What happens when two peoples have title to the same land?

 

A lot of noise is being made in regard to the war between Hamas and Israel.  Sadly, most people around the world are getting misinformation, and sound bites aimed to keep their respective ethnic groups supporting corrupt leaderships.  In the case of the current Middle East conflict, the reality on the ground is much more nuanced than most people are led to believe.

A little over 100 years ago, allied powers forced the Ottoman Empire to divest itself of lands outside of Asia Minor.  This meant that control of lands such as Lebanon and Palestine (I'm using the older meaning of this place name, and not today's meaning here) were ceded to Western powers such as France and the United Kingdom.  Unlike the Ottomans, the French and British ran these lands in a ham-fisted manner.  Neither cared much about the delicate interactions that took place between Christian, Muslim and Jew.  In some cases, the same land was promised to multiple ethnic groups as payment for a temporary peace.

After World War 2, there was pressure on the UK to divide Palestine into a Muslim and a Jewish state.  However, leaders on the Muslim side did not accept compromise, and in the late 1940's Israel had to fight for its right to be a Jewish homeland.  Muslims who stayed on their land and cut peace deals with the Jewish state to be were allowed to stay and have full rights in the Jewish state.  Sadly, the Muslims who fought against the Jewish state to be could not be allowed to return to their ancestrial lands.

Today's Palestine (which contains areas belonging to Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza) is not a two-state solution which has been talked about since the 1940's.  Palestinian Muslims have been herded into both the West Bank and Gaza.  This might not have been such a bad thing, if Jewish settlers hadn't turned the West Bank into a "Swiss Cheese" of a territory - what could have been a Palestinian homeland is dotted with illegal Israeli settlements due to population pressures in the Israeli state.  The Israeli state doesn't care to remove these settlements to lay the groundwork for a healthy Muslim Palestine to evolve.  The people have no political rights.  And what rights they do have are often ignored by the Israeli government for reasons of political expediency. 

To make things worse, the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, and is not trusted by the people.  In the West Bank, they selected Fatah to run a government, and things have been tolerably calm (until now).  But, in Gaza, things are much different.  This part of Palestine is run by Hamas, and hasn't held an election since it took power over 15 years ago.  Unlike Fatah, Hamas has both acted like a government AND retained its goal of the total destruction of Israel.  There is no room for Israel to compromise when its neighbor advocates for Israel's total destruction.

Palestinian Muslims say that the Jews did not have a right to come in and take their land.  But how long should a claim to land exist?  The Jews were pushed out of Palestine by the Romans.  Should their claim to a homeland be denied?  But this question got me to thinking about North America.  Europeans came to North America over 500 years ago, and displaced the native peoples.  Should we be forced out?  How should the legitimate rights of the natives to their land be dealt with?  Does might make right?  In the US, we have evolved a tolerable middle ground (tolerable for "old world" settlers, that is) that allocates "reservations" (unless that have valuable resources) to native tribes.  We have a peace based on both higher population and on superior technology.  The native tribes accept our existence on what was their lands and have found ways to live in peace with us.

A while back, a prominent US politician stated that Israel will either be an apartheid Jewish state with no rights for Palestinian Muslims, or it will be forced to become a non-religious state to survive.  Previous Israeli inaction in regard to the West Bank settlements may have made a two-state solution impossible.  But what does this mean for options which may lead to a meaningful peace?

As I see it, Hamas must be vanquished at all costs.  At the same time, Israel must work with Fatah to make the West Bank a viable, functioning Palestinian state.  Peaceful actions must be rewarded, as much as they may make Israel uncomfortable.  Violence must be crushed with extreme prejudice.  A future Palestinian state may have to be sacrifice Gaza in order to become a truly independent state.  Yet, the question of Gaza remains.  Can Israel destroy Hamas' leadership in Gaza without a scorched earth policy?  No matter what, I expect to see many innocent Gazans die because Hamas wanted to prevent a grand peace deal from becoming reality.

But what can be done?

Muslims and Jews both self-select "news" that supports their own beliefs that they alone should be in control of historical Palestine.  Outside regional forces have reinforced the views on the "Arab street" that Israel can never be up to any good.  Arab media is just as biased as American media outlets such as Fox, Newsmax, and ONN have been in the United States.  Even if one was to force the media outlets to only report objective news without biased opinions from bloviating media stars, it would take generations to undo the damage caused by information biases.

