Another awesome commentary Robert, thank you for enduring the six hours. I don't know whether to laugh at Ms. Amanpour's portrayal of us or cry.

Since when have values become a bad thing? I mean it used to mean you were "square" now if you have values it means you are the Taliban.

I actually attended grad school at Liberty University, and it was a good educational experience. Rev. Falwell was a good friend to Israel also, and even has a forest named after him there.

I love how Ms. Amanpour didn't discuss how homeschooled children perform better academically than those in public schools. They win the spelling bee every year.

But then again, that would bring balance to the program.

I cannot believe that you made it through the WHOLE THING. We tried. We couldn't do it.

R -

Part III

(Your Analysis) Insightful and Important. Thank You.

Where can I donate to the cabal to dump R. Lauder and place you as King of the Jews?

I was watching in the kitchen while cleaning up and stopped before the first hour was up. At times I was listening but not looking at the screen. I realized that it was Amanpour's somber alarmist voiceover tone, the kind used by most tv journalists, that made her reporting seem to important. She often tried to sensationalize what is nothing more than behaviors and attitudes well within the norms of Judeo-Christian Western culture. Do you think Amanpour hates her first name?

Kudos for the strength to endure the nausea of watching that bag of hateful wind spew nonsense for all those hours. I caught her at the very end of the third, where she was smiling and saying how she hoped it helped to understand that all these religions had warriors, how we needed to understand the extremists, or some such rot. Which would have been fine had she spent 5 hours on the Jihadists, who have perpetrated some 95% or higher of the terrorist attacks of the past 20 years (with a few for nationalist groups like the IRA, ETA (Basque) and a few others of their ilk.

Wait, maybe like 98.9% since almost all "religious" terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by Muslims.

She managed to make Jews look the most bloodthirsty (the most violence I've ever seen at any Jewish event is if there's not enough food at a kiddush...then the pushing and shoving...oh my), while the Christians are in their wake...the Muslims, strangely, are just misunderstood and have every right to fight back against those who...misunderstand them!

Does that seem to about sum it up?

Thanks for the fortitude to report for the rest of us.

Have a wonderful Shabbos

Wonderful recap! Thank you for suffering through all three shows this week to bring us your insight.

That little boy's comment at the end just choked me up.

You are to be commended for your ability to sit thorugh this without tearing your hair out. I don't think I could have done it and am glad you and Phyllis Chesler, among others, did the arduous work of watching this poisonous nonsense. I fear for your mental health, however. When you come in to New York, I will reserve several hours on the couch for you...or a beer or two, whichever works better. Oops, there are those migraines; sorry, Robert, you may well be beyond help. Luckily, you have Karen.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks.

I heard that Amanpour's father was a muslim.

That explains why the series followed the Koranic line:

"Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray."
Sura 1:6-7

"the straight path" = Islam
"those who earn Thine anger" = Jews
"those who go astray" = Christians

So, muslims are portrayed as good, Jews are shown as evil, and Christians are seen as nutty.

Billy Bob:

Thanks so much for the kind words. I have to admit, I'm exhausted. If this is considered journalism, well, I'm ready to be a nuclear physicist. Why not? Liberty U. looks like a wonderful institution and the Late Rev. Falwell was eloquent and profound in confronting Amanpour's shameless bullying. I'm proud that he was a staunch supporter of Israel. We are often judged by our friends.

Orieyenta:

Barely made it. Ah, the things I do for my readers:)

Real Name:

Like all Zionist dogs who are part of the international Zionist conspiracy I have a secret account in the Cayman Islands. Look for coded messages in Seraphic Secret as to where to send money to make me King.

But: Don't tell Karen! She doesn't think I'm, y'know, up to the job.

Rena:

You know, I just realized that just listening to Amanpour's narration would be a great way of demonstrating how slanted her reporting is. Yup, her tone with Jews and Christians was all horror-movie scary, but with the Muslims it was all soft and schoolmarm, with the appropriate tinkle-tinkle music overlaid.

