Well, you've clearly laid out your position. My position is rather immaterial, don't you think? I'd much rather see you argue against the head of the Jewish state, telling us all how much of a loser he is in your most excellent opinion.

I'm in this for the comedy value, Mannning. You really should do this as performance art. It'd fit right in with the whole polyester and bell bottoms revival going on. Maybe you can fling chocolate syrup across the audience in cadence with your hip bebop rendition of the rant.

While wearing leopard skin speedos and a tight corset.

You'd be a smash hit in the retro scene.

Geebus, Mannning, you really are a loon.

In any event, I'm sure you'll unleash the full wrath of Mannning on the person who said this

If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished

Because, you know, only lolipops would says such things.

If you fall into lollipop territory, or total withdrawal of the US from the ME, I will be waiting for it. If you believe that the US should financially support Palestine at the same or higher level as we support Israel, I will be waiting as well. If you believe that we should deny financial support to Israel, I will be waiting for it.

Tell us, Hal! Tell us if you support Palestine at all, and what you are willing for the US taxpayer to give them, and whether or not they are trustworthy partners in the peace process, or whether you think that THIS TIME they will be trustworthy.

Have a go!

Geebus.

Lollipops will not solve the ME problem, which is what you appear to advocate. That, or total withdrawal of the US, which will doom Israel. That is surely mindlessly idiotic, and absolutely inhumane. Or, maybe you want to lavish US taxpayer's money on the Palestinians beyond common sense. Remember what Arafat bought and banked?

In any event, try being more rational, Hal, it makes for more informed debate. Try!

I think you provide, in a nutshell (a rather apt term, I might add), a perfect example of why this is all SNAFU. When I step back and understand that you're actually serious and not doing performance art, it all makes sense as to why that whole region is a complete mess.

Neither have a string of Presidents, diplomats, military men, well-connected civilians, and vast sums of US money dumped on, not only Israel, but also Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt, to attempt a peaceful interregnum.

We support Israel because without our help they would be overrun and killed by the thousands, if not to the last man. Stop our support and Israel is dead. It is quite clear who have been the aggressors in this conflict for 50 years or more, and it isn't Israel. It is disgusting to me to see people trying to build support for the Palestinians, including the Hamas and Fatah murderers.

The US cannot be a truly honest broker in this conflict, and its past failures in trying are not due to lack of effort in every dimension, but to the intransigence of the Palestinians. We have been gamed at every turn for most of those 50 years to open our pockets, and back off from the defense of Israel.

The nature of this conflict is a clash of Jews versus Muslims, and we are kidding ourselves if we think that we could intervene successfully with diplomacy in this Holy War. Islam speaks to this end, the end of the Jews, every day, and has done so for 1200 years.

Who are you to say that we can change this Holy War, this jihad, by peaceful means?

The Bush administration has not only dimmed that vision through its disengagement, it also adopted a thoroughly one-sided approach to the conflict, rather than attempting to be an honest broker.

uhh...Tano...we are talking about BUSH here. Why in the world would you think of him as being capable of acting as an "honest broker"?

For instance, I submit that the reason you have seen democracy flourish in most of Latin America over the past seven years is that Bush has largely kept his crazed interventionism out of the region.

Sure, you still have Bush railing against Chavez and Fidel every so often, but had not the "War on Terror" asserted itself early in his tenure, you likely would have seen the US spreading instability in the region, given all of the Reagan-era hacks Bush appointed to key positions.

Since Bush decided to be the self-appointed bearer of democracy to the the Middle East, Latin American countries have been able to deal with their own issues without having to contend with US interventionism.

US intervention in the Middle East, by contrast, has promoted regional instability.

As James implies, someone of Bush's disposition is in no position to broker peace in such a situation where complex historical conditions make sensitive diplomacy essential.

Both the Israelis and Palestinians, left to their own devices, migrate relentlessly toward extremist positions, which entail, on BOTH sides, a vision of a single state over all the disputed territory, controlled by them.

It has only been through the sustained efforts of outsiders, mostly the US, that focus can be maintained on the goal of actual peaceful resolution to the conflict.

The Bush administration has not only dimmed that vision through its disengagement, it also adopted a thoroughly one-sided approach to the conflict, rather than attempting to be an honest broker. And to further compound the problem, the most favored Israeli leaders of the Bush administration have been the most hardline rightwingers. This not only encourages those elements in Israeli that are least interested in peace, it also undermines those Palestinians who are interested in peace, because they are seen by their people as weak and conciliatory in the face of extremists on the other side.

Absenting ourselves from the diplomatic effort has not only allowed the problem to fester, it contributes to the radicalization of both sides. The US cannot magically solve the problem for them, but we can be a powerful factor driving the confict in the direction of resolution, and in that this administration has been a disaster.

This stuff has a lot of effect on the outcome and to toss it off as some piffling effect on the issue like you're doing, James, seems amazingly silly.

If we wanted to, we could, for example, take the top 3 or 4 issues that the Palestinians have with Israel off the plate and make them non issues by simply stopping the vast sums of money flowing to Israel. Granted, the President can't unilaterally change that, but certainly if he made it an issue he could get congress to change the laws and large effects would happen.

Your position seems to be that the poor ol' US doesn't swing a ginormous bat in several relevant realms - military, economically and diplomatically. I think all you have to do is perform the thought experiment of the US ceasing to do anything wrt this issue and you'll easily see the magnitude of leverage we collectively wield over the situation. Is it enough to solve the situation if the leverage would be used differently? We'll never know because of the way US policy is made in this area - i.e. it's unipolar and sides entirely with Israel.

Not saying this is good or bad strategy, but clearly it's not hubris to think that we could change things if we did things differently. Photo ops aren't really at the same level of effectiveness as 10's of billions of dollars, which is what you appear to be asserting.