So, what do I see happening?

The Grand Deal regaring Mideast Peace has been scuttled for a while, but it will return.  The Saudis have too much at risk to allow Iran to gain more power.  The Turks (successors to the Ottomans) will try to gain influence in this region, possibly by turning itself into a peace broker.  The Iranians will continue to try to stir up trouble by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.  But this will be a losing effort, as forces allied with the Saudis and the Turks will quietly work with Israel to defeat Iran.  Israel will get involved in a protracted ar with Hamas, keeping Gazans imprisoned in their small strip of land, as they are a danger to any land that accepts them - including a West Bank Palestinian state.  

Now, what happens to innocent Gazans?

Israel needs to clean Hamas out of Gaza.  It may need to rebuild Gaza as a Hamas free zone and pay for the rebuilding of Gazan infrastructure.  But it will not govern Gaza - this has been proven unworkable in the past.  Part of a potential peace deal might involve the temporary administration of Gaza by a third power, a transitional government and media structure geared to "teach" Gazans how to live in the modern world and demand a government that responds to their needs first.  Until then, we will have war....

A short note on a small plot of land.

In an ideal world, the map of Israel (and its neighbors) would look something like the map above. Israel could be the orange shaded nation in the middle, while Palestine would be tha nation shaded in gray.  This is the "Two-State" solution that most people want and believe in.

With the effective annexation of the West Bank, successful negotiations could have taken place on Israel's terms, as it would control what land would have been given to Palestine for nationhood.  But this was, is, and probably not be what Israel wants to do.  Instead, it has placed illegal settlements in key sites in the West Bank, making it impossible for a practical two-state solution to be negotiated.

There is no way to say any one party to this inter-generational conflict is guilty or innocent. The forebears of today's Israelis were kicked out of the land by the Romans roughly 2,000 years ago.  The British promised this land to both Jews and Arabs at the end of World War 1, and the aftermath of World War 2 made it necessary for Jews to establish a home in their traditional homeland.

- - - - - -

Recently, the US abstained from a vote condemning Israel for its illegal settlements on the West Bank. Trump went wild, saying that Obama has betrayed our national interests.  But whose interests come first - USA's or Israel's?  The only reason that America doesn't abandon Israel is the political support Israel gets from American Jews and Christian Fundamentalists who want a place for the Messiah's second coming.  Both groups support Israel for religious reasons, and not for reasons that benefit America.

There is only one reason for America to support Israel, and that is a moral one. We should support democracies wherever they are found, and respect them even when they act in their interests, not ours.  But if we did that as a policy, we'd never have had the pissing match with Iran, we'd have never have used the CIA to overthrow Salvador Allende, and we'd insisted on an official "Two-China" policy.  Sadly, Israel is evolving into an Apartheid state, and none of the pro-Israel camp seems to care.  Soon, demographics being what they are, there will be more disenfranchised Arabs in the lands Israel controls, and no way to allow them a voice in their lives - as that would come out as "Death to Israel!"

Time is running out for a Two-State solution, and Israel's actions are only making matters worse for that solution.  Our Secretary of State has effectively said, that in a Single State solution, Israel could either be a Jewish state or a Democracy, but not both. Most people want the Two-State solution, but radicals are making this impossible.  Is helping the radical element a way to make peace?  I doubt it. 

- - - - - -

Today's GOP is filled with people who would usurp the power of the presidency and invite the Prime Minister of Israel to speak to Congress, bypassing the State Department.  It looks like they will give Israel everything it asks for - and then some. This is not a healthy development.  It'll be like a kid in a candy store, and mistakes of excess will likely be made. Slow moving initiatives with countries such as Iran will be scuttled.  Who knows what will happen then?

Every nation has a right to be secure in its borders.  And every people have a right to be treated fairly in the nations in which they live. The Israel-Palestine conflict will likely be with us for generations yet to come, as both sides are taking positions only meant to stir up people for the benefit of those other than themselves.  Religious zealots living in Israel have no desire to live in peace with their Muslim neighbors. The Arab side is no better, as Muslims have been taught for generations that the Infidel is their sworn enemy, and that the Infidel must be expelled from Muslim territory.