Smart way to not-watch, Rena. And that's why you are the Seraphic Sister-in-Law.

Maurice:

You summed it up very nicely. Aamnpour did a special on radical Islam in England for CNN that was okay. I think that the feedback from Muslims was so ferocious she and CNN came up with this series as an appeasement tool.

And a way of not getting her head cut off by angry Muslims.

I mean, she can say anything about Jews and Christians, what are we going to do, write clever blogs? But Muslims will actually chop your head off if you "offend them."

Joannah:

The little child was amazing, and Amanpour sees him and his parents as a mortal threat to her arch leftist ideology. Personally, I don't think she or her kind stand a chance. In the end, they have no eternal values to fall back on; only selfish ideas that serve individuals, not society as a whole.

Shrinkwrapped:

Gee thanks! Book me a whole bunch of hours. Amanpour did permanent damage to my already fragile mental health:)

XP:

Amanpours father was an Iranian Muslim, her mother a British Christian. I believe that Amanpour's true religion is radical secularism. Regarding Israel: she has always shown a terrible bias against the Jewish state. This is beyond dispute. The only question in her reporting is if she's simply ignorant of the facts, or a liar.

Robert & Karen,

CNN should foot the bill for you to Texas for a very long vacation after enduring their crap.

As a Christian who homeschooled for years, abhors abortion, Jimmy Carter, and anti-semitism, I proudly count myself in the opposite camp of Amanpour. If I were to draw the outrageous illogical conclusions she does regard the issues covered, I think I would be forced to seriously question my mental status.

She just seems like another dishonest person with solid presuppositions and biases pretending to be a journalist. As someone wiser than me once wearily noted, 'there is nothing new under the sun'.

Robert:

In all seriousness, re. migraines, have you tried the prescription drug Zomig? It knocks them out IMMEDIATELY for me.

Thanks, Robert, for enduring this series for us all. I can't abide CNN or Amanpour.

My friends attended the Christans United for Israel (www.cufi.org) summit in July, and said the Israeli ambassador was in tears seeing all the waving American and Israeli flags in the audience. I wish I could have gone. Next time, for sure.

Dana:

I should bill CNN for the 6 hours Karen and spent watching that show, and for the long R&R I desperately need. Great idea!

Stepahine:

Zomig? Gotta look it up, thanks for the tip.

Dr. Carol:

You're very welcome. Watching this series was excruciating. Really, I was this close to grabbing my .45 and shooting the TV.

But you know what, very often miserable experiences make for surprisingly good blogs:)

And I was in tears during Pastor Hagee's sequence, in spite of Amanpour's smirking attitude.

Shooting the TV? On Elvis Aaron Presley's 30th yahrzeit?

Perfect zecher l'nishma.

Robert, I can't believe you sat through 3 hours (or 6?) of CNN bilge. Heroism truly lies in the small things. Thank you for letting us know what the enemy is up to.

Will she be visiting a woman's mikvah next?

Awesome. But it seems to me three points:

1) abortion means you lose every election a generation down the line;
2) by lumping Christians and Jews as evil nutters, people like Ananpour merely create an alliance; also related point, these denunciations advertise the Christian schools, home schooling etc to people who may not have heard of them, better to ignore them from the secularist point of view;
3) the seuclarists are not safe from the islamists, and although one might trust the bosses to have the intelligence to save them for after they've wiped out their religious opponents (other muslim 'heretics', Jews, etc), the followers are likely to murder atheists and gays. At some point, like AIDS, several people known to the media are going to be killed by nutters on the grounds of being gay. These cowards may not then denounce evil, but perhaps they will preach nonsense a little less and demand protection.

I didn't see any of this show, but it sounds like the difference was lost between "warriors" and "servants." A show about "warriors" one might expect to focus on terrorists and others who choose to relate to other religions through murder and physical subjugation. But home schooling? Using legal means to sway public opinion? Not having premarital sex? That doesn't sound like being a "warrior" to me, just being "religious."

