"that doens't mean I don't have very strong feelings about Israel, and its supporters such as Zenwick. To be honest, if I was having that conversation with him in person, I'd endeavor to knock as many of his teeth out as possible"

"Getting respect from you would actually be an insult."

Doesn't it give you folks pause, to realize how stupid this kind of whining invective sounds? I mean, do you really figure you all are somehow solving the world's problems here? You behave like ignorant barbarians, and imagine you are somehow the arbiters of how people in other countries should behave? Presumptuous of you, I think.

Too bad you're not capable of debating the issues.

"I lived in Palestine for two years. They may be willing to humor you, but I don't. My father was born there, as was his father and on, our village is hundreds of years old. ... And if we ever happened to be in the same room together and you said anything like that to me in the real world, rest assured I'd do exactly as I said I would."

Thanks, I was curious as to who you are. I personally don't think you're doing much of a job representing your people as being very rational, since you don't seem to be able to avoid the urge to violence, even in what should be a discussion of the issues. So you hate Israelis, and you hate me; so what? That doesn't make you right. It only makes you part of the problem.

Anyway, it has gotten boring here. I'm done. Bye.

"Is that what explains the ongoing expansion of West Bank settlements -- those are peace offerings from the kind and peaceful Israelis?"

Sort of.

Sure, you can point to the settlers themselves, and to Yisroel Beitenu, who mostly believe (similarly to many Palestinians) that God gave them the land and yada yada. However, these are small, fringe groups in Israeli society, even today. The larger population recognizes that the settlements are controversial, and may stand in the way of peace and reconciliation. So why were they authorized in the first place?

During the post-1967 period when the settlement movement began, the Arab world had concretized its determination never to make peace with Israel. So the settlements' status as an impediment to peace wasn't very convincing to Israelis.

Moreover, Palestinians quickly began terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Because Jews are taught the absolute sacredness of all human life (yes, I know you folks who know nothing about Judaism are rolling your eyes), the idea of expanding settlements seemed elegant. Basically, you blow up my child in a discotheque with a bomb, I'll respond by building another house on what used to be your land. I think that idea was persuasive.

By the way, an aspect of the Israeli/Arab dispute on which few (here, at least) focus, but is basic to understanding what's happening, is the concept of Whose Side Time Is On. Each side attempts to manipulate the outcome by creating a situation where the passage of time works to their advantage.

For example, the Israelis' main strategy is the Separation Barrier, because absent Palestinian willingness to negotiate, the Barrier becomes the de facto border. The Palestinian strategy for keeping time on their side is to stay front and center in the media by means of "the armed struggle". At the moment, they seem to be winning this battle, as evidenced by the anti-Israel vitriol stirred up here.

So the Time concept helps explain why the settlements were appealing to the Israeli public. Expanding them put time on the Israeli side. Basically, the longer Palestinian rejectionism went on, the smaller their eventual state would be.

That attitude isn't because the wicked Jews want to deprive these poor people of what little is left of their ancestral lands. It's because the Israelis wanted to pressure the Palestinians in the direction of making peace. One does that by making it clear that the terms you'll receive today are better than those you might receive in the future.

This of course is why many Israelis opposed the Separation Barrier: because it limits the expansion of settlements, which they perceive as a concession to the Palestinians.

"Do you have any particular attachment to Israel -- emotional, cultural and/or religious -- which makes you view it as more than just another foreign country?"

And if I do, does that automatically disqualify my opinions from any possible objectivity? Does any emotional or cultural attachments to the United States you might have automatically make you a shill for the Bush/Cheney regime? Obviously not.

"Why can't you just answer?"

For purposes of this discussion, you are perfectly welcome to assume that I do. However, I am a private US citizen and my opinions are strictly my own. So why does it matter to you?

And might you not argue there is no such thing in nature as a surface that is perfectly non-reflective, therefore there is no such thing as perfect black, therefore any surface that appears black only appears black in relation to something less dark, but in relation to something darker it would appear grey or even white, so in fact black is white? It appears you are prepared to make this argument.

I am baffled as to why you care in the least who I might be. Are you waiting for an invitation to come over to my house for coffee? How about if we discuss the issues here, like ladies and gentlemen.