In a way, the Arab nations are right.  Solve the problem of Jerusalem and you'll solve the problem of the Middle-East.  Sadly, I don't see a huckster real estate promoter being up to the challenges this region will present him in the next four years....

The Iran Deal.... What the average political hack misses.

This is a picture I dare not blow up any further (pun intended) - it is of "Fat Man", the plutonium based bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.  And it is a little knowledge of the Manhattan Project and Nobel Prize winning scientist Glenn Seaborg that is needed to understand what is "in between the lines" of the deal recently cut with Iran.

According to nonuclear.se, Plutonium is a man-made nuclear explosive; it is created inside all nuclear reactors when uranium is bombarded with neutrons. Some uranium atoms can absorb a neutron without fissioning; when that happens, they are transmuted into plutonium atoms. Plutonium has become the nuclear explosive of choice in the world’s nuclear arsenals. Therefore, the goal of this deal had to be to stop Iran from developing a Plutonium based nuclear arsenal - Iran still could tell its hard-liners that they can produce a bomb.  The P5+1 (The permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) gets to be able to tell its hard-liners that Iran will not be able to produce Plutonium based bombs, explaining why this is so important in private.

No deal is perfect.  But this deal allows both sides to save face.  If anyone is worried about what will happen to Israel, they shouldn't be - the history of the US and the USSR shows how Mutual Assured Destruction helped prevent World War 3. (Or, I should say, that this war was fought via proxies and with money - a much safer form of warfare for all sides.) The Iranians may be crazy, but they are not insane.  The last thing they want to do is provoke the Israelis into exploding 1 of their estimated 100-200 warheads over Tehran.

If one looks at the size of a ball that represents the amount of fissile Plutonium needed for a bomb, it's easy to see that one could easily transport that much material anywhere on the globe.  Years ago, my high school had some non weapons grade "Yellowcake" (Uranium) - and I expect that 64 Kilos of the stuff would be much larger than the ball above.  In short, Iran has signed off on a deal which prevents its fissile material from being used by non-state operatives.  (That means: No Uranium or Plutonium in the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah.)

I'm not sure if Iran will live up to the letter of this deal.  But I expect that there will be many people interested in keeping everyone honest - and I'd bet that the Iranians are serious, if only because they prefer not to ignite an arms race between it, the Saudis and Egypt....

Iran - Again

What many of us often forget is that the people of Iran are human beings just like us.  Yet, a letter from the op-ed page of the New York Times stated that the only way to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons would be to bomb the country into submission.  This offends me. Iran and the USA may have been participating in a cold war against each other, but we have not been bombing each other's cities, nor have the two nations been in direct ground conflict with each other. Shouldn't diplomacy be given a chance before we see more American man and women come home in body bags?

In 1979-1980, I would have advocated blasting Iran off the map during the "Hostage Crisis". But as official US documents (carefully pieced together after having been shred) show, we were about to attempt to overthrow their democratically elected government. How could they trust any peace overture that could have been made? (especially when none were made for years.)  And yet, our current president overcame 35 years of hostilities to work with 5 other nations AND Iran to cut a deal that reduces the risk of nuclear war in the Middle East.

The following text was in an article written by Bill Moyers: 

"In its refinement of uranium, Iran has not progressed toward the level required for a nuclear weapon since its 2013 interim agreement with the global powers known as “the p-5 plus one” – for the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Instead, Iran has dialed back the level of refinement to below 5 percent (what’s needed for generating electricity) from its earlier level of 20 percent (needed for medical research) — compared with the 90-plus percent purity to build a nuclear weapon." 

This makes me wonder - Is Iran really the threat our media has made the country out to be? I doubt it.  But, if Iran were to restart Uranium refinement, it could trigger a Middle East arms race, as noted in the New York Times op-ed piece:

Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.

Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions. Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish interests are complex and conflicting, but faced with Iran’s threat, all have concluded that nuclear weapons are essential.

If one ignores the bellicose position of the op-ed piece's author, John R. Bolton, one sees that the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks have been considering going nuclear in response to Iran's position. Yet, the Iranians are willing to ratchet down their nuclear technology and use it (for now?) for peace. Currently, the Saudis and Iranians are on opposite sides of a war being fought in Yemen. Could you imagine what would happen if either (or both) nations had nuclear weapons at its disposal? Could you imagine what would happen (and I believe it would) if any of this material would make it out of the labs and into unauthorized hands?