By the way, Robert, I wish you wouldn't focus so much on the reporter's appearance. Your arguments are strong enough without taking cheap shots.

Real Name:

Well, I didn't shoot because then I wouldn't be able to watch "The Hills."

Antoine:

Great point, thanks so much.

It also occurred to us that the home-schooling segment might make people aware this as an alternative to secular education. The law of unintended consequences:)

Sarah:

Karen also said I focused too much on Amanpour's looks. My excuse was that she's on TV and has an obligation to look as good as she can. That's show biz.

Truth is: I was so angry I saw a chance to take, as you say, cheap shots.

Deeply ashamed.

Robert, thanks for your insightful and often hilarious observations. It's amazing to me what passes for serious journalism these days at places like CNN, NPR and BBC! I found it telling that when Christian girls dress modestly, Amanpour shrilly likens it to the Taliban, but she finds Muslim modesty so special that she included no less than 3 segments in "God's Muslim Warriors" where women (including Karen Armstrong and 2 young radiant Muslim women) gushed about how meaningful and liberating dressing modestly was. I work for CAMERA and we also analyzed "God's Warriors." Check out our reviews at www.camera.org .
Thanks again for your hard work on this.

Lee:

Thanks so much for your kind words. The mainstream media is crumbling and Amanpour's CNN special serves as a dazzling display of the death of journalistic standards of truth, ethics and sanity.

CAMERA is a great antidote to the general problem. I've already linked to your report and others at the end of my article.

You have made me interested in seeing this series of programs. I'm interested in how I, as a secular humanist, will respond to the material. I'll keep your comments in mind, especially your perception of the slant and the use of music and other production elements to reinforce it.

As a humanist, I'd like to say that the problem I have with Falwell's university is how it is being used by the Bush administration to politicize the Justice Department and undermine its independence and the protections it provides our freedoms and to our democratic system. The Liberty U law school is not a well-regarded institution. The current administration has lowered the recruiting standards at Justice to allow Monica Goodling and many of her fellow alums to behired. The plan: to implement a highly political agenda, including the alleged use of Justic investigations to help elect Republican candidtates. While these allegations have not been proved, the Justice Department has done nothing to dispell them and has done everything to block Congressional investigations into them. As someone who values the freedoms and legal protections we Americans have, this greatly troubles me.

The message you quoted that came from Saudi Arabia is bigoted and hate filled and I find it detestable. It says that Zionists are the true terrorists and this is not true now. Of course, before the modern state of Israel, Zionists were known for terrorist acts in Palestine. However, modern Israel is a developed, generally peaceful, stable Western democracy. It exists in a precarious position in relation to its neighbors and in relation to its demography. Soon the Palestinians will be in majority in Israel. I think that we need to recognize the present condition of Israel as a worthy state (especially compared to the Palistinian Authority), but also recognize the argument that Palestinians make about feeling like second-class citizens in their own country. It may be toward this end that a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian question can be achieved with a one-state, inclusive government. Over time, Palestinians could gain more say and develop a stake in a peaceful Israel. With that, we could put aside name calling on both sides and allow the self determination of the Palestinians in their own land alongside other Israelis. There was a time when the two peoples lived together peacefully -- I'd like to see a return to that and, I think, if you can put aside the decades of comflict, most will agree with me.

I respect and appreciate our rights to educate our children how we see fit. I, too, think that public education is deficient in many ways and look forward to alternative educational arrangements for my children.

In regards to religion, I appeal to you as a fellow human to try facing the world with the courage it takes to stand on your own, without any supernatural entities. It's a scary prospect to some, but it will bring you closer to other people by breaking down the artificial walls of faith. Although we preach against it, religion necessarily creates groups of insiders and outsiders that all too often lead to hate and contempt.

