isarel and the US shooting itself in the foot.. You people lost the palestinian vote mainly because the US and Israel is run by incompetents who should resign their positions.

As always the, "Deplorable and ominous as many of Hamas's public positions are,", safeguard statement is followed by :

"we should bear in mind that they are in crucial respects more moderate and forthcoming than the official positions of the US and Israel."

This is Chomsky all over, cemented to a position, quick safeguard and then free to continue wild sweeping statements.

He is one of the great thinkers of the 21st century, in his mind and that of his sycophants.

One "genius" decides that another is in vogue and the herd of "unconventional" thinkers come racing after.

"Noam Chomsky: Press reports in Israel indicate that, as expected, the government is delighted with the Hamas victory, which enables the government to persist in its "there is no partner" posture, enabling it to carry forward its programs of taking over the valuable parts of the West Bank and ensuring that remaining fragments left to Palestinians will be unviable -- a second prison alongside of Gaza, decisions now explicit with the announcement of the virtual annexation of the Jordan Valley and steps to expel the population gradually."

 

Todays Jewish Telegraph Agency :

 

"Olmert upbeat on peace

Israel’s Ehud Olmert said there is still hope for peace with the Palestinians despite Hamas’ political rise to power.
“Naturally, the chances of reaching a quick agreement with a Hamas government are much smaller,” the interim prime minister said in an interview broadcast Tuesday by Israel Radio. “On the other hand, despite the reduced chances, hope has not ended. I am responsible for two things: The struggle against Hamas and preserving the hope and opportunity of reaching an accord.”
Olmert, the front-runner for the March 28 general elections in Israel, has ruled out talks with the Palestinian Authority under Hamas unless it renounces terrorism and recognizes the Jewish state’s right to exist.
In the interim, he vowed to press ahead with security operations. “We will fight against terror with all our strength and we will do this every day,” he said."

Kadima as most are aware, was a move to centre when polls showed that Sharon's drastic steps in withdrawing from Gaza enjoyed popular support.

Olmert assumed control and in the face of his extremists released this today.

The Jewish people and this government were hardly delighted with Hamas, when the centre was giving a clear mandate to make unthinkable concessions for a lasting peace.

It strengthens Netenyahu at the expense of Olmert.

If Chomsky could just alert us to these "crucial respects" where Hamas is more moderate.

They aren't pursuing a policy of land grabs but the total destruction of Israel. In the face of that could Chomsky set out where the moderation lies. As an example is the man who hijacks my car and shoots at me more moderate when he reloads?

If my stated goal is to wipe Israel off the map please place in context these crucial other aspects which make them more moderate overall?

Please don't quote Chomsky in your replies. Rather use David Irving even that right wing imbecile has more credibilty as far as I'm concerned.

I would rather rely on Abbas and Haneya to guage the direction that the peace talks, if any, will take than anything Chomsky comes up with.

In conclussion, like Chomski, I would like to leave you with a safeguard statement. Noam is a wonderful talent but please see this in the light of the above.