To Israel, any but the most restrictive and emasculating deal is unacceptable - Iran is an existential threat to the Jewish state. But is this deal unacceptable to America's long term interests? Israel pays us no taxes. Israel does not vote in our elections. And Israel is not necessarily an ally we can trust. If the Prime Minister of Israel can destroy the hope for a two-state peace solution for Israel and Palestine in a reelection bid, can we trust him to act in other ways that benefit the United States?

Yes, gradual normalization of relations with Iran is a risk. But it is the only path that makes sense. As I see it, there will be three regional players jockeying for influence in the Middle East - Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. And it is America's interest to make sure that none of these powers becomes a hegemon - especially when the world is still addicted to Middle East Oil. America needs to disentangle itself from the Middle East, and a deal with Iran may be our ticket to leave the region. Given our headaches in the region since 1980, this may be the only time we can use that ticket and go home.  If the Chinese need that oil, let them get stuck in the regional quagmire!

Persia, Iran, no matter what one calls this nation, we must deal with it.

I can still remember that in my lifetime, the United States once considered Iran as one of its closest allies. And there is no reason not to do so today, save for a 35 year pissing match that was triggered by the Embassy Hostage Crisis and the United States getting exposed as preparing to overthrow the duly elected government of Iran.

This conflict between nations should not only be examined from the American side (we have just complaints), but from the Iranian side as well (where they also have just complaints). What would be the key issue getting in the way of normalizing relations between the two countries after a generation and a half, if Israel was not given a veto over our actions in the Middle East?  Both countries want to crush ISIS. Both countries want stability in the region. And both countries have legitimate concerns about the balance of power in the region.

Looking at the above map, one can easily see the regional importance of Iran - it borders part of the former USSR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and shares the Persian Gulf with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The U.A.E. and Oman. This country could either cause a lot of mischief, or be a valuable power for peace. But without normal diplomatic and trade relations, we have no direct way to influence them to work with us. (I must note that American soldiers are reported to being ferried over Iranian airspace to Afghanistan via foreign flagged aircraft, with the tacit approval of the Iranians. So there is something going on behind the scenes that few people want to talk about in a loud voice.) So it only makes sense to find ways to openly work with this country, if only because they hold a strategically important position in the region.

- - - - - -

When I started writing this entry, the P5+1 (5 Permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany - a major Iran trading partner) negotiations are taking place to resolve the West's issues with Iran's stated plans to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses. These negotiations have been extended for several months because both sides realized the importance of cutting a deal everyone could live with. 

As it was 35+ years ago, both sides have legitimate issues. From our perspective in the West, it's easy to understand our goal - this world does not need another nation with the capability of making nuclear weapons. When India and Pakistan developed their bombs, it took a lot of diplomacy to develop deals that preserved most of the pre-bomb status quo, and allowed both countries to save face while not getting into a nuclear arms race as the USA and USSR did after WW2. But Iran has a legitimate issue that we in the West don't think of - Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on Earth. Iran's leadership knows that it must lead the country out of the fossil fuel age, and sees nuclear energy as the best short term way to bridge the gap from a fossil fuel age and a renewable fuel age. They simply want to control their destiny - and this is very understandable.

When the Israeli PM, Bibi Netanyahu, was invited to speak to Congress, it was a slap in our president's face, and a violation of protocol. Congress does not make foreign policy. That power is solely invested in the executive branch of government. When Bibi spoke, he was against a deal with Iran, considering that nation's policies to be an existential threat to his country. And most in the GOP support Israel with unquestioned loyalty - as if they want to accelerate the "Second Coming" via support of Israel's bellicose policies. Bibi had no alternative to negotiations - and it appeared that he wanted the USA to fight a war against Iran that his country couldn't win alone.

Luckily, Obama is more cerebral in his thought patterns. He knows that we have a once in a generation chance to gradually shift Iran into a partner for peace. With the exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, no Middle East Muslim country has relations with Israel. Officially, they all call for Israel's destruction, while working very quietly with Israel on the side. This is what we would likely see several years after a deal with Iran. But it will take time to get there.