Pax vobiscum,
Bill

Pax Domini tecum!

Bill

Since I'm a new guest to your blog, I will refrain from commenting on that last post. I couldn't agree more about the pointy white boots though - hideous! ;)

Bill, are you aware that: There were never a people called Palestinians? That the Arabs living in Israel were never at peace with the Jews?

As a fellow human created by G-d, I appeal to you to realize that the very fact that we were all created by G-d binds us together, and to break down the artifical walls of political ideology, nationalism and classes that, being that their demagogues do not preach against it, lead to hate and contempt.

Of course, before the modern state of Israel, Zionists were known for terrorist acts in Palestine.

Aimed only at police and military personnel, never civilians. And don't cite me the King David Hotel, because the Irgun issued several warnings, which the British, in their arrogance, ignored.

Soon the Palestinians will be in majority in Israel.

That is not at all certain. Not long ago I read a demographic report (I believe in the JPost) that indicated that the Jews in Israel are more than holding their own on the demographic front.

Bill:

The Palestinians have their own state. It is called Gaza. It is, naturally, Judenrein, as are all 22 Arab/Muslim countries.

Does this fact suggest a religious/cultural pattern?

If you are looking to speak for a worthy people I strongly suggest Tibet, whose nationhood has been destroyed by the Chinese Communists; over 1.5 million murdered in the past 40 years, and thousands of Buddhist monasteries turned to rubble; Tibetan lands confiscated by Chinese nationals, and Chinese gulags choking with Tibetan political prisoners. These are truly oppressed people. But then they are not terrorists so no one pays any attention to them in the West.

Defending a jihadist society is much like cutting your own throat so you can stuff down more food on the theory that you can eat more quickly.

Robert - I like that analogy (in your last comment). Very....visual.
By the way, not to quibble, but I think it's spelled wuss.
I turned on CNN last night, saw something about G-d's Warriors, and started to get queasy.
Sort of reminds me of the blood libels, only now of courses there's mass media to spread the lies.
Mata

Mata Hari:

Thanks so much. The visual neatly summarizes those in the west who are so anxious to appease jihadists/Palestinians, never quite realizing that they are, in the process, signing their own death warrants.

Correction made. I'm such a wuss when it comes to spelling:)

I'm intrigued by the responses to my post and I really appreciate hearing your perspectives. I hear the anger in your comments about the Palestinians. A lot of blood has been spilled and there's no easy, quick solution to these troubles.

However, I disagree with view that Palestinians should are ideological enemies of Israel, that their primary interest is in promoting terror and that theirs is a "jihadist society". The Palestinian problem is a traditional, regional, territorial issue, not an international, ideological one. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the Cold War by looking at fundamentally regional conflicts through the lens of ideology. Jewish and Muslim citizens have common interests, which are the basis of all negotiations.

If we can look beyond the extreme positions of each side -- no recognition of Israel and no homeland for the Palestinians -- it's easy to see what those interests are: peace, stability, acknowledgment of mutual rights, a prosperous homeland, and a warming of relations among the nations in the region. Only diplomacy can provide a long-term, peaceful solution.

I was gratified to hear that hmmm agreed with me that humanity is united. That God binds us together is a heart-felt expression of what I think is a fundamental truth and an example of the good that faith can foster.

However, I saw a disconnect from this sentiment earlier in the same comment. The sentiments about Palestinians are combative, negative and seem to exclude the Palestinians from this unity of mankind. "That the Arabs living in Israel were never at peace with the Jews" is not a sound argument against seeking peace now, especially when all parties have so much to gain.

I was also surprised when Mr. Avrech used the inflammatory term "Judenrein" to describe other Muslim countries. From what I understand, many of those states do, in fact, have small Jewish populations and that migration to Israel is largely responsible for their reduction in size.

