As part of her article, Ms. Cobban quotes Mahmoud Ramahi as saying, "They ask us to recognize Israel without telling us what borders they're talking about! First, let us discuss borders, and then we will discuss recognition." This is, to put it mildly, a tad disingenuous. What Israel has asked for again and again, first from Fatah, and now Hamas, is a recognition of a right to exist. Despite his public statements in English, Yassar Arafat never repudiated the PLOs stated opposition to the very existence of Israel, and Hamas is, if anything, even more adamant and yes, militant, in that regard.

It is not difficult to understand Israel's reluctance to treat with folks who say (in English, to Western reporters) that they will talk to you if you withdraw to a new set of borders, while simultaneously exhorting their followers (in Arabic, without Western reporters around) to become suicide bombers. One can only wonder how seriously to take Hamas' motives when Palestinian schoolbooks do not show Israel on maps, even within 1967 borders. What the Hamas leadership says in Arabic to their followers is far more important than what they say in English to reporters. Arafat was a past master at this; did Ms. Cobban get any details in that area?

(I also wonder what Ms. Cobban thought of the suicide bomber symposium that was covered on The Daily Show last week. Just an anomoly under the new kinder, gentler Hamas?)

Mr. Ramahi's claim that, "Until now, we have respected the tahdi'eh" rings a bit hollow, considering the continuing lobbing of rockets into Israeli territory from Gaza, rockets that are targeting civilians, not the Israeli military.

Ms. Cobban's reference to Israel as a colonizing power is another point that is fairly misleading. Israel did not colonize portions of Palestine; Israel fought a war against an army (several armies, actually) that was determined to destroy her, won the war, and finished with more territory. Afterwards, Israel has shown every intention to give back some of that territory in exchange for peace (and indeed gave back Sinai to Egypt--a huge portion of that territory). I am not aware of any nation in history that has won a war, and then given back portions of the conquered territory to the vanquished; for doing this, Israel is called a "colonizer." I would urge folks who blithely suggest that it is simple for Israel to give away land to take a look at Israel's size at this map comparison site: http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps.htm.

Finally, with the very real chance of an alliance between Iran--a country that is clearly trying to develop nuclear capability--and the Palestinians, I think Israel's hesitation to embrace Hamas, a group that has still not acknowledged Israel's right to exist (borders are irrelevant in this area; when will Hamas recognize that Israel has a right to even exist, whatever her borders?), is completely understandable. To have a group in power that doesn't want you to exist, a group that is aligned with a nuclear power, which has as its capital a portion of Jerusalem--practically close enough to toss a warhead underhand and reach Israeli territory--makes a lot of Israelis understandably nervous. I am confused as to why Ms. Cobban doesn't see that.

There is no question that there are problems on both sides of the Palestinian/Israeli dispute. However, given Hamas' past, their continued intransigence in recognizing Israel's right to exist, and the continued violence despite the avowed truce, I think Israel's caution is completely warranted.

I apologize for the length of this letter, but the article that I am addressing is fairly long, and length was called for.

Here's something that I've been wondering for years now: what does Bush actually think about events? As far as I can tell, given the huge disconnect between what he says (and has been saying for years), and what is observably true, there are only three real options, all scary:

o) Bush knows what is really going on, but continues to mouth happy happy, joy joy platitudes. In which case, he is simply a liar.

o) Bush takes what people in his inner circle tell him at face value, and bases his words on that. In which case he is either hopelessly naive, or entirely too trusting, and they are lying to him.

o) Bush is so insulated from reality that he really has no idea what is going on, and so his words evince this complete separation from what is demonstrably true. In which case, he is so "hands off" as to make Reagan seem like a micromanager.

I can't figure out which of these scenarios is true, but none of them make me feel either safe or comfortable. To realize that the Commander-in-Chief is either a liar, an idiot, or hopelessly out-of-touch is pretty frightening. And given the people around him, it is even more frightening.

Hm; suddenly access to Salon has slowed down considerably, and there are a series of letters that seem to be unironically supporting the torture of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and taking Salon to task for publishing same. Why do I get the impression that some blog somewhere has published a pointer, and suddenly Salon is getting a whole bunch of page hits that it usually doesn't? Just a thought.

Another thought: how long is this article going to be the front article? It's been up for nearly two days now. It's an important story, but as those photos--even the "tame" ones--literally turn my stomach, can we move them off the top and down a bit soon? Please?

Since my favorite show, "Firefly," was cancelled by Fox in the middle of its first season, I can't honestly say that it lived beyond its means/got too long in the tooth/overstayed its welcome/insert favorite euphamism here.

Now, I would say that "Monk" is getting a little old, but it still gives me pleasure, so who am I to complain?