- - - - - -

Sadly, 47 US Senators wrote a letter to Iran attempting to undercut Obama's ability to work with the Iranians in negotiating a nuclear technology treaty. The NY Daily News labeled these Senators as traitors on its front page. And the Washington Post simply considers the actions of these senators irresponsible. Luckily, the Iranian leadership recognizes this as a Propaganda Ploy and responded accordingly, enlightening these Senators about what our Constitution and International Law say about the subject. And in an article in the Daily Kos, they note that Al Jazeera got it right - The Iran deal will be a Security Council Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution, and likely be covered by a previous treaty ratified by our Legislative branch of government. I'll bet that these Senators now wish they had tried to make their point with softer words and actions....

- - - - - -

As I said in this entry's title - Iran is a country that must be dealt with. And it only makes sense for us to deal with Iran from a position of mutual respect, as only with respect will we be able to resolve our differences.....

Reading between the lines

It seems like the GOP establishment is taking the 2016 election seriously. The two most electable contenders recently had a "social meeting", and if I read between the lines properly, they discussed how they could avoid bloodying each other before the main event", the 2016 election. 

Romney's departure from the race only makes sense for the GOP establishment. He is damaged goods. Not only did he have to disavow his greatest achievement as the Governor of Massachusetts, but he had to take on relatively extreme positions (due to the Tea Party and other GOP wingnuts) that alienated him from the moderates he needed to be elected.

Jeb was the Bush brother who should have been elected president in 2000. Instead, we got George W. and his neo-con friends, and a "Forever War" that no average American really wants. To give Jeb credit, he did not pursue higher office when the establishment may have wanted him to do so - he seems to have followed his own path. He was smart enough to know that his brother damaged his chances of running for president. And even more so, waiting until 2016 when Hillary Clinton would likely run again.

- - - - - -

Hillary has some baggage which may be able to become assets. She was working on healthcare long before Obama became a US Senator. The question is - can she turn her prior failed efforts in this arena into an asset among the Democratic base, while separating herself from Obamacare to attract a small number of independents.

Although Hillary seems to be the Democratic candidate in all but name, the question is: How far to the left will she need to steer to keep the loyalty of the base, before tacking to the right to pick up independent votes? If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, she'll need to cut a big deal with Elizabeth Warren in order to keep the loyalty of the base.

- - - - - -

We're seeing the GOP hopefuls say strange things to the base. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that legalizing "gay marriage" would trigger the end of civilization. Even more so, I find it amazing that anyone would believe this malarkey.  But they do.  

In another forum, I had a discussion about a controversial issue with some die-hard supporters of a certain status quo.  I stated I supported the status quo, but didn't give a reason why I did so. And then I asked, religion aside, why should we support this position? A person responded not with a reason, but with an echo taught to the loyalists of a political party. I then said that "I believe that group loyalty trumps the need to examine why its causes should be supported." Then, I noted that I always test ideas presented by any leader to see if I'm being lied to, or are earning my respect. And what did I get? A middle class version of the "Whatever" one would hear from someone who couldn't support his/her position on Jerry Springer. 

- - - - - -

Sadly, this fatalistic inability to articulate support for a position is not limited to GOP loyalists - it is present in the Democratic party as well. It is not that I want to agree with people. Instead, I want to understand where they come from - they are not sure themselves, and are unable to say much than to regurgitate 2 second sound bites such as "defending marriage". What makes things worse is history and its marriage with politics. Deciding to slowly normalize relations with Iran should be a no-brainer, as well as negotiating a halt to the weaponization of their nuclear stockpile. But some say that this betrays Israel. Others say that Obama is being this generation's Chamberlain. Maybe, just maybe, there is a multidimensional game going on which is influenced by many things:

• America's relationship with Israel
• America's and Iran's desire to end their cold war
• Stabilization of the Middle-East (shut down ISIS)
• Sunni Islam vs. Shiite Islam (an ongoing battle to legitimize one group of mullahs)
• Arab hatred of Jews 
• The GOP Congress and its wish to emasculate Obama for the last 2 years of his term
• Israel's vulnerability in a hostile neighborhood
• Israel vs. Palestine
• Israel's nuclear stockpile (estimated at 150+ warheads)
• Iran's nuclear stockpile (not enough pure "yellow cake" for 1 warhead)
• Israel's lobby and its effect on both the GOP and the Democrats
• Christian Fundamentalists and the litmus test they use on GOP hopefuls
• Christian Fundamentalists and a desire to speed up Christ's second coming
• Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia - which Muslim nation dominates the Middle-East

The above is only a short list of the factors which are influencing what is going on in the Middle-East, and few people have a clue as to how any of these factors relate to each other on a given day. I'd bet that only Obama's cabinet and a handful of Republicans in the House and Senate have enough information to read between all of these lines. And as such, any noises we make and opinions we have are those of "armchair quarterbacks" - meaningless, as we are only spectators to the main event.