Mr. Avrech, you recommended that I focus my attention on Tibet, where, I agree, the Chinese are brutally oppressing the Tibetans. The Chinese are a powerful rival of the US and hold an overwhelming geopolitical advantage in Tibet. Negotiating a solution between the Tibetans and China is certainly beyond the scope of the possible at this time.

Suggesting I concentrate on that problem belies a fundamental pessimism on your part, Mr. Avrech, a cynical pessimism that a solution to the Palestinian question would be more difficult than forcing China to the table on Tibet. I suspect you do not truly believe that. One thing that makes the Palestinian problem so compelling for me is that it is solvable, and that the solution would be a huge positive for all parties.

I will repeat something I said earlier because I feel it is important: Palestinians do not have a "jihadist society". They, like the Zionist terrorists in Palestine during British rule, have legitimate grievances that are at their heart, similar to the Zionists'.

I don't condone terrorism, yet it is often a symptom of a deeper ill. I was surprised that some would defend Jewish terrorism during British rule while implying that Palestinians are only interested in killing.

I think I'm beginning to understand what may be driving your hostility -- please correct me if I'm wrong. You see the Palestinians as an existential enemy with whom Israeli Jews have no common interests. I just don't accept that. Israel is a militarily powerful, developed country with committed and principled citizens. And unless all Palestinians magically disappear, you have common interests that can be the basis for a negotiated settlement.

I have some experience in demography and the evidence is clear -- the birth rate among Palestinians is much higher than for Jewish Israelis. Inevitably, Palestinians will be a majority in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. It is likely that any settlement will involve some kind of right of return, increasing the Palestinian majority.

I think it's highly advisable to seek a settlement now, while the Jewish population is still in the majority, or, at least, at parity. Israel is a strong state with many excellencies, including a commitment to democratic principals. Palestinians have had difficulties getting their own democratic system off the ground -- the Israelis have something to teach them in this area (and in many others). I urge you to work toward preserving that democratic system by taking the scary step of trying to reintegrate Jews and Muslims, but, this time, on a more equal, tolerant footing.

I have never really feared terrorism or other attacks in the US, and I don't propose these solutions as some form of appeasement to end international terrorism. I have had an abiding interest in the fate of the Palestinian issue for many years, just as a had an abiding interest in the resolution of the troubles in Northern Ireland. These sorts of conflicts seem insoluble until they are solved by courageous and thoughtful leaders. I challenge you to put your faith in high gear and let it become action.

Thanks again for your politeness and tolerance of my divergent views here.

Shalom,
Bill

PS I always though Christiane Amanpour was kind of cute. Can't wait to see her in white boots! Pax

Reply to bill:

Please read the koran, the hadith of bukhari and/or the sira by ibn ishaq. These three documents are the foundational texts of islam. All of them describe how allah feels about the Jews (and the Christians) and its not a pretty sight. The political ideology the 'palestinians' follow is islam and its roots go back 1,400 years to the development of a blood thirsty moon god monotheism that stole Jehovah from the Jews and lied about the Christos of the Christians. Hatred of the Jews is like breathing to the mohammedans. "Take not Jews and Christians for friends," said allah and that's the way it has been and will be for these pitifully deluded people. G-d have mercy on their souls.

Bill, please let me know of one concession the Arabs have made towards peace while Israeli ceded territory and released murderers to obtain peace.

Bill:

I'm only going to reply to a few of your points because, no dsirespect intended, but I have the strong impression that you know very little about the history of the Middle East.

Ireland: You misrepresent the situation. The IRA only laid down arms after it became clear that the British would not let up their military actions. It was not negotiatins that brought the terrorists to the table, but brute force.

You say that I use inflammatory language by calling 22 Arab countries judenrein. Further, you state that these lands do have Jewish populations, that the Jews who left the Arab lands did so because they "emigrated."

1. I use language that fits. I'm not going to sugarcoat my language to fit some easy-going, Kumbaya, world view. Jews are barred from entering Saudi Arabia. Period. When archeological ruins with Hebrew writing were discovered by Saudi archeologists a few years ago, proof that Jews once lived in the land, the King ordered the ruins to be immediately covered up.

