I have one... I keep forgetting to use it I think..

Cynical alternative opinion: were it not for the extraordinary outside interest in this particular conflict the Israeli's probably would have run the Palestinians out of most of the former mandate back during one of their wars and what little they hadn't seized would have vanished into Jordan and Egypt.

Israel is a modern western country Bob. If they were ever to stoop to that kind of strategy for "defeating their enemy" then they would have truly lost their war with the savages around them and become everything they hated about their old oppressors. Having ceased to be a modern western country and being a small isolated economy entirely dependant on the modern west for support (which would end when they went mad) they would whither and sink into the social morass of their neighbors.

It could certainly work though I doubt the US would be willing to put their soldiers in harms way like that. I agree 100% that Israel in the grand scheme of things benefits by separation even without any quid pro quo. Their possession of the territories is slowly killing them. Some people argue that the Arabs and Palestinians are so recaltrant on peace primarily because they can see that in the very long view they're winning with things as they are. I continue to hold out hope that the Israeli center and the left is going to recover their bearings and force their country to take their medicine and extricate themselves from that predicament.

Wouldn't it be called a furry?

I generally agree with you Chris on most of your analysis. I disagree, though, on the idea of this interim Palestinian quasi-state. I don’t think it goes far enough. Personally I favor the idea of simply withdrawing unilaterally.

The issue of course is that the Israelis are in a catch 22. Withdrawal from the west bank will be fractious and painful (and letting their right wing nutbars put down more roots doesn’t help). A lot of subsidies built into the government structure will need to be rooted out (imagine the US Agricultural subsidies but worse). A lot of Israelis will need to be pretty much evicted with the spectacle of soldiers pretty much dragging women and children kicking and screaming out of their houses. Were the Palestinians anything approaching civilized and were the settlers anything approaching sane; Israel could simply leave them there under Palestinian rule but we all know that would simply result in an internal war and a slaughter that no Israeli government would be able to sit by and watch.

So the Israeli government that withdraws will have to do some painful expensive unpopular stuff. The only way in their parliamentary system that they can do this is if they are getting something in return. If the PM can say “Yes it’s horrible and painful but they’re right wing settlers and in exchange for removing them we don’t have to worry about our busses and pizza parlors getting bombed or our kindergartens rocketed.” Then the country will be willing to do it. But if they’re doing it and getting nothing but abuse in return the government will fall and the process will stop. That brings us to our catch 22. In order to withdraw and give the Pals a country the Israeli’s need to make a deal with that country but they can’t make a deal with the country until it exists and they can’t make it exist unless they can make a deal with it.

The Israeli idealist peace camp was pretty much killed by Palestinian rejectionism, failure and violence that made it look like the “peacenicks” were willing to trade Jewish lives for Palestinian freedom. They were succeeded by the more pragmatic get the hell out team who were knocked out by the Palestinian rockets attacked which led to the Gazan invasion. I’m hopeful that with Bibi clowning around like a Hebrew George W. Bush that the left and maybe even far left camps will shortly revive and resume the unpleasant process of extricating themselves from the West Bank. The one thing you can say about these settlements; in theory you can always drag the people out and give them away.

I'm surprised at your surprise myself. The only kind of ex-gay you would tolerate; one who doesn't project their personal experience onto the gay population and use it as a cudgel against gays who do not share their religious beliefs is exceedingly rare (or is by nature quiet and thus invisible). Your average gay person would have little to no objection to a person who is ex-gay. Their issue would be with the person who declares to the world that they are EX-GAY (Prayse Jaysussss!!!!) and all that the other gays should be too!

Monogamy isn't necessarily involved; as our heterosexual brethren have very aptly demonstrated. That a man who’s attracted to a blond and marries her can then routinely goes out to nail a man for instance is not a basis for forbidding heterosexuals from marriage. I see no reason why a man who marries another man and then routinely goes out to nail a woman would be an argument against homosexual marriage.

I'm with Matthew, I don't see how being attracted to both sexes inevitable leads to a requirement for plural marriage. Many straight men are attracted to Angelina Jolie. Is this an argument for plural marriage so that Angelina Jolie can be forced to marry all the men attracted to her? No, (setting aside of course what Angelina Jolie might think on the matter) because there are many other women to whom men are attracted to, maybe to lesser degrees, who they can marry. Homosexual people can marry no one that they would be inclined to marry at the moment.

Mild liberal, never thought Wilson was worth a damn. Very surprising to discover that I liked him.

No arguement there.

Maybe, but they remain the technical authority who puts them in place. These codes aren't typically being imposed by state or federal agencies.

Very interesting indeed. I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that the indespensible Bruce Bartlett has a post up explaining in elegant detail the relationship between the Chinese and American economies and currencies. I think a lot of the leagues economicly interested peeps would find it interesting.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/11/treasury-securities-national-debt-china-trade-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett_2.html

Thanks Mark. Scott, for clarification if you could cite some WWII examples like the CIA torture err enhanced interogation manuals described in detail here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/09/waterboarding_for_dummies/index.html
Then I'll be willing to reconsider my high high opinion of the greatest generation.

I've followed the link. It mentions one marine taking a gold tooth out of a still living Japanese soldier after a battle and getting shouted down by his comrades. Somehow that doesn't strike me as the same as Bush Minors' habits of ordering the methodical torturing of people to try and get information or our latest Gutanamo spectacle of sending "suicides" back with their throats completely removed so that we can't verify that their deaths were accidental.

What a nightmare!

Thanks for contributing Hopsong.

Gonna have to call bullshit Scott. There's an enormous difference between what happens in combat and what you do when combat is done and the enemy lies in your power. If you have any cites of marine torture of captured Japanese soldiers I'd invite you to share them now. Otherwise I'd advise steering clear of any assemblies of WWII veterans, when you go about implying that they behaved dishonorably out of combat.

Do elaborate Scott. Ol' FDR was no saint (Japanese camps for instance) but I'm sure if he and Fala had been institutionalizing and authorizing torture *cough* sorry Mr. Yoo's interesting enhanced interrogation techniques, then I imagine it'd have been all over Fox long ago.

Good luck!

Ah so Bob? So in response to their barbarity we should become barbarians ourselves? Is that is the lesson that the berserk Republicans would proffer and the cowardly Democrats would allow?
The founding Fathers would weep and curse us through their tears.

Very clever that's a good catch. A pity that the conclusion leaves me with ashes in my mouth just like Jay.

My icy cold Business Majoring heart is breaking Mike. I disagree on the economics classes though. Micro&Macro Economics should be mandatory as should at least basic finance classes. I found that the world looked very different after those classes at the very least and finance classes will change how you look at credit cards forever. I think the country would benefit greatly if more people had access to at least skeletal versions of those three fields.

You got it Nate. Email notifications? You're a braver man than I.

I'll cop a guilty plea to that charge Art.
I'm guessing you feel that thousands of American service members lives and a trillion dollars was worth it so that Iraq could have a democratic government? If so we have a lot more countries to go. I'm sure we could throw together a list. Wait weren't we supposed to get a side of Weapons of Mass Destruction with our Kill Saddam/Democratize Iraq happy meal?
That said I'm glad the Iraqi's are pulling it off. Good for them, power to em and all that. My indictments would be against certain former administrations in this country, not against the courageous peeps of Iraq.