Bibi's visit

Both left and right in the USA are following their tribe's "official" position. Sadly, no one is asking the right question - how much of America's security depends on Israel's existence? If we ignore moral dictates on whether Israel should exist or not, do we have any good reasons to preserve the country?

Israel and Palestine are in a deadly embrace, where Israel will likely lose because of demographics. The Haredim are deadbeat leeches, but they are preventing the moderates from cutting a deal. (One could say the same thing about a couple of Palestinian factions.) Unless a two-state solution is enacted soon, Israel will have no choice but implement a single state Apartheid type system where the natives of what might have been called Palestine are even more harshly repressed than they are now - and then cut off from the world, as South Africa was. Can America afford to take the "wrong side" if this happens?

There is an effective taboo in American politics - "Thou shalt not criticize Israel." In the urban areas (mostly Democratic), there is often a sizable and influential Jewish population, with the vast majority supporting Israel's existence, simply as a potential home in case of domestic persecution. In the rural areas (mostly Republican), there is often a sizable Christian fundamentalist population who wants to see Christ's second coming in their lifetime, and will do anything to facilitate it. Israel, more so than fixing Social Security or cutting military spending, is a third rail of American political thought. Touch it at your own peril.

We are now seeing an unholy alliance between America's rural (usually Republicans) politicians (playing to their base) and the hard core Israeli leadership that feels there is no way to ever cut a deal with the Palestinians. This group not only wants to emasculate Palestine, but abort the birth of a new nation. And they have good reasons to do so, considering what Hamas has done in the Gaza Strip. Yet, an equally good case could be made for striking a deal with the moderates, given Israel's relationship with Al Fatah in the West Bank.

Sadly, Congress has made an invitation for Bibi Netanyahu to come to America, so that he can speak to the Senate and House of Representatives. However, this invitation was not made through the State Department or any other part of the Executive branch of government, and protocol does not require our President to even recognize this visit. They want to make it harder for Obama to work with Iran to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. They want to continue the war of words and isolation that started over 35 years ago when our embassy was taken, and hostages held for 444 days. (They conveniently ignore the fact that the USA was actively preparing to overthrow their newly elected government. and that the Iranians had no way to back down the rhetoric against the USA once this proof was pieced together - literally pieced together from shredded paperwork coming from our embassy.) 

In this case, Iran is a side show. The fundamentalists in both countries are afraid of what will happen if Palestine stands on its own. Would it be a threat to Israel? No one knows. Would Palestine accept a foreign presence on its soil to insure it is no threat to Israel? Probably not for long? Could a new Palestinian government hold its people responsible for any attacks on Israel? I doubt it. There are many good reasons for fearing the existence of a healthy Palestine.

Bibi, like many in his political faction, wants to prevent Palestine from ever existing. The illegal settlements have never been removed. Can Palestinians act "responsibly" when they continue to be squeezed out of their own lands? (We've seen this in our own country, with the forced migration of our "Indians" into reservations, and then the mismanagement of their resources by the Bureau Indian Affairs, with no profits being sent back to the native peoples. No wonder why the Indians fought for so long in the West!)

Could Palestine be a peaceful partner of Israel? Given how Jordan works with Israel to deal with water rights, the answer is a maybe. Could Palestine hold off fighting Israel as Egypt has done? I'd hope so. There are many possibilities for Palestine to prosper by having a peaceful and friendly relationship with Israel. But I'm not sure if the Palestinian people would realize this, and accept the fact that they have to co-exist with a powerful Israel.

The reality is - do we want to be on the side of the people who get to write the history books, or do we want to be seen supporting another lost cause - whatever that is? And even more importantly - what is in America's best interest regardless of tribal loyalty?