2. Arab Jews were forcibly expelled from the Arab countries. It was not a simple emigration. Their money and property was confiscated. Approximately 1 million Arab Jews were made refugees.

3. There are approximately 200 Jews in Syria. All extremely old. The same number in Egypt. No Jews in Jordan. No Jews in Yemen. No Jews in Libya. All The Jews from Algeria were expelled after the Algerian revolution, even the Jews who fought against the French. There are maybe 40 Jews in Iraq. There is 1 Jew in Kabul Afghanistan. The largest Jewish population is in Morocco, 2,000. The King of Morocco protects them. We doubt it will continue after his death.

4. The 20,000 Jews in Iran are prisoners. They cannot leave without forfeiting all their money and property. Their situation is perilous. If Israel moves against Iran's nuclear facilities, the Persians will, undoubtedly massacre the Iranian Jews.

5. You keep referring to Jewish terrorists in pre-state Israel. This is simply not true. The Haganah, the main force of the Jewish people, was a regular army that only attacked army and police installations. Attacks on civilians were rare and when they did take place they were roundly condemned by the Haganah and the majority of the Jewish people.

6. So, you give up on Tibet because the Chinese are "too strong." Well, that attitude just allows evil to triumph everywhere, doesn't it? With that way of thinking the Nazis would have won. And every Jew in Europe would have perished. I find your way of thinking, with all due respect, repellent and, quite frankly, cowardly. You must see that the brutes will always triumph using your calculus.

7. Yes, the Palestinians are a jihadist society. They overwhelmingly celebrate homicide bombers and killers of Jews, Christians and Americans. Take a stroll in Gaza or the West Bank. The posters celebrating murderers are everywhere. Watch Palestinian TV, it's filled with Jew-hatred that makes Nazi propaganda look mild. The Palis overwhelmingly voted for Hamas, not just in Gaza, but in the West Bank, except for one single precinct, not because Fatah is corrupt, they are all corrupt, but because Hamas is Islamic, jihadist, and its charter calls for the liquidation of the State of Israel. BTW, parts of the Hamas charter are based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You should read it. It's quite illuminating.

8. The only reason the West Bank is not exactly the blood-bath that is Gaza is because of the presence of the IDF.

9. Bill, you keep talking about the urgent need for Palestinian state. Well, there is one; it is called Gaza. Visit sometime. Oh, wait, you'd be kidnapped and your head would be cut off.

10. Awkward.

Mr. Avrech, I am disappointed by the dismissive tone of your last comment and by your personal remarks about about me. I can only put them down to frustration with the moral contradictions inherent in your position.

I can't imagine that you would think it possible or desirable to attempt to expel China from Tibet. I am in favor of engaging China on the issue of Tibet. I don't think, however, that you can excuse any oppression of Palestinians with the argument that the Chinese are doing it and the current US administration is not concerned with it.

The broad facts of the Arab-Israeli conflict are quite clear. There was an enormous Jewish migration into the region during the 20th century. This in-migration dramatically altered the composition of the population. All migrations of this magnitude have huge social and political impacts. One of those impacts was the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The outcome of the early Arab-Israeli wars was the Jewish state of Israel and a largely stateless population of Palestinian refugees.

Palestinian Muslim birth rates are much larger than Israeli Jewish birth rates. This is true for Israeli Arabs as well as those in the territories. This conflict will continue to grow as the Palestinian population throughout the region continues to grow.

If Israel remains committed to a democratic form of government, some reconciliation must occur within the next 40 years. Jimmy Carter's controversial "system of apartheid" remark, while inflammatory, called attention to the second-class status of Palestinians in the occupied territories. If Israel wants to remain a democratic country in more than name only, it must come to some negotiated settlement with the Arab Muslims in its midst.

