This is the same Olmert who said in November 2006 that the American operation in Iraq "brought stability to the Middle East"! and who wants American troops to fight Iran (another one of Israel's little wars designed to destabilize its adversaries and thus bring "stability" to the region).

Hamas' takeover of Gaza was a logical conclusion to Israel's policy of undermining moderate Palestinian leaders so that Israel can continue the takeover of the West Bank and the building of an apartheid state over the "land of Israel" (formerly known as Palestine).

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=341

"[I]t is easier for Olmert to throw up his hands and say that it is impossible at present to negotiate with the Palestinians", for the simple reason that it is impossible at present to negotiate with the Palestinians. With whom does one negotiate? Hamas won't, and doesn't accept the results of any previous negotiations. Any agreements reached between Israel and Fatah will just serve to delegitimize Fatah in the eyes of the Palestinian street. There is no way to make forward progress.

No? Some other Israeli leader? Not this guy, right? This isn't the Israeli leader that was convicted of rape? That was some other Israeli leader, yes? Not Olmert. But it was the Israeli PRESIDENT that was convicted of rape, is that it? He was the one convicted of rape. Not Olmert.

Did you read much about the Israeli PRESIDENT's being convicted of rape?

Before the letters column in response to this article overflows with the usual Salon-style Israel-hatred (even a King Kaufman article about Israel Idonije would generate such letters, I'm convinced), I'd like to offer a hearty Kol HaKavod (look it up!) to Prime Minister Olmert for just surviving his own prime ministership.

Meanwhile, how many of you out there knew that the brand-new Israel Baseball League held its inaugural opening day on Monday, June 24? Check it out at www.israelbaseballleague.com.

Zenwick says that it's impossible to negotiate with Hamas because Hamas won't negotiate and don't recognize the result of previous negotiations.

He sholdn't write things that are patently false. Hamas has shown readiness to negotiate, Hamas has expressed a relatively moderate position, Hamas has signed the prisioner's document recognizing previous agreements, Hamas has agreed that Abbas represent the Palestinians in peace negotiations. Jimmy Carter writes:

"Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh announced that his Hamas government was 'ready for a dialogue' with the members of the Quartet, expressed approval of direct Olmert-Abbas peace talks, and said that Hamas would change its rejectionist position if a satisfactory agreement could be consummated and approved by the Palestinians people. Such Palestinians approval was an important facet of the Camp David Accords"

The truth is just the opposite of what Zenwick writes. There is no one to talk about peace in the Israeli government, they don't recognize the results of previous negotiations.

I wish (and I'm sure all Israelis wish) there was any truth in your rhetoric. So, enlighten us, if you have anything to say. You write: "Hamas would change its rejectionist position if a satisfactory agreement could be consummated". Give us an example of an agreement that would satisfy Hamas, and leave Israel in existence as a homeland for Jews. There is no such thing, and you know it.

Brings either silence or the usual chorus of Gordon and vulcan screaming about how much they hate all the Jews in the world. Why would Salon even run a column about an internal political matter? It's not something 1 out of 500 readers knows about let alone care. Oh I guess it was a slow week and someone got tapped to run the obligatory hatefest screed no matter how abstract and lame it is. Good job, Joan Walsh. But do you see how pathetic your efforts have become?

...The name is Katsav and no he wasn't convicted of rape. Try picking up a newspaper though and you actually might learn something. Who knows, miracles can happen.

But again, Hurrah to Joan Walsh and her band of Indymedia fueled rip-n-read agitprop'rs. That there's some solid journalism.

Your search - Katsav rape source:cnn - did not match any documents.

Your search - Katsav rape source:new_york_times - did not match any documents.

I guess they figured it wasn't news. Were there not enough sex slaves in Israel for Katsav to empty himself into? He had to rape a woman in his official residence? Nice.

It's especially odd given that the Israeli press was all over Clinton's dalliance. Which, I believe, was consensual.

Olmert's just a war criminal. Nothing to see here, folks, move along. It's of no consequence that Hamas is the popular government of Palestine. Abbas is easier to work with, so...

While focusing on the changes in the Olmert govt, this article fails to look at the long range prospects of the latest carrot and stick approach toward Hamas and Fatah, now that they have "divided." (for lack of a better term)

That is what puts Olmert in a better position, and may have interested Barak to take the job as Defense MInister, which could backfire on him as well. It is his re-entry into the top ranks of Israeli power, given his position as the "warrior-peacemaker" that is the grreater story.

It isn't pandering to the right that demonstrates leadership in an Israeli politician, but daring to make peace--not unlike the US--where the hawks are the voting majority, and are likely to stay that way until outmaneuvered by a concerted appeal to the moderate secularists. (The article fails to mention it was Barak who came closest to making peace with Arafat in the last days of the Clinton administration.)

Can there be a lasting peace with two Palestines? That's the question that needs to be addressed. The ball is now in the court of Tony Blair and well worth the attention of those sick of the bloodshed and threat to international stability caused by the conflict.

Vulcan,

You made a mistake. You had intended to write the "land of Israel" (fomerly known as the British Mandate of Palestine, formerely known as Judea.) Honestly, that's as rediculous as saying "The United States" (formerly known as Great Britain) as an argument for anything.

To be fair, "Palestine" has never been a state of any sort. It has always been a territory occupied by a larger nation. One that wasn't even referred to by that name until the Romans exiled the Jews (and even then, it was Syria Palaestina.) More recently, the British controlled "British Mandate of Palestine" was disolved by the British who ceeded control to the UN.

The famous UN partition plan was never put into effect as an Arab protest devolved into a riot. From there the fighting devolved into the war. Since the British mandate ended without an agreement of power, Israel declared their independance, resulting in the 1948 War of Independance. (I am aware that the Israeli's claimed independance a day before the expiration of the mandate, but I personally don't find that all that significant.) I've always felt that name to be a misnomer. Israel didn't become independant from something else because with the British out, no power base existed. It should have been called the War of Establishment.

Just trying to clarify an already confusing and sensative topic.