Israel broke it on Nov 4th bombing tunnels on the Gaza/Egypt border.

I was watching English version of Al Jazeera last night and it is sad that the reporting is much more honest than the "free press" in the United States.

There is an entry from yesterday in the antiwar.com blog that has a link to an app called Livestation that lets you watch public TV feeds on your TV for free.

If a channel has a public feed you can watch it on Livestation. Al Jazeera, BBC World Service, CNBC, CNN, France 24, Russia News, sports channels, and a bunch more.

Speaking of examples of "dishonest" rhetoric:

Hewitt always has substantive discussions on his program. However, I would be floored if Greenwald actually engaged in a substantive discussion. He is one of the most dishonest writers on the left, which is really saying something.

When you make an assertion, you should provide evidence to back it up. As I just did. That's what makes for "substantive discussion".

Cheers,

Note: The gist of my comment will either be lost on -- or ignored by -- Groaner here.

LondonLad: "I think this here is some more crap that needs well and truly cutting:

"And I support a viable two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict,"

There is no viable two state solution. If such a thing was viable then all parties acting in good faith could have achieved it years ago."

You may well be right there. Unfortunately neither side has acted in good faith, at least for any substantive length of time.

LondonLad: "The reason Israel "says" it supports a two state solution is because they know it will never come to pass. They don't want any kind of solution. At least not any kind of solution that they would be prepared to be honest about. So they keep on harping about a "solution" they know will never be and under that cover and its never never land prospects they work for the one that they want."

In my opinion that accurately describes the Israeli right, but not the Israeli left. The Israeli right, unfortunately, has been controlling or has otherwise been too far influential in Israel's overall agenda there.

Which gets back to the importance of U.S.'s withholding of Israeli "aid" until Israel, at minimum, stops settlement expansion: If Israel wants to continue playing their obstructionist game then the United States should not be their bankroller/enabler - amongst other things, that is not in our best security interests.

Except, of course, for the Israeli rightists who are up-front about their intent to undermine any viable two-state solution.

Oslo was a product of the Israeli left; it reserved the right to continue building settlements. Settlement construction continued at the same rate throughout the Oslo years regardless of it being the Rabin, Netanyahu, or Barak administration. It was Rabin who first began the movement restrictions that made life impossible in the West Bank and Gaza, and who completely cut Gaza off from the West Bank. Indeed, it was Rabin, who in his first tour of duty as PM, started the settler movement. And it was Ehud Barak who was most instrumental in bringing even the modest gains of Oslo to a halt when they were no longer useful:

From an interview with Ehud Barak by David Samuels, The Atlantic Monthly 2005

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200509/samuels

"Even for secular Israelis the idea of surrendering the historic center of Jerusalem to Arab rule was simply unthinkable. In order to defuse the strategic threat posed by the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem, the Israelis needed to stage a controlled scenario in which they would appear as peacemakers while Arafat would be bound by his own rhetoric to refuse their generous offer of a state. There could be no better master of ceremonies for such a demonstration than Bill Clinton, the American president who brought Arafat and Rabin together in 1993 on the White House lawn. By this account, at least, reports of Barak's unfriendly behavior at Camp David can be explained by the fact that the Israeli prime minister was hoping that his peace proposal would fail.

Many Israelis dismiss the idea that Barak's offer to Arafat at Camp David was part of any master plan. Still, the implication is worth considering: the prime minister of Israel used an American president to knowingly create a huge diplomatic failure that damaged the international prestige of the United States in order to extricate his country from the consequences of Oslo."

You are tragically misinformed.

omooex: "Oslo was a product of the Israeli left; it reserved the right to continue building settlements. Settlement construction continued at the same rate throughout the Oslo years regardless of it being the Rabin, Netanyahu, or Barak administration."

Yes, I know (aside from a brief stop in settlement expansion when Rabin was PM). Which is why I stated "the Israeli right... been too far influential in Israel's overall agenda there." Labor's hands are not clean in this, to be sure - they've been far too "accommodating" to the Israeli settlement lobby. (And yes I know the settlements started under Labor rule, and that some Labor leaders supported and support the settlements to one degree or another.)

omooex: "Many Israelis dismiss the idea that Barak's offer to Arafat at Camp David was part of any master plan."

Contrary to most media accounts and what most people believe, Barak did not make a viable offer to the Palestinians at those Camp David negotiations - that much is evidently clear.

What is also evidently clear is that the Israelis - and also the Palestians - were much more serious about peace negations when they reconvened at Taba six months later.

And then Sharon won the Israeli election, and then he immediately stopped the peace negotiations, saying Israel would not "negotiate with terrorists."

And so it goes.

Then we apparently agree again despite the absolutely contrary content of our posts.

It is amazing that this crazy radio talk show bloviater incites any comment from the public.

He is sick and needs therapy. Please don't take advantage of his lack of mental acuity.