I can tell from the comments here that the majority seem committed to a military resolution of the conflict. All seem to put their religious ideals aside in favor of partisanship, a partisanship that begins to smell to an outsider more and more like racism.

While Israel can maintain control over the territories and build walls, these do not solve the underlying problem: Arabs were displaced due to Jewish in-migration and the formation and defense of the Israeli state. This fact will not just go away.

No one wants to be forced from their homes -- not Palestinians in the West Bank and not Arab Jews. Many in the US now speak about relatively minor immigration issues in stark terms, but that's nothing compared to what happened -- and continues to happen -- to the Palestinians.

Politics is the art of the possible. I think your rejection of a negotiated settlement is, in the long run, against the national interest of Israel and the United States. I hope leaders with more vision and more courage will do what it takes to make the possible a reality.

I won't thank you for your courtesy again because it seems to have evaporated.

Bill

BTW, many demographers prefer the terms "in migration" and "out migration" to "immigration" and "emigration" because it's clearer when used in conversation. Using these terms is a habit I picked up in graduate school.

BTW, many demographers prefer the terms "in migration" and "out migration" to "immigration" and "emigration" because they're clearer when used in conversation. Using these terms is a habit I picked up in graduate school. B

Bill:

Jews always lived in Palestine. And contrary to popular misconception Jews were a majority. In fact, the Jews were called Palestinians before the State of Israel was established. The Arabs were variously referred to as Arabs, North Syrian Arabs, Hashemites, Bedus. But never, ever Palestinians. If you look at old pictures of Jewish soldiers who fought with the British against the Nazis you will see that they are labeled The Palestinian Brigade. So, let's establish that the entire notion of Palestinian nationhood is a fiction.

As for being forced from their homes. Since when does a people get refugee status when they move no more than 40 to 100 miles from their original home? Because this is exactly what we are talking about. This has never before happened in the history of the world. And it is insanity. They have moved to places where the religion, culture and food are exactly the same. These are not classic refugees. These are political pawns.

I'm really confused. One million Jews were expelled from their forcibly homes, their money and property stolen, they were taken in to the State of Israel and absorbed.

We suck it up and don't even demand reparations.

The Arab countries took their Arab brothers and stuck them in refugee camps instead of absorbing them. And the world seems anxious to enable this dysfunctional behavior. The only country that did not shove the Arabs in camps is, that's right, Israel.

Israel has been negotiating with various Arab terrorists for over 40 years. In response all she received has been escalating levels of terror.

The Arabs are lucky that her enemy are Jews. Any other country would have wiped them off the face of the earth.

Gaza is now Judenrein. Not one Jew. There is no occupation of Gaza. What is the response? Endless missile attacks into Israel.

So what do you suggest?

End the occupation of the West Bank, right?

Because then the so-called Palestinians will suddenly become a peaceful, democratic people.

Well, no, the West Bank will become a forward base for Hamas, Hizbullah/Iran and Al Queda.

The Arab Israeli conflict has nothing to do with occupation. That's just a fig leaf. Today's convenient grievance. It's always been about Israel's very existence, about Jews living in land that Muslims consider, well, Muslim.

I know this sounds inflammatory, but Hamas and Hizbullah and yes, even Fatah state that fact quite clearly. Their ultimate goal is the elimination of Israel. All negotiation is but incremental steps in that one great goal.

The Arabs have had numerous opportunities to form their own state. First in 1948, when the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan and invaded Israel; then in 1967, when the Arabs rejected Israel's offer to return all the occupied territory in return for recognition and peace; and again in 2000 when Arafat rejected Barak's unbelievably generous offer overseen by President Clinton. Listen, you only get so many chances in life. But the Arabs really don't want their own state. They want to destroy a state.

What they want is a caliphite.

A little off-topic at this point, but I just got back from Texas - let me know if you really plan to visit!

Ralphie:

Will do.

