Especially since Israel has yet to accept an independent Palestinian state on Israel's 1967 borders.

If the Palestinians agreed they wanted peace without the destruction of Israel, that would probably be on the table. They have not yet so agreed, and that's why the current fighting.

In accordance with Glenn's request to stay on topic, I have not been arguing with zenwick's and WinSmith's many lies and distortions of Israeli/Palestinian history. I call them lies advisedly, and not as some kind of ad hominem attack, because you have would have to be extremely naive (and attached as Glenn asks) and ignorant to actually believe them. Well, it is just barely possible that WinSmith is that naive; I sometimes think so.

But this one is perhaps germane, the thread that runs through all the troll army's posting is the essentially the same: Israel is a nice, peace-loving country that would love to not be killing Palestinians, but those crazy peace-hating Palestinians keep forcing them to. You just can't argue with subhuman maniacs like that, so we have to kill them and their children.

But the falsehood above is so blatant, so wrong, so completely out to lunch that I can't believe anybody could even bring themselves to type it out, let alone anybody above the age of say 10 to take it seriously.

1) The PLO already HAS made that declaration. More importantly, 2) if Israel declared its willingness to make peace based on 1967 borders, ie remove the settlements and the Wall, and give up East Jerusalem, and allow a free and independent Palestinian state, I am about as sure as it is possible to be, that even at this late date, they would get a full and comprehensive peace deal faster than you could say Menachim Begin.

That option has never been on the table, and never will be in the foreseeable future.

What the troll army, and indeed Israel's spokepeople generally, are trying to do is obscure any possible understanding of why it is that Palestinians behave the way they do, other than that they are evil violent insane subhumans who deserve nothing other than death, and always have been. (Basically, orcs attacking the nice Israeli hobbits.) No other explanation can be tolerated.

Since the attack on the World Trade Centre towers we have witnessed an unceasing wave of violence, terror and illegality that has spiralled to encompass almost the entire globe and continues unchecked to this day. What has Israel done, except pick up the baton of cultural supremacy from the withered hand of the Bush White House. And every word which you direct at the government in Tel Aviv is equally applicable to the government in Washington, unless you believe $1 trillion and 1 million dead is a reasonable harvest in response to those tragic deaths in New York lo so many years ago. Can anyone honestly say the "war on terror" has brought them justice? No. A form of insanity appears to have gripped the heart of the West and one can only hope a way is found to weaken, dissipate it or distract it from its course before it proceeds to consume us all. Who knows whether Obama is brave enough?

I'm speaking in simple English. But, let me repeat myself in even simpler English.

You say in your comment that "Jews in Arab countries were robbed of their land."

Well, I'm telling you that you are mistaken because 90% of the Jews living in Israel have NO historical ties to the land there whatsoever.

Historically Israel was occupied by Semetic people (Semetic people meaning people of ARABIC decent- this includes mostly Muslim people, but also a small portion of Christians and Jewish people- roughly 10%) The other 90% of the Jews living in Israel are of EUROPEAN or CAUCASIAN decent and NOT of ARABIC decent. Thus 90% (i.e. the ruling class of Israel) have NO historical claim to the land. So when you say that "Jews in Arab countries were robbed of their land"...you are mistaken, it is actually the other way around...It is Arabic people who have historical claim to the land, NOT European Jews.

Do I need to further simplify my explanation for you, Zenwick? To others who can understand what I am saying, am I making any sense, or is this guy just lacking on his comprehension skills?

[Note: Most people don't realize that the phrase "anti-semite" as it is used to refer to Jewish hatred or bigotry is a bit of a misnomer. "Semite" refers to people of Arabic decent. Thus a more correct phrase for Jewish prejudice is "anti-Jewish".]

as the writing-bug only bit him for the first time on 30th December. Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State, has never been to Gaza and that sort of shows all objective observers how highly she thinks of those people under the cosh. As someone who places inordinate importance on shoes, she should have been in the British capital yesterday when thousands of protestors stood outside the Israeli Embassy in Whitehall and hurled shoes in the direction of the embassy gates. The police guarding the gates had to be quick off the mark to deflect the shoes which were real although the gesture was symbolic of what is now seen as the deadly nexus of two countries separated by thousands of miles but held together by grappling hooks.

For those who evaluate moral questions from that blindingly self-regarding perspective, anything and everything becomes easily justifiable.

That humans regard "moral questions" from a "self-regarding perspective" is not particularly surprising. "What's in it for me" is an unremarkably common question.

Philosophers and sociologist (nay, even economist and mathematicians) have looked at some of the more perverse consequences of this: Non-zero-sum games and things like the "Prisoner's Dilemma" (click sig for link to explanation).

There's an implicit understanding that has been reached in many religions, generally subsumed in an equivalent of the Golden Rule, that addresses the superficial imperatives of this "self-regard", and tries to avoid the consequences of the many real-life "Prisoner's Dilemmas that arise, particularly when we have such effective methods of killing others. They're not stated that way (perhaps because of the counterintuitive nature of the argument for such), but rather as a "higher imperative", one that prescribes a morality beyond simple "self-regard" ... but in fact, it applies to this as well, when you look at it carefully enough.

I'm human, and I care about humans. How about you, folks?

Cheers,