On the one hand, Israel's concerns about the trickyness of the "land for peace" formula are justified. You give land now and must rely on the "word of honour" ever since. On the other hand, these concerns are explioted by the Israeli right-wing both in Israel and Washington. The argument that the Arabs will violate any treaty after the land is given is used to hammer any peace initiative. The international peacekeeping forces comprised of ever=reluctant Europeans have a history of failures in Bosnia and Lebanon. UN cannot be a warranty-provider for Israel.

But the US certainly can. Washington has never, not since the 1940s, had a shortage of enthusiasm regarding the M-East. And never a lack of pro-Israeli passions. In my opinion, it is because of Israel that Americans are now in Iraq. It is also because of Israel that Iran is in America's crosshair.

That pro-Judean zeal of Americans will have a better application in a bilateral defense treaty with Israel. The treaty should be conditioned upon the withdrawals into the 1967 line; within the internationally recognized borders, Israel will have security guarantees from the strongest nation of the world. That will remove most of the anxiety about never receiving peace aftergiving away land, and also remove the perennial excuses for refusing the land-for-peace agreements.

Some Americans won't greet such commitment. But the US is already heavily committedto Israel , why not formalize and rationalize this commitment? It might be the best answer to a number of questions in the M-East complexity.

One big difference is that Kuwait hardly had a military structure during the invasion of Saddam and even now.
Israel on the other hand is a nuclear power receives multi billion dollar defense contract from the US annually and is quite capable of defending herself without the US intervention.

For the very same reason that Kuwait came under the attack from Saddam and was unable to defend herself against the invasion. Kuwait wasn't exactly "amongst friends" when that attack came along.

Well you started this off by making the assertion that the US will give the same commitment to Israel as it gives to Kuwait. Then you went on that the US is against the inavsion and occupation by someone else. I see a flaw in this argument in that Israel has not been under occupation from another country whereas Kuwait has been invaded by Iraq. My whole argument is that you can not possibly draw a parallel between Kuwait or any other arab country for that matter with Israel because:

a) Israel is militarily capable to defend herself against any attack
b) She has the full backing and support of the US (worlds' only super power) should there ever be a threat
c) The military aid given to Israel makes her invincible and stronger than the whole arab league altogether
d) In terms of the US foreign policy one can not make the same distinction between Israel and arab countries. In other words Israel is in a different league from the rest of the arab states
e) One would have expected that after the invasion of Kuwait US would also invest in the military infrastructure of Kuwait as they are already doing with Israel.
 
To answer the question I wouldn't make the distinction by which other arab country has attacked another fellow arab but rather divisions between diffrerent religious factions that carry out the attacks on eachother. Look at sunnis and shi'ites divide in Iraq today under the US occupation and their constant daily barrage of attack on eachother.

I believe that to be true.


I believe that to be true also.


Tell me this....when the lines were drawn in the sand....who was at greater risk for invasion.....Kuwait or Israel?

If you take out the fact that Saddam was a nutcase, there is NO reason to believe Kuwait would EVER be invaded by a neighbor.

I see a flaw in YOUR argument.

3 weeks before the invasion the Kuwaiti Emir recieved from Saddam's hand, amid euphorical exchanges of smile, hugs and bendings, the Golden Kalashnikof, the highest symbol of friendship and recognition.
Saddam was definetly a nutcase and what he did was an almost total surprise.

Isreal doesn't need the US army to prtect itself. As kactus said, Israel is militarilystronger than all its neighbors together. And since 1973 (35 years), none of them had the intention of retrying to invade Israel or even part of it.
Iran maybe but they are not neighbors and not very serious about it after all.

Israel's problems are Hamas and to a lesser extent Hizbullah but you don;t defeat these militias with the US army.

The new paradigm is that "interresting targets" be it for the americans or their oponents, are oil-rich countries. Israel has no oil and doesn't interest anybody anymore.
Kuwait, Iraq, Nigeria etc do.

the country from whose territory those rockets are fired will be held responsible. Hamas is presently firing rockets from a non-state territory.



I suggested a bilateral US-Israel pact, not "peacekeepers".


I'm talking about the situation AFTER Palestine is established as a sovereign country. It will be very different from the present one. Different rules, different attitudes.



I seem to want to suggest realistic constructive steps towards peace. If you feel my only mission is to diss Israel and defend Hamas, that's your take. I never heard from you anything realistic in this area, - for I don't see the demand for unconditional dismantling of Hamas, without any guarantees on geography and timing of Palestinian statehood, as realistic. I've suggested a number of things, - voluntary resettling programs, the Golan deal, the US-Israel defense pact. You suggested to keep on hammering Hamas. Well, this in itself will not give Israel peace. Not sure whether you seek solutions or excuses.

I was talking about a sequence of steps that would increase peace incentives and decrease conflict incentives. Would make nationbuilding more attractive than rocket firing. Would let the steam out of the refugee camps. Would undermine Hamas both internally and externally. Would give Israel formalized defense warranties from the US. Building peace is a long laborious thing, - a very SYNERGETIC thing where one component activates, enhances other components.

Apparently, you are not interested in all that. You are interested only in justifying the occupations. Don't bother, cos Israel public relations specialists are labouring tirelessly on that already, and very successfully.

So you stick to your Hamas Covenant and won't see how various initiatives can make this Covenant irrelevant. You think you have found a perfect excuse for Israel to keep the land, - Hamas must be brought down first, and only after Ithat srael might (or might not) speculate withdrawals. Well, it might seem a good excuse to you, but it won't work. And you're totally uninterested in the things that will.