Robert, I think a commitment to a settlement and a frank discussion of interests between the parties would be a good place to start. The problem I had with Arafat was his claims that he could not control the violence and terror, when it appeared at times that he could. To me, that was negotiating in bad faith.

You're going to say I'm crazy, but the Israelis need to engage with the people who can negotiate in good faith to stop attacks on Israel, like the admittedly hostile Hamas. I believe an opportunity was lost when Hamas came to power. I'm not saying negotiations with Hamas would have been easy or dramatically successful. Jews and Arabs have a hard road ahead in diplomacy, but, in the long run, I think it will pay off. I know you'll say I'm naive, since Hamas is still committed to the destruction of Israel. However, there appeared to me to be space for an opening. That's the sort of first step that needs to happen, even if it's through back channels and all parties deny that it's happening. The important things is that it happens and that the possibility of deradicalization .

The Arab-Israeli conflict has always reminded me of Aeschylus's Oresteia. The cycle of vengeance is evident, but a new settlement with the modern-days Furies that pursue Jews and Arabs alike has been elusive. Our leaders need to write that new ending that heals society.

You know, Robert, I really have learned a lot about how you and the board regulars see the conflict and I've enjoyed the discussion. And I will check out Christiane's show at some point, too. This has been kind of a lengthy, off-topic discussion, and I apologize if I've been rude in that respect.

Pax vobiscum,
Bill

Sorry -- second para should end with this:

"The important things is that it happens and that room is made for deradicalization on both sides."

Cheers,
Bill

Bill:

"Deradicalization on both sides."

So: The Arab tyrants and Israeli Democracy are the same.

Arabs send homicide bombers to murder civilians while the IDF does everything in its power not to harm civilians.

Hamas, Hizbullah, Fatah, call for the liquidation of Israel. Israel calls for a two-state solution.

And yet you see both groups through the same moral lens.

Okay. I'm going to leave it right there, because I think that says it all. Thanks so much. Clarity helps.

And I still haven't heard what the Israelis have received from the Arabs in return for all that they have given for peace.

About Tibet - I'm sorry, but the Chinese are not going to give up Tibet, anymore than they would give up Taiwan. China NEVER willingly lets go of ANY territory - it has never allowed independence willingly. EVER.

The only way for Tibet to win is to engage in a military struggle. But the Tibetan people are way too poor to afford guns or organize themselves into an effective army. The US certainly won't help Tibet, the Indians don't want to risk their trade, and quite frankly, I don't think any government is going to help them. There's nothing in it for the Big Nations to help Tibet - there's no economic, military or political advantage of taking the side of penniless monks. That's realism. Remember, the US only got involved in WW2 because they got attacked at Pearl Harbor. They didn't enter WW2 for Peace and Love - they entered it because Japan attacked them, and Germany declared war against the US.

Tibet is gone - it's part of China now. Attempting to get it back is like trying to "liberate" Texas from the US and return it to Mexico.

As to your WW2 analogies - Nazi Germany and Communist China aren't the same. Not only that - the Germans were defeated by major world powers uniting to defeat an expansionist and aggressive nation. China is not expanding (at the moment), it's trading and lending a of a lot of money to the US. There's no way my nation, Australia, would EVER risk our economy by embargoing China - half our wealth comes from trading metals to China, and if we sanctioned them, our economy would go down the tubes.

Say what you will, but ordinary people care about "their" lot first, rather than other people's situations. That's why we haven't helped Somalia or Sudan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And that's just realism.

I know it's sad - I like Tibet, I would like it to be free, but there's just no hope of it happening short of a massive military intervention, and that's just not going to happen. I'm half Chinese, and I understand that China would rather become an international pariah than let Tibet go free, because China cannot stand to lose face, and they think if they give back Tibet, it's a sign of weakness. I don't agree with that sort of thinking, but that's how they think. They'll risk a huge war than give back land they think belongs to them. They just